Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one obstacle we have when we seek to address what is clearly the number one domestic problem in America today--a healthcare system that is both unduly expensive and provides too little coverage for many Americans--is the objection to what some people are quick to call ``socialized medicine.'' The notion that a government role in healthcare is somehow inimical to the delivery of decent healthcare has prevented rational debate on this subject from going forward. Paradoxically, as the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Jim Nicholson, recently noted in his speech at the Press Club, it is the healthcare delivery system in our country that is most completely a government operation that scores highest in consumer satisfaction. As Secretary Nicholson noted in that speech, ``For the sixth consecutive year, the American Customer Satisfaction Index reports that veterans are more satisfied with their health care than any other patients in America. VA outscored the private sector by a full 10 percentage points. And as you would expect, because of our first-rate care, veterans are now coming to us in ever greater numbers.''

Mr. Speaker, the point must be underlined: the most popular form of medical care with those who receive it according to Secretary Nicholson, speaking on behalf of the Bush Administration, is a form of medicine that is entirely government run. I find it odd that people who would denounce Medicare as a form of ``socialized medicine'' don't apply that dreaded epithet to the one major medical care delivery system in our country which is entirely run by the public sector--the medical care delivered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I ask that excerpts from Secretary Nicholson's speech be printed here because they are an absolutely irrefutable answer to those who claim that any increase in a government role in medical care will somehow cause deterioration in the quality of that care. The ability of some myths to survive reality is one of the most impressive and depressing features of the American political scene. But I hope that people reading Secretary Nicholson's remarks, and thinking about what they mean in the broader context, will refrain in the future from somehow arguing that an increase in a public sector role in medical care will necessarily lead to its deterioration. I join Secretary Nicholson as a Member of Congress in taking pride in the medical care we provide for our veterans. My only criticism is that we don't do it in even greater quantity--too many veterans are unable to get access to the system, and I believe that it is an area where more resources would allow us to do an even better job. But again to quote from Secretary Nicholson's speech, when the ``NBC Nightly News . . . aired a story about VA healthcare, saying that it is the envy of healthcare administrators and a model for healthcare nationwide,'' it ought to give pause to those who mindlessly repeat the assertion that quality medical care and a government role are incompatible.

The VA is, I think, truly one of America's good news

stories. Following a decade-long healthcare transformation,

the VA is now at the forefront of America's healthcare

industry. And it's not just a proud secretary saying that,

but a host of other organizations within and outside of the

healthcare community saying that about us. For example, the

Journal of American Medical Association has applauded the

VA's dedication to patient safety. The Washington Monthly

magazine a few months ago had a feature article calling VA

health care, quote, ``the best care anywhere.''

U.S. News and World Report described the VA as the home of

top-notch health care in its annual best-hospitals issue. And

since you're sitting down, I won't shock you unduly by

telling you even The New York Times recently said that the VA

is a model for our nation. And very recently, I think last

week or the week before, on the NBC Nightly News was aired a

story about VA healthcare, saying that it is the envy of

healthcare administrators and a model for health care

nationwide.

And we are a model of humanitarian service in our

communities as well. Our VA employees come to the aid of

their communities and their citizens--veterans and non-

veterans alike--in times of disasters and other emergencies.

To make my point, I need only to mention the heroic effects

and efforts of VA employees during Hurricane Katrina and

Rita. Not only did our staffs evacuate several hundred

patients out of our hospitals in the Gulf area to other

hospitals without losing one, and not only did they do it

quickly and efficiently, at great personal risk to themselves

and at great personal sacrifice and loss. One nurse told me

in Houston, where we relocated patients, that she for four

days could see her house in New Orleans, and she could see

only the roof and the chimney, but she went with her patients

when we evacuated them, not even knowing the disposition of

her own family.

And when it's all said and done, it's the millions of the

men and women who we care for, though, who are our biggest

supporters. For the sixth consecutive year, the American

Customer Satisfaction Index reports that veterans are more

satisfied with their health care than any other patients in

America. VA outscored the private sector by a full 10

percentage points. And as you would expect, because of our

first-rate care, veterans are now coming to us in ever

greater numbers. Fully 7.7 million are now enrolled in our

system.

