[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE CRIME BILL AND HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Thurman). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] is recognized for 60 minutes as the
majority leader's designee.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my fellow
Members of the freshman class for joining me in this special order for
the evening.
Madam Speaker, this week the hot topics on the minds of our
constituents are the crime bill and health care.
The crime bill took a beating on the floor of this House last week,
when its opponents voted against it on a rule.
The one-two punch was delivered by those who objected to the crime
bill for one reason or another. Some said they voted against the rule
because of the assault weapons ban. Others said they voted against the
rule because the crime bill was laden with pork.
Let us take a closer look at these two so-called sticking points in
the crime bill.
First, let us take up the argument against the assault weapons ban.
When we here in the U.S. House of Representatives initially voted on
the assault weapons ban back in May, my office was inundated with calls
and letters from people who both supported and opposed my vote.
I received a lot of angry letters from gun owners and constituents
who saw a vote for the assault weapons ban as a vote against what they
view as their constitutional right to bear arms.
Let me say that this ban does not tamper with those rights. I support
the second amendment and that for which it stands. The assault weapons
ban prohibits the future sale of only 19 types of assault weapons,
while protecting the right of the American people to own at least 650
other types of guns.
Let me also add that for every angry call or letter I received
opposing my vote, I have received just as many calls in support of the
ban. These calls are coming from people, who, like me are finding it
difficult to understand why anyone would fight so hard to keep these
deadly weapons on our streets.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I represent a mostly rural district in
South Carolina. Unfortunately my district's demographics do not make it
immune from the ravages of crime.
I remember back in January, when the President was winding up his
State of the Union Address, a shoot-out was occurring at a college in
my district. Two students were injured.
Earlier that day, a high school student lay dead in the hallway
outside his classroom--shot by a fellow classmate with a .22-caliber
semi-automatic weapon and a grudge to settle.
The student told police he purchased the gun for $90 from a man in a
nearby apartment complex. I don't have to reach as far back as January
to recall instances of violence involving semi-automatic weapons in my
district. All I have to do is turn on the local news or open the local
newspaper.
And all I have to do is listen to the constituents who talk to me
when I go home to my district every weekend.
My constituents are becoming increasingly appalled by these violent
acts. These are constituents who are afraid to leave their
neighborhoods, attend community functions, or participate in family
outings. These people, in short, have become prisoners in their own
homes.
And what about our children? It breaks my heart to get letters like
the ones I recently received from fifth grade students complaining
about drugs and the rise of violence in their communities.
What do I say to youngsters who write to me asking for more jails in
their communities? What do I say to youngsters who fear the rising tide
of violence will engulf the Earth?
I would like to be able to say to them that Congress did its part by
passing the crime bill, which represents the most comprehensive and
balanced legislative initiative ever undertaken by the Congress to
prevent crime and punish those who commit crime.
It is especially for these young people--our future--that I support a
crime bill that will provide half of the 100,000 new officers to small
cities and rural counties. Each State will be eligible for a minimum of
500 new police officers or equivalent sized grants.
It is for my frightened constituents that I support a crime bill that
will work to combat drug trafficking in rural areas by authorizing $250
million for rural law enforcement agencies and specialized drug
enforcement training for rural law enforcement officers.
These are the types of programs in the crime bill that have come
under attack by some who see it as only so much pork.
Let us look more closely at this complaint. The crime bill went into
conference at $27 billion and came out at $33 billion. Why? The crime
bill was increased by $6 billion to provide more funds for police
officers, FBI and drug enforcement agents, and local prosecutors, to
combat violence against women.
In fact, 85 percent of the $33 billion in the crime bill is for
police, Federal and State law enforcement, prisons, and detection
facilities.
The so-called pork programs account for the other 15 percent. These
programs were actually cut in conference by $478 million.
One so-called pork program in particular that has taken a severe
beating from the opposition is the midnight basketball program, which
has been allocated $7 million--a mere drop in the bucket when compared
to the total $33 billion allocated for the crime bill.
I want to talk about midnight basketball, because the program has
been ridiculed for being nothing more than a Government-funded
recreational outlet for thugs.
To the young people who participate in and benefit from midnight
basketball programs around the country, it is so much more.
A midnight basketball program has been operating in my district on
the East Side of Charleston, SC since 1991.
The program began as a result of a resident's desire to participate
in meaningful recreational activity in an area where residents are
often stigmatized by the criminal activity occurring in their
community.
This year, the Charleston Inner City Midnight Basketball Association
ended its most successful season ever with a total of 530 inner-city
youth participating in a program designed to build their self-esteem
and character, and to enhance a dream that they can improve their
lives.
