[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4889-H4900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind all Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to an audience 
that may be viewing the proceedings on television or in the gallery.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, tell everybody, tell your friends, tell 
everybody from sea to shining sea, Mr. Speaker, to get yesterday's 
Record. Also, there are two other Dornan inserts in there. One is an 
interview with Dr. Geoffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist, an M.D., Jewish 
heritage, convert to Catholic Christianity, at one time head of the 
Carl Jung Foundation. He talks about the horror, terror of young people 
having homosexuality glorified to them.
  Then there is another article in here about the debauchery at one of 
our Federal buildings down the street; a pretty good Record to have, 
Mr. Speaker, from the 9th.
  Now I come to this incredible American, this Medal of Honor legend, 
John Bulkeley. If you are looking for those patriotic films that Ronald 
Reagan spoke about, look for this one with Robert Montgomery and John 
Wayne. John Wayne was not yet the top billing in the early 1940's; 
``They Were Expendable,'' from this book. I had this book and lost it 
when my family moved in 1943 to New York. It is a 1942 book. I am 
handling it gently because it is from the treasured collection of 
George Cox, Jr. ``They were expendable.'' It is an easy-to-read book, 
double-spaced. I read it all the way through last night and went to bed 
about 4 a.m. It just brought back all my childhood memories.
  At age 9, right after Bataan, Corregidor, fighting in the North 
African desert, I read this late in that year, and I will get it back 
to our Hill legislative assistant, Mr. Cox, in good shape for his dad. 
He told me his dad never spoke of his heroic exploits in the Pacific.
  When Admiral Bulkeley was alive and among us, after he had been down 
in the George Washington crypt area in the bottom floor, Donn Anderson, 
the wonderful Clerk of the House when the Democrats were in the 
majority, set up with a lot of hard work and some small support from 
me, the Medal of Honor tribute, with the original Medal of Honor given 
to young Jacob Parrott for an amazing behind-the-lines special 
operations, Seal-type advanced air insert team-type mission today, a 
real Delta Force Army Ranger mission behind the lines of the 
confederacy, stealing a train; half of them, all of them were captured, 
half executed. The leading officer was executed. Five were transferred. 
In the White House, Lincoln gave them the Medal of Honor and the Jacob 
Parrott medal held in his family for over a century and a third. He, 
the family, gives it to us, and it is down there. You can see it right 
now. I hope, Mr. Speaker, people visiting Capitol Hill will go look at 
it.
  So Admiral Bulkeley was down there as the recipient. He is just an 
incredible person. I told him I wanted to bring him over here to lunch 
to meet the new freshmen. Why do we always keep those promises to 
ourselves? He is gone now, but not his memory. So the freshmen never 
had lunch with him. I was having a big PT boat made, a model boat, 
George Cox's boat, PT-41. It got delayed. I just wanted to have Admiral 
Bulkeley sign the deck, so I will have George, Junior, sign the deck.
  But I have read this chapter from ``Devil Boats.'' George brought 
this by my office. I do have two of these, one in California, one here, 
``Devil Boats,'' the PT war against the Japanese. Just a short mention 
of all the great PT work Bulkeley did off the Normandy coast. Here is 
what I read 2 years ago with Admiral Bulkeley watching on C-Span, Mr. 
Speaker.
  ``The Wild Man of the Philippines'' is chapter 3 of ``Devil Boats.'' 
When Lt. John Bulkeley reported to his Corregidor headquarters, still 
designated grandly as 16th Naval District, on January 18, 1942, he 
was handed a tersely written order by Capt. Herbert Ray, Adm. 
Rockwell's chief of staff: Army reports four enemy ships in or lying 
off Port Benonga. Force may include one destroyer, one large transport, 
filled with soldiers. Send two boats, attack between dusk and dawn. 
Returning to their base, the PT boat base at Sisiman Cove, Bulkeley 
began preparing for the night's mission.

  By now his daring, his courage, his seemingly unlimited supply of 
nervous energy, and his swashbuckling exploits had gained him a widely 
known nickname: ``Wild Man of the Philippines.'' A striking physical 
appearance strengthened that label. He looked like--and before I read 
this, his big picture at his funeral of his Annapolis graduation 
picture the year I was born, 1933, was handsomer than any of these 
little teenage heartthrobs today, Rob Lowe, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt. None 
of them were as handsome as he when he was not commissioned in 
Annapolis, but told to wait a year, Congress has given us no money, we 
will pick you up later. He went to pilot training and they ran out of 
money. He had a few wired-together biplanes. He ended up this hero in 
the Philippines.
  Here is his description, this handsome young man, a few years later, 
just turned 30 years of age. ``A striking physical appearance 
strengthened the label Wild Man of the Philippines. He looked like a 
cross between a bloodthirsty buccaneer and a shipwrecked survivor just 
rescued from months spent marooned on a desolate island. His shirt and 
trousers were soiled, wrinkled, and torn. He wore a long, black, unruly 
beard and his green eyes were bloodshot and red-rimmed from endless 
nights without sleep while out patrolling the coasts in the PT boats. 
On each hip he carried a menacing pistol, and he clutched a tommygun in 
a manner that caused others to believe he was itching to locate a 
Japanese to use it on.''

[[Page H4890]]

  Bulkeley indeed was a wild man, a wild man on his way to a Medal of 
Honor. ``For that night's raid he selected PT 31, skippered by Ed 
Billong, and PT 34's temporary captain was Ensign Baron Chandler. These 
men knew they were expendable. He was pinchhitting for Bob Kelly.'' 
That is the one whom John Wayne played in the movie.
  It goes on with the most desperate fight of the coast, with him 
jumping on a Japanese barge, picking up all these oil- and blood- and 
water-soaked documents, bringing them back, because he had done 
intelligence work in his twenties for the Navy. He brings them back to 
MacArthur's command headquarters, and it is Japanese invasion plans to 
ironically run a MacArthur Korean-type Inchon amphibious landing around 
behind our forces, the way MacArthur got behind the Korean Communist 
forces, and land behind our men at Bataan, and the whole thing would 
have collapsed in January or February, instead of tragically on April 
9, 1942, with the Bataan Death March.

                              {time}  1515

  Fast forward, and why funerals sometimes are uplifting experiences, 
besides all the beautiful patriotism and seeing his lovely two sons and 
three daughters and his grandkids, one of whom gave a beautiful eulogy, 
exactly like Noah to her grandpa, Yitzhak Rabin.
  At the funeral afterward at the hotel near Arlington Cemetery, I bump 
into his helmsman when he commanded a destroyer, the Endicott. I met 
his helmsman. That would be August 1944, off the southern coast of 
France. That is 52 years later, so Joe Cain was 52 plus whatever he was 
as a young sailor.
  He told me that Admiral Bulkeley, then a commander, kept those same 
guns on a cowboy belt, two pearl-handled Peacemakers, Colt Peacemakers. 
He kept them on his commander's chair on the bridge of the destroyer. 
When he was out, Joe Cain, turning into a 23-year-old right before my 
eyes, said:
  ``Congressman, we would take those guns off his chair and put them on 
and we would try fast drawing and somebody would say, `The skipper's 
coming' and we would quickly get them back. He would walk in, and he 
knew everybody's name and nickname.
  ``He said to me, `Cain, you going on shore the next liberty?'
  `Yes, sir, I am, Skipper.'
  ``Not with those sideburns, you're not.''
  A stickler for good appearance, in spite of his desperate early days. 
Beloved by his men. Then I heard this story, both in his son's eulogy 
and from the very eyewitnesses from the crew of the destroyer Endicott, 
Operation Dragon off the coast.
  He said that none other than Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., one of my 
boyhood heroes from ``dawn patrol'' and ``gunga din,'' is an American 
naval officer with the British. He was always an Anglophile with an 
affected British accent but Hollywood-born.
  Doug Fairbanks, Jr., is on a British barge that is shelling the cost. 
Gunships, they call them. Gun barges.
  He called, ```German E-boats are here after us. Help us.'' He 
actually said, ``For God's sake help us.''
  Here comes Bulkeley to the rescue and the Endicott. All Bulkeley's 
big guns, the 5-inchers, were burned up from shelling the French coast 
all night covering Audie Murphy and the 3d Division and our men landing 
in southern France in August to relieve the men fighting their way 
through the hedgerows up north from the Normandy invasion. All their 
guns were burned up. All they had was a 20-millimeter small cannon.
  They have a gun duel with these two German E-boats, Corvettes, right 
there and sink them both. The crews jump off and they pick up both the 
German commanders. He brings one of the German skippers up on the deck 
and Bulkeley from up on the bridge says, ``Salute the colors,'' a naval 
tradition. The German officer says, ``Nein.'' They both spoke English 
so he probably said, ``Hell, no.''
  Bulkeley says, ``Throw him back in.'' They pitched him over the side 
into the water.
  The German starts pleading, ``Bitte, bitte.'' ``Okay.'' They bring 
him up.
  ``Salute the flag.'' ``Nein,'' the German said.
  ``Throw him over again. Get set to get underway.'' Back the German 
goes in the water.
  I said, ``Joe, I have never even seen anything better than this in a 
movie. It didn't happen a third time, did it?''
  He said, ``It could have.''
  They finally dragged him up, on the deck again. He was properly 
chastised and humbled. He saluted. Not a Hitler salute. Their navy were 
not all Hitlerites. A salute to our salute, the U.S. Old Glory flying 
over the Endicott.

