[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          PASS THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House the 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the crime bill has been kidnaped. The 
toughest, most balanced plan this Congress can pass has been hijacked 
and held hostage by the special interest terrorists. I want to take 
this opportunity to salute the brave Republicans who stod up to an 
enormous amount of pressure from the NRA and from within their own 
ranks. They put partisanship aside and did what was right for this 
country.
  I am sure that those who voted against the rule had their reasons. 
The American people should make the distinction between those who voted 
against the rule out of moral objection to the death penalty and those 
who voted against the rule out of fear or partisan politics.
  The forces that have kidnaped the crime bill threatened individual 
Members where it hurts the most, in their bid for reelection. There 
were threats to cut funding and run real Republicans against any that 
voted for the rule. The American people need to know that the crime 
bill is being held hostage by the propaganda of partisan politics.
  The kidnapers' ransom note says that they want to cut the prevention 
money that goes to programs like midnight basketball, gang prevention 
grants, and other programs that get at the root causes of crime in our 
young people. The kidnapers believe that the only way to solve crime in 
America is after the fact. In other words, a crime has to be committed 
and that person be caught before anything can be done. The ransom note 
should read, ``We don't want children to have a book or basketball in 
their hands. They should have an Uzi or an AK-47 instead.''
  By delaying this crime bill the special interests have done more than 
put our children at risk. They have kidnaped the Violence Against Women 
Act, the child pornography provisions, rural drug enforcement grants, 
the death penalty provisions, 100,000 new police officers, and the 
prevention programs. As many as 100,000 new police officers will be the 
first line to prevent crime. Police Chief Dan Norris of the Monticello 
Police Department wrote to me about the need for additional police 
officers to help turn the tide of the drug war in Jasper County. What 
am I to say to Police Chief Norris and my constituents that live in the 
crossfire? Sorry, your policemen have been kidnaped?
  There has been a lot of talk about this crime bill being a social 
spending bill. Let us look at the facts and let the American people 
decide: 72 percent of the money in the crime bill will go to police and 
prisons. Another 13 percent goes to programs like the violence against 
women and drug courts. The prevention programs add up to less than 15 
percent of the entire bill. So, contrary to the Republican line, this 
bill is not laden with pork. This bill is carefully crafted with an 
ounce of prevention and pound of punishment.
  Now I would like to thank the Members of the freshman class of the 
103d Congress for joining me here tonight in support of the crime bill. 
I would like to thank the freshmen who participated in this series of 
crime bill special orders: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop], the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Fingerhut], the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo], the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Maloney], and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]. I would 
also like to take a moment to congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], Chairman Biden 
and all of the Republicans who worked in good faith to pass this crime 
bill. This hour has been dedicated to the young people and their 
parents, to the policemen and to all Americans who live every day and 
night in fear and who merely want to feel safe once again.
  Mr. Speaker, America deserves this crime bill. We encourage our 
colleagues to hear us, to hear the pleas of average, ordinary Americans 
and pass this crime bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, even though the official debate on health 
care has not begun in the House, it is extremely important to provide 
the American people with as much information about this legislation as 
possible.
   American families and businesses will experience a dramatic change 
in the way they receive and pay for health care if the Clinton/Gephardt 
bill is adopted.
  Despite claims by the Clintons that their proposal--reincarnated in 
the Clinton-Gephardt package--is designed to help middle-income people, 
a commonsense analysis of the plan shows that is simply not true.
  In fact, instead of improving the health insurance and financial 
health of middle-income families, the Clinton-Gephardt bill provides 
expensive and inefficient coverage for a relatively small number of 
people, charging hard-working, middle-income Americans for the massive 
program.
  As economist Martin Feldstein noted in a recent Wall Street Journal 
column:

       If President Clinton really wanted to help middle-income 
     people, he would focus on the health insurance issue that he 
     knows is its primary concern: the ability to maintain 
     existing coverage after a job change or the loss of an 
     employed spouse.

  Instead, the Clintons and the Democrats in Congress have devised a 
system that forces the employers of middle-income Americans to provide 
costly insurance policies designed by Congress or Federal bureaucrats.
  Imposing this implicit payroll tax on employers and employees will 
hit small businesses--which shouldered the bulk of the Clinton tax hike 
last year--especially hard.
  It does not matter whether employer mandates are employed now or 
triggered at some point in the future--they are wrong.
  Even with employers paying 80 percent of premium costs, employees 
will be left to pay substantial premiums out of their own pockets 
because the plan mandates such a benefit-rich health care policy.
  For the typical married couple, the required out-of-pocket premium 
would be $872 a year. The administration itself has acknowledged that 
more than 40 percent of Americans could face higher out-of-pocket 
premiums under the Clinton plan than they do today.
  The high-priced benefit package that the Clinton-Gephardt will would 
force all Americans to buy would also reduce wages as employers would 
be forced to find a way to cover cost of the more expensive plan.
  But as study after study has shown, the impact on middle-income 
workers will not end with lower wages. A recent JEC compilation of 
studies shows that an employer mandate--like the one the Clintons are 
trying to sell the American people--will kill jobs outright.

  While the studies vary widely in their methodologies and assumptions, 
they all point to massive job loss. According to the survey, those at 
greatest risk of losing their jobs are low- and middle-income workers.
  The cost of the proposal--seen in both lower wages and higher out-of-
pockets costs--will hit young Americans just entering the work force 
and those beginning families particularly hard.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of adopting a jobs-destroying, government-
controlled health care plan, we should enact meaningful reform which 
includes malpractice reform, a reduction in administrative costs 
through streamlining and eliminating unnecessary duplication, and 
relief from many of the burdensome State mandates.
  To expand access, we need to equalize the tax advantages of buying 
insurance, provide tax credits for low- and middle-income taxpayers, 
and vouchers for the very poor to purchase insurance.
  In addition, everyone should be allowed to save, tax-free, for future 
medical expenses. Through a medical savings account, individuals and 
families could save for minor medical costs such as annual checkups and 
minor illnesses and purchase a catastrophic insurance policy for major 
expenses.
  Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on this critical subject, we must 
keep in mind our overriding goals.
  Instead of adopting policies that rob hard-working middle-income 
Americans through higher taxes and premiums, we need to act responsibly 
to give all Americans security and work to expand coverage to those who 
do not have it, without jeopardizing the quality of care now available.
    
    

                          ____________________