Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, many people in this chamber are aware of my commitment to improving access to health care for rural residents. A doctor who practices in my district, Dr. Clifford Smith, was recently honored by the National Rural Health Association (NRHA) as the NRHA Rural Practitioner of the Year. He will officially receive this award tomorrow, May 15, 1998. Dr. Smith was raised in my district, and I am pleased that he decided to remain in a rural area to practice medicine. I am wish to congratulate Dr. Smith for this fine achievement. I am honored to submit an article from the April 15, 1998 edition of the Monona Billboard which describes Dr. Smith's commitment to his patients. I am grateful for the many years of service that Dr. Smith has provided to my constituents. Dr. Smith Named National Rural Health Practitioner McGregor physician Dr. Clifford Smith has been selected as the 1998 National Rural Health Care Association Rural Practitioner of the Year. He will receive the award during the NRHA's 21st annual National Conference May 15, at Orlando, Fla. Dr. Smith has practiced medicine in northeast Iowa and southwest Wisconsin since coming to McGregor in 1962. He first practiced at the McGregor Hospital. In 1963, he moved his office to 626 Main Street in McGregor and in 1979 the clinic was built. Dr. Smith became affiliated with Gundersen 1987. Dr. Smith also comes to the Monona Gundersen clinic. Smith was raised in Waterloo and decided as a youngster that the wanted to become a doctor. His plans were temporarily sidelined by World War II when he joined the Army with hopes of becoming a fighter pilot. He was a member of the famous Tuskegee Airmen, the first squadron of black American pilots to be allowed to fight for their country. Returning to Iowa he attended the University of Iowa and went to Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn. He worked in New Jersey for four years before starting his practice in McGregor. In the nomination sent to the National Rural Health Care Association by Prairie du Chien Memorial Hospital and the Smith Gundersen McGregor Clinic staff, several stories are related to Dr. Smith's compassion and bedside manner. Until his affiliation with Gundersen, Dr. Smith was known to accept bartering in exchange for care when the patient could not afford to pay. He always carries his black bag and continues to make house calls to patients unable to come to the clinic. Jean Bacon, RNC of Monona, has worked with Dr. Smith since his first day in McGregor. Today as Memorial Hospital's Emergency Department Clinical Coordinator, she still works with him. She says ``Dr. Smith has been my family physician since he moved to this area. My family dearly loves him as do all of his patients. When my children were young they spoke of him as being really cool.'' She adds, ``He is respected for his knowledge, but even more so for his compassion, caring and leadership as a role model.'' Ellen Nierling, RNC, education director at Memorial Hospital, recalled a particularly busy night at the hospital working with Dr. Smith that left them both wondering at their career choices, but the following day Dr. Smith said, ``It feels great when you know you make a difference in a patient's life.'' Marilu Benz MD, Chief of Surgery and Chief of Staff at Memorial Hospital, states, ``Dr. Smith is always willing to lend encouragement to hospital staff, and has a talent for bringing out the best in all of us. Our lives are truly enriched by his fine examples of devotion, compassion and dedication.'' Dr. Smith is looking forward to the trip to Orlando. He says he has never been any place like it and, it should be fun. His patients are proud of his national recognition, but they are even happier that even at 72, he is still there when they need him.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to submit the essay written by high school senior Joseph Dunnwald which won third place honors in the Veterans of Foreigns Wars of the United States Script Writing Contest. Joseph is from Waverly, Iowa. Joseph received a $10,000 scholarship in the contest which more than 93,000 secondary school students entered. The theme for this essay contest was ``My Voice in Our Democracy.'' Joseph was sponsored by the VFW Post 1623 and its Ladies Auxiliary in Waterloo, Iowa. I am pleased to see young Iowans taking an interest in their government. I also want to thank the VFW for sponsoring this contest to make this opportunity possible for people such as Joseph. 1997-98 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition, ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' (By Joseph Dunnwald, Iowa Winner) ``Well, it sounds crazy,'' my uncle told me, ``I guess maybe there was only one thing I thought of when I got wounded. I didn't know whether I was gonna die or not, but I thought I might, but all I could think of? I finally get to sleep between clean sheets, and get warm, and stay warm.'' The 60 acre farm had been his whole world. He was a boy that hadn't been so far from home that he couldn't see the smoke from his chimney. The postcard he received read, ``your friends and neighbors have selected you for one year of military service.'' Before he would come home again, four and a half years later, he would see five invasions, two in Africa, Italy, Sicily, Southern France and the Battle of the Bulge. He doesn't regret one minute of his sacrifice, and he still tears up when he hears the National Anthem. Newly wed, the early 50's held more promise for my grandparents than at any other time before them. The young couple however, would have to wait to begin their new life together, as his country called my grandfather to serve in the embattled country of Korea. No one could know what would lie ahead for the handsome soldier, but to this day, he doesn't watch war movies, he'll never sleep in another tent and he never never talks about his bronze star. The whole generation before him cursed the war, and chanted to make love instead, but my father saw an opportunity to get out of the home town factory, and maybe a better life with a college education. He speaks with pride about helping with the evacuation of Lebanon, and his memories of bringing in the astronauts from Skylab always puts a gleam in his eye and a yearning to go the stars someday. As I look at the photo albumns and touch his ribbons, I ask ``why don't you put this one with your others Dad?'' ``That's the Viet Nam service ribbon. I never had to fight. They gave it to me because I enlisted during the war, but I don't deserve it. That honor goes to those who were there and fought.'' My father, my grandfather and my great uncle. Not a day goes by that I don't wear my pride for them like the medals they earned making a better life for me. This is my heritage, but how do I repay them? How can I use my voice in our government to make things better for them and for others? I look at the sacrifices they've made, and realize that what they did for my country, I will probably never be asked to do. I appreciate what these brave men and women have done, and contemplate how to give them something back, to keep their efforts alive. True, they have their freedom, something that many of us take for granted, but is that enough? My voice could help others