[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT HAVE GONE UNANSWERED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Speaker and appreciate his willingess to take 
the chair.
  I do not expect I will be using my entire hour, but I did want to 
take the opportunity to discuss four items that basically come under 
the heading of: ``We've got a job to do and we need to get on with 
it.''
  I will cover such issues as the HUD investigation which we conducted 
a few years ago, the Congressional Liability Act, a slight discussion 
about the budget that we adopted and still leaves unanswered questions, 
and briefly about health care and my feelings about it.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago I had the privilege of serving 
under the leadership of the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, on 
the Committee on Government Operations Subcommittee on Employment and 
Housing, which oversaw the HUD investigation of the so-called 8 years 
under the Pierce administration. This was an opportunity that as a new 
Member I felt I had a very serious responsibility for conducting; but 
it was as a Republican, we were looking at Republicans. It was a 
bipartisan effort. We had the help of the Secretary of HUD, Mr. Jack 
Kemp. We had members on the committee like Mr. Lantos, whom I already 
mentioned, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the gentleman 
from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, myself, and we also were blessed to have the 
help of Chuck Schumer and Marge Roukema, both of whom serve on the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing 
and Community Development.
  We conducted the investigation on a bipartisan basis and decided to 
let the chips fall where they would. It was an investigation that 
lasted over a year. There were over 20 hearings that lasted all day 
long. During the course of this investigation, it became clear, very 
clear, that we needed an independent counsel. Members of the committee 
suggested there be an independent counsel forum, and there was one 
under Mr. Arlen Adams, who is still conducting his investigation of the 
HUD scandal, which we conducted a number of years ago.
  One of the outcomes of our investigation was the passage of H.R. 1, a 
major reform of HUD. It cleaned out the insides of HUD significantly 
and was bipartisan, passed quickly without much dissent. That was one 
of the successes, one of the benefits of our investigation.
  But the other aspect was that we uncovered an incredible amount of 
wrongdoing. This wrongdoing was investigated thoroughly by our 
committee and then handed over to Arlen Adams, who has done an 
incredible job of carrying out this effort.
  So far he has had 15 convictions, following trials, or guilty pleas; 
he has had more than $2 million in criminal fines secured.
  One of the points I want to make tonight is that I heard reference to 
the fact that we cannot conduct an investigation while we have a 
special counsel, independent counsel, doing his work or while the 
Justice Department is doing its work. Our success in our committee with 
the HUD investigation shows that simply not to be true.
  The bottom line is that you can, and should, in many cases, conduct a 
House investigation while you have the Justice Department looking at 
any possible criminal illegalities.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Adams convicted Joseph A. Strauss, a special 
assistant to HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, on April 15, 1994; there was 
a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy and one count of concealment. 
Each count carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and 
$250,000 fine.
  J. Michael Queenan, director of the housing development division of 
HUD's Denver regional office, and Ronald Mahon, an employee in HUD's 
Denver regional office, both found guilty of conspiracy to commit 
bribery and money laundering.
  Catalina Velazquez Villalpando, former Treasurer of the United 
States, on February 17, regretfully, 1994, pleaded guilty to a felony 
count of obstruction of the independent counsel investigation.
  Deborah Gore Dean, who on more than one occasion pleaded the fifth, 
the former executive assistant to former HUD Secretary Pierce from 1984 
to 1987, on October 26, 1993, found guilty on all counts of a 12-count 
indictment. Three counts of conspiracy to defraud, commit offenses 
against the United States, one count of receiving an illegal gratuity, 
four counts of perjury, four counts of concealment and covering up 
material facts by a trick scheme and device.