These are children who did not get to go to summer camp, these are
children who didn't get a summer job. These are children who are
readily written off by the larger society because of where they live.
A program like the one in Charleston goes one step further. During
the school year, many of these academically at-risk youngsters
participate in the educational aspect of the program--Project Rescue.
According to the program's senior organizing director, the Rev.
Dallas Wilson, thanks to Project Rescue, 11 midnight basketball
participants will be attending prep schools this fall. Several are
currently in college.
This program is heavily supported by the State and local community.
But many more youngsters could benefit from midnight basketball and
other so-called pork programs--that are instrumental in redirecting the
energies of our young people away from the false attractions of drugs
and crime and toward the positive lessons of team work, hard work, and
school work.
Although crime is first up on our agenda, the health care debate
still rages and we must not forget this legislation or the millions of
American people it will affect.
In our country today, there are currently 37 million uninsured people
in the United States. If we pass health care legislation without
universal coverage, there is no way to guarantee that these Americans
and their families will have health coverage they can never lose.
Take a look at this pie chart. It is a very simple chart and the
message is very clear. The gold portion represents the 1.1 million
currently uninsured Americans that will receive coverage under a plan
with insurance market reforms. That's a very small piece of the pie.
If you look at the blue portion, you will see about 40 percent or
13.8 million of the uninsured Americans who will receive insurance when
subsidies are added for low-income populations.
After taking these two pieces of the pie, there is still an enormous
red slice containing 22.3 million Americans who will remain without
health care coverage. This piece of the pie is too big to think we can
get away with passing any kind of legislation with less than universal
coverage.
In my State of South Carolina 406,632 working people do not have
health care protection. Over 97,000 children do not have health care
coverage.
These people are no different from the millions of others in our
country who work hard to make a living for themselves and their
families. They deserve affordable health care insurance that can never
be taken away.
In my district alone, there are 94,000 people from working families
who have no health insurance. This means, almost 79 percent of all of
the uninsured in my district are from working families.
On top of this astounding figure--of the lucky ones who have
coverage--33,000 people living in the State of South Carolina lose
their health insurance each month. Of the uninsured in my district,
26,000 of these people are young children.
Madam Speaker, the uninsured are people just like you and me who may
have unexpected medical emergencies and need attention in the middle of
the night, the uninsured are persons who need preventive care, they are
school-aged children who have ear infections, they are children whose
required immunizations should be covered under their families health
insurance plans.
Under a plan with universal coverage, 5,424 2-year-olds will have
improved coverage for immunization in my district; 40,355 women will
have better opportunities for breast cancer screening; 160,801 people
will no longer have lifetime limits on their coverage, and, 84,632
people will no longer have preexisting condition exclusions in their
insurance.
Madam Speaker, I remind you that these are real numbers, and there
are real people behind the numbers.
I recently received this letter from a lady in Florence, SC. She is
the mother of two children, one of whom has a pulmonary condition she
has had since 3 months old. The daughter has never taken any medicine
for her condition, nor does she require any special needs. In fact, she
runs 3-5 miles a day.
This young woman's father purchased health insurance for their family
while he was self-employed. However, the insurance offers no coverage
whatsoever for their daughter, simply because of this preexisting
condition.
This young woman is a college graduate, and doesn't have a full-time
job yet. She maintains three part-time jobs--none of which offer her
health insurance.
In other words, Madam Speaker, this is one of millions of deserving
people who will gain health insurance with universal coverage. This is
one of 1,142,949 South Carolinians with a preexisting condition who
will not be discriminated against any longer if we pass comprehensive
health care legislation with universal coverage.
As this debate continues, we hear from a lot of people on each side
of the argument. We hear about how the elderly will be affected, the
young mothers and children, and many other vital sectors of our
population.
However, I believe we often overlook the monetary affects that what
we do or don't do will have on the so-called middle class, the working
people that make up the core of America, the ones that are currently
insured.
If you are a middle class, working taxpayer, making between $20,000
and $75,000 a year in the Sixth Congressional District of South
Carolina--or any other Congressional district in the country, for that
matter; and if we pass a plan which covers only 91 percent, such as
that under the Cooper, Managed Competition bill, you can expect to see
an increase in your yearly premium.
Let us take a look at the figures on this chart.
The columns represent changes in health care premiums, if we only do
incremental reform, as many opponents of universal coverage are
advocating.
You can readily see that the biggest increase in premiums is the
column which represents those who make over $30,000 but less than
$40,000 a year. And if you make between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, you
can expect an increase of over $200 per year in your annual premiums.