  Then he took the two German commanders into a room, and he got two of 
his young kids from the Bronx, both Jewish in heritage, and Cain 
remembered their names. ``Gottlieb,'' he said, and either ``Rosenberg'' 
or ``Rosenstein,'' and he gave his two young Jewish sailors submachine 
guns, Thompsons.
  Bulkeley says, ``You understand English, right?'' These two guys are 
from the Bronx, or Brooklyn, and they are kind of proud of their Jewish 
heritage. ``Don't move or you'll be sorry.'' And he left these two 
young Jewish American sailors with their Thompsons on him.
  Now to the eulogies.
  I hope I can get through all this. If I cannot, Mr. Speaker, I want 
young people and not so young people to get this special order so they 
get the full eulogy of son/active-duty Capt. Peter Bulkeley, and a CNO 
who from the ranks as a 16 or 17-year-old seaman, Admiral Boorda. Adm. 
John M. Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, senior ranking naval officer 
on active duty.
  His remarks made on April 19, Patriot's Day, he was the highest-
ranking person there. They brought me forward, I kind of slipped in the 
back; somebody recognized me, and asked me to come forward.
  No, I will stay back here. No, come forward.
  Here is a row for Cabinet officers. Empty. High-ranking 
administration people, active-duty military over here. Here is a row 
for Congressmen or Senators, empty, empty, empty. No Medal of Honor 
winner from the Senate. No Navy Cross winners from the Senate. No 
former Secretary of the Navy; from the Senate, no Senators.
  Some people in the House felt bad there were not enough people at Ron 
Brown's funeral. I wanted to go to Ron Brown's funeral. I was caught in 
California. Ron Brown hosted me at Patton's grave as the only 
Congressman or Senator who showed up December 16 in Europe for the 50th 
anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. I do not know what is wrong 
with this Chamber and the other body that we did not have tributes all 
during World War II to a not particularly memorable day in October. We 
had great World War II heroes, Sonny Montgomery, 101st Airborne 
paratrooper Sam Gibbons and Henry Hyde on our side. Just a few World 
War II guys said wonderful things one day but nothing from Pearl 
Harbor, to that day in October, after the 50th anniversary of the end 
of the war. I just do not understand why people are not listening to 
what Reagan said.
  So Admiral Boorda begins his remarks, ``You may cast off when ready, 
Johnny.'' Those were MacArthur's words to Squadron Commander Bulkeley. 
I am sure Bulkeley, as I discussed with George Jr., turned to Ensign 
Cox and said, ``Georgie, let's move it out of here. Anchors aweigh.''
  Admiral Boorda began.
  ``Will Rogers said that we can't all be heroes.''
  By the way, he beautifully delivered this, Mr. Speaker. ``Some of us 
have to stand on the curb and clap as they go by.'' Or salute.
  ``When he made that statement, Will Rogers could only have had one 
type of person in mind, John Bulkeley.''
  ``We gather here today.'' This is the new chapel at Fort Myer, in 
this place, on the bluff above Arlington.
  ``In this place meant for heroes and applaud a true American hero as 
he passes by. And we come together here as the rest of America stands 
up and cheers for a man who symbolizes the very best about our Nation. 
While we are saddened to no longer have the great John Bulkeley with 
us, it is not a day of sorrow. He would not have liked or allowed that. 
Today is a day meant to remember, to give thanks.''

  He goes on with page after page telling about his early years in the 
Navy, the film, They Were Expendable, America's leading man, John 
Wayne; America's sweetheart, Donna Reed. Do not

[[Page H4891]]

forget Eisenhower's communications coach, Robert Montgomery. But most 
of all it was a great story about unbelievable courage and sacrifice.
  He talked about how Admiral Bulkeley was famous in the end of that 
great 55-year legendary career for memos. He would send a one-paragraph 
memo, sign it and put a P.S. that would go on for pages and pages and 
he always ended, and I would like to end this speech in advance this 
way, ``Just thought you'd like to know,'' Mr. Speaker. Great speech, 
Admiral Boorda.
  ``Admiral Bulkeley lived his life for our Navy and our country. He 
did so with guts and heart and most importantly with honor. His service 
stands as a tribute to every sailor, every American, every person on 
this earth who cherishes freedom. His life touched more than just us. 
It touched the world. And so today America says, `Thank you, shipmate, 
for giving us the very best.' And while we know that you were always 
too special, too extraordinary to ever need our thanks, we just thought 
you'd like to know.''
  He paid great tribute to Alice Bulkeley whom I met. Beautiful young 
English girl whom he met in China during some very dark days after the 
Panay. He was then assigned to the Sacramento, the last coal-burning 
ship in the U.S. Navy. He married her and no sooner were they married 
than he had to leave her alone on their honeymoon with a Colt .45 under 
her pillow to go off on secret assignments for the Navy in China 
itself.
  He comes to the end, Admiral Boorda, our CNO. He says, ``Alice, I 
know that John loved you with every fiber of his being. And that while 
he's no longer here, he's still with you and your family in every way. 
I can feel it in this chapel. I can see it in the faces of your 
beautiful family. The wonderful children that John helped you raise: 
John Jr.; Joan; Peter, our Navy captain; Regina.''
  I have a daughter by that name, Kathleen Regina. Regina told me her 
nickname is Gina.
  ``And Diana,'' the youngest, ``and your lovely grandchildren are each 
a testimony to the tremendous husband and father that he was and always 
will be in your hearts. John's life was a full and fulfilled life. He 
did what he wanted to do and in the way he wanted to do it. He had a 
special wife, a great family, and the undying love of a grateful 
Nation. And he knew he couldn't ask for more than that. In remembering, 
in giving thanks for Admiral John Duncan Bulkeley, we should be happy 
and heartened, for he was a man who truly gave it all and who truly had 
it all. So when the time came, when he once again heard a familiar 
voice calmly say, `You may cast off when ready, Johnny,' he had 
prepared his ship well. He had passed the most important inspection. He 
was ready for his final voyage.''
  Then after that beautiful eulogy and the beautiful eulogies that I 
should have asked for from his grandchildren--they also read scripture, 
one grandson, one granddaughter--his handsome son Peter got up. Capt. 
Peter Bulkeley, and he said:
  ``Admiral Boorda, thank you for your very kind remarks. As our Chief 
of Naval Operations and as a personal friend of the Bulkeley family, we 
really appreciate your deep concern, your compassion, and personal 
kindness from all of us. Thank you again. For everyone, please sit back 
and relax and let me tell you a story about a very special man. Typical 
of the Admiral, he would want me to come to the point, so this is what 
he really wanted you to know. He had no regrets of his life, that he 
lived a long time, married the woman he loved, raised a family to be 
proud of, and served a Navy second to none.''
  Mr. Speaker, I pause here in Peter Bulkeley's opening eulogy to 
remind you and anyone listening to this Chamber proceeding that Ronald 
Reagan asked me to do things like this, that I may have my weird 
detractors who do not understand why I am concerned about the social 
decay of our country, why I want even defense publications like Armed 
Forces Journal International, or Roll Call, or the Hill, Marty, why I 
want you to pay attention to what Billy Graham said, poised on the edge 
of self-destruction. That is why I am doing this. I want people to hear 
these words about a real hero. Why no one showed up from this 
administration, unbelievably. The Army did send their No. 2 man, 
General Reimer's deputy.
  I went to another tribute a few weeks later. It was not written up in 
the Hill or Armed Forces Journal International. It was not written up 
there. But I went to a ceremony at Arlington last Sunday where I was 
given some small piece of thank-you for getting 5,000 warriors--men and 
plenty of women--the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for what they did 
in El Salvador. No Senators, no Congressmen except myself, nobody from 
the administration. As a matter of fact, the Senate and some strange 
blockage at the highest levels of the Pentagon did not want these 5,000 
male and female warriors to get that medal. And now I have kicked open 
the door and we are going to get some Bronze Stars and some combat 
infantry badges and combat medical badges for these people. Nobody 
showed up there. A beautiful Sunday, playing taps from the grave of 
Army Colonel Pickett. I got to meet his dad, a retired Army Colonel 
Picket.
  How did Colonel Picket die? On his knees with a Communist bullet from 
the FMLN shot into the back of his head, killed this young enlisted man 
lying wounded on the ground, the copilot Captain Dawson was already 
dead in the cockpit of their helicopter.
  When did that take place? January 1991. Nobody noticed because a week 
later the air war of Desert Storm started.
  I will close without any more interruptions, just sit back, as Peter 
Bulkeley says, and listen to this story of a man who was a legend, and 
when I told Buck McKeon of our House that I could not believe nobody 
was there, he said, ``You mean he outlived his fame.''
  He said, ``If Ron Brown had lived to be Admiral Bulkeley's age, in 
his eighties, would anybody have remembered him or his less than 4 
years as Commerce Secretary?''

                              {time}  1530

  No, I guess if you die young, on the line, you get buildings named 
after you. But if God gives you a good long life and a beautiful 
family, only a few remember and show up to say good-bye.
  Peter continues:
  When I pressed dad on `no regrets,' he sheepishly told me with a 
twinkle in his eye that that wasn't quite altogether true. And he 
finally said, I do have one regret, Pete. I should have gotten a bigger 
boat. A destroyer is not too bad, but he was the kind of guy who could 
have handled a super carrier. So if you are contemplating a bigger 
boat, you know what to do.
  I will not have in my lifetime a greater honor than today as an 
officer in our Navy and as his son, because I get to talk about my dad. 
Admiral Boorda, Admiral Larson, Superintendent at Annapolis, Admiral 
Trost, General Dubia, the number two man in the Army, General Blott, 
Assistant Secretary Perry, Assistant Secretary, Medal of Honor 
recipients, two of them from Army, Vietnam, another cause for freedom 
that Reagan and I both believed in, and so did Admiral Bulkeley, 
representatives of the Senate, none were there, and the House, one, 
members of the diplomatic corps, a couple, allied representatives from 
France, they were there, Philippines, Great Britain, members of our 
armed forces, all of them in uniform, friends from Hacketstown, New 
Jersey, and around the globe, all of those who served and knew Admiral 
John Bulkeley, and most especially my mom, my sisters, Joan, Regina and 
Diana and their husbands, my brother at the organ, beautiful, my wife, 
all eight of the Admiral's grandchildren, we have come together to 
honor a great man, a patriot, a legend, a hero in the truest sense. A 
husband, a father, a friend; a simple man that did his duty as God gave 
him the ability to do, and the man that tried to keep a low profile, 
but somehow always ended up in the limelight of life.
  Admiral John Bulkeley is a legend. He devoted his entire life to his 
country and to his Navy. Six decades of his life were spent in the 
active defense of America. Even after retirement in 1988, he remained 
engaged in the direction of our Navy and our country. He represented 
the Navy and the veterans at Normandy during the D-Day celebrations, 
laying wreaths and flowers of his and our fallen comrades. He provided

