H.Res. 299

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for most of us. A program that has served America well and has given peace of mind and good health care to seniors for over 40 years is under threat today; and actually, what we know is going to be before us is the death of Medicare.

One of the saddest parts about this bill today is that the Democrats have no role in it. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules, or this morning, actually, at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought that they could use to strengthen the bill, I apologize to you that there is no possibility in the world that you could do it. I hope that you did not hate yourself this morning for all the sleep that you lost for nothing.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process. The underlying bill will harm every single one of the 40 million Americans served by Medicare. At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page prescription drug legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half of the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration.

The other body, on the other hand, has spent over 2 weeks debating similar legislation. In stark contrast, we meet when nobody is around, up in the attic, as someone said today, and are permitted only 3 hours to discuss the largest overhaul of Medicare in its history. The people we represent would be disgusted if they understood how this issue is being handled.

We are not naming a post office here. We are considering, as I said, the most important change to Medicare since its creation. This decision will affect so many people. It is no simple undertaking, and it certainly deserves more debate than allowed by this rule.

To add even more confusion to the messy process, the Committee on Rules incorporated the so-called Health Savings Account bill into the rule for the Medicare overhaul legislation, so what we are doing here are two rules. So-called health savings accounts would create a new tax advantage, personal savings accounts, used to pay the out-of-pocket medical expenses. At first glance, perhaps it sounds innocuous. But when you look at the fine print, you see that it basically amounts to a $72 billion tax cut over the next 10 years while the Federal deficit continues to grow out of control. Even worse, it is a tax break with a destructive purpose: to threaten the traditional employer-based health care by actually encouraging companies to reduce their employees' health coverage.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most egregious problem with the legislation before us is it does nothing to address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. Oh, sure, they will tell us that we can import drugs from Canada, but the fact of the matter is that an amendment inserted into the Senate

bill by one of our Senators says that it cannot be done unless it is certified by the Secretary of HHS, who has stated already that he will not do it. Therefore, any debate today about being able to import drugs is absolutely a farce.

The consumer price index on which Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are based rose 98 percent, and the prescription drug costs that are crippling older Americans rose even higher. Seniors on Medicare are expected to spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next decade.

Today's Washington Post tells a story of Marie Urban of Cleveland. After her housing and Medicare payment, she has $459 a month for utilities, food, car insurance, taxes, and medication. She told The Post that some months she has 87 cents left over. This is wrong. She deserves better. A few years ago, as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at fractions of the prices charged in the American market. We had dozens more people interested than we could accommodate, but those who went saved anywhere from $100 to $650 on a 3-month supply of medication.

We are fortunate to live in an age when science provides the medications that cure illness and improve the quality of life and extend life. But the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot afford to buy it. The skyrocketing price of prescription drugs is the number one concern of American seniors and, indeed, most Americans. H.R. 1 does nothing to freeze or reduce the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs. In fact, again, the idea of going to Canada and handing it out with one hand and taking it away with the other is something that the drug companies will be very happy about, because they have fought in every possible venue to keep the reimportation of drugs.

At the same time, we hoped that we might do what the Veterans Administration has done with great success. By negotiating for the people that they represent with the drug companies, they have been able to save many of their veterans a great deal of money. Seniors fear this bill is a rush to privatize Medicare. We saw the flop of Medicare+Choice when many, many private insurance companies pulled out completely on senior citizens, leaving many of them in parts of the United States completely uncovered. Indeed, they have told us again, they do not want to cover a prescription drug program. One hundred percent of the people they cover will buy medicine. This is not what they consider a good business proposition.

Forty years ago, Congress created the Medicare program because private industry would not offer health insurance to older people. Companies saw the older people as a threat to their profits. We should have learned this lesson in the 1960s, because nothing has changed; and now we are today taking away what is probably the most important issue to senior citizens, will they be able to get health care.

Don Young, who is the President of the Health Insurance Association of Americans, quoted here often, has said, ``We caution Congress against relying on drug only insurance as a mechanism to deliver a benefit.''

Ira Loss, an analyst with Washington Analysis, said, ``The private sector that is supposed to be excited about this isn't. It creates a new benefit program built around insurance products that do not exist and are likely to never exist.''

Mr. Speaker, this proposal would replace Medicare's guaranteed coverage with what is essentially a voucher program to purchase private insurance, assuming that there is an insurer willing to sell it to you. But those who want the traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be forced to pay higher premiums. We have no idea, for example, what Part B would cost because it is not in the bill, which is intended to force the beneficiaries out of traditional Medicare and into private insurance.