If you make over $40,000 a year, but less than $50,000, you will
experience an increase of $137 per year. Under this plan, you will only
experience a decrease if you make less than $20,000 or between $75,000
and $100,000 a year.
Now, I do not know about you, but to me and the people of my
district, that could mean a car payment for those who make between
$30,000 and $40,000 a year, or child care payments for those who make
between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, and a college student's textbooks
for those who make between $40,000 and $75,000 a year. In my district
alone, this increase would hit 89,376 families. My fellow colleagues, I
wager my bet that you have many people who fit into this average-
American household category living in your districts as well.
This information, as you all can see, shows that the managed
competition concept of health care reform delivers devastating body
blows to middle-income Americans at almost every level.
If you are a middle-class, working taxpayer and we pass a health care
reform bill with universal coverage, you can expect to pay less than
you are currently paying for health insurance premiums each year.
Let us look at another chart, the other picture, if you please.
What you can readily see is that the same people who would see a
dramatic increase in their premiums under the incremental reform plan
would experience a large decrease in their annual premiums under
universal coverage.
If you make between $30,000 and $39,000 a year, your savings could be
as much as $165 each year. Again, that's $165 hard-earned dollars that
you could save with universal coverage.
Under universal coverage, everybody in America making less than
$100,000 a year will experience dramatic savings.
And those making over $100,000 a year would experience only a $210
increase in their annual premiums.
Health care reform, without universal coverage, will mean
significantly higher--not lower--health care costs for middle-class
Americans who presently have health insurance.
By implementing universal coverage, the increase in average premiums
is averted because, not only would the sick and medically needy be
included in the insurance pool, but also the young and healthy people
who don't require as much medical service.
By including everyone, the people who don't regularly use the
insurance services drive down the premiums for everyone.
Just think of this concept in simple terms. If the only people in the
pool are the elderly and medically needy who require excessive amounts
of medical attention, the premiums will be high because these ``high
use'' patients will be supporting the costs of others just like
themselves.
However, if universal coverage is implemented, many more young,
healthy people will be in the insurance pool. When this diversity is
reached in the pool, the picture is quite different.
The low use people who rarely use medical services will cause the
costs to drop dramatically because the total dollar amount of medical
care required by all of those in the pool is much lower. When this
happens, the premiums dramatically go down for all of those in the
pool. That's the beauty of universal coverage.
Besides, without universal coverage, young, healthy people will opt
out of the insurance market when premiums are raised, thus causing
higher premiums for the medically needy who remain.
Also, without universal coverage, many employers who presently
provide health insurance for their workers are likely to reduce
coverage or stop coverage altogether.
With 9 out of 10 insured Americans currently receiving health care
through their employers, we cannot afford to risk reducing their share
of health care coverage. When dealing with the employer share of the
costs, it is important to notice the significant savings, once again,
by passing health reform legislation with universal coverage.
Madam Speaker, we continually hear people from all walks of life ask:
``Where is the promised middle-class tax cut?'' I maintain it is right
here in health care reform with universal coverage, and those of us who
fail to recognize or acknowledge it are either shortsighted or a bit
disingenuous.
The middle class of America is deserving of universal coverage and
the men and women of this Congress, in my opinion, are duty-bound to
grant it.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me and my colleagues the time
to participate tonight in these special orders. As we contribute to
this ongoing conversation for the Chamber where decisions affecting
each and every one of us will be made in the coming days.
The mother who wrote me a letter from my district which I quoted from
earlier, reminded me the America people hear lots of talk about health
reform from both sides of the aisle--but she and her families and many
others are ready to see some concern shown and pass universal health
coverage.
Madam Speaker, with that I remind you and my colleagues once again,
universal health care coverage which can never be lost should be
guaranteed to every American, because there is no such thing as a
lifetime guarantee of good health.
{time} 2050
Madam Speaker, I have with me tonight some others of my colleagues
who would like to participate in this special order.
First I want to call upon the president of the freshman class for the
first session, the Honorable Eva Clayton of North Carolina. Mrs.
Clayton is going to share with us some of her feelings on the crime
bill and what we ought to be doing. She is going to be followed by
Eddie Bernice Johnson, the congresswoman from Texas, who, as many know,
is a professional nurse. She is going to share with us some of her
feelings about health care, and then we will move to Congressman
Hinchey. who will talk about whatever he wants to, but I think it will
be health care.