realize how precious their gift of freedom truely is. Just one voice can turn into many, giving us all the chance to be involved in our community, to work for improvements, to share opinions that will bring the changes that will make our country a better place. To carry the message of the opportunity we all have, to do and to be whatever we want to be. So that, people of all races and creeds can work in peace, side by side for one vision. One voice, my voice, can echo their passion for the freedom to make our own choices. To decide who is going to lead us, by exercising our right to vote. I am not yet old enough to vote, but I just cannot understand how people can pass up the opportunity to control their own lives? The every thing that these men and women fought for. Our right to vote guarantees the same rights to every citizen. The right to work, the right to get an education, the right to religious freedom, and the right to be an American. We must be informed on the issues, to find out the true intents of all of our leaders, and pick them, not solely on the basis of political party, or on how much they promise to give us, but on their person as a whole. We must find that true person. I know that I will try my hardest not to abuse this freedom, and to be wise in my choice of leaders. I also know that in twenty years, when I have my own home, and am well educated, married, with a good job, and am happy. I'll roll out of bed after sleeping late on a Saturday morning, I'll pour myself a cup of coffee, and step onto the front porch to absorb the beauty of the day, I will think back to the brave people that made all of this possible. My heritage, my country, my democracy.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] just spoke about the individual retirement account and he said that it was a good idea for retirement but it was not a good idea, maybe, for anything else. I would just suggest to the gentleman that, as I recall the debate, the reason why the individual retirement account came up is that we learned that there was a crisis in this country about retirement, that Social Security could not do it all. Mr. Speaker, guess what? The idea was, hey, let us let people save for their retirement. Heaven forbid that we would give an incentive for that. A great idea. Well, guess what we did? We stole it. We stole the idea. We said if they can save for that, they can save for lots of things. Guess what? Savings is good. And this is the reason, because we also have been learning something else out here, that government cannot solve all the problems of this world. Parents have got to get involved. How do they get involved? With resources. Where do those resources come from? They earn them. What do we do with those resources? We take them. So what we are suggesting is let us leave them there. Let us let families make those decisions. The gentleman says that some of these families do not earn enough, therefore they cannot utilize them. Let me tell the gentleman about what is happening out there. Those with the resources, the rich as some people like to come here to the floor and demagog, are already doing this. They are already setting up accounts and already take their kids out of the public school system. They are fleeing from the system. They are already doing this, with or without accounts, with or without Rangel substitutes. It is happening. Mr. Speaker, the issue is are we going to be able to empower those parents who need that system? Are we going to be able to empower them for the extra book, for the computer, for the tutor, for the additional expenses that a child with special needs needs in our society? Mr. Speaker, that is all we are saying here today. Some people are running in here saying that we are burning down the public school system. Where in the world does it say that? People that are sending their kids to public schools, like I am, not everybody on this floor who is using a lot of fancy words today necessarily are sending their kids to public school systems. I happen to be. I think it is important for our democracy. But I also know that the public school system cannot do it on its own. My son and daughter need me in order to help with that. I think it is important for us to recognize that this is not a choice between two different concepts. We are not saying pick public education or pick some fancy savings account. We are not saying that. Mr. Speaker, we are saying choose public education, but choose it with the ability through an incentive to save a little bit for the extra expenses that we know are going to be there. That is all we are suggesting. It is not some choice between public and private education. We already have that choice in front of us and already those with resources are making their choice and they are running from the system.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of my committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, for the way he has also conducted this debate. It is a very important issue that he brings up. I ask our distinguished majority leader to close the debate for our side. I would point out that he is not only our distinguished majority leader, but he is also a teacher and a father. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out this difference. Listen to this. There is a difference between us, and I respect the gentleman's position. That is fine. He believes take that money from people, spread it around. I understand that. The gentleman calls that public resources. I call that taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, people who worked on the line at John Deere in Waterloo, IA; people who are on a combine right now harvesting corn in Iowa, that is their dollars, it is their money. Now, I get to take some of that because I am the Federal Government. We will deal with that. But I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, It is not your money. It is their money. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentlewoman, the gentlewoman probably remembers that in the 1997 tax bill that we just had, and Florida may be interested in this as well, that we passed $400 million for this exact purpose. In fact, it was in the 1997 bill. I think it was probably because of the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and many others that we provided this. I think Florida has an option. Now, this is a trial period. I mean, I think it would be good to see how this works. But to suggest that, again, this is a choice between one idea and another is really not correct. This is an expansion of a current good idea. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, not only did I go to public school and my kids, but I happen to have a child with special needs. I know that as much as you try and as much as I try, there is no way that the public education system is going to be able to provide all of the necessary things, the resources and educational tools, that my daughter is going to need into the future. I am not suggesting I necessarily need this account, I do not know. We will see. It probably is not going anywhere, it sounds like, from what we hear, because the President does not think parents ought to have this choice. I believe we ought to at least start down the road and discuss who should make these decisions.