This year VA doctors and nurses will treat over 5.3 million

veterans at one of our 14 points of healthcare access. That's

an increase of more than 1 million veterans coming to us

since President Bush came to office. We expect this year that

we will have 60 million patient encounters; that is, 60

million visits to our centers, clinics and hospitals. We have

154 major hospitals and over 900 clinics, and we dispense

pharmaceutical prescriptions to over three--excuse me, over

230 million times.

We've achieved something that no other major integrated

provider has ever yet been able to do, and that is that every

one of these 7.7 million veterans enrolled in our system has

an electronic medical record.

Time precludes me from telling you all of the advantages of safety and good medicine that that gives us, but let me mention anecdotally a couple of things.

One, a young man came through Ronald Reagan airport. He was a diabetic. His insulin was in his luggage, and they lost his luggage. And he called his father in South Carolina, panicking, and his father said, ``Call the VA,'' because he was a veteran.

He called our VA hospital here in north Washington. They said, ``Get in a cab and come out here.'' And by the time he got there, they had his medical record dialed up, knew his insulin regime, administered to him, gave him a supply and sent him on his way.

And during that relocation of hundreds of patients in Katrina, we were able in every case, after we got them resettled into another hospital, to dial up their medical record.

So electronic health records and their advantages to patient safety, for telemedicine, have put us at the forefront in health care delivery in this country, and we are very proud of that achievement. And I can say that because it didn't happen in the 14 months that I've been in the job. So I'm sitting on the shoulders of those who did make it happen. But it is a seminal achievement in health care.

Two weeks ago I announced the creation of another front of technological initiative at the VA, which has the potential for untold ramifications in health care, and that's the creation of a new Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee, which will be to help me establish policies for using genetic information to help improve the medical care of our veterans.

The VA's commitment to move into this realm of research, to advance our knowledge of the relationship of the genome to a host of physical and mental conditions relevant to veterans, is completely in keeping with the investigative nature of VA medicine. For 75 years our researchers and clinicians have been breaking exciting ground in virtually every aspect of medicine, with most of their work resulting in new and better ways to treat the myriad illnesses of our veterans. From Nobel Prize-winning researchers--and the VA's had three Nobel Prize winners--from Nobel Prize winners to the CAT scan to paperless records technologies, to kidney transplants, to microchip-drive prosthetics, to medical school partnerships that have trained more than half of our nation's physicians today, we are leading the world in our care for our veterans.

As I've outlined, we've done a great job so far. We are a world-class healthcare network when it comes to treating existing illnesses and disabilities. But then we ask ourselves, what if we knew how to identify the earliest possible signs of a veteran's predisposition to a particular disease? What if we knew in advance how a veteran would react to a particular drug therapy? What if we could reasonably forecast the risks a particular veteran might face with respect to some forms of cancer? What if, summing up, we could move from providing medicine that is preventative to medicine that is predictive?

With the advent of the Genomic Medicine Advisory Committee, we are positioning the VA to take a new journey, a truly great journey along the DNA trail. It is a path still not well lighted. There are so many questions of ethics and privacy that we are not going to proceed down that trail without first assessing the risks and benefits to our veterans. But we know from past experience that once we determine that a VA program is in the best interest of our veterans, we move forward with all the resources we can muster.

And when VA health care is on the move, we change the nation's healthcare landscape for the better. As medical practice incorporates the advances of science, we must harness VA's triple mission of health care, research and training to bring these advances to the veterans we serve.

I'm confident our new push down the genomic road will benefit not only our veterans, but the larger national health care community as a whole, as so much of our other research has done, such as the development of the CAT scan and the pacemaker and the first liver transplant done at the VA.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing trends that we have seen recently is that of those who would adopt rules abolishing any restrictions on the untrammelled flow of capital around the world, taking away from countries their sovereign rights to impose restrictions that serve legitimate national interests. This applies both to direct foreign investment, and even more to the notion that short-term purely financial investments must be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever. As Daniel Davies notes in a British newspaper, the Guardian, while it is true that the general rule should be to allow cross-border purchases of companies, ``there are, quite feasibly, a lot of uncommon but not impossible situations in which a democratic government might want to pass a law about the operations of a company, and not want to find itself being taken to a WTO tribunal for doing so.'' He correctly says in closing, ``Of course, there is not really all that much to be said for local ownership restrictions in most cases . . . But on the other hand, nor is it `protectionism.' The case for capital market openness is very much weaker than the case for goods market openness and we should all resist the attempt to define down protectionism.''