  Thomas T. Demery, who appeared before the committee on more than one 
occasion, HUD Assistant Secretary for Housing during the period 1986 to 
1989, on June 17, 1993, pleaded guilty to felony charges of having 
illegally accepted a $100,000 loan on highly favorable terms from a 
developer doing business before HUD and having later obstructed justice 
by submitting a document to a Federal grand jury that falsely stated 
that he had paid for the use of the vacation condominium owned by 
another developer who did business before HUD. Accepting a loan carries 
a penalty of up to 2 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. 
Obstruction of a Federal grand jury investigation carries a penalty of 
up to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000.
  There were further indictments and convictions. Robert B. Olsen, 
former director of moderate rehabilitation program of the North Dakota 
Housing Finance Agency, on May 11, 1993, pleaded guilty of one count of 
conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of bribery; 
pleaded guilty to having conspired with three individuals to defraud 
the Government.
  Philip D. Winn, HUD Assistant Secretary for Housing from 1981 to 
1982, and United States Ambassador to Switzerland from 1988 to 1989, on 
February 9, 1993, pleaded guilty to one felony count of having 
conspired from 1985 to 1987 to provide things of value to two HUD 
officials for and because of their official actions; pleaded guilty to 
conspiring in 1985 to promise a $20,000 loan through third parties to 
Silvio J. DeBartolomeis, then HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary; pleaded 
guilty to conspiring in 1987 to promise the use of a ski condominium at 
Vail, CO, to Thomas T. Emery, then assistant secretary for housing. 
Punished by up to 5 years imprisonment, he has paid $981,975 in 
criminal fines.
  Leonard E. Briscoe, Sr., a developer of HUD projects in Texas and 
Florida, January 5, 1993, found guilty on two felony counts, illegal 
payment in excess of $100,000, that Briscoe made to DuBois Gilliam 
while he was HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary and because of Gilliam's 
official actions to secure funding for projects in which Briscoe had an 
interest; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, fined $50,000, 1 year of 
supervised release.
  Lance H. Wilson, former executive assistant to HUD Secretary Pierce, 
thereafter first vice president of Paine-Webber, Mr. Wilson was the 
first executive assistant, and Deborah Gore Dean followed him. January 
1993, found guilty of one felony count involving provision of an all-
expense-paid weekend in New York City to DuBois Gilliam while he was a 
HUD deputy assistant secretary for or because of Gilliam's official 
actions to secure funding for projects in which Wilson had an interest. 
Sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, 2 years probation, 200 hours of 
community service, and an $8,000 fine.
  Maurice David Steiner, a lawyer/accountant in Nebraska, January 5, 
1993, found guilty of one felony count involving his role in receiving 
fees from Briscoe that were disguised payments to DuBois Gilliam; 
sentenced to 2 years probation, 30 hours of community service, $5,000 
fine.
  There are four more: Elaine M. Richardson, executive assistant to 
former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke. November 20, 1992, pleaded guilty 
to one count of aiding and abetting false statements to HUD by Mr. 
Brooke regarding his efforts to obtain moderate rehabilitation funds 
for his clients while he was in private practice. Sentenced to 2 years 
probation, 200 hours of community service, and a $500 fine.
  Silvio J. DeBartolomeis, HUD Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing 
during 1986, October 5, 1992, pleaded guilty to conspiring to make 
false statements on behalf of HUD, accepting an illegal supplementation 
of his official income, and aiding and abetting a false statement to 
HUD. Benton Mortgage Company, Inc., then participant in HUD's 
coinsurance program, June 8, 1992, pleaded guilty to three felony 
counts of concealing material facts from HUD.