Mr. NUSSLE. Including me. That is where I went.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] is obviously quite eloquent. This is not a choice, I would say to my friend, between public education and private education. In fact, I do not believe the gentleman is trying to suggest that private education, particularly church-based education, is not good. I do think we need to support public education. It is not a choice of one or the other. This is to help those who want to make that choice. There are many who make that choice all the time. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman, if he could get time from his side.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me start by commending the gentleman from New York for what I would have to suggest is a good idea, and an idea we need to consider in this House of Representatives, we need to consider in the Senate, or in the other body, we need to consider in Washington, as a way to try to empower State and local communities to deal with some very specific problems that I know the gentleman is well aware of. I just also became well aware of them in my own community of Waterloo, IA, where we also are faced with a number of problems involving infrastructure or brick and mortar as they call it, of schools that have deteriorated, and are forming partnerships within their own community. Even without your amendment, they have done this to come together to plan for the future, to figure out ways to share information and resources, and also build back the school system, because they, along with the gentleman and myself, agree that public education is an important foundation for a free society, and particularly one that has gotten us this far in our history. I would just have to say, however, that we have a finite pot of money that we hope to use as the offset, and yours is a substitute. If there was a way we could augment it after studying the way it would work, because one of the concerns I have is I think you target--it seems to target only low-income areas, I would be concerned that maybe we allow that to broaden out even a little further, because there are some areas that may not quite meet the definition of low income, yet are faced with some unique challenges. Maybe it is through recession, maybe it is on a periodic basis. But I do think your plan deserves study and merit. So I find it difficult to debate against it. We have talking points here, of course, and we can look and say, well, our plan supports savings; your plan supports borrowing. That is really not the point. The point is they are two separate problems. One part is we have parents that need to deal with immediate concerns of dealing with their children's education. You and I both know that means public education, but in many instances the choice is becoming more and more frequent, a private education, extra education in addition to public education. So we tried to meet that challenge through the Education Savings Act. What you are trying to accomplish is in a different, no less important, in my view, area of infrastructure for education. I think in this instance why we are opposing this is because we would like to move this plan. It has been part of our platform, we believe in it, we are going to move it, that is our intent, but in my opinion, and I am speaking for myself here, I believe we ought to take a closer look at your plan with regard to building up and giving empowerment to local communities, whether it is academies or zones of partnership, so that we can, in fact, infuse some support in a nontraditional way to our public education system. Some would rush in here and say let us appropriate dollars. Yours is unique. It says we have to have local control. I believe it says we have to have community involvement. It has to come from the bottom up. We are just there to help. I think that is a unique and very administrable plan. Unfortunately, with the pool of money available, I am going to push my idea, support your idea as something we need to look into, but believe that it needs to wait until another day, I say respectfully. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me answer some of the critics who have been saying that public education is not something that we support. Not only am I a product of public education, which Members can draw their own conclusions about, the good or the bad about public education just from me standing here. I happen to think it was pretty good, my kids are in public education. I support public education. In fact, I just spent this last week of our recess going around talking to parents, talking to teachers, talking to students and administrators about the importance of public education. But they also know that there is extra, that education now between K through 12 is not enough. We did something in the balanced budget plan called the HOPE scholarship. It is a start. What we want to do is we want to expand that, because we know particularly for people who have children with special needs that there is always extra. There is a little extra in the summer, there is a little extra after the grades are all over and the schoolhouse closes after they have graduated, we hope. There is extra that they are going to need. I understand that there are some who say that because you are poor, you probably will not want to participate. A, that is wrong, because people do care about their kids. And, B, even if they are able to participate a little, is that not better than nothing? I understand there is a Treasury study out there that says that it only means $10 for somebody. $10? $10 is something. It is a start. Maybe that is not enough. Maybe we ought to go further. Let us talk about going further, but let us not stop just because that is not enough for one particular family. Let us give the incentive to families so that they can meet those challenges. And let us also do it in a way that recognizes that education is a lifelong process.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Only in Washington, DC, would money that is taxed on parents that comes to Washington and we say we want to go back to parents be called a Federal subsidy. Think about that. Only in Washington, DC, would somebody have the nerve to say money we take from you in taxes and give back to you in tax relief is a Federal subsidy. That blows my mind. I think that in and of itself is the difference in this debate here today, who you trust, parents or the government. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who was former chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have a copy of this? We would love to see this analysis.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the Republican conference.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mine still do.

Mr. NUSSLE. My children go to public school.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)