[[Page H4892]]

inspirational speeches to our youth and our leadership. He believed in 
America.
  My dad believed in a strong defense. He believed in a Navy he loved 
more than his own life. John Bulkeley's destiny may have been cast long 
before he sought the salt spray of the open ocean. His ancestors that 
preceded him, like Richard Bulkeley, brought aboard HMS Victory by Lord 
Nelson just prior to the battle of Trafalgar, and with my son Mark, I 
stood on the spot on the deck of the Victory where Admiral Nelson was 
hit.
  We went down below decks. I stood on the spot and touched the deck 
where he died. That is down at Portsmouth. But at the British Naval 
Museum in Greenwich, I then saw his uniform where the French sniper's 
bullet entered at the top of his epaulette.
  Mr. Speaker. So I am with the history of Peter Bulkeley's words at 
this point.
  Then there is John Bulkeley of HMS Wager under Captain Bliegh, who 
sailed with Anson's squadron to raid Spanish silver ships of the New 
World, and Charles Bulkeley, raising the Union Jack for the first time 
on an American warship, the Alfred, commanded by John Paul Jones. All 
this influenced his intense love of the sea.
  He was born in New York City, as I was, grew up on a farm in 
Hacketstown, NJ, and wrote his high school class poem in 1928, if you 
can believe that. A poet, and he loved opera. And they played his 
favorites in the background, Mr. Speaker, all during the reception 
after the funeral.
  He loved animals, and took great care of feeding and caring for any 
that sought his help. He was compassionate to those needs. He loved his 
black cat.
  His love of the sea however was his dream and destiny. Unable to gain 
an appointment to Annapolis from his home State of New Jersey, his 
determination led him to Washington, and after knocking on doors, he 
gained an appointment from the State of Texas.
  As America dealt with the depression, his dream of going to sea, 
however, received a setback. Only half of the 1933 Academy class that 
graduated received a commission. John Bulkeley, noted early on for his 
intense interest in engineering, went on and joined the Army Air Corps, 
I stand corrected. Like the crazy flying machines of the day, he landed 
hard more than once, and after a year, he left flying for the deck of a 
cruiser, the Indianapolis, as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy.
  That was an ill-fated ship.
  In a recent message to the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations 
recounted a story about the Admiral, cautioning all that read the 
message there are thousands of John Bulkeley stories. I have been 
fortunate enough to have heard a lot of them, but I am sure not all, as 
cards and letters continue to come forth to this day, with just another 
story to top the previous received one.
  Many will, and do move with pride and love, respect, and maybe in 
some cases almost disbelief. Stories, as we all know, can grow. But I 
have also had the benefit of talking personally with the men and women 
that were there with the Admiral when history was being made. And the 
stories stand the test of time. I will only mention a few today.
  Ensign John Bulkeley chartered an interesting course in his early 
years, and was recognized early on by the Navy's leadership. A new 
ensign in the mid-thirties, he took the initiative to remove the 
Japanese ambassadors's briefcase from a stateroom aboard a Washington-
bound steamer, delivering the same to Naval Intelligence a short swim 
later. This bold feat, of which there were to be many more in his life, 
did not earn him any medals, but it did get him a safe one-way ticket 
out of the country, and a new assignment as chief engineer of a coal 
burning gun boat, the Sacramento, also known in those parts as the 
Galloping Ghost of the China Coast.
  Picture in your minds the movie Sand Pebbles. That is it. There he 
was to meet a young attractive English girl at a dinner party aboard 
the HMS Diana. Alice Wood, later my mom, and the handsome swashbuckling 
John Bulkeley, would in the short period of courtship, live an 
incredible story together.
  In China they would witness the invasion of Swatow and Shanghai by 
Japanese troops, the bombing of U.S.S. Panay. The were strafed by 
warring planes and, watching from a hotel, soldiers at war in the 
street below. John Bulkeley, with a uncanny propensity to stir things 
up, often took the opportunity to bait the occupying Japanese soldiers, 
dashing with his bride to be into no-man's lands, chased by Japanese 
soldiers, and once in a while shooting them with a BB gun air pistol 
only their back sides, ``just for fun.'' He fit the mold of Indiana 
Jones, hat, coat and all, and not necessarily a commissioned officer in 
fore and aft cap of the day.
  But John Bulkeley learned a lot from this experience, as a chief 
engineer, and also what war was all about and what an enemy invading 
force was capable of doing.
  At the dawn of World War II, and now a Fleet Lieutenant commanding 
motor torpedo boats, John Bulkeley hit his stride as a daring, 
resourceful and courageous leader, determined to fight to the last 
against enemy forces attacking the Philippines. His exploits have made 
legends as well as movies.
  As a young lieutenant, he would, ``Say no one knows what war is 
about, until you are in it.'' Fearless in battle, resourceful and 
daring, that was Bulkeley. Men like George Cox, skipper of PT-41 would 
write in 1944, ``I would follow this man to hell if asked.'' A lot of 
others would agree.
  And General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, after being ordered out of 
the Philippines and arriving at Mindanao following a 600 mile open 
ocean escape, Mr. Speaker, aboard a 77 foot motor torpedo boat through 
enemy lines, would say, ``You have taken me out of the jaws of death. I 
shall never forget it.'' He probably added ``Johnny.''
  John Bulkeley's daring exploits will never be forget even. By the 
way, MacArthur said that to George Cox, Sr., too.
  Hard as leather on the outside, he was also a man with compassion and 
a love for his fellow man. Reflecting to me a month ago, just before 
his death, about those terrible early days of World War II, dad wept 
over the decision that his men and our Army at Bataan were left behind 
to face an enemy of overwhelming strength.
  Imagine, Mr. Speaker, this tough 55 year active duty seawolf still 
brought to the tears to his own son remembering the men we left behind 
at Bataan, like Colonel Eugene Holmes, who Clinton used so shamelessly 
in the summer of 1969. That is the ROTC commander at the University of 
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
  But he also acknowledged that when the coach calls possible you to 
bunt, then sacrifice you do, with all the strength and conviction you 
can muster, for the overall victory cannot be achieved unless we are 
prepared to give it will our all. From the Pacific campaign, where he 
would command another squadron of PT boats, he would go to the European 
theater, just in time for norm and difficult. At the recent 50 day 
celebration, my sister and I, that would be Joan, along with our 
spouses, had the honor to accompany the Admiral and my mother. And what 
a beautiful spouse, Navy wife, Peter's wife is.
  Many a time I heard from a Navy veterans, ``thank you for saving my 
life. I would not be here were it not for you.'' He would hear them say 
that to his dad.
  Let me reminisce a minute. As we were leaving Charles deGaulle 
Airport, another World War II vet, recognizing the Admiral, engaged him 
in conversation. As they departed, my dad said to this vet, ``see you 
in the next war.'' Upon hearing this, the veteran quickly came to 
attention, rendered a snappy salute and responded, ``I will be there, 
sir. Ready to fight.'' Where do we find such men? Peter is quoting 
Michener there. It is probably in his subconscious.
  John Bulkeley led naval forces and torpedo boats and mine sweepers in 
clearing all the lanes to Utah Beach, keeping German E boats, who, Mr. 
Speaker, had killed almost 900 men near Slapsand, England in Operation 
Tiger in April, less than two months before D-Day, and it was kept 
secret for 25 years that more men died because of German E boats at the 
end of April of '44 than died on the beaches of Normandy in the waters 
of Normandy.
  The German E boats were to be kept back from attacking the landing 
ships along what they called the Mason Line,

[[Page H4893]]

running parallel to Utah Beach, and picking up wounded soliders from 
the sinking minesweeper Tide and the Destroyer Cory.
  His World War II exploits would not be complete without the mention 
of his love for destroyers, of which he would command many in his years 
to come. As Normandy operations wound up, he got his first large ship, 
the Destroyer Endicott, a month after D-Day. I told this story about 
the British gunboats, the two German Corvettes charging in as dawn's 
light broke. I told that story. I want to use every minute here. Peter 
tells it better than I did.
  When I asked about dad about that action, he said ``What else could I 
do but engage? You fight, you win. That is the reputation of our Navy, 
then, now, and in the future. You fight, you win.''
  Let me pause. The Admiral was a strong believer in standards.
  Mr. Speaker, my Reagan prologue was so long, I have 12 more beautiful 
eulogy remarks of Peter Bulkeley. I will submit them for the Record. I 
think it is important enough that on one of the 3-hour special orders I 
have next week, and I ask permission for those special orders right 
now, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, I will finish Peter's 
remarks, picking up with the Southern France invasion support and refer 
to today's May 10th Record, so people can get it. That gets Peter's dad 
an extra mention on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the remainder of Capt. Peter W. 
Bulkeley's eulogy for his father, Adm. John D. Bulkeley.