[From the Guardian, Mar. 20, 2006]

Defining Protectionism Down

(By Daniel Davies)

Economic ``protectionism'' is back in the news with a

vengeance, with France objecting to takeovers in the steel

sector, Spain putting together national champion utilities

and the USA crying blue murder over Dubai Ports World's

proposed acquisition of P&O. James Surowiecki had an article

in the Saturday Guardian painstakingly setting out the

conventional wisdom on this subject (ie, that it's very bad).

Trouble is, this isn't really what ``protectionism'' means.

Basically and historically, ``protectionism'' (and

``mercantilism'' and related terms) always used to refer to

tariff policy, with respect to goods markets and trade

between buyers and sellers. The use of the terms to refer to

policies about capital markets and ownership of companies is

a new one; I spotted it beginning to arise in the FT and

Economist around the beginning of the 1990s and have been

writing Mr Angry letters on the subject ever since. Because

capital markets ``protectionism'' is much less bad than the

goods market type and might not even be bad at all.

It's easy to explain why tariffs are bad. They're a tax on

a particular economic activity--trade. Because of this, they

cause people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do in

order to avoid the tariff, or not to do things they otherwise

would do because the cost of the tariff means it isn't worth

their while. There is a deadweight loss associated with this,

and empirically it turns out that this deadweight cost is

substantial. That's why tariffs are bad, and why we have a

WTO dedicated to removing them.

On the other hand, ownership of a company isn't an economic

activity at all (because ``ownership'' isn't an activity,

it's something you can do while sleeping, in a coma or even

dead). So it is much harder to see how any deadweight loss

can be created by placing taxes or other kinds of barriers on

overseas investment in domestic companies. The very fact that

James Surowiecki in his article has to appeal to ``the

discipline of the takeover market on inefficient

managements'' ought to raise eyebrows here. If there is one

thing we do know about the discipline of the stock market,

it's that it's a very weak force for good indeed, if it's a

force for good at all. And the empirical evidence bears this

out as well; while the gains from goods markets

liberalisation are big and definitely there, the gains from

capital account liberalisation are small and frustratingly

difficult to detect, no matter what econometric techniques

you bring to bear.

Set against this, there are on occasion quite legitimate

reasons why one might want to put curbs on the foreign

ownership of domestic industries. Most particularly, you

might want to be absolutely sure that you can govern them via

domestic national laws. There is a lot of ill-founded

paranoia about ``multinationals'', but it is true that a

company with multinational operations has a lot more

wriggle room when it comes to regulations it doesn't like.

Furthermore, you can keep a lot more control over the tax

base, and over things like shipping records and accounts

which are usually stored in head office. Even the Thatcher

governments recognised this, which is why the government

used to have a ``golden share'' in a lot of privatisation

companies. There are, quite feasibly, a lot of uncommon

but not impossible situations in which a democratic

government might want to pass a law about the operations

of a company, and not want to find itself being taken to a

WTO tribunal for doing so.

And this is what the root of the problem is, I think. The

rise of cross-border ownership of companies has gone hand in

hand with the rise of a lot of bogus WTO cases trumped up by

multinational companies which don't like the way in which

they are being regulated in one of their countries of

operation, and have managed to convince someone that it is a

restraint of international trade. At about the time that the

new usage of the word ``protectionism'' was being

popularised, the international civil service was trying to

negotiate something called the Multilateral Agreement on

Investment (MAI). If it had been passed, this would have more

or less guaranteed to foreign investors in any country that

they would be able to carry out business in the same way in

which they did in their own country. The fact that this would

lead to a lowest-common-denominator effect pretty quickly

was, of course, not an unintended consequence--this was the

grand high era of neoliberalism, after all. However, more or

less for this reason, the MAI was incredibly unpopular

(particularly in the USA, where there are all sorts of local

regulations and industry sweetheart deals which everyone

wanted to preserve) and it died the death of a thousand

committees.