Mr. Speaker, senior citizens do not want this legislation. We have all received call after call and letter after letter beseeching us to oppose this plan. They did not contact me because they need prescription drug coverage. They called and wrote me because they know this bill will not provide them with the help they desperately need.

According to the Consumers Union, the average Medicare user spends $2,318 for prescription medicine. Under this plan, the out-of-pocket drugs would rise to $2,954 for the average senior on Medicare. So this program is a placebo, not a cure, legislation crafted to provide political cover for the majority, not provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. Some may argue that this is something better than nothing, but it is only a start and, frankly, what we have in Medicare has not been that bad. But as many of our constituents say, a bad bill is worse than no bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that will raise premiums and reduce their choices and dismantle Medicare is a very bad bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez.)

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

(Ms. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have so little time to try to make any points here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

(Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we will pay attention to that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is pleased that the Democrats tried to make the gentleman's amendment in order last night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Today, the House votes on the biggest change in Medicare in its 40- year history, a change that will affect 40 million Americans; but the Republican leaders have rigged the rules to prevent the House from voting on serious alternatives offered by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Mr. Speaker, I will call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question in the hope that the House gets the chance to consider an additional alternative that the Republican leaders fear. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Dooley prescription drug alternative substitute. It makes all senior citizens enrolled in Medicare part B eligible for prescription drug assistance without increasing their premiums. Unlike the Republican bill, it has no sickness penalty or doughnut hole that seniors can fall through. Unlike the Republican bill, it does not encourage companies to drop seniors' existing drug plans.

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop the consideration of H.R. 1. It will simply allow the House to vote on the Dooley substitute. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) opposed to the resolution?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I deplore the bus bombings and other acts of terrorism against innocent civilians wherever heinous acts of violence occur. The violence must stop. President Bush's vision of a two-state solution, two states living side by side in the Holy Land, must be implemented. I support the road map whole heartily.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a very short time ago this year that this body passed a resolution commending Israel and condemning the Palestinian Authority and calling upon the Palestinians to elect new leadership. Now the Palestinians have done just that. They have elected their new prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. He has been in office for less than 2 months now, and now this body all of a sudden expects him to stop the violence that has raged out of hand for close to 3 years in such a short time. Prime Minister Abbas is trying very hard to negotiate an understanding among the militant groups that will end all acts of violence against Israelis. And as we speak, as we speak, a cease-fire appears to be taking hold. There appears to be such an agreement.

This process going on in the Middle East as we speak certainly needs no help from this body with this type of one-sided, inflammatory resolution for which this body is so well noted. Prime Minister Abbas must be given the time, he must be given the space, he must be given the opportunity to assert his authority and that of his new security chief Mohammad Dakhlan, with whom our own CIA and Israeli security forces have worked very well in the past, and can do so again.

Let us attempt some objectivity here, Mr. Speaker, if we are to remain the responsible super power that we are. The single most important step that the Israelis could undertake is to stop its policy of political assassinations of Palestinians unless they are proven to be ticking time bombs. Tom Friedman said in a recent column that both sides have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self- destruction.

Is Israel better off or worse off after carrying out these assassinations? The day after it tried unsuccessfully to kill a senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed 17 innocent people aboard a bus in Jerusalem, these acts occurring since the Aqaba Summit. The bomber said this act was in retaliation for the assassination attempt the previous week. Clearly the people of Israel are questioning this policy. In a poll last week by a leading Israeli newspaper, 58 percent of the Israelis polled supported ending this type of assassination policy and cooperating with the new Palestinian government to end all violence.

The fact is, the only time the Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade is when the Palestinian Security Service, under Mr. Dakhlan, have cooperated with Israel and both sides spent their energy, successfully, I might note, in preventing acts of violence.

We are right today to call upon Prime Minister Abbas and his government to make greater and more efficient efforts to control the militant groups and end violence, but we also have a responsibility in order to be objective and even-handed, to ask the government of Prime Minister Sharon in this same resolution whether these policies are making Mr. Abbas's tasks easier or harder.

