Pete Stark

the gentlewoman from Ohio is correct. I am sure we are not making many friends with all this, but this is one of the things we might do to accommodate many of our colleagues who might like to end the 100 days sooner: Is there any reason in…

we obviously have entered the world of ``Newtspeak.'' Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not have lapses in how to pronounce important messages. But the Speaker of the House has decided to drag the Medicare system into the world of…

I rise in support of the en bloc amendment which includes my amendment requiring a study on the costs, advantages, and disadvantages of using low-enriched uranium [LEU] to fuel naval reactors for current and future U.S. nuclear powered…

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and would like to associate myself with his remarks and suggest that while it is only $4.5 million, it is symbolic. If we cannot do away with vestigial and wasteful operations just because of…

As the Subcommittee on Crime begins its consideration of H.R. 3527, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, I urge you to look at the effects of the nation's oldest assault weapons ban, California's Roberti-Roos…

The best choice for the American health system are the goals of the President's health plan, which are to provide----

I am pleased to be here tonight to explain the goals of the President's plan. What is America about? It is about being a family and taking care of each other in troubled times. Our goals are: permanent health insurance for everyone…

If I could finish my statement. There are now national health boards that provide quite well for advising Congress for what we need.

Cutting 13 billion out of teaching hospitals helps them. On the same day that the gentleman did that he voted to cut $45 billion out of Medicare. Did that help the seniors in their Medicare in the same way?

The gentleman is brighter than that. The gentleman is listening to the chorus behind him. You are being confused by these people throwing answers at you. You are brighter than that, Mr. Bliley. No, sir, you know that a preexisting…

There is a case of a woman in my district who is 8 months pregnant, had her policy canceled, and the company said, ``You may continue that policy for another month for $17,000.'' Is that what the Michel bill does? Is it not?

I skipped right over the mandatory alliances and looked at his goal, which is to provide health care to every American at a price they can afford and at a date certain with a benefit level that we all understand, which no other plan does.

They bought their own billboard because nobody else would pay any attention to them, and the gentleman got suckered into that.

I would support making alliances and coops available to people to help them do what the President does. I don't think it is necessary to mandate them.

I saw the ad. I took the trouble to vet them out. They are not worth the paper that ad is printed on.

I believe the key element is what is missing in your plan, and that is that every American gets health insurance, and you do not do that.

I do not find that it is necessary to mandate them, and I find that alliances, like managed care, grow quite well by themselves, thank you.

I support the concept of collective buying and I support the concept of consumer empowerment. I don't think it is necessary to make it mandatory.

What level of benefits--we are making progress. The gentleman has agreed, if I could identify it, the gentleman has agreed that there are a group, perhaps as many as 10 million, maybe not, that the Federal Government should finally----

When should that group get insurance who are poor, poor uninsured, unemployed, and who in the final analysis the Federal Government should support? I agree with you. At what point in time should we have that in place? By the end of this…

First you will have to agree to the Federal Government providing the care. If that is what the gentleman agreed to, there could be some progress.

Now answer your own. You said it quite well. You said it should be the Federal Government and the question is when. When do you think that should come into effect for the 37 million uninsured? Do you have a time in mind?

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, for the very poorest and those for whom medical care is not available, who would you suggest is responsible in the final analysis, who should provide the safety net for the unemployed or the poor in this country?

For those for whom it is unavailable, the Government should do it immediately, if possible, with benefits about as generous as we have. Now, how would you suggest we all pay for that?

I said the poor and the uninsured who in no other way could get insurance, and I think you answered. You answered that.