Ever since the death of the MAI, global civil servants at

places like the EU and the WTO have been trying to resurrect

it. They've been doing this, as far as I can see, by

attempting to blur the distinction between goods market and

capital market protection. I've mentioned that the WTO is

chock full of bogus cases where regulations on a local

subsidiary of a large company have been portrayed as a

restraint of trade, but the EU is if anything worse; the

office of Charlie McCreevy and the Single Market Directorate

Generale of the EU have a really nasty habit of claiming that

the ``right of establishment'' of the Treaty of Rome gives

them the power to force through any cross-border merger in

Europe in the face of government opposition. So the

linguistic confusion between ``protectionism'' in the sense

of tariffs and ``protectionism'' in the sense of local

ownership restrictions is not really all that innocent.

Of course, there is not really all that much to be said for

local ownership restrictions in most cases. If someone wants

to buy shares in a company, the fact that he comes from

overseas is usually not a very good reason to stop him. But

on the other hand, nor is it ``protectionism''. Even Adam

Smith had very different opinions on free trade in goods

markets, versus international investment. The case for

capital market openness is very much weaker than the case for

goods market openness and we should all resist the attempt to

define down protectionism.

Mr. Speaker, for many decades, Jerome Grossman has been a leader in the fight for a rational, humane foreign policy for the United States. Alongside my predecessor in this body, former Congressman Robert Drinan, Jerome Grossman was one of the effective leaders of the opposition to the war in Vietnam. He has continued over his long career with undiminished energy to fight for the principles in which he believes and in which our country ought to act. On January 5, in the Wellesley Townsman, the weekly newspaper in the town where he lives, Mr. Grossman published an article on the election in Iraq. As the newspaper noted, Jerome Grossman is the Chairman of the Council for a Livable World, and in that capacity has been an insightful critic of the President's Iraq war from the earliest days of the Administration's initiation of this policy. In this article, he notes the problem of having a fully free election in a situation of military occupation.

Mr. Speaker, although I greatly respect Mr. Grossman and I am one of many in Congress who have benefited significantly from his wisdom and advice over the years, I do not fully agree with the critique that he puts forward in this column. He is of course correct that there is not an autonomous government in Iraq, and it is also the case that the conditions in which the recent elections were held were far from ideal. But given all of those factors, I also believe that the elections were to a very significant extent an expression of the views of the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, what we have seen since that election is that those views fall far too heavily along sectarian lines, and the prospects for a genuinely democratic, functioning government coming out of this process is much more clouded than the President would have us believe. But despite this difference in emphasis between myself and Mr. Grossman on this particular aspect of the situation, I believe his article is a very useful contribution to the debate about our policy, and it is an important counter to the unrealistic optimism expressed by the Administration. I think it would be very useful for Members to read Mr. Grossman's viewpoint, drawing as he does on his decades of experience with these issues, and I ask that the article be printed here.

A `Free And Fair' Election in Iraq

President Bush hailed the Dec. 15 parliamentary election in

Iraq as a ``landmark day in the history of liberty.'' It was

an election in which 11 million Iraqis voted--a 70 percent

turnout, which is remarkably high. But was it ``free and

fair?''

It is impossible to have a ``free and fair election'' under

foreign military occupation, by definition. President Bush

himself pointed out this obvious fact at his March 16, 2005,

press conference on the election in Lebanon. ``Our policy is

this. We want there to be a thriving democracy in Lebanon. We

believe that there will be a thriving democracy, but only

if--but only if--Syria withdraws her troops completely out of

Lebanon, but also her secret service organizations . . .

There

needs to be a complete withdrawal of these services in order

for there to be a free election . . . '' Under strong U.S.

and United Nations pressure, Syria did remove its troops and

a free and fair election was held.

The pressures on Iraqi voters were enormous. In the streets

were 168,000 heavily armed American soldiers, 250,000 Iraqi

troops and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi police. The survival value

of the blue stain on the index finger was apparent to all, as

was the voter's name at the polling place. They could be

insurance against being picked up on suspicion of being

insurgents and then languishing in Abu Graib. Or they could

be protection from the armed Kurdish and Shiite militias

roaming the cities in search of dissident Sunnis.

