[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.

                          ____________________