       Let me pause--The Admiral was a strong believer in 
     standards, some may say, from the old school, as the enemy 
     Captain of one of the corvettes soon learned. Coming up from 
     the sea ladder, he would not salute the colors of the 
     Endicott, and was promptly tossed back into the sea. The 
     third time, did the trick and he was taken prisoner and 
     allowed on deck. I had heard this story a long time ago, but 
     last year, I had the privilege of attending the Endicott 
     ship's reunion, and was told this same tale, over and over 
     again by the crew that served and loved their Captain, John 
     Bulkeley.
       World War Two closed and the Admiral emerged as one of the 
     Navy's and America's most decorated heros--Having been 
     awarded the Medal of Honor, The Navy Cross, The Army 
     Distinguished Service Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster in lieu of 
     a Second Award, Two Silver Stars, The Legion of Merit with 
     Combat V and The Purple Heart twice over, the Philippine 
     Distinguished Conduct Star and from France, The French Croix 
     de Guerre. Asked about his many decorations, John Bulkeley 
     would only comment, ``Medals and Awards don't mean anything, 
     it's what's inside you, how you feel about yourself that 
     counts''.
       With an eye to the future John Bulkeley, looked forward to 
     the day he would become an Admiral in the Navy he loved so 
     much.
       As President Kennedy in early months of his administration 
     dealt with an ever increasing crisis over Cuba, the Admiral 
     got his wish and for a quarter of a century would serve as a 
     Flag Officer in the Navy.
       Challenged in his first assignment as Commander of the 
     Guantanamo Naval Base, he met and defeated the challenge of 
     Fidel Castro's threats of severing the water supplies of the 
     base. Today, Guantanamo, stands as a symbol of American 
     resolve because men like John Bulkeley stood up and refused 
     to bend, and took the initiative to stare down belligerent 
     threats of lessor men, not friendly with America. Perhaps a 
     tribute of the time, was the wanted poster, offering 50,000 
     Peso's for him, dead or alive by the communist leadership of 
     Cuba along with a description, ``a guerrilla of the worst 
     species''. . .
       At Guantanomo, for those that have visited, there is a hill 
     that overlooks the Northeast Gate, a Gate, with a sign that 
     reads ``Cuba, Land Free From America''. I stood with my dad 
     on that hill almost 32 years ago. Cuban troops began moving 
     about, his 19 year old driver, a Marine Lance Corporal came 
     running up and stood directly in front of the Admiral, ready 
     and willing to take the bullet that would end the life of his 
     Commander. The Admiral loved his Marines, the Marines loved 
     and respected him in return. He would be with them day and 
     night, in fatigues, ready to conduct war if necessary but 
     more to defend Americans and The Land of the Free against the 
     Communist yoke of tyranny. As COL Steven's, the former 
     Commanding Officer of the Marine Barracks at Guantanamo 
     wrote recently, adding three more stories to the Legend of 
     John Bulkeley. The Admiral had the compassion for the men 
     in the field, taking time again and again to bring them 
     relief, whether cookies on Christmas morning or visiting 
     them at odd hours of the night to ease their nerves, they 
     loved this man. The Admiral would construct on that hill, 
     the largest Marine Corps Insignia in the world, as a quiet 
     reminder, that the United States Marine Corps stood 
     vigilance over the base. And in tribute, a Marine would 
     write: ``John Bulkeley, Marine in Sailors clothing''. Camp 
     Bulkeley is still there in Guantanamo today and the Marine 
     anchor and globe has a fresh coat of paint.
       John Bulkeley never forgot his early years, the hard iron 
     like discipline, the poor material condition of the fleet and 
     the need to always be ready. In his own words, to be able to 
     conduct prompt, sustained, combat operations at sea. Assigned 
     as the President of the Board of Inspection and Survey, a 
     post held by many distinguished Naval Officers since its 
     inception almost since the beginning of the Navy, his 
     boundless energy would find him aboard every ship in the 
     Navy, from keel to top of the mast, from fire control system 
     to inside a boiler, discussing readiness and sharing sea 
     stories and a cup of coffee with the men who operate our 
     ships, planes and submarines. He was relentless in his quest 
     to improve the safety and material condition of the fleet and 
     the conditions for the health and well being of those that 
     manned them. He conducted his inspections by the book in 
     strict accordance with standards as many a man well knows, 
     but his love for the sailors always came through. His ``Just 
     thought you'd like to know letters'', was another invention 
     of his, that was designed to be ``an unofficial report'' but 
     of course were often greeted by a groan by the recipient in 
     the Navy's leadership, knowing that John Bulkeley had another 
     concern that needed attention and the number of information 
     addrees receiving the same ``Just thought you'd like to 
     know'' letters, often was longer than the letter itself. The 
     Admiral would laugh about his informal invention less than 
     thirty days ago.
       After fifty-five years of Commissioned service, John 
     Bulkeley retired to private life. I was there at his 
     retirement ceremony with Admiral Trost, then Chief of Naval 
     Operations. John Bulkeley as you recall, did not like 
     notoriety and wanted to keep a low profile, throughout his 
     life, even his last day in his Navy. His ceremony as 
     requested was brief and to the point. Held in the CNO's 
     office, with family present, all he sought after giving his 
     entire life to his country and his service was to have the 
     CNO's Flag Lieutenant, open the door so he could slip his 
     mooring line and leave quietly.
       Today we celebrate the final journey of a Great American, 
     John Bulkeley, and let him sail away. We should not mourn for 
     he would not want that, preferring we celebrate his long 
     life, fruitful life and a life he chooses to lead. When asked 
     to describe his own life; He said: ``Interesting, Fascinating 
     and Beneficial to the United States.''
       The spirit of John Bulkeley, is here. You can see it 
     everywhere. You can see it in the faces of our young sailors 
     and marines, the midshipmen and our junior officers who will 
     be challenged to live up to his standards of integrity, 
     loyalty, bravery and dedicated service to country and to 
     service.
       John Bulkeley's career and service to the nation spanned 
     six turbulent decades of this century, he saw first hand 
     desperate times and the horrors of war. Yet he was also a 
     father, marrying the woman he loved and in his own words, 
     ``it was the best thing I ever did''. And raised a family he 
     could be proud of. Because we're proud of him. Mom, you were 
     his right arm, his closest friend for a long and full 
     life. You gave him your love and your support. You truly 
     were the Wind Beneath His Wings. Yellow roses and his Colt 
     45 that he gave to you on your wedding night, while he 
     stood watch out in Swatow Harbor provide us comfort of 
     this love for you and his service to country. Before he 
     passed away, his family, every member, child and 
     grandchild, sons and daughters-in-law all came to be with 
     him in his last days. This by itself, is testimony of the 
     legacy he leaves behind and the love his family had for 
     him.
       Today we face a different challenge that what John Bulkeley 
     did. Old enemies are our allies, but now there are new foes 
     who challeage our country's interests and our way of life 
     sometimes even inside our own borders. Admiral Bulkeley's 
     efforts and sacrifices for a better world, a free world, his 
     integrity and honor, and a combat ready fleet, ready to 
     conduct prompt, sustained combat operations are his legacy to 
     our nation.
       Seated before me, are many of the warriors that fought 
     alongside the Admiral, shared in his beliefs, his 
     determination, his losses, his grief and his unfailing love 
     of family, service and country.
       With his passing, the watch has been relieved. A new 
     generation takes the helm and charts the course. His Navy, he 
     shaped for so many years is at sea today, strong and better 
     because of him, operating forward in far away places, 
     standing vigilant and engaged in keeping peace and helping 
     our fellow man, but ready for war.
       In his own words he leaves this with you. ``Be prepared! 
     Your day will come, (heaven forbid), where you will be called 
     to go forward to defend our great nation. Your leadership, 
     bravery and skill will be tested to the utmost!''
       ``You should never forget that America's Torch of Freedom 
     has been handed down to you by countless others that answered 
     their country's call and often gave their lives to preserve 
     freedoms so many take for granted. This torch is now in your 
     hands. You have a great responsibility to uphold: Duty, Honor 
     and Country. God Bless each of you and protect you.''
       Just though you'd like to know!
       So, we gather together today to say farewell to a man we 
     love, respect and cherish. A man that did his duty, that made 
     his mark in life and left the world a better and safer place. 
     God bless you Dad. All lines are clear.

[[Page H4894]]



                        A BAD TIME FOR FAMILIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this week we will end it with the celebration 
of Mother's Day on Sunday. I think it has been a bad week for mothers 
and a bad week for families and a bad week for children. We had a 
Republican housing bill which passed, which greatly reduced the 
participation of the Federal Government in the provision of housing for 
the poorest people in America; bad for families, bad for children, bad 
for mothers.
  One of the highlights of the debate on this bill was the offering of 
an amendment which would have just kept the present provision in the 
bill which says that no family should be made to pay more than 30 
percent of their income for rent in public housing. No family should be 
made to pay more than 30 percent. That was removed by the Republican 
majority, and the amendment which was attempting to put that back into 
the legislation was voted down by the Republican majority.
  It means it was telling poor families in America that you should pay 
more than 30 percent, be prepared. But no Member of Congress pays more 
than 30 percent of their income for housing, I assure you. Very few 
people in America pay 30 percent or more of their income for housing. 
That is not the way budgets for families are constructed. Yet we are 
saying that poor people should pay more than 30 percent. So it was not 
a good action to benefit families and mothers.
  Next week we are looking at a situation we are going to be voting on 
the defense authorization. We are told that $13 billion is being added 
to the defense budget; $13 billion being added. How is that going to 
benefit families and children and mothers in America?

                              {time}  1545

  Beyond that, we have no hope next week of voting for the increase in 
the minimum wage. The increase in the minimum wage calls for a mere 45-
cent increase in 1 year and a 45-cent increase the next year, a total 
over a 2-year period of an increase of 90 cents, which would bring the 
minimum wage up to $5.15 per hour.
  Mr. Speaker, that would be good for families, families that are at 
the very bottom who are working, who find that, although they are 
working, they cannot make ends meet, cannot live on $4.25 an hour, 
which is the present minimum wage. So we would do a great deal for 
families, for mothers and children, if we were to move next week to 
pass an increase in the minimum wage.
  But that is not on the horizon. What we are going to do instead is 
pass a bill to increase the defense budget by $13 billion. The 
authorization to increase the defense budget is for $13 billion 
additional.
  Next week we will probably have the Republican budget on the floor, 
and of course the Republican budget will be passed because the 
Republican majority has the numbers to pass it. The Republican majority 
this year, this fiscal year, has already cut $23 billion out of the 
budget. That $23 billion, a large part of those cuts were in housing, 
and many of the cuts were in job training.
  Activities and programs that are very needed, very much needed by the 
American people in general and certainly by families, by mothers and 
children, and yet they were cut. In this coming Republican budget we 
can expect more of the same kinds of cuts. In fact, the cuts in 
Medicaid and Medicare are back on the table. It was a retreat from 
those, but they are back on the table. So there will be an even larger 
cut in this year's budget than we had last year; $23 billion was just a 
beginning.
  More important for families and for children is the fact that we are 
going to have in the next 10 or 15 days the Medicaid entitlement on the 
chopping block. Medicaid entitlement means that Medicaid, which had 
only existed for a little more than 30 years, it was part of Lyndon 
Johnson's Great Society program, created a little more than 30 years 
ago. The Medicaid entitlement says that, if you are poor, if you can 
pass a means test which shows your family is poor, then you are 
entitled to Medicaid, which is federally funded. The Federal Government 
will make certain that you get the aid you need in order to take care 
of your health needs.