In addition, leaders of the various tribal groups urged

their minions to vote their slates, in order to attain local

power for the coming struggle, widely expected once the

occupying Americans depart. And anyway, who will count the

votes?

The United States as the occupier of Iraq has the power to

make elected Iraqis carry out U.S. political decisions. We

decided the time and place for elections, vetoed some

candidates, approved others and guided the writing of the

constitution. The U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad--termed

``The Viceroy'' around the world--virtually runs Iraq from

his fortified embassy with its staff of 5,000 and room for an

active CIA.

Here is the real situation: Iraq has a puppet government

set up to keep order and to carry out American policies. This

is the logical and inevitable result of military conquest.

Any election held under such conditions--under the gun--

cannot be called free and fair. The Iraqis are simply

choosing which of their number will enforce U.S. will and

help to crush the inevitable resistance to foreign

occupation.

The Iraqis are not really governing themselves and we

should not pretend that they are. Authentic Iraqi democracy

with free and fair elections can develop only after complete

U.S. withdrawal.

Madam Speaker, I once again skirt the rules of the House by taking note of the fact that people not in this Chamber may be watching us. And I am particularly concerned about members of the Iraqi National Assembly, the newly elected Parliament which we are trying to instruct in democracy. They may be observing this procedure by which this House deals with a number of very important and controversial issues, some of which I fully support, some of which I question. But as they watch us deal with this, it is being dealt with in a manner in which no amendments are allowed, in which only 40 minutes total of debate are allowed. And it is a bill brought forward because the committee leadership didn't like what happened when the House actually voted on it in a democratic manner.

You will remember this bill came before us, many of the elements of this bill some time ago, and the House, working its will, voted to include an amendment to the hate crimes section. That appalled many Members of the majority. In fact, we read in some of the newspapers, members of the majority of the Republican Study Committee lamented the fact that the leadership had actually given the House membership a chance to vote. They said, we can't allow that to happen, we can't allow democracy to be running rampant on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

So today we have the antidote to democracy. We have a bill brought forward that repeats much of what was done before, which adds some other issues that ought to be debated, many

of which I support, some of which I might like to see amended, and it prohibits amendments. It is a very important and somewhat controversial piece. And there can be controversy about better ways to do it or worse ways to do it, but it is brought up in an absolutely undemocratic fashion.

So to those members of the Iraqi National Assembly who may happen to be observing this, I think there is a very important point we need to make: please don't try this at home.

We are trying to instill others in the world to be democratic. The President's inaugural address noted that we are going to bring democracy. Is this what you mean by teaching people to follow democratic procedures, Madam Speaker?

The other side brings up a controversial bill, and because it was amended once, make sure you can bring it back again in an unamendable form, put in other aspects, and leave virtually no time for debate. We will have debated this bill under the same rule that we debate naming of post offices. We will give this bill the same amount of time as we give post offices, or that major piece of legislation, the only vote we cast last Wednesday when this House came out overwhelmingly in favor of Sandra Day O'Connor. That is the bill that we had 40 minutes of debate on, the same as this.

This is a shameful example of the degradation of the democratic process that has befallen this House. What happens is what has happened in the past: things get put in here that cannot be individually examined, they cannot be debated. Members will feel pressured to vote for the overall package. Members, and this is the goal, put a lot of things in here that are very important and very good, many of which I have voted for in the past, many of which I want to vote for. But Members have put in a few other things that are very controversial and do not allow this House to approach looking at things individually and saying an amendment here, yes or no. And then if Members do not buy the whole package, then you go after them.

The Republican majority has decided to legislate in the same manner in which you give a pill to a dog: you take something that the dog wants and you stick a couple of pills in it and you ram it down its throat. That is an inappropriate way for this democratic House to proceed.