I now yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
{time} 2100
Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] has organized this special order,
and, Madam Speaker, facts and figures have been tossed around during
our debate on the crime package ad nauseam, but facts and figures are
not the issues at hand here--the issues are the amount of crime and the
number of young Americans at risk and how to fight crime.
In regard to crime, there are those in this Chamber that would like
to have you believe that locking people up and throwing away the key is
the toughest and most effective means of curbing crime, while
prevention programs are just a waste of taxpayer dollars.
It is a myth that this crime bill has allocated most of its funds to
social programs--more than $7 out of every $10 dollars in the bill is
for law enforcement, prisons and detention facilities--not social
programs.
Those same members would also have you believe that the Midnight
Basketball Program especially is the most egregious waste of Federal
money. That is simply not the case. For example, a midnight basketball
league was awarded a Point of Light by then President George Bush in
1990.
A professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, was
kind enough to provide me with a copy of just-completed study on a
Milwaukee midnight basketball league. The facts are: 74 percent of the
participants feel that there are not enough recreational opportunities
for children, teens, and young adults; 65 percent of the participants
in the program believe that the league is helping to reduce crime in
the community; and 78 percent of the participants feel that midnight
basketball is a much-needed recreational outlet for young black men.
It has been documented that black youths under the age of 18 are the
group most frequently involved in violent activity. Why should we not
reach out to those youngsters at risk?
Many of the proposed prevention programs contained in the crime bill
are already implemented and working on the State level.
According to the North Carolina Governor's Commission on Crime: The
three different boot camps are working; the youth employment and skills
program incorporated into the Cities in Schools Program is working, and
anti-crime youth councils are working.
These programs are making a significant difference. So why shouldn't
Federal funds be allocated to programs that work? Being tough on crime
and prevention programs are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to
be strong, smart and tough on crime and support prevention.
It makes much more sense to nip crime in the bud through prevention
programs, to get those young adults before they become criminals and
are locked into the criminal justice system.
If we head the young adults at risk off at the pass through
prevention programs, it just might be possible to help them to be
productive, contributing members of society instead of people supported
by society.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for that very insightful analysis of the
prevention side of our crime bill.
{time} 2110
I think that you are right to raise an old adage that so many of us
were raised on. I find it very strange sometimes that we tend to go off
and get all of these degrees and all this learning, and really what is
basic is what our grandparents taught us: An ounce of prevention is, in
fact, worth a pound of cure. And if we can just apply that to those
simple, everyday things that we do here in this hall, I do believe that
we would come with much better legislation. And that is something that
I hope we will apply to this crime bill. Thank you so much for your
insight.
Let me at this time yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, the
Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, who will talk to us a little bit about
the second aspect, health care.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Leader of the
hour, and Madam Speaker.
To my colleagues, let me just comment very briefly on crime before I
move to health care. I represent District 30 in Dallas, TX. Our
statistics indicate that crime is going down, but you cannot tell that
by the newspapers. Every day most of the headlines have to do with
crime, and they really are crimes committed by young people.
School has only been open less than 2 weeks now, and already teachers
have had guns in their faces. They found a gun arsenal under the side
of the building. It is overwhelming, but we must do something about it.
The presence of all these weapons and drugs and gangs will continue
to terrorize our communities and our schools, unless we take a hand to
do something about it. And if we do not put a hand in to alter this
activity by young people, they will commit crimes with these weapons.
That is a proven fact.
We are no longer safe in our homes. We do not even use parks anymore
for what they were intended because no one feels safe walking through
parks.
We simply must do something about crime, and it must be balanced.
We have to prevent, as well as punish and then treat, because we have
learned that 70 percent of the crimes committed are committed under the
influence of drugs. All of us know that the influence of drugs simply
does not just disappear. It must be a treatment modality, and there
must be after-care, and then there must be activities that will prevent
the need to fall back into a gang and that environment that starts this
cycle again and causes what we call recidivism.
We simply must do something about what is going on. We have that
responsibility. We are responsible to the citizens of this country, and
we must do something about it.
We must fund the additional police. You know, I used to fear
policemen, before I got to know who they really were. Now I would not
live in a neighborhood, on a block, that I did not feel had some
attention from the police. They are really our friends. But we have put
them out there with not much protection as well. We must have more, and
they must be trained properly, and we must supply that need.
Our communities, our inner-cities, and our rural areas, are overcome
with this influx of activity that they have not been accustomed to
dealing with. The money that will help put the additional cops on the
street, an almost 20-percent increase in the Nation's 504,000 local
police officers, will go a long way in addressing this area.