  Now, that is an entitlement. It means that no matter how many people 
are in need in a given year, the Federal Government stands behind the 
process by which they shall be taken care of. They have a right to the 
care, and the Government will provide the Federal share of the dollars. 
That entitlement now is being threatened. The Governors, both 
Democratic and Republican, have voted that they would like to have the 
Medicaid entitlement removed, not have the Federal Government stand 
behind the provision of health care for poor people. The States will 
instead take care of it on a finite basis. No entitlement. That means 
that there will be a certain amount of money available, and all of the 
people who get sick after the money is spent will not be taken care of. 
The entitlement is gone.
  Mr. Speaker, the entitlement for nursing home care will be gone 
because two-thirds of Medicaid money goes to finance care for people in 
nursing homes. Two-thirds. Only one-third goes to poor families. Two-
thirds goes to people in nursing homes. So that is threatened. That 
will be removed. That is not good for families, not good for mothers, 
not good for children.
  In fact, the movement of the Medicaid entitlement will mean a first 
step toward genocide, in my opinion. We are going to give it to the 
States. That means it will be decentralized genocide, a first step 
toward decentralized genocide. I will talk more about that later.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about all of those items, but let me just 
talk about a few things that are nice that happened this week. National 
Library Week was this week, and it was an occasion where the libraries 
celebrated 50 years of the Washington office of the American Library 
Association. They were quite happy that the Federal Government has 
given anything to libraries.
  We had a banquet where they were celebrating the 50th anniversary of 
the American Library Association, Washington office, and they honored 
some Members of Congress who had helped with libraries over the years. 
As I sat there and listened to the celebration, it occurred to me that 
never have so many applauded so lustily for so little. Never have so 
many applauded so lustily for so little.
  The Federal Government has done very little for libraries over the 
years. Over the 50-year history of the national ALA Washington office, 
they have received very little help from the Federal Government 
relatively speaking.
  In fact we have a bill which is pending now in the Senate which will 
authorize $150 million in aid to libraries; $50 million is what the 
Senate has, and I think the House of Representatives has $110 million. 
There is some kind of talk there will be agreement whereby the higher 
figure may be accepted, and we will have $150 million in aid to 
libraries. Well, that is down from where it was just 5 years ago. At 
one point we got as high as $217 million.
  Aid to libraries has gone down instead of up. This has happened at a 
time when we are talking about the need to increase our level of 
education for families and for children.
  So it is good that National Library Week took place. It is good the 
librarians are happy and celebrating the fact that we have gotten an 
agreement almost to maintain the level of Federal funding for libraries 
at $150 million a year. The authorization now will go down. The 
authorization was open-ended, but now the authorization will set a 
ceiling that no more than $150 million will be available to all of the 
thousands of libraries across America who need some kind of assistance.

  Of course, State and local governments provide most of the money for 
libraries, but that is the way it is. Why should it be that way if 
education is a national concern and our national security is dependent 
on education? Then you would think libraries would be getting far more 
than they get now in terms of aid from the Federal Government.
  Libraries are the biggest bargain the Government has for the millions 
of people served. The dollars, which are pennies per person, are quite 
great indeed. So the value of what we spend for libraries is unexcelled 
in any other

[[Page H4895]]

area of expenditures in education. But that was a mixed blessing. I am 
not happy with what the Federal Government has done in this critical 
area, but we celebrated.
  We also had a mixed victory in terms of people with disabilities. I 
spoke last week about the fact that the bill which provides aid to 
children with disabilities, it is called IDEA, Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, that act is what is in existence right now, 
they are trying to replace it with another act, which would be a new 
authorization, and they are chipping away, I said, at the Federal 
Government's commitment to children with disabilities.
  There are many ways in which the Federal Government in that 
legislation would reduce its level of commitment. I am happy to report 
that the committee I serve on, the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, postponed the markup. The markup was to take 
place on Wednesday, the 8th, and now it has been postponed.
  And one of the reasons it was postponed is because the numerous 
groups that are concerned and involved with trying to help improve this 
legislation have all indicated that I was correct; that when they 
looked at the bill closely there was a withdrawal of the Federal 
commitment in a very basic way.
  For years, the Federal Government has committed itself to picking up 
the cost of the excess, part of the cost of the excess. It costs a 
certain amount to educate a child in a school system. And whatever the 
additional cost was to educate a child because they had disabilities, 
that cost went up. The authorization language was that it would pick up 
40 percent of the excess cost; 40 percent.
  Now, we have never actually appropriated enough money to reach the 
goal of 40 percent of the excess cost, but we did get up to 7 percent; 
7 percent. In the new legislation that was being proposed we were 
backing away from that commitment and zero percent was committed. We 
thought that was a big step backward, and I am glad to hear that we 
have postponed the markup. That is good news for mothers, it is good 
news for children.
  There was also good news occurring today. We have in the Capitol a 
rally of thousands of nurses. Nurses have come because they feel they 
are shut out of the whole process by which health care is being 
reengineered. Health care in America, the system, is undergoing some 
revolutionary changes. The biggest change relates to the health 
maintenance organizations, health maintenance organizations which will 
be providing service to people on a per capita basis.
  They will have each individual family pay a certain amount of money 
and they will provide service for that individual, for that family, for 
a year on the basis of that per capita amount.

  They are changing the way health care is provided because with the 
dollar figure placed on each family, the incentive for the HMO is to 
try to keep the cost of the health care down. That is a laudable goal. 
We do not want to spend any more for health care than we have to spend. 
But we find excesses have started to develop where HMO's, given no kind 
of regulatory controls, have been pushing the quality of health care 
steadily downward because they want to keep the costs down.
  That has resulted in legislative action in many States. Some States 
have said we cannot push a mother with a baby out of a hospital after 
24 hours. HMO's have started to do that. The HMO's have been saying 24 
hours is enough if a woman has a baby in a hospital; she has to go. So 
some States have said, no, it is 48 hours.
  It used to be the doctors and the nurses and the people taking care 
of the mother who had the child that made the judgment as to when that 
mother could go safely home with the child. So here is something that 
gets to the heart of what Mother's Day is all about. The nurses are 
here to say that that kind of activity, either by hospitals or by 
health maintenance organizations, endangers the quality of life of the 
child and the mother. They are here to say that as nurses they want the 
opportunity to be able, as professionals, to say when wrong decisions 
are being made about the care of patients.
  Nurses are our experts on the front line in health care. They see 
more of patients than doctors. Nurses are closer to the situation. They 
read the vital signals on a day-to-day basis. When we are in the 
hospital we see more of nurses than we see of doctors. When young 
children come into the world, most children are born in hospitals in 
this country, nurses are one of the first experiences they will 
encounter, even if they do not realize it. And often, of course, if we 
are fortunate to live a long life, as we live longer and life becomes 
more complicated in terms of physical maintenance, we are going to 
spend more time in hospitals. And nurses, at the end of our lives, are 
probably going to be one of the last set of people that we have 
experiences with.
  So I want to congratulate and thank the nurses who have come today to 
Washington by the thousands and say that they are very much a part of 
what Mother's Day is all about. Many of them may be individual mothers, 
of course, and we certainly applaud that, but certainly in terms of 
keeping mothers together at a very critical time in their lives, taking 
care of infants at a very critical time of their lives, nurses are very 
much on the front line.
  It is Mother's Day, and I hope that on Sunday, as we reflect on 
Mother's Day, we will stop and think about what the Nation is doing for 
mothers and what the Nation is doing for children, what the Nation is 
doing for families. Among Members of Congress there is a lot of 
rhetoric this year about family values. Everybody talks about family 
values. And when one hears the dialog, we think that family values are 
all about whether or not children will be allowed to see pornography on 
the Internet or whether we will take a stronger step about getting 
pornography off the TV sets or getting violence off the TV sets.
  I think that is important. We should get rid of pornography and 
violence. Certainly violence is pervasive on our TV sets. Our children 
see hundreds and hundreds of murders. By the time a child reaches high 
school, they have seen thousands of murders on TV. So we should deal 
with that, and that is part of what family values are all about. I am 
certainly not criticizing that. But it is just a tiny part of what 
support for family values has to be all about.