                             {time}   2020

  BMC paid a criminal fine of $1 million to the U.S. District Court, 
January 16, 1992.
  Samuel P. Singletary, February 20, 1992, pleaded guilty to one felony 
count of attempting to evade Federal taxes, failed to report income he 
received in connection with a project that received funding from HUD 
under the secretary's discretionary fund. Sentenced to 5 years 
probation, 30 hours of community service, restitution and a special 
assessment.
  There was one acquittal: Victor R. Cruise, a Connecticut lawyer and 
real estate developer, January 28, 1993, found not guilty. Mr. R. 
Cruise who was Victor R. Cruise was found not guilty of charges of 
perjury and obstruction of justice relating to grand jury testimony 
regarding the cancellation of HUD low-income housing subsidies for the 
public housing authorities of Savannah, GA.
  Mr. Speaker, I have read these names because all these individuals, 
or most all of them, appeared before our committee professing 
innocence, and were tried in a court of law, or pleaded guilty before 
our courts, and have paid or will be paying penalties for their 
wrongdoing. I mentioned this because there have been many hearings that 
Congress has done over the years, and I just think it is important 
after the fact to point out that this was a hearing that resulted in 
the reform of HUD, H.R. 1, with the cooperation of Republicans and 
Democrats. It was a committee that established a special independent 
counsel and worked closely with that independent counsel.
  On one occasion we were tempted somewhat to give immunity to an 
individual. We decided against it. This was confirmed, our judgment was 
confirmed, by the special prosecutor who we worked closely with to make 
sure that we did not hinder in any way his investigation of those who 
he deemed guilty of wrongdoing.
  The result was we had passage of H.R. 1, we so far have 15 
convictions following trials or guilty pleas, more than $2 million in 
criminal fines secured. I think this should lay to rest any argument 
that says that we should not investigate the postal scandal or that we 
should not in any way look at wrongdoing with Whitewater until a 
prosecutor has done his or her work. There is absolutely no reason 
whatsoever that they cannot be done in tandem. There is no reason 
why there cannot be cooperation between Congress and a special 
prosecutor.

  The classic example of how a Congress committee went off the track 
was the investigation of the Iran-Contra hearings, and particularly 
with Mr. North. Mr. North was given limited immunity, but seized the 
opportunity, when he was before the committee, to answer questions that 
he was not asked or to expand on questions that he was asked. When the 
committee at first tried to say to Mr. North that he was not free to 
answer that question, he basically responded and said, ``Couldn't I 
defend myself?'' It was wonderful plan on Mr. North's part to be able 
to disclose more and then go before the courts and say he was given 
immunity. Mr. North was guilty of crimes, he was given immunity, he 
expanded on that immunity, and, regretfully, a committee of Congress 
allowed him to get away with it.
  I think the real lesson is not that a committee of Congress should 
not investigate while there is a special prosecutor, independent 
counsel doing his or her work. I think the point is that there should 
not be immunity given to protect that individual.
  Now I mentioned this again because I just think it is absolutely 
imperative that this Congress come clean on the postal scandal, that 
there be an investigation of the ethics committee and that the American 
people know the answers, whatever they are, and I say this as a 
Republican, admittedly focused in on two scandals, Whitewater and the 
postal scandal that tend to be focused on Democrats, but I think, I 
hope, I have the credibility to say that as a Republican who helped 
lead the charge to investigate wrongdoing at HUD that I at least have 
the right to make this point clear:
  If I had the right and felt the duty to investigate Republicans as a 
Republican, I certainly feel I have the right to call for, as a 
Republican, an investigation of wrongdoing in Whitewater and the postal 
scandal that seems to be focused more on Democrats.
  I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the whole general 
topic that I have tonight of we have got a job to do, and let us get on 
with it, that we have the Congressional Accountability Act which has 
been presented by the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] and 
myself, Mr. Swett a Democrat. It has 249 cosponsors.
  The basic concept of the Congressional Accountability Act is simple. 
Its basic concept is the laws that we pass on the private sector, the 
laws we pass on the executive branch, if they are right for the 
executive branch, if they are right for the rest of the people of this 
country, the private sector, they should be right for Congress. I say 
to my colleagues, ``What's right for the private sector, what's right 
for the executive branch, what we impose as Members of Congress should 
be imposed on ourselves, and it seems very clear to me that this needs 
to happen posthaste.''
  Obviously one side benefit from it is I think we will write better 
laws if we have to live by the laws that we write. We have 249 
cosponsors. We have the crux of this legislation in the joint committee 
to organize Congress, to reform Congress. At its very center is the 
concept of the Congressional Accountability Act, but under its present 
status it is flawed. It is flawed in a number of ways, but two 
primarily:
  One, it does not include all the laws. It says that some of the laws 
will be included and Congress will have to abide by some of the laws. 
Then it has studies for others like OSHA. There are two parts to OSHA. 
Basically, the work practices of an employee; there is no reason to 
defer that.
  And then there is the other aspect: Do we have the facilities? Do we 
have the space? Are we overcrowded? Do we meet the OSHA tests? Would it 
cost us a vast fortune to comply? There is absolutely no reason why we 
cannot come under OSHA right now, and the office of compliance that is 
established under this bill can phase us in over a period of 4, or 5, 
or 6, 7 years even to get us to comply to the other parts of OSHA.
  The other aspect that the committee, the joint committee's report, 
which includes the Congressional Accountability Act, does not include 
what we call some of the instrumentalities of Congress. It does not 
include the Architect's office. It does not include the Library of 
Congress. It does not include our police. We need to include all parts 
of Congress, all employees of Congress, like the private sector, like 
the executive branch should have the same protections under the law 
that exist for others. Congress should have those same protections. The 
employees; they should be able to take complaints about a Member of 
Congress or another manager within Congress. They should be able to, 
unsatisfied with the results through this process, they should be able 
to go directly to the courts and present evidence to demonstrate their 
position.

  Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will see positive action on the 
Congressional Accountability Act, but for it to have my support and the 
support of the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], and others who 
have signed this legislation it has got to include all the laws, and it 
has got to include all the instrumentalities of Congress, all the 
different parts of Congress. To do otherwise still puts us back in the 
same position we have been right now, and that is what is good for the 
private sector, what is good for the executive branch, evidently is not 
good enough for Congress.
  With regard to the budget and the fact that we have a job to do and 
we need to get on with it, Mr. Speaker, when the President presented 
his plan last year, he presented a plan that had $3.58 of taxes for $1 
spending cut, and I need to define spending cut as Congress defines it 
and the White House. A spending cut regretfully, and hard for those in 
the private sector to understand, is basically this:
  If it costs a hundred million dollars to run a program this year, and 
next year to provide the same current service level it costs a hundred 
and five million, if Congress, the White House, only appropriate a 
hundred and three million, Congress and the White House call it a $2 
million cut. We spent $3 million more, but to have a current service 
Congress and the White House call it a $2 million cut if we cut below 
the amount of current service requirement.
  Now that is a different way we call spending cuts than in the private 
sector, and it is wrong. It needs to be changed, but just saying this: 
$3.58 taxes for $1 spending cut over a 5-year period; Congress changed 
that to $1.82; in the House budget, $1.48; in the Senate budget, and 
ultimately the conference reported $1.53. That shift, I think, was the 
result of Republicans coming forward with cuts in spending and not tax 
increases, moderate and conservative Democrats saying the Republicans 
were coming in with meaningful cuts and encouraging their leadership 
and the President to do better, which they did, not well enough, but 
better.
  The other aspect of this that causes me tremendous concern is that 
the President basically came in and said of the 100 percent of his cuts 
over 5 years, in 1997, the fourth year, he wanted 40 percent of those 
100 percent of cuts. And in 1998, under his 5-year plan, he wanted 43 
percent. In other words, 40 plus almost 44 percent, about 88 percent of 
all the cuts were going to take place in the fourth and fifth years.