I cannot understand why there is so much opposition and so much
rhetoric and so much demagoguery surrounding the bill that will address
these issues. It is unfortunate that the NRA has so many people
hostage. It is almost like holding them hostage with a gun.
You know, I have noticed television recently with Charlton Heston, a
very well-known popular actor, but, unfortunately, he does not have a
clue about crime and how to fight it. His commercial, sponsored by NRA
and the Republican party, is not only unbelievable, it is filled with
untruths about funding police officers. It is unfortunate that we
cannot tell the real truth to the public. But they are not fooling
them. It is clear to me they understand very well about what is going
on in their own communities.
So when we say all of this and we avoid the truth, we are simply
fooling ourselves. The ban on assault weapons has been endorsed by
every major law enforcement group in the country, and police across
America report that semiautomatic weapons are the weapons of choice for
drug traffickers and street gangs. There is really no real legal use
for all of these handgun assault weapons. We must stop the flow. And
the only way we can do that is take on our rightful responsibility.
People across America, police officers, ministers, students, are
pleading for us to give them some attention.
You know, in my district was a 5-year-old boy sitting on his
grandmother's porch one Sunday afternoon eating ice cream, and a stray
bullet took his life away. And I received a letter from his aunt
recently that pleaded for something to be done. She said I will never
forget seeing my nephew. And more than that, I see my son every day,
who is afraid every time he moves around. He will not go on the porch.
He is afraid to go to school, because all he can think about is his
cousin sitting innocently eating an ice cream cone and glancing up to
take his last glance at his parents, and then being hit by a bullet and
his life snuffed away.
I appreciate my colleague taking this time to address the issue of
crime, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to let us have a
swift passage of the crime bill. I do not agree with everything that is
in the crime bill. Clearly no legislation that we pass do I agree with
every bit of it. But that is the process we are in, and it is called a
democracy.
Madam Speaker, I would like to include a statement by the African-
American religious leader who supports the crime bill.
Statement of African-American Religious Leaders
Washington--The White House today released the following
statement by African-American religious leaders supporting
the crime bill.
``In the words of an African proverb `It takes an entire
village to raise a child.' We believe there is no more
important responsibility of society than to raise its
children to become upstanding adults. Parents and families
must shoulder the burden of this duty, but all of society--
including government--must pitch in. that is why we support
the President's crime bill.
While we do not agree with every provision in the crime
bill, we do believe and emphatically support the bill's goal
to save our communities, and most importantly, our children.
We believe and support the $8 billion in the bill to fund
prevention programs such as grants for recreation,
employment, anit-gang and comprehensive programs to steer our
young people away from crime.
We believe in drug treatment to help get federal and state
inmates out of the cycle of dependency.
We believe in programs to fight violence against women.
We believe in banning assault weapons, and preventing these
deadly devices from falling into the hands of criminals and
drug dealers.
We believe in putting 100,000 well-trained police officers
on the streets of our most violence-plagued communities and
urban areas.
We believe in that 9-year-olds like James Darby of New
Orleans, who was killed by a stray bullet only days after
writing a plea to President Clinton to stop the violence,
must have the opportunity to live and learn and grow in safe,
decent communities.
For all these reasons, we support the crime bill and we
urge others to join us in this crusade.''
Charles Adams, National Progressive Baptist Convention,
President, Detroit, Michigan.
Bishop H.H. Brookins, AME Denomination, Los Angeles,
California.
Rev. Dr. Amos Brown, Third Baptist Church, San Francisco,
CA.
Bishop E. Lynn Brown, Christian Methodist Episcopal, Los
Angeles, California.
Rev. John A. Cherry, Full Gospel AME Zion Church, Temple
Hills, MD.
Rev. Howard Chubbs, Providence Baptist Church, Greensboro,
N.C.
Father George Clements, The Alliance for Rights and
Responsibilities, Washington, D.C.
Bishop J. Clinton Hoggard, AME ZION Church, Washington, DC.
Rev. John Doggett, Superintendent, United Methodist Church,
St. Louis, MO.
Rev. Jerry Drayton, New Bethel Baptist Church, Winston-
Salem, N.C.
Rev. Walter Fauntroy, New Bethel Baptist Church,
Washington, D.C.
Bishop Louis Ford, Church of God in Christ, Chicago,
Illinois.
Bishop William Graves, Christian Methodist Episcopal
Church, Memphis, Tennessee.
Rev. Joe Hardwick, Praises of ZION Baptist Church, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Calvin A. Harper, Morning Star Baptist Church,
Cincinnati, OH.
Bishop Fred James, AME Denomination, Washington, DC.