                              {time}  1600

  Support for family values and support for families ought to be about 
so much more. It ought to be about food, clothing, shelter, providing 
educational opportunity. It ought to be about providing jobs that have 
wages that are large enough, wages that are high enough to guarantee 
that when people work they earn enough money to make a living.
  But in celebration of Mother's Day, I just want to digress for a 
moment and say that in March 1990, when we had a day care bill before 
us and the talk about mothers and children and what the Federal role 
should be in trying to guarantee that poor mothers who go to work have 
an opportunity to have their children get day care coverage, it was a 
long debate.
  During that debate I got very angry about the way the Members of the 
House were dragging their feet. Indeed, Members of both Houses were 
dragging their feet on a concrete answer to the problem of day care for 
working mothers, poor working mothers. I wrote a rap poem because I was 
very impressed at that time by the fact that rap poems had become, rap 
music had become very popular. I was not happy with the kind of content 
that the rap music had, what they were saying, the substance of rap 
music was not impressive. But I was impressed with the possibility of 
rap as an art form. I was impressed with the possibility of rap as a 
poetry form, a literary form. I still am an exponent of rap as a 
literary form that ought to be developed. I think that like the sonnet, 
it has a lot of potential for expressing strong feelings.
  The first rap that I wrote and put into the Congressional Record was 
called ``Let the Mothers Lead the Fight.'' It is all about the fight 
for mothers to get public policies which are conducive to the 
improvement of the quality of life for families. At that particular 
time it was day care.
  There are many others that, many other public policies that do relate 
to families. I dedicated this rap poem to Marian Wright Edelman, 
because Marian Wright Edelman at that time was

[[Page H4896]]

very much in the middle of a fight to get better day care for families, 
for poor families.
  Marian Wright Edelman, as you know, is the head of the Children's 
Defense Fund. The Children's Defense Fund is going to have a stand for 
children here in Washington on June 1. And the same issues that we were 
discussing, in March 1990, are very much on the agenda today in May of 
1996. In fact, the situation is more serious now because we did not 
have a threat of Medicaid being taken away in 1990. Now Medicaid may be 
taken away from families in 1996. So I think the rap poem is 
appropriate. I will read it again here. I will read it for the first 
time on the floor because the first time I just submitted it into the 
Record. It is called ``Let the Mothers Lead the Fight.''
  I dedicate this to all the mothers on Mother's Day. It is very 
significant that when I first put this in the Record, a local newspaper 
in my district ran the poem on the front page of the newspaper that 
weekend just before Mother's Day. So I want to note that it is not the 
first time that it has been pulled from the pages of the Congressional 
Record. We did have it run in one of our local weekly newspapers back 
in 1990:

     Let the mothers lead the fight-
     Sisters snatch the future from the night
     Dangerous dumb males have made a mess on the right
     Macho mad egos on the left swollen out of sight

     Let the mothers lead the fight!
     Drop the linen-throw away the lace
     Stop the murder-sweep out the arms race
     Let the mothers lead the fight:

     Use your broom
     Sweep out the doom
     Don't fear the mouse
     Break out of the house-
     Rats are ruining the world!
     Let the mothers lead the fight!

     Fat cats want to buy your soul
     Saving the children is the mothers role:
     Cook up some cool calculations
     Look up some new recipes
     Lock the generals tight down in the deep freeze.
     Let the mothers lead the fight!

     Human history is a long ugly tale
     Tragedy guided by the frail monster male:
     Babies bashed with blind bayonets
     Daughters trapped in slimy lust nets,
     Across time hear our loud terrified wail-
     Holocaust happens when the silly males fail.
     Let the mothers lead the fight!

     Snatch the future back from the night
     Storm the conference rooms with our rage
     Focus X-rays on the Washington stage.
     The world is being ruined by rats!
     Rescue is in the hands of the cats:

     Scratch out their lies
     Put pins in smug rat eyes
     Hate the fakes
     Burn rhetoric at the stakes
     Enough of this endless selfish night
     Let the mothers lead the fight!

     Holocaust happens when the silly males fail!
     March now to end this long ugly tale
     Let the mothers lead the fight!

     Stand up now to the frail monster male!
     Let the mothers lead the fight:
     Snatch the future back from the night!
     Let the mothers lead the fight?

  I was told later on that that is a little too angry. It is a little 
too anti-male. It is a little too hostile, but that was in March of 
1990. That was before the attack on Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children. We are almost certain to end Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children as a Federal program as an entitlement. That is almost 
certain. I am not even going to bring up, get up anybody's hopes that 
we can hold on to that.
  What we are fighting now is to hold on to the entitlement for 
Medicare, something which mothers and families, children cannot survive 
without. Poor families need Medicaid. If the mothers do not lead the 
fight, it appears that the silly males who are in control of policies 
and power are going to move to take away the Medicaid entitlement. That 
is going to be a first step toward what I call decentralized genocide.
  The nurses were here today, the nurses were here to talk about health 
care. The nurses were here to talk about the fact that there is a 
health care industrial complex that is being developed. What do I mean 
by that when I say a health care industrial complex? I mean that health 
care instead of being primarily a service is going to be primarily an 
industry, a vehicle for making profits.
  Health care has always been an industry, a service and an industry, a 
very vital service, but it is an industry. It employs people. Income is 
earned. Capital is made, is required to build hospitals. All kind of 
auxiliary companies feed in, the laboratories and the companies that 
build health care machinery, the drug companies that do the research 
and earn tremendous amounts of money on the drugs that they develop. It 
is an industry. It has always been an industry. There is nothing wrong 
with it being an industry. It is an industry that large amounts of 
public funds are put into. Taxpayers money goes into the health care 
industry.
  I have said many times, I can think of no more noble way to spend 
taxpayer money on than to spend it on helping people to stay healthy 
and helping people who are already ill, helping people who are elderly, 
who need nursing home care.
  There is no more noble way to expend Federal dollars than in the 
health care industry. The problem now is that the health care is 
becoming too much of an industry, more industry than service, whereas 
service was a primary goal before. And the patient and the people and 
the health care was first.
  Now the industry goal of profits, how much money can we make, has 
become the most important goal. Large insurance companies are buying 
health maintenance organizations. Pharmaceutical companies are buying 
health maintenance organizations. The stock market has health 
maintenance organizations on the stock market. There is a great deal of 
pressure on every stock market company to produce profits. You have to 
produce more and more and higher and higher profits.
  Where are the profits going to come from? The profits have to come 
out of giving less care to patients because in many cases these health 
care maintenance, these health maintenance organizations are being 
funded by government, the Federal, State and local governments, or they 
are being funded by industry that wants a lower cost.
  The industry wants to spend less money on health care. The government 
wants to spend less money on health care, and you cannot get profits by 
raising the price that you charge industry or government. The only way 
you can make money and increase your profits in health care is to 
decrease the kind of service you provide to the patient.
  Well, that is not exactly true. You might get rid of some waste. 
There may be waste in the way service is provided. Too many people may 
be doing the same kinds of things. There may be waste in the amount of 
money you pay for equipment or waste in the amount of money you pay for 
drugs.
  It is possible that you can legitimately save money and increase 
profits. But we see too many examples where the easiest course of 
action by the health maintenance organizations has been to decrease 
service. That is the easiest way to make the greatest amount of profit.
  I am not here to lead a charge against health maintenance 
organizations. I am not here to try to cover up the fact that in my 
community, many of my communities, poor communities, Brownsville, East 
New York, Bedford Stuyvesant, parts of Crown Heights and Brooklyn, New 
York, people have suffered for years without HMOs being there. The 
Medicaid mills and the abuses of doctors who were taking exorbitant 
fees and giving little service, health care has always been a problem.
  So health care may be improved through health maintenance 
organizations. It is possible. I am not going to be dogmatic enough 
that health maintenance organizations represent some kind of evil that 
ought to be stopped. No. The argument here is that as you reengineer 
the health care system, as you restructure it, then do not just 
restructure it to maximize profits. Restructure it to give better 
health care. And in the process of restructuring it, include the nurses 
in the dialogue. Let the nurses give us advice as to how we can 
restructure health care to make it more effective and at the same time 
less costly.

  When you restructure health care, let the patients be involved. When 
you restructure health care, by all means, do not push the doctors out 
on the fringes. There are doctors organizations, medical organizations 
of doctors complaining about the fact that their decisionmaking powers 
have been taken away, that they are second-guessed by people who are 
accountants, that accountants

[[Page H4897]]

are now running the show who never went to medical school, many of them 
who did not take a biology course in high school. But they are looking 
at the costs, and they want to know how badly were people bleeding when 
they went to the emergency room. If they are not bleeding so many 
liters, then do not give them emergency care. Send them home.
  Reductio ad absurdum, absurd situations like that are almost 
occurring where people are being told in the emergency room, you have 
to call your HMO, check with them. And if they say we cannot give you 
emergency care, then you have to go home. We cannot deal with it. A 
doctor on the scene in the emergency room to be able to make the 
judgment, does this person need emergency care or not, and a health 
maintenance organization should be required, mandated to follow through 
on the doctor's decision that a person needs the health care.
  So we are into a situation now where the most intimate kind of thing 
that affects families, that affects children, that affects mothers, 
their health care, the most intimate kind of care is now a matter of 
public policy.
  Public policy has to defend the patients and defend the mothers and 
defend the children from the possibility that they will be abused by 
people who are trying to maximize profits. That is the kind of 
situation we find ourselves in.
  Mother's Day, this Sunday, has to be a day of reflection on what is 
happening in health care, about health care in America. Mother's Day 
has to be a day where you deal with some of the issues that I have 
raised in a piece of legislation that I am drafting which got called 
the Patient and Health Care Professional Protection Act.
  Mother's Day has to be a concern of some of the activities that are 
taking place around the country other than here in Washington. In New 
York, on next Sunday, May 19, there is going to be rallies at 5 
different hospitals to deal with health care. It is called Hospital 
Support Sunday.
  On May 19, in New York, there will be in each one of the 5 boroughs 
people of all walks of life getting together to come out to show their 
support for maintaining proper care at the hospitals. New York, we have 
threatened hospitals that may be closed. Hospitals may be sold. 
Hospitals may be leased. A number of problems are being generated by 
the fact that they are trying to make maximum profits off of hospitals 
and set up a situation where they can maximize the amount of money 
being paid off the patients.
  So in unison with nurses and doctors, people will be coming out on 
May 19 at 5 different hospital sites to let it be known that the people 
care about health care.
  In this bill that I have, we have 2 major sections. One is to protect 
the rights of the health care consumer, the patient. It establishes a 
Federal mechanism for the emergency investigation of the most egregious 
cases involving death or life-threatening situations. We have 
situations now where the Federal Government does investigate and survey 
hospitals. They have come up with reports on the death rate at 
hospitals that are receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds. But that is 
after the fact. It is a survey, a study undertaken, sometimes years 
after the deaths have occurred because they are looking at statistics 
and how many people in a given area, people in the health care, the 
heart care surgery section or people who are suffering from asthma, how 
many deaths in those categories are recorded on the records of the 
hospital. They have come up with a pattern.