                              {time}  2030

  Now, Congress changed that. Just as they changed the relationship of 
taxes to spending cuts, they changed that as well. In the fourth year 
of the presidency, the bill that was finally passed by one vote in this 
House 26.8 percent of all the cuts will be made in the fourth year of 
the presidency. In the year he may or may not be president, the fifth 
year, he may be re-elected, and, if not, some other Congress and 
President will have to come up with 35.8 percent of the cuts.
  In other words, we have over 63 percent of all the cuts in the 
package that was finally adopted happening in the fourth and fifth 
year. The fourth year of President Clinton's term, which is the second 
year of the next Congress, the 104th Congress, and then in the fifth 
year, under a new president, under the third Congress elected, not the 
103d, not the 104th, but the 105th Congress, will have to make 35.8 
percent of all the cuts.
  If we had done nothing, if we had not passed the President's plan, if 
we had simply continued as we were scheduled to under the 1990 
agreement, spending in defense would go down 1.7 percent. Overall 
spending would go up, however, 27.5 percent. If we had done nothing, if 
we had done nothing we estimated that taxes would grow in this 5-year 
period 29.6 percent with a growing economy.
  We also estimated that the national debt, if we did nothing, would go 
up 48.5 percent, or $2.1 trillion.
  Now, Congress did something. But the question I ask myself and the 
question we all need to ask ourselves is, Did we do enough. And I 
contend that there is no way that we did enough.
  If we had done nothing, spending would have gone up 27 percent. Under 
the Clinton plan that was adopted, spending still goes up 24 percent. 
Defense admittedly goes down 12 percent under the Clinton budget. 
Foreign affairs goes down 4 percent. Domestic spending will go up 18 
percent. And, candidly, all discretionary spending will basically only 
go up, defense, non-defense, foreign affairs, about 3.4 percent.
  So Congress is showing some desire to control discretionary spending. 
But Social Security will go up 29 percent. But more importantly, the 
entitlements, the non-Social Security entitlements go up 52.6 percent 
during these next 5 years. During these next 5 years, 52.6 percent, and 
that is nearly a third of the budget. Interest on the national debt 
will go up 26.1 percent.
  What scares me about the plan that was adopted is that we estimate 
revenue is going to go up 34.9 percent. And, again, this is a funny 
thing that Congress and the White House does. They estimate if taxes 
are increased 10 percent, revenues will grow by 10 percent. But the 
logic of that is, it is not very logical, because we make an assumption 
people will not change their behavior.
  It was reported, for instance, that after President Clinton was 
elected, Hillary Rodham Clinton decided she would take her bonus in the 
year of the tax and not postpone it until the next year when a new 
president took over, her husband, for logical reasons. Not a criticism, 
a logical thing to do. Her husband said he would increase taxes, he 
did. She knew if she took her bonus in that year, the year he took 
office, there would be a tax increase. So it was better to pay the tax 
early and pay a lesser tax.

  That is what a lot of Americans did. As you may remember, shortly 
after Clinton was elected, personal income jumped. It jumped because 
people were declaring their personal income in that year and not 
deferring it to the next year. The beginning of the next year, personal 
income dropped, because people had taken all their bonuses in the 
previous year.
  So we have in our chart that we estimate revenues will go nearly 35 
percent with the new taxes. That remains to be seen. It may be that 
number, it may be less, it may be more. But what is most discouraging 
to me, and I do not use that word often is, whereas if we had done 
nothing, the national debt is going to up 48 percent, it is going to go 
up 38 percent. Thirty-eight percent is a smaller percent, and the White 
House takes some satisfaction that it, quote-unquote, is only going to 
go up 38 percent. But that 38 percent represents $1.6 trillion. It is 
the second largest increase in any 5-year period in the national debt 
increase. That is because we are working on a higher base. Thirty-seven 
percent increase in the early Reagan years, when the national debt was 
much lower, is not going to be as significant an amount as presently.
  I tell people, you know, we take some satisfaction that the percent 
is less, even though the amount is as high as ever, as if to say under 
President Reagan and President Bush, who I harshly criticize for their 
management of the economy, that the national debt soared. And we said 
it was horrendous, horrific, outrageous, obscene.
  So now we say under President Clinton it is horrendous and horrific 
and obscene. We leave out one of those words, and it is as if we 
declare victory.
  I described our economy as being on a plateau. We are at the top and 
looking down and taking some satisfaction. If the economy drops, we 
just go right off the edge of that plateau. If we are not going to 
control spending as our economy is getting out of a recession, are we 
going to try to control spending when we get into a recession? When are 
we going to come to grips finally with this national debt?
  I speak as someone who scored 100 percent with the Concord Coalition. 
I am making these votes. They are not difficult votes candidly for me 
to make. I am not patting myself on the back. I am just saying I am a 
true believer, and if we want to do the right thing for our country, we 
have got to control the growth in spending, both discretionary spending 
and entitlements. We have got to see this national debt of 37.9 percent 
in the next 5 years, a $1.6 trillion increase, we cannot see that 
national debt continue to climb as it is. We are simply postponing our 
day of reckoning.
  This gets me to the last point, have we got a job to do, and let's 
get on with it, health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence, and I will be done 
shortly. And I just say to you that I consider this issue 
extraordinarily important. I put it in the same class as what I 
previously spoke about the budget. And I salute President Clinton 
sincerely for his focus on this issue. Lord knows we wanted President 
Bush and his administration to deal with this issue. We did not want to 
wait until now to deal with health care.