The people of Israel is asking this question, so should the Congress of the United States. Let us have a little balance here. Let us have a little balance

here. Let us call on the Palestinian Authority to make greater and more effective efforts against terrorists; but also, let us call on the Israeli Government to stop making Mr. Abbas's tasks more difficult. It is also time for Israel to reassess and hopefully end this process of political assassinations. We cannot allow the extremists on either side to sabotage the peace process. We cannot allow terrorists to torpedo the peace process. Let us look at some objectivity before we pass, once again, another resolution of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I understand the gentleman correctly that it would be split as it was originally split, 10 minutes and 10 minutes on his side?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?

I think for once the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I totally agree on this particular issue. I agree with what he just said about the importance of it. I agree to the extension of time as he has requested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me correct something in which I may have misspoke earlier when we were talking about an extension of time on all sides and I said that perhaps that was the only area in which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, and I agreed. That is not the case. It was a misstatement on my part, and I do correct it, because as he has stated and as we have discussed on numerous occasions throughout our careers in this body, we perhaps see eye-to-eye on 95 percent of the issues involved in this particular area and in the Middle East. We certainly agree on the need to stop the violence. We agree on the need to end the terrorism. We agree on the strong Israeli- U.S. relationship that must always be maintained. And we certainly agree on the need for peace for all people in the region.

I must respond to some comments that were made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House. He spoke quite eloquently about all of the Israeli deaths, as does this resolution refer to those numbers as well. But I never once heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) mention any type of sympathy for the innocent Palestinian deaths that have occurred since the Aqaba summit alone. The resolution mentions the 22 Israelis killed, but fails to mention the 55 Palestinians killed, the 258 Palestinians injured just since the Aqaba summit.

Five ambulances have been destroyed; 33 houses have been demolished and 236 damaged; 7,116 trees uprooted; 328,000 meters of cultivated land have been destroyed; 500,000 meters of land confiscated for illegal settlement; 67 private businesses destroyed; water and irrigation pipes destroyed; homes demolished; people detained, as we saw in this morning's press.

All of these actions have occurred since the Aqaba Summit against innocent Palestinians, so it is that perspective that this resolution so much fails to mention.

I would say as well in calling upon both sides to agree with what they set upon at the Aqaba Summit, yes, there have been some illegal outposts, perhaps a flag here or a pole here that has been dismantled by the Israelis. But according to Israeli sources and journalists, 12 new outposts have been constructed since the Aqaba Summit, and there are rumored to have been five additional ones yet to be discovered. This has happened since the Aqaba Summit.

I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that a recent poll of Christian conservatives here in the United States found that 78 percent of the Christian conservatives in this country support President Bush's vision for Middle East peace.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas in which all the speakers today have agreed. And certainly that makes some points of this resolution commendable.

But, again, in looking at its totality, the resolution lacks in its objectivity. It lacks, Mr. Speaker, in what I term the United States' best interest first. A lot of parallels have been draw today between the Israeli responses to terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself and the United States' global war against terrorism and our fight against al Qaeda. I would say the main question that needs to be asked here is does the Israeli assassination policy, when there is no proven link that those assassinated are ticking time bombs, where there has been nothing judicial pending against them, there has been nothing but allegations of terrorist activity, in those type of assassinations, is that fairness? Does it promote what is justice in the region. Does it promote the United States' best interest in fairness when it is done with what is perceived to be United States approval?

Maybe there are some in the Sharon government that compare this to our fight against al Qaeda. But those educated and those that will profess some sense of fairness will view this in a different light and see that that comparison is disingenuous to say the least. Certainly, Israel has the right to defend itself against those ticking time bombs and to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. The United States has that right to fight the global war on terrorism, to fight al Qaeda whenever and wherever we can.

But to make the comparisons between what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza by these Islamic militant groups, to compare them with al Qaeda is stretching it a bit in this gentleman's estimation. We must realize what are the true roots of the al Qaeda and the true roots of why they hate us in the Arab world. Let us look at that response before we determine if we can compare the Israeli fight against terrorism with the United States' fight against al Qaeda.

There are many countries in the world that help us in the fight against the true terrorists, which is the al Qaeda network; and it is those countries that we will continue to need their help in our coalition fight against al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, I do say to all those who are participating in this debate, it has been healthy. It has been what we have needed in this Congress for some time, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate this issue many more times. I have demonstrated during this debate the question that many Israelis have about the policies of their government in regard to fighting terrorism, and I think it is just as worthy a debate here in this country as it is in the country of Israel. We have that right in our democratic system. We also have the responsibility in this country to look at actions that we take as Members of Congress and resolutions we pass, to ask first and foremost what is in the best interest of the United States of America.