Dr. T.J. Jemison, President, National Baptist Convention
USA, Baton Rouge, LA.
Rev. E. Edward Jones, Galilee Baptist Church, Shreveport,
LA.
Rev. Odell Jones, Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, Detroit,
Michigan.
Rev. William A. Jones Jr., Bethany Baptist Church,
Brooklyn, NY.
Rev. W.B. Lewis, President, North Carolina General State
Baptist Convention, Raleigh, NC.
Bishop S.C. Madison, United House of Prayer, Washington,
DC.
Bishop Haskell Mayo, African Methodist Episcopal, Fourth
Episcopal District, Chicago, Illinois.
Rev. Randall McCaskill, Concerned Black Clergy of
Philadelphia, President, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dr. John Miles, Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church,
Kansas City, Missouri.
Rev. James E. Milton, Southern Baptist Church, Cincinnati,
OH.
Rev. Dr. Frank Pinkard, Evergreen Baptist Church, Oakland,
CA.
Bishop Norman Quick, Church of God in Christ, New York, New
York.
Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, General Secretary, National
Baptist Convention USA, Mt. Vernon, NY.
Joseph L. Roberts Jr., Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta,
GA.
Bishop J.H. Sherman, Church of God in Christ, Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Rev. Dr. E.E. Stafford, Mt. Tabor Baptist Church, Los
Angeles, CA.
Rev. Charles Stith, Union United Methodist Church, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Bishop Frederick Talbot, African Methodist Episcopal,
Arkansas/Oklahoma.
Dr. M.T. Thompson, Berkeley Mount ZION Baptist, Berkeley,
CA.
Wyatt T. Walker, Canaan Baptist Church, New York, NY.
Bishop George W. Walker Sr., AME Zion Denomination, New
York, NY.
Bishop L.T. Walker, Church of God in Christ, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Dr. Kenneth Whalum, Olivet Baptist Church, Memphis,
Tennessee.
Rev. Frederick Williams, Episcopal Church of the
Intercession, New York, NY.
Bishop Milton Williams, AME Zion Church, Washington, DC.
You win some, and you lose some. But you try to do the best you can
for the people of this Nation.
Now, Mr. Leader, I want to talk a bit about health care, and just a
bit, because that is my profession. I could talk all night on health
care. I want to talk a little bit about what was talked about earlier,
and that is the overburden on businesses.
Mr. Leader, I believe that the Gephardt bill is giving an opportunity
to businesses to take on their rightful responsibility. You know, I am
a small business owner, and I could not afford a policy. After I paid
worker's compensation in Texas, I could not afford a policy to cover my
employees. I do not have more than 11. But with the insurance approach
that is being offered by the Gephardt bill, an opportunity for small
businesses to be able to afford to offer insurance coverage for their
employees is the best opportunity that my small business has had.
You see, we understand clearly that when people have access to
insurance, they will go for the preventive measures, they are in better
health conditions, they are better workers, and they are more stable.
Because when they come on to a job that does not offer insurance, they
are constantly looking for another job. And they will not take
preventive care, because they cannot afford it. All of us know that
prevention is much less costly than sick care.
I am standing here because of prevention. You know, that is why I
believe so much in research. I had a pap smear over 30 years ago that
was positive, and I had surgery. It was a routine physical examination.
But if I had not had that surgery, if I had not had access to going for
a routine physical without it costing me more than I was making, I
would not have had the opportunity to keep myself in good health by
having early detection, early surgery, and then back to work.
If I had not had that surgery, I would have probably had to go
through a long modality of some kind of chemotherapy, going through
lots of misery, putting a lot of strain emotionally on my family, and
then not being able to perhaps go back to work, and then maybe losing
my life at a time when my young son was less than 3 years old. Then he
would have had to grow up without a mother.
There is real value in having access to health care, health care
coverage, for preventive measures.
{time} 2120
Even young children that do not have immunizations against measles
will cost. For every dollar that an immunization costs, we save $14,
because if they do not have them, they are subject to be blind and all
kinds of complications and side effects that might come from having
measles.
It is so simple to me because I have lived the life of watching
people be sick and be well, depending on what is offered to them.
Clearly, we must move rapidly to address the issue of health care
coverage for all Americans, and we certainly ought to see that the
people who are working have an opportunity to have access to affordable
health care coverage.
We are attempting to do that, and we hope that the big insurance
companies and the big businesses that hire lots of people that do not
pay them very much will not spend so many millions of dollars trying to
sway the public away from health care reform. We simply must have it.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much for her
very comprehensive talk on both crime and health care. I thought that
crime would be 1 minute, but I wish she had taken the whole time for
that since that is the most immediate thing upon us.