  We need to deal with health care for obviously a number of reasons. 
We need, I believe, universal coverage. I do not think it is right that 
some Americans simply do not have health care, or, at least when they 
have it, they have to go as beggars to the hospitals, ask for help, and 
then have the disgrace of not being able to pay their bills.
  I also do it on budgetary grounds. In part, the insured are paying 
for the uninsured. So some of the uninsured are getting coverage, and 
that is being covered by volunteer work on the part of many devoted 
practitioners, doctors, nurses, and so on, and also because the insured 
are paying for the uninsured.
  In my judgment, we have got to deal with this issue of making sure 
that all Americans have insurance.
  What troubles me is the rhetoric I am hearing in some cases on both 
sides, but particularly I want to express concern with Senator 
Rockefeller's comments in talking about the fact that Republicans 
simply do not want to be part of this process.
  We want to be part of this process, but we do not want the process 
dictated to us. We want to have a say in what happens. I think most 
Members on the Republican side, and I think most Members on the 
Democratic side, know we have to deal with preexisting condition. Most 
members know we cannot continue to have job lock. We cannot have an 
employee locked into his job because of a preexisting condition that 
prevents him or her from taking another job because they will not be 
even insured for that particular illness. We need to deal with 
administrative costs. Administrative costs are killing us. We need to 
deal with tort reform. There has to be meaningful tort reform.
  I also believe that most of us recognize that all Americans should be 
allowed to deduct for health care: These are basic issues that we 
believe can be worked out. Preexisting condition, job lock, 
administrative costs, tort reform, being able to deduct for health 
care, being able to have the purchasing power of a large employer, even 
if you are a small employer, even if you are an individual.

                              {time}  2040

  Having community rating or at least rating by age or territory; being 
able to not be penalized if one of your employees has a serious 
illness, and then having your rates just soar, which leads me to this 
point.
  I am amazed that we try to answer this question, is it a crisis, is 
health care a crisis, because for some it is. And so the answer is yes. 
And for some it is not, and so the answer is no. It is for those who 
come into my office, and probably yours as well. A woman recently 
coming into my office and saying, ``Congressman, my husband lost his 
job. I make $16,000 a year. My husband has cancer. We have about 10 
more months under COBRA, and it is costing us about $8,000 for health 
care. What are you going to do, Congressman? What am I going to do, 
Congressman? How can you help me?''
  This is a crisis for that individual, and it happens continually. The 
individual that may have a job and loses it, may have coverage and no 
longer have coverage, the person who has serious financial challenges 
covering their health care needs. It has to be a crisis for that 
individual.
  It is also a crisis for that individual who has seen their costs go 
up and up and up. A lot of employers have seen their costs go up, large 
and small. Individuals have seen their costs going up. So for them it 
is a crisis. It is clearly a crisis for those individuals.
  For the vast majority of my constituency, at least in my district, it 
is not a crisis. But having said that, in spite of the fact that most 
in Connecticut, 91 percent of all the people in Connecticut have some 
form of health care, we only have 9 percent who are not covered. But 
that notwithstanding, 88 percent of the people in the 4th Congressional 
District, in a questionnaire two years ago, said they wanted all 
Americans to have universal coverage and they were willing to pay for 
it, 88 percent, in spite of the fact that most everyone who probably 
filled that out already had coverage.
  I think Americans know we need universal coverage. So the real 
question is, how and when. Is it the Clinton plan or is it some other 
form.
  The President has truly got a universal plan. My challenge with it, 
and it is something I am hearing more and more, it is not meant as a 
harsh criticism of the Administration but a point of fact, that last 
fall the people spoke to me in my community meetings, my health care 
meetings. People were very favorably disposed to the Clinton plan. But 
truly, as they have gotten to understand it, they sincerely fear their 
own health care plan will be in jeopardy, and they are truly and 
sincerely concerned about the government intervention they think exists 
under the Clinton plan.
  I think the big issue that divides Republicans and Democrats, and 
maybe I should not speak for all Republicans, but my sense is it is 
that most Republicans want to see a market approach. And I think a good 
number of Democrats want to see a Government approach.
  Most Republicans are concerned about the global budgeting concept 
under the Administration, where a small board basically decides what 
kind of health care is available, how many operations here, a real 
centralized government control of what we presently feel is fairly 
free.
  Now, having said that, I believe that the President is right on 
target in one element of his plan, and that is, there has to be some 
kind of copayment. If we are in a crisis today, it is a crisis of 
making sure some are not covered and dealing with that issue. It is 
also an issue of containing costs. That is the other reason I support 
health care reform. We have got to find a way to contain costs.