I referred earlier to the cease-fire that has just been announced today and appears to have taken hold. While this resolution does not have the force of law, we must, and we know as Members of this body that every word we utter and every resolution we pass has profound impact across this world. Whether they are actually the words of the law or not, they do send a message. I think this is the wrong message that the United States should be sending at this particular time, this precarious time in the Middle East. Some say this cease-fire is only temporary and it would give the militant a chance to rearm during a 3- month cease-fire. This is the time that the new prime minister with whom the United States has built a relationship, with whom the Israelis have built a relationship, for the newly installed Prime Minister Abu Mazen, who has been in office for less than 2 months, this is the time he needs to gain the political credibility, to gain the support among his own people, to further crack down on the militants without creating a civil war among the Palestinians.

Now, perhaps that is the goal of some on the other side, but that is not the goal of the United States; and it should not be the goal of the United States. But, rather, we should give the newly created prime minister, the newly installed prime minister in the Palestinian territories the time, the space, and the opportunity he needs to gather the support he needs to crack down and, indeed, make this cease-fire, however temporary in nature, of a permanent nature.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues look carefully and hard at this resolution before making up their minds and cast their votes in what in their good conscience they deem to be in the United States' best interest and in the interest of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time I yielded back.

Mr. Speaker, I do that in keeping with what I said earlier was an important debate and I believe that all Members who wish to speak on this should be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This has been a good debate, a very healthy debate. There is no doubt that security cooperation needs to be restored between the Palestinians and Israelis. It has worked in the past. The road map now is the way to do it. Several of the speakers today have risen in support of the road map, and they will support this resolution. I cannot even find the word ``road map'' mentioned in this resolution, and that is a major, major problem with it.

The economies of both Israelis and the Palestinians are in dire shape. There is no question about it, and this road map, for which I have already commended and continue to salute the President for presenting it, is the way out.

Confidence building measures by both sides, coupled with stability and economic development, must occur, and it will help bring back the necessary hope that both sides so desperately need and the trust in one another that is so lacking at the current time.

There are obligations of both parties under the road map. This resolution, unfortunately, points only to obligations of Palestinians and insinuates they are not fulfilling those obligations. There are obligations by the Israelis as well that are very clear. Yet they are not stated in this resolution.

We must give Prime Minister Abu Mazen, a good friend with whom I have met, the help he needs to fight terrorism and we must not allow civil war among Palestinians to occur. The road map is the way to do that. It will take time.

I salute President Bush for his personal involvement, for Secretary of State Powell's involvement, for Condoleezza Rice's involvement via her trip to the region any day now, and I salute our security people, the United States security people, our CIA and others that are on the scene in an effort to help the Palestinians restore security. That takes time. That takes patience and that takes an opportunity, that we must give and Israelis must give the Palestinians to create that security that is so vital to bring peace to this area.

I am not going to urge my colleagues to vote one way or another on this resolution. They can make up their own minds, but each colleague I would say has to look in his or her conscience and has to determine in their best opinion what is in the United States' best interests in promoting the road map to peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 is a multi-part rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, and H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a modified closed rule, an appropriate rule for such a delicate, complex, and historic piece of legislation. The rule provides for 3 hours of general debate equally divided between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 1.

After general debate it will be in order to consider an amendment printed in the report accompanying this resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee and debatable for 1 hour. All points of order are waived against the amendment. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit to H.R. 1 with or without instructions.

Section 2 of this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003, either today, the legislative day of June 26, or tomorrow, June 27, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. All points of order against the consideration of H.R. 2596 are waived. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that upon passage of both pieces of legislation, the text of H.R. 2596 shall be added as a new matter at the end of H.R. 1. In simple terms, these two bills will become one. However, this bill does not preclude either bill from moving forward independently.

Finally, the remaining sections of this rule provide for some housekeeping provisions and provisions which will allow this body to move forward in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. For years now, seniors across this country have consistently voiced to Congress the same major concerns: the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Their concerns are not perceived; they are very, very real. Each year, a typical senior pays approximately $1,300 on prescription drugs, filling about 22 prescriptions on average. Today, the House will consider a plan to give all seniors a prescription drug benefit through Medicare.