                              {time}  1615

  That has been very useful in determining that some hospitals have 
patterns of improper care. But it has not been useful in dealing with 
emergency situations that might save some lives by stopping immediately 
practices which are dangerous. So a mechanism would be built in here to 
do that.
  We also outlaw what is called the gag order. There are contracts 
being forced on nurses now where the nurses have to sign a gag order 
which says you cannot discuss the care being given in this hospital 
with anybody outside the hospital, you cannot discuss it even with the 
patient's family. So that is a process that is ongoing that nurses have 
to deal with.
  They are taking care of people, they see things happening not good 
for the patient, they see things happening that may endanger the 
patient, but they cannot talk to the family about it. They cannot 
complain to anybody else about it. It mandates that the gag order of 
this kind will no longer be there; the Federal Government will make 
that illegal.
  My legislation mandates that there must be a compilation of uniform 
national patient outcome data collection and analysis to make sure that 
patients are taken care of, are systematically receiving quality care 
based on sound evidence. That is a systematic analysis of what happens 
when patients go to hospitals: Do they have to come back for the same 
treatment? Do they get infected while they were in the hospital? What 
pattern is there in this hospital which relates to the patient outcome, 
directly related to the patient? Hospitals often evaluate it now based 
on what kind of machinery do they have or what kind of procedures do 
they undertake, or what are the qualifications of the medical staff; 
but not on a basic activity like what is happening with the patients.
  So there are other mechanisms also which deal with patients.
  Most important of all, I insist in this legislation that we create an 
office of consumer advocacy for health at the State level, and then we 
insist that there be independent patient advisory committees created at 
the level of the HMO. That is, every health maintenance organization 
would have a percentage of its funds paid into a statewide fund that is 
used to fund health advisory organizations, patient advisory 
organizations, that would be run by patient groups, a certain 
percentage. I put in 1 percent; 1 percent of the gross spent on health 
care should be set aside so that patient advocacy, patient advisory 
organizations can be funded on a regular basis.

  Yes, there will be relief and appeal mechanisms built in. But unless 
you have the opportunity for patients to organize and have their own 
group process, they will have no chance against the establishment, 
medical care establishment, when they have a grievance. So we want 
patients to have the same kind of activities, mechanism to defend 
themselves.
  And then, of course, we are protecting the health care professionals 
against any further harassments by having a mechanism for developing 
nationwide guidelines established. We want to prohibit the discharge 
and the demotion or harassment of any nurse, doctor, or any other 
health care professional who assists in an investigation of the 
hospital or of his or her employer.
  We want to guarantee compensation for victims of whistleblower 
retaliations. We have a whistleblower program for people to inform 
about abuses in Medicare, waste and corruption in Medicare, but we do 
not have whistleblower mechanisms which inform about abuses of 
patients. Nurses need to be protected and compensated if there are 
retaliations when they report these kinds of abuses.
  This is just a brief summary. I do not want to go into details here 
because I think it is very important to note there is a political 
process that is beginning. The patients and the nurses, the doctors, 
all the people who really care about health care more than they care 
about profits, they outnumber the people who want to make money. So 
they have a political advantage in our democracy. And what they need to 
understand is that this is going to be an ongoing political debate for 
years to come.
  It will take us 10 or 15 years to straighten out this new 
reengineered health care system. In the process of straightening it 
out, we must have the people who are the experts on the front line 
there. We first must open up the situation so that they are respected 
and they are allowed to come to the table and they are allowed to help 
decide how we are going to reengineer and restructure the system.
  In New York State we just had yesterday an announcement made by 
Governor Pataki. And Governor Pataki is a Republican. I seldom have 
praise for Republicans. But Republicans, too, can do some good, and I 
want to praise the Governor for having taken a definitive step in 
solving some problems related to HMO's in New York State.

[[Page H4898]]

  A lot of different people have been complaining. The State assembly 
has a bill which is trying to regulate and improve the care of health 
maintenance organizations. The State Senate has a bill, the Governor 
brought them altogether, he brought in the health maintenance 
organizations, he brought in representatives of the health plans, the 
Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He brought in certain groups that say they 
represent patients: New Yorkers for accessible Care, Coalition of 
Health Care Consumer Organizations. But a lot of different people.
  I do not see nurses there. I do not see nurses particularly 
represented in the groups that are specified here, and that is 
unfortunate. And I am not sure that the health care consumer 
organizations really represent consumers, because there is no 
grassroots consumer organization. Nobody in my community has ever 
belonged to any of these New York Accessible Care organizations, but at 
least it was a beginning, and I want to applaud the Governor for making 
the beginning, and they think they have a bill, they have an agreement, 
which all parties will agree to and they can have legislation develop 
as a result.
  That is a beginning. It is important to get that legislation out, it 
is important to have it start on a positive foot. It is a positive move 
forward, but there needs to be a lot of refinement, there needs to be a 
lot of new input from nurses. There needs to be a lot of input from 
patients. There needs to be a lot of input from city council people, 
from assemblymen, from State senators, from Congress people.
  We have said that what we want is a freeze. In New York we are asking 
for a freeze on the situation. One of the demands for health care 
support certainly which is going to take place on this next Sunday, May 
19, is that there be a freeze to stop the health care industry from 
stampeding us into a situation which will make the health care system 
more difficult to improve. We want to freeze so that profits will not 
be the utmost consideration; freeze everything for 6 months, do not do 
anything until more people have a chance to have input into the systems 
that are being proposed for change. Do not sell any hospitals.
  We have a mayor, a Republican mayor, who is obsessed with 
privatization; any privatization is good. So he wants to move forward 
and privatize. They have a situation now where $43 million was given 
to, a contract was given to, an organization, and they were in such a 
hurry to privatize until the total contracting process was illegal. 
They signed the contract with a staff member, and the board had never 
approved it. They found out that members of the mayor's own staff had 
family that was later employed by this company that got the $43 million 
contract. That kind of conflict of interest and nepotism was rampant. 
So they withdrew the contract, and now the FBI is in New York 
investigating the way the mayor's office puts out these contract.

  So privatization, moving at breakneck speed, will generate a lot of 
problems for government and for the taxpayers. Let us freeze the 
selling of hospitals, let us freeze the granting of contracts, let us 
freeze the privatization process for 6 months.
  Then we are asking that we have a disclosure of current and long-term 
plans. Whatever the mayor has on the drawing table for his municipal 
hospitals, let it put it out publicly, let us see it, let us have full 
disclosure, let us see what the current plans are, let us see what the 
long-term plans are, and let us all take a look at it and have a chance 
to comment on it.
  This is just simple democracy, the kind of democracy we used to have 
here in the House of Representatives. When the minority Republicans 
were in the minority, the Democrats shared information and we had 
hearings and we did not push bills through without notification. That 
old-fashioned democracy that we used to have here, we need it at the 
level of city government and we need it at the level of State 
government, in the health care areas. So we want full disclosure and an 
opportunity to comment.
  And the final item is we want inclusion in the process, recognize 
some of the nursing organizations, and the patient organizations and 
the doctor organizations, recognize them officially and accept from 
them alternative proposals for the way the health care system is going 
to be restructured, accept alternative proposals and accept a process 
of negotiation. If the alternative proposals that are prepared by 
citizens groups, and we were going to set up a commission in New York, 
a citizens commission with representatives from the unions that are in 
hospitals and representatives from the patients, representatives from 
the nurses and other medical professionals and representatives from 
community leaders. With all three of those, all those groups 
represented, four, plus additional people, senior citizens and groups 
that are impacted most intentionally by health care services, if all of 
them are represented in the process, then we think we can negotiate 
systems that benefit everybody.

  There is not going to be an overnight process. We know it is going to 
go on for a large number of years. We know that there are going to be a 
lot of tensions. We know we will be up against the health care 
industrial complex. But here is an opportunity for our health care 
industrial complex to show us that it can be in the interests of the 
people, a health care industrial complex can act to improve health care 
in America.
  You know, I think the older I get the more I understand how America 
runs, and if you do not have one of these complexes, you are not going 
to get very far in terms of government.
  We have a military industrial complex that is totally out of control 
and obsolete, but very powerful, and it still commands the greater part 
of the budget. It is now going to get an increase of $13 billion. A 
military industrial complex is the kind of complex that we have to have 
in order to defeat Hitler's Germany. If we had not had a military 
industrial complex operating effectively and efficiently when it was 
needed, we would not have won the war, we would not have been able to 
stop the spread of communism. So the military industrial complex made a 
great contribution. It costs too much, it abused its power, it charged 
too much, it spent too much, and even now when the danger is over, 
communism is collapsed, and we have no wars of the magnitude of World 
War II, they want to continue to spend money and use the taxpayers' 
funds to make profits when it is just not moral anymore, it is not 
needed.
  But let us salute them for what they did. Let us understand that they 
have to be brought under control by the taxpayers, they have to be 
brought under control by the Members of Congress and other legislators. 
It is out of control, and it is obsolete. But we need a health care--if 
we are going to have a health care industrial complex to move things, 
let us make sure the abuses that took place with the military 
industrial complex do not take place with the health care industrial 
complex, that it does not become an oppressive force dominating the 
budget and forcing us to cut our libraries.
  We cut the budget for libraries, we cut the budget for title I, cut 
the budget for Head Start. Let us not cut the budgets of all these 
programs to keep our health care industrial complex going because we 
want to increase the profits. Let us make certain it is trim so that we 
have a complex that is providing maximum service and maybe some people 
will make some money, maybe they will not. Possibly they will.
  Maybe we need an industrial complex in order to offset the other 
industrial complexes like military industrial complex and the health 
care industrial complex when we really need librarians, teachers, and 
educators, and publishers, and manufacturers of computers for schools 
and school construction companies.