Let us move now to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Hinchey], for his remarks.
I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to
spend this time with you and appreciate your yielding this time so that
I can engage in this discussion with you about the two issues
confronting the American people and the two issues which we are
discussing this evening, which are, of course, our efforts to deal with
the problems of crime as well as our efforts to ensure that every
American has adequate health care coverage.
I would like to touch just very briefly on both of those subjects,
following your example, but doing it in a much more abbreviated form. I
think this crime bill, although as has been mentioned by previous
speakers, it contains some elements which are questionable and,
frankly, with which I do not agree, nevertheless, on balance, this
crime bill makes an extraordinary contribution to our efforts to deal
with the problem of crime in this country.
It does so, of course, in a variety of ways. It does it by increasing
the number of police officers who will be available in our communities,
whether those communities are urban communities or rural communities,
such as the ones that you and I represent for the most part, although I
do have some urban areas in my district as well.
The additional police officers which will be available through this
bill will be available in both rural and urban communities. That, of
course, is a major factor.
But quite frankly, the portion of the bill which intrigues me the
most and which I think, frankly, is the most valuable is that which
focuses on prevention, because as has been said here a number of times
already this evening, prevention is much more appropriate, much more
efficacious, it works much better than dealing with the problem after
it occurs.
I learned that old axiom at my mother's knee, just as did you, an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is true with regard
to health care as it is true with regard to many of the kinds of social
problems we face in this country, including and specifically, perhaps
particularly, the problem of crime.
In the connection of this bill with its efforts at prevention, we
have heard a lot of criticism about that particular aspect of the bill.
As you mentioned in your address a little bit earlier, that aspect of
the bill has been labeled pork. One wonders why. Because it is not that
at all. It is simply an effort to direct resources at a serious problem
in a way that is appropriate so that it can be dealt with effectively.
One of the aspects of this attempt at prevention which has gotten the
most criticism is so-called midnight basketball. I would just like to
read a statement that was made a couple years ago, in 1991, by
President Bush. He said then, in 1991, President Bush said this:
The founders of the midnight basketball program in
Hyattsville, Maryland contribute to the struggle against
crime and delinquency. This country is finally catching on to
the fact that whenever drugs are involved, everybody loses.
But here everybody wins. And some may get better at
basketball, but everyone gets a better shot at life, every
participant.
That particular point of view, I think, represents a much more
enlightened attitude about the way that we need to deal with the crime
problem that has been expressed by many of the Members of this House
who are in the minority party in this Chamber.
I think that it is unfortunate that they did not learn more from
President Bush while he was in office about this particular problem,
because I think what he said there is really on target.
Prevention is what is important. If we spend a little bit of our
energies and resources on preventing crime, then we are going to have
to spend a lot less in the future on dealing with the problems of crime
after they occur. I think that ought to be obvious to everyone.
I would like to turn for a couple minutes to the problem of health
care. I would like to begin by saying that I was fascinated by the
discussion that took place here earlier this evening, which was led by
the deputy whip of the minority party, the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
when they attempted to deflate the Gephardt health care bill, a bill
which will provide universal health care coverage to all Americans.
Frankly, I could not help thinking that those Members who were trying
to oppose universal health care coverage for all Americans here in this
House this evening, as they have been for weeks and months and,
frankly, over the course of the last year, that those folks who
currently inhabit this House and who are opposed to universal health
care are in a real way the philosophical and political descendants of a
previous group of people who tried to defeat the passage of Social
Security in 1935, who tried to defeat the passage of benefits for
returning veterans after the Second World War, who tried to defeat the
passage of Medicare in 1965. And some of the arguments that we have
heard in this House against universal health care coverage resound in a
very familiar way back and harken back to the kinds of arguments that
were made against Social Security and against the GI bill and against
Medicare coverage, health care coverage for older people in this
country.
It is the same attitude. It is the same philosophy. And it is the
same arguments that were used against those very important programs.
But you can be sure that not one of them would have the audacity to
stand up today and oppose Social Security or the GI bill or Medicare.
No, they focus their attention now on what we are trying to achieve for
people in this decade, the decade of the 1990's, the last decade of the
20th century, to try to ensure that every American, regardless of their
stature, regardless of their station in life, regardless of their past
experiences, regardless of what will happen to them in the future, will
have good, solid quality health care.
I would like to read to you, if I may, an excerpt from a letter than
I received recently from a constituent of mine.