In passing this bill, as I believe we will do before this day is over, we will renew America's promise to our seniors, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and revolutionize medicine in the 21st century.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their exemplary cooperation, their remarkable leadership, and inspiring vision they have provided on this complex, yet very much-needed legislation. I would like to take a moment just to give special thanks to them for working so closely with me on a couple of provisions that will greatly benefit cancer patients and hospitals across the country. Included in this legislation is immediate Medicare coverage for oral anticancer drugs through a demonstration project that will offer extraordinary support to seniors who are fighting cancer. It will enable them to afford the newest lifesaving medicines in the comfort of their own homes, rather than be hooked up to chemotherapies by infusions in a hospital or clinical setting.

I also commend the chairmen's interest and support in assisting hospitals who serve a disproportionate number of uninsured and indigent populations. Hospitals across this country, including many of our Nation's children's hospitals, will be better able to serve their patients with over $3 billion in additional funding. Finally, rural hospitals are finally getting their fair share: $27.2 billion.

Since 1965, Medicare has provided a guarantee of health care coverage for more than 40 million seniors. Today, our seniors are counting on the stability, longevity, and integrity of this program for their secure retirement. But if we do not act and pass this bill before us today, the future of Medicare will be certain: certain bankruptcy. Our inaction will have sealed the fate

for one of our Nation's most trusted programs.

So today, we will do two long-overdue things. First, we will modernize Medicare to save it for future seniors; and, second, we will provide the much-needed prescription drug coverage.

The prescription drug package the House is considering here today will provide the same universal guaranteed Medicare health services as those that currently exist. If you are 65 or older, you qualify for Medicare, and you qualify for this benefit. It is that simple. And we provide significant and immediate savings for seniors on their medicines. Specifically, this plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with a prescription drug discount card offering over 25 percent in savings, catastrophic protections, giving seniors 100 percent coverage for out- of-control drug costs beyond $3,500 year, and full assistance for our neediest citizens.

Equally important, this rule makes in order a provision establishing health savings accounts, a revolutionary tool, so that every American, not just seniors, can set aside savings now for their medical expenses, tax-free. With over 40 million uninsured, this is so important, and the plan provides for a catch-up provision so that seniors can take advantage and set aside more money more quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a remedy for what ails America's uninsured. Our plan is designed for those people who might be shut out of work-based coverage and offers all Americans, regardless of their income or age, access to health coverage with no bureaucracy or costly mandates.

Finally, this package includes chronic care management for all Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have one or more chronic illnesses. This provision will help better manage diseases, reduce health care costs, and enhance health and quality of life.

So here we are at a major crossroad. Seniors continue to tell us that adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is not some pie-in-the- sky policy that they would merely prefer become law. No. The majority of seniors are telling us that they cannot go another year without help, without any assistance, without any help with their drug costs, and without access to higher-quality health care.

Therefore, some questions need to be asked for those who will come forward in the next few hours and oppose this package. Ask them: How is this package not an improvement for our seniors who have no coverage and are struggling to pay for their medications? And ask them: How is the huge prescription drug savings that will result from this plan not useful to seniors? Ask them: How is bringing Medicare into the 21st century and saving it for future generations not wise for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren?

Now, some of my colleagues will no doubt put forth $1 trillion, pie- in-the-sky plans. These packages would bust any budget, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. As a matter of fact, the Democrat substitute actually is larger than the sum of two budgets. The Democrat Spratt budget had $528 billion for Medicare, and the Democrat Blue Dog budget had $400 billion dedicated to Medicare. That is a total of $920 billion. But the Democrat substitute that they are offering today is over $1 trillion, more than the combination of those two Democrat budgets. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of prescription drug coverage under Medicare is exactly what age discrimination looks like in 2003. Seniors are the last group of people who are forced to pay retail costs for their medications and, Mr. Speaker, that should be enough of a violation of civil rights to get even the ACLU involved.

I said just a moment ago that today is a historic day, and it is. Today we apply a little common sense by recognizing that health care is simply not what it was 30 years ago, and that Medicare is not what it was 30 years ago. It must change to keep up. Today, we will take the first steps in creating the next generation of quality health care, a new era where prescription drugs make regular doctor visits less frequent, where cutting-edge treatments make hospital stays nearly obsolete in the future, and where lifesaving medications reduce formerly deadly diseases to mere manageable symptoms within longer and healthier lives.

Today I urge my colleagues to be bold, to be courageous, to show leadership, and to take America's health care system into a new frontier, a place where it has needed to go for far too long now. Time is precious and so are our seniors. I urge this Congress to pass the underlying rule and approve H.R. 1, the Medicare Improvement and Prescription Drug Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for some substantive remarks. Dr. Fletcher is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and also a member of the medical profession, and we look forward to what he has to add to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my distinguished colleague.