  We cannot allow health care costs to go up so much for individuals. 
We cannot allow health care to go up so much for small businesses. 
Governments are literally going bankrupt trying to pay health care 
costs, local governments, State governments, even our Federal 
Government, a 50 percent increase of our entitlements, mostly Medicare 
and Medicaid, going up 50 percent in the next 5 years. So we have to 
contain costs.
  The President is right. There has to be copayment. A person has to 
have something at stake when they use health care.
  Price has got to be a factor, not that price will be unaffordable but 
that it will not be free, because any free service is always going to 
be overutilized. So I believe the President is right in saying deal 
with health care. I believe he is right in saying there has to be, all 
Americans have to have health care. I guess the big line that I have 
with the President on this issue is, I believe we will not be able to 
have immediate coverage of all Americans. I do not think we can phase 
it in in a 1-year period. I think it will have to be phased in over 4 
to 8 years. And I guess one of my messages tonight, to be on the 
record, is that I sincerely hope this administration is listening to 
Republicans as well.
  It is not going to basically try to do it just with Democrats, and 
then tell us, take it or leave it.
  Then when we decide not to take it, not because we were just left out 
but because we were not getting our points across that we believe, that 
are reflective of our constituency, the President said that if his plan 
is defeated, it will be special interests killing it.
  I would submit, and this is not meant as a harsh criticism, but as a 
fact, that his plan was put together by special interests. It is 
special interests that benefit, if the big automobile manufacturers are 
able to pass on their health costs from age 55 to 65 to the Government 
and to the taxpayer. Special interests like, and they are a good 
special interest, as all special interests may or may not be, but the 
seniors, who want prescription drugs and home health care, which gets 
me, I guess, to the very last point I want to make.
  We cannot have universal coverage and expand the programs to cover so 
many different people. We cannot have basic health care end up being a 
Cadillac or Rolls Royce service. Basic health care, in my judgment, 
should be basic. In my judgment, it should be more toward the form of 
catastrophic health care.

  Let individuals buy health care for those things that they can afford 
but be protected for the catastrophic. I sincerely hope and pray that 
Democrats in Congress and in the Senate will work with Republicans to 
deal with these basic issues of preexisting condition, job loss, 
administrative costs, tort reform, being able to deduct for health 
care, allowing and enabling small businesses to have the same 
purchasing power as larger businesses, dealing with cost containment by 
having a copayment provision. These are things that we could do now, 
and I bet we could gather the support of two-thirds of Congress to pass 
it.
  How quickly we phase in universal coverage remains to be seen. I 
would like to do it as quickly as possible. But we need to show the 
savings before we go on.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for taking your valuable time to allow me 
the opportunity to discuss these four issues. I hope we get on with 
doing our job with Whitewater and the postal scandal. I hope the 
Congressional Accountability Act is moved forward, as it should. I hope 
that we take another look at the budget and work on a bipartisan basis 
to do things like A to Z, find ways to cut more spending. And I truly 
hope that we work on a bipartisan basis to end up with a health care 
system that Americans can look to with pride and satisfaction, that 
they are covered, that they can afford it and that it will benefit the 
vast majority of Americans.

                          ____________________