                              {time}  1830

  You ought to get all involved in the education industrial complex. We 
need industrial complexes to offset industrial complexes. Maybe the 
future of the American economy and the future of our whole political 
society has a lot to do with how we balance off these complexes.
  There is a banking industrial complex. The banking industrial complex 
is probably the wealthiest, and they have done the most harm to our 
society in terms of taking money out of taxpayers' pockets. The banking 
industrial complex pulled the largest swindle in the history of 
mankind. The

[[Page H4899]]

banking industrial complex is responsible for the savings and loan 
swindle. The savings and loan association swindle has cost the American 
taxpayers already about $300 billion. Taxpayers have paid $300 billion 
to prop up the banks that were destroyed in the savings and loan 
banking swindles. It was not just savings and loan banks, but also 
other banks.
  So we have the banking industrial complex that really should be 
brought under control, we have the military industrial complex that 
ought to be brought under control. Now we have a new health care 
industrial complex that we ought to try to get control of before it 
runs away and destroys large segments of the society and misuses money. 
But that is the way it is. These complexes are going to be there, one 
way or another. We have to face up to that and start looking at them 
with clear eyes, at what runs America.
  These complexes have a lot to do with how America runs. There is an 
oil industrial complex. The gulf war was all about making certain that 
the oil industrial complex did not get put into a position where it was 
begging Saddam Hussein. That was a good move in terms of the fact that, 
in hindsight, Saddam Hussein had to be stopped.
  But let us understand what is happening. Let us understand that a 
health care industrial complex is dangerous if it gets to the point 
where their drive to make money is destroying lives in America on a 
day-to-day basis, and therefore it must be brought under control.
  One of the good things that happened this week was that the nurses 
came to Washington today. The nurses are here. That was good. That is 
in line with making America safer and more acceptable for mothers and 
for children and for families, very much in line. On May 19, back in 
New York, we are going to, again, try to get the input of the nurses, 
the input of the doctors, the input of the patients into the 
restructuring of health care in New York City.
  There are rallies being held in all five boroughs. In Brooklyn the 
rally is going to take place at Kingsborough Hospital on Clarkson 
Avenue. In Queens, it is at the Queens Hospital Center, Grand Central 
Parkway. In Manhattan, it is at the Harlem Hospital. In Staten Island, 
it is at the Staten Island University Hospital. In the Bronx, it is at 
Lincoln Hospital. People are getting involved.
  What Americans are saying in New York, in California, in 
Massachusetts, and in a few other places is that we understand now what 
is happening. Our first demand is that you let us make democracy work. 
Let us get involved. Let us make certain that whatever new system is 
being developed is for the benefit of all the people.
  I want to close by asking that all groups all across America take the 
time out to focus in the next few days on health care, take the time 
out to focus specifically on Medicaid as a part of our health care 
system. Medicare is a kingpin of the American health care system. 
Medicare is the forward step in the American health care system, 
Medicaid. Medicaid is the forward step, Medicare and Medicaid, but 
Medicaid is the forward step toward universal health care. Medicaid is 
for people who cannot afford health care. It is the only step our 
Government has taken to reach out there and say that we take 
responsibility for what is most basic: whether you can live and breathe 
and be healthy.
  Medicaid is for poor people. You have to show that you are poor 
through a means test. The farmers who get subsidies in Kansas and other 
western States, they do not have to show a means test. They do not have 
to show they are poor. They get lots of money. The average in Kansas, I 
think in the last 5 years, has been $40,000 to $50,000 that has been 
given to every farm family, at least $40,000 to $50,000, without any 
strings attached in terms of you have to prove you are poor.
  The Freemen in Montana, the group out there with the FBI surrounding 
them, they are angry because the Government wants its money back. The 
Freeman, the guy who heads that whole operation, owes the Government 
$830,000, almost $1 million; $830,000-some. His ranch has been 
repossessed because he had a farmers home loan mortgage. He is angry 
and ready to kill somebody because he got away with that for so long, 
he received Government largesse for so long that be began to believe he 
had a right to it. If you tried to take it away, he would kill you.

  It is that mixed up out there, out west, where the Agriculture 
Department has forgiven about $11 billion in loans. That was on the 
front page of the Washington Post, that $11 billion had been forgiven, 
$11 billion forgiven. So Medicaid is for people who prove they are 
poor.
  There are some Federal subsidies, some taxpayer giveaways, that have 
nothing to do with you proving you are poor. You just get it because 
you have the right kind of connections: your are a farmer and you live 
in Kansas, Montana, or New Mexico, you get it. But Medicaid is for 
people who prove that you are poor. You have to prove that you are 
poor.
  One-third of Medicaid funds go to poor families. Two-thirds of 
Medicaid funds go to nursing homes. People in nursing homes have to 
prove they are poor. Many people who go into nursing homes were middle-
class people before they became poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. 
They got sick, they had problems, they had to spend a large amount of 
money on doctors and medicine, so they lost their income and they 
become eligible then to go into nursing homes, so two-thirds of the 
money for Medicaid goes to nursing homes. So when you get rid of 
Medicaid, you are getting rid of health care for poor families and you 
are getting rid of health care for the elderly, people in nursing 
homes.
  There is a threat now that the Medicaid entitlement will be taken 
away. They are going to have block grants that go to the States. The 
States say, we want the money, but with the block grant there will be a 
limited amount of money. It will not be that every person that gets 
sick, every family that is poor and needs health care will get it 
because the Federal Government stands behind it as a right, but it will 
be in accordance with the amount of money available.
  When the State runs out of money, if you are sick, you do not get any 
help. When the State runs out of money, if you need to go into a 
nursing home, you will not be able to go into a nursing home. The 
States will be in charge. There will be all kinds of new forms of 
corruption and all kinds of new forms of waste, because State 
government is the worst-run government in America.
  We have had a lot of talk on the floor of this House about States 
should be allowed to do certain things because they are closer to the 
people. They are closer to the people, but they are the least visible 
forms of government. There are all kinds of things that go on in State 
governments that never get exposed, you never get to hear about. State 
governments usually do not keep a record of their legislative 
proceedings that is made available to the public. Yes, they have 
minutes and you can get them, but most State governments, it costs 
money to buy the minutes of the proceedings of the State legislature. 
Here you get a record every day of what is happening on the floor of 
this House.
  The Federal Government is very visible. The Federal Government is 
complicated but highly visible. There are certain things done at the 
State level that can never go on at the Federal Government level. There 
are all kinds of favor-granting, all kinds of nepotism, all kinds of 
things happen, all kinds of granting of contracts that would be illegal 
at the Federal level. But we are going to hand all this to the State 
government. The care of our health will be handed to the State 
government. State governments will be able to decide which people have 
disabilities. The Federal Government in the legislation that is being 
proposed has not defined what a disability is. A person with a 
disability will have to have his disability defined by the State 
government.
  There is a conflict of interest, because the State wants to save 
money. They do not want to have too many people with disabilities that 
cost a great deal of money to take care of in terms of health care, so 
they will, in their attempt to save money, define away many legitimate 
disabilities.
  State governments have a history. If you look closely at some of the 
monumental cases of corruption in American public life, they have 
happened at the State government level.

[[Page H4900]]

  I want to close by acknowledging that on public radio this morning, 
National Public Radio, they talked about a State Senator in Alabama who 
said that ``Slavery was good for black people. Slavery was good, and 
slavery was a form of States rights at its best. It is the best form of 
States' rights.'' That is a good example of what we are talking about. 
Slavery is praised as a form of States rights at its best. The States 
had the power to do what they wanted to do. Of course, beyond the 
States you had the planters and plantation owners, and anybody who 
owned the slave had the power to do whatever they wanted to do with a 
human life.

  What you have, if you push the power of life and death down to the 
State level, is the beginning of what I call decentralized genocide. 
Health care is a life and death matter. If you put that in the hands of 
people who cannot be watched, who are not held to any Federal standard, 
if you put it in the hands of people who are making decisions to save 
money instead of providing maximum health care, if you put it into a 
situation where every State will be trying to outdo the other in terms 
of lowering its benefits, they are ratcheted down. The State with the 
lowest benefits will be the guide for all the other States. No State 
will want to have higher health care benefits than another, because if 
you have better health care benefits in one State than you do in 
another, they will say that people are going to tend to move into the 
State with the better health care benefits, so everybody is going to go 
down to the level of the lowest common denominator.
  A lot of lives will be lost in the process of going down to the level 
of the lowest common denominator. We will have the beginning of 
decentralized genocide.
  There is a story in the paper about Brazil having put on trial 
policemen who went out and shot poor kids in the streets every night. 
They kept finding bodies of children. This is Mother's Day coming up. 
Mothers always make you think of children. Mothers and children are 
inseparable. Think of this, as a closing thought. In Brazil the 
policemen were going out to shoot down the children because the 
children were poor children who ran around the city all day long 
picking pockets, making havoc. The store owners did not like them, 
nobody liked them. Policemen started killing them. Now you have the 
policemen on trial, and the policemen are saying that they were doing 
what the public wanted them to do by shooting down poor children.
  These are poor children who have no health care. These are poor 
children who have no welfare, because there is no welfare system. There 
is no Aid to Families with Dependent Children. When you take these 
steps by changing public policy so there is no aid to people who are in 
desperate straits, you throw them onto the streets, you create a 
situation where, in the end, the apparatus of the State, the police, 
will begin to be used to destroy people. It is a very serious matter.
  As we go into Mother's Day, and really care about mothers and really 
care about children, we ought to resolve that we ought to take another 
look at the policies that are being generated on the floor of this 
House. We ought to take a hard look at the proposals in next week's 
budget that are going to cut Medicaid and Medicare. We ought to take a 
hard look at the effort to get rid of Medicaid as an entitlement. If 
Medicaid goes as an entitlement, it is the first step into systematic 
decentralized genocide in America.

                          ____________________