(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who led us through our hearing on this last night to the historic conclusion today on the floor.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who we both share an abiding concern about cancer patients and their treatment, I would just like to set the record straight in that the bill on the floor today increases oncology practice expenses by $190 million. That is 83 percent over their current payment, and it is 50 percent higher than any other specialty. It also includes an average sales price plus 12 percent for 2 years. Now, that is $240 to $250 million on top of a $190 million increase in practice expenses.

In addition to that, we have provided for oral cancer therapies, the new, upcoming way to treat cancer, so that chemotherapies are not the only treatment that seniors can get. They can stay home and take a pill in their own surroundings rather than go be hooked up to some infusion device.

These are wonderful steps forward for the cancer community.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I disagree with the gentlewoman's analysis of how it works. There is a provision that will allow physicians to stockpile, if they prefer.

But on to another issue, Mr. Speaker. There were statements made earlier that there were no cost savings in this bill, by a former speaker. There are cost savings. There is group purchasing and insurance benefits, a 25 to 30 percent savings. There is a discount card, 15 to 20 percent savings. There is a Medicare best price, $18 billion in savings. Average wholesale price reform, $15 billion in savings. There is Hatch-Waxman reforms and reimportation reforms, all generating savings. And that is how we are able to expand and generate better treatment for seniors through the upcoming years.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), another physician in our conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, passing this plan is the right thing to do. It makes the kind of commonsense changes to the health care system in this country that the American public needs. Adding this Medicare benefit will renew our promise to our seniors. It will reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and it will revolutionize medicine for the 21st century. Seniors deserve this assistance now. They deserved it yesterday. They deserved it last week; and actually, they deserved it last year. It is time for this body to act. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and pass the needed reform today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is my resolution; and I strongly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which condemns the recent wave of terrorism inflicted on Israel and expresses solidarity with the people of Israel in their heroic fight against terrorism.

First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for the gentleman's cooperation in bringing this resolution to the floor. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Republican leader, for his principled support, and to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, for her valued cosponsorship. The fact that these three leaders of the House have cosponsored my resolution is a powerful indication that it has strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution with one basic conviction, that Israel has as much right to fight against suicide bombers and ruthless terrorists as any other free and democratic nation. At the recent Aqaba Summit, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon, made some extraordinary and historic statements. He called for a democratic state living at peace with Israel with mutual respect and shared prosperity.

In less than a week of the Prime Minister's landmark speech, 22 innocent Israeli men, women and children fell victim to suicide bombings and over 100 were wounded. Israel's response to this unprovoked carnage was the only response a self-respecting democratic state could offer. When Israel responds with counterterrorist operations against suicide bombers, some criticize it for provoking a cycle of violence.

This is an absurd and sinister argument. Let us be clear about one thing. As our resolution states, Israel would not conduct counterterrorist operations if Palestinian counterterrorism would cease. The bloodshed, the violence, the tragedy would end.

The term ``cycle of violence'' must be permanently retired from the lexicon of Middle East politics since it preposterously implies moral equivalence between suicide bombers and the justified response of a free and democratic nation.

Based on comparative populations, the 22 Israelis who were murdered in the days following the Aqaba Summit are the equivalent of 1,100 Americans. Were al Qaeda again to murder over a thousand Americans, we would demand that our government take strong measures to eliminate the threat they pose. None of us would tolerate our government waiting while someone pleads with the terrorists for a temporary cease-fire.

In my recent meeting with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen in Ramallah, he told me that he is opposed to terrorism. Subsequently he repeated his statement to President Bush and many others, but Abu Mazen's effectiveness as a leader will not be judged by his words, but by his deeds. Abu Mazen's political situation is unquestionably complex; but if he continues to refuse to use force against murderous terrorists, he will soon become irrelevant and his political demise will be sure to follow.