He said, ``Dear Congressman Hinchey, I am one of many Americans,
after 32 years of employment with one company, terminated due to
`corporate downsizing.' As of today,'' he says, ``I must convert to an
individual health conversion policy. Under COBRA,'' which was available
to him, of course, after he was laid off as a result of the corporate
downsizing of his company, ``I was paying a premium of $848 per
quarter. My premium now,'' now that COBRA has expired for him, ``will
be $1661 per quarter. This is a 96-percent increase. I have been
insured by the same company for almost 34 years and have had no major
health problems. I am now facing one of the hardest decisions of my
life, to pay the mortgage payment or the health insurance premium. This
would not be a decision that citizens of most other countries would
have to make. What has happened to the American dream?''
{time} 2130
We talk about the 40 or so million people currently without health
care in this country, but we ought to also recognize that every single
day in this country someone else, large numbers of people, lose their
health care coverage. They fall into the kind of condition that this
gentleman finds himself in currently.
After paying into an insurance company for 34 years, without ever
having any problems of health care, after having worked for a company
for 32 years, giving his energy, his sweat, his intellectual and
physical resources to that company, he has now been laid off, now been
put out in the street, and he has to worry about whether he is going to
spend what little resources he has left to keep a roof over his head
for himself and his family, or use that money to pay the premiums on
his health insurance so that if he gets sick or someone else in his
family becomes ill, that they at least will have health coverage.
As he observes, that decision would not confront any other person in
any other advanced, civilized country on this planet, and it ought not
to afflict citizens of this country, either. We need to pass universal
health care. We need to do it this term.
We need to have the courage and foresight that our predecessors in
this House had when they passed Social Security, when they passed the
G.I. bill, and when they passed Medicare. Those ought to be the banners
which we follow. They ought to lead us on to overcome the unenlightened
opposition which is offered by the minority party in this House, not
all of them, but unfortunately, many of them, and which was exemplified
by the discussion we heard earlier this evening.
I thank the gentleman very much for giving me this opportunity, and I
think it is important that we get on with this work.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you so much, Mr. Hinchey, for your contributions
to this special order tonight. I think that on both counts they were
very enlightened.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say, I do not think we have to go back
to Social Security and to Medicare and the G.I. bill in order to see
the short-sightedness that we are getting from the other side. In fact,
you need to only go back 1 year.
In fact, the same people who we heard here tonight talk about the
dangers of the job losses that we will get if we do something about
health care, those are the same people I think I heard in August of
last year, who told us that if we pass the President's budget, that the
economy would end up in the ditch; that in another year, we will all be
back here doing something to get the economy going again, trying to
bail the Nation out.
The fact of the matter is that anybody who can read and anybody who
can see and feel, and especially those people who are going to work
every day, we see that what has happened is the creation of now over 4
million new jobs. We see home building increasing, and we see that it
is working.
In fact, I think I read, I think it was Al Hunt's column in the Wall
Street Journal, and nobody can call the Wall Street Journal any kind of
a fan of this administration or the party we represent, but the fact of
the matter is, that they say it is working. So those people who last
year said that we are going to have all these dire consequences, what
we are finding this year is that they are passing it off, saying that
this is a lucky President, and we are a lucky party.
I always learned that the harder you worked, the luckier you get. The
fact of the matter is, this President works hard; he is visionary. This
party is working hard to show leadership, and I think that you are
right to talk about the history, but you do not have to go back that
far.
Mr. HINCHEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAYBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. I just wanted to say how right you are. I remember that
column on the op ed page of the Wall Street Journal a week or 2 ago by
Al Hunt, and he made the point that you have just made so well: that
those persons who are giving the same kind of argument about job losses
with regard to the passage of health care, were trying to argue with us
over a year ago when we passed the President's economic program, back
last year, that we would see those same kinds of job losses, and we
would see utter destruction of the economy coming about as a result of
the passage of that economic program which was designed to reduce the
annual budget deficit, and has succeeded enormously, and beyond even
our expectations.
The budget deficit is down now substantially below even where we
expected it to be as a result of the passage of that program; no job
losses. As a matter of fact, there have been more jobs created across
the country in the last 18 months than were created in the previous 4
years.
So the same kind of scare tactics that they are trying to use now
against health care were used against us and against the American
people a year ago when we, fortunately, had the ability as a party,
without one vote from the other side, to pass an economic development
program which has succeeded in reducing the annual budget deficit
substantially, and placing this country and its economy back on a
steady, level footing once again.
Mr. CLAYBURN. Thank you so much for joining me tonight.
____________________