But should he choose to take bold action against terrorism, he will deserve and he will receive the support of this body and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution underscores the obvious. Israel's fight against terrorism is one of the front lines of the global war against terrorism. Israel's enemies are motivated by a hate-filled, sick, totalitarian ideology, as are our terrorist foes. Israel's enemies are ruthless and bloodthirsty, just like ours. If the Palestinian Authority will not or cannot destroy and defeat Palestinian terrorist groups, Israel has no choice but to take matters into its own hands. We are fighting our enemies relentlessly. Israel, under infinitely less favorable circumstances, can do nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, it is universally accepted that it is the right of all states, including the democratic state of Israel, to make the defense of its citizens its number one priority. This is the bedrock of my resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking Democrat on the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, since there are colleagues on various sides of this issue who wish to speak and, given the time limits, they no longer would have the opportunity, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate. A good number of colleagues wish to speak on it. We waste so much time in this body on so many unimportant issues, I think an additional 20 minutes for each side is not an unreasonable request.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman consult with the leadership while we take up the next 10 minutes to see if they agree to an additional 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker, I am making the request that each side be given 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my friend, the distinguished senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) of the Committee on International Relations.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. BELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

(Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

(Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my friend and distinguished colleague.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are passionately committed to peace, and all of us in this House are passionately committed to justice. The Palestinian people are certainly entitled to an infinitely better life than what they have had for many years. The blame clearly lies with the surrounding Arab states which failed to allow them to establish civilized communities or to absorb them.

Other societies have done that. The Greeks of Cyprus absorbed the Greeks from northern Cyprus, and the people of Israel absorbed millions of their fellow nationals from all over the world.

There was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the misery of the Palestinians in refugee camps. Hopefully, with the President's vision, we will now see an end to this long, painful, tragic, misery-filled process.

To embark on that road, we must see the end of terrorism. There is no road map unless terrorism ceases, and if it does, the road map, in fact, will be implemented.

I congratulate the President for having the vision of recognizing that two states can live side by side in peace, with mutual respect and prosperity, but only if terrorism ends.

Abu Mazen, the new Prime Minister, has repeatedly indicated his opposition to terrorism. We have to help him to put an end to terrorism. He must gain control of the territory in Gaza, first in the north, then in central Gaza, then in southern Gaza and then on the West Bank, town by town, and as he does so, we will move towards peace, and the Israeli and the Palestinian people at long last will live in a civilized region.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for bringing peace in the Middle East. I support that vision. But that vision is one that we must support through a fairness situation where we do not make equivalency between what has happened by Mr. Sharon going to the Temple Mount and the death and destruction that have been wrapped upon Israel with the terrorist threat. I support the Lantos resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.

On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.

Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat.

And I'm pleased to hear that--just this morning--Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against Israelis. That's a very positive step. But we've heard positive talk many times before. The proof will be borne out over time through deeds. Just this morning, the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in northern Israel. Clearly, the vigil for peace and security will have to be maintained.

I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the President last June; particularly, the necessity of combating terrorism as the first of a sequence of events.

And I believe the U.S. must remain supportive of Israel in its fight against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and able to carry out this responsibility.

Like my colleagues here today, I welcome the positive steps the Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.

As Americans, we understand the fight against those who seek our destruction. We

stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in their fight against those who oppose their existence.

The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to provide safety and stability for its people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.

On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.

Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat. Since assuming office, Abu Mazen has refused, however, to take concrete steps to rein in the terrorists in any way. And despite the change in leadership, Yasser Arafat maintains a high degree of control, including authority over major elements of the Palestinian security apparatus.

And I am pleased to hear that, just this morning Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against Israelis. That is a very positive step. But as we have seen many times before, the proof will be borne out over time. Also just this morning, the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in northern Israel. So clearly, the vigilance for peace and security will continue.

I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the President last June, particularly the necessity of combating terrorism as the first of a sequence of events.

Since the Aqaba summit earlier this month, 22 Israeli civilians have been killed and many others have been injured in three separate suicide bombings. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to self-defense. Israel must act against terrorism if the Palestinian Authority does not. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has a responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist attacks. I believe U.S. policy must be supportive of Israel in its fight against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and able to assume this responsibility.

We must also wholly reject the concept of a ``cycle of violence.'' Use of that term implies a moral equivalence between those who commit terrorist acts and their victims. Israel's targeting of terrorist leaders is not the moral equivalent of targeting of innocent civilians, including women and children.

Like my colleagues here this morning, I welcome the positive steps the Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Without such action, the Road Map or any other effort, however well intentioned, will fail.

The Palestinian people deserve a leadership that looks beyond the narrow goal of nationalism and works toward bettering the lives of its people. Regrettably, the current leadership has shown no signs of embracing those goals. As Americans, we understand the fight against those who seek our destruction. We stand should to shoulder with Israel in their fight against those who oppose their existence.

The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to provide safety and stability for its people.