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that the poison pill the gentleman from Wisconsin was referring to was an amendment adopted on the floor of this House by a majority of the House. So the poison pill is the result of a majority of this House. The problem is the gentleman from Wisconsin has Thomas Jefferson confused with Lucretia Borgia. When the will of the House works its will under this regime, and the gentleman from Wisconsin does not like the outcome, it becomes a poison pill and we go through this whole procedure just to get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, I know some Members here will not remember it, but there used to be something called a conference committee, and if we sent the Senate a bill and they did not like it, they could amend it and send it back. We do not have to do the bidding of the Senate by taking the tough issue off the table for them.

Mr. Speaker, no crisis confronting the world is as grave as that in Darfur, Sudan, where genocide is a tragic fact. America's failure to act more vigorously in this regard is a grave error. It is true that there are other nations, including many in Africa--which bear some of the blame. But we must not let the inaction of others become a justification for our own failure to take steps that we know to be morally necessary to save lives. My colleague from Massachusetts, (Mr. Capuano), on his return from a trip to Darfur led by the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic Leader, wrote a forceful article in the Boston Herald for March 7th making the case for much firmer action by the U.S. and others in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, given the moral imperative of action, I hope all of our colleagues will agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts who writes that ``I urge the President to fully support the U.N. peacekeeping mission and put the full weight of the U.S. military behind it. More troops, with a mandate to protect civilians, are desperately needed . . . If the U.N. cannot meet this timetable, we must strengthen the AU force and provide additional civilian support.''

Mr. Speaker, at a time when people compete with each other to stress the importance of the moral element in politics, our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) has struck a clear note on one of the overriding moral issues of our time, and I join him in calling on the President and the rest of us to take prompt action.

U.S. Must Work To Halt Darfur Genocide

(By Michael Capuano)

We look back on the Holocaust and wonder how the world

stood by while 6 million Jews were slaughtered. Never again,

we pledged. Yet in 1994, 1 million Rwandans were massacred.

Afterward, we declared it genocide and pledged never again.

Many leaders later expressed deep regret over our inaction.

In 2003, our attention was drawn to Darfur, Sudan, where

innocent civilians were being murdered, enslaved, raped and

driven from their homes. We declared it genocide, but failed

to act, again.

Since 2003, more than 400,000 people have been murdered in

Darfur and 2 million more displaced. I just returned from

Sudan, on a trip led by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

In Al Fashir, Darfur, we met with relief workers, traveled

to Internally Displaced Persons camps and spoke with African

Union (AU) personnel. This reinforced my conviction that

genocide is still occurring, the government of Sudan is

responsible and not enough is being done.

We also met with Sudanese government officials who claimed

the suffering in Darfur was exaggerated. There were

skirmishes over water and grazing rights, they said, but

nothing to concern outsiders. They admitted funding the

Janjaweed, the militias who attack civilians, yet vehemently

denied genocide is occurring. Everyone else we spoke with, AU

personnel and relief workers, recognize they are witnessing

genocide.

There are 7,700 AU personnel on the ground. However, they

don't have a mandate to protect civilians and lack sufficient

resources. Without a drastic troop increase and outside

logistical assistance, the AU will continue struggling. AU

officials told us they need more support and are planning for

the involvement of a United Nations force. But the government

of Sudan, the perpetrators of the genocide, rejects U.N.

involvement.

I have persistently called for the protection of civilians

and an end to the violence. Attempts to address this crisis

legislatively have faced resistance. I have tried to

Introduce amendments to a State Department bill and a Foreign

Operations bill, authorizing the president to use all

necessary means to stop the genocide. These amendments were

blocked.

President Bush and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan

recently discussed a U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur. The

president has publicly called for the doubling of

peacekeepers. I urge the president to fully support a U.N.

peacekeeping mission and put the full weight of the U.S.

military behind it. More troops, with a mandate to protect

civilians, are desperately needed and must arrive in the next

couple of months. If the U.N. cannot meet this timetable, we

must strengthen the AU force and provide additional civilian

support.

President Bush recently said America was first to recognize

the genocide in Darfur. He said, ``Our country was the first

country to call what was taking place a genocide, which

matters--words matter.''

Actions matter more. It's time to back our words up with

action. Time is running out.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that Michael R. Lunsford, a constituent of mine from Taunton, Massachusetts, recently celebrated the first anniversary of being elevated to the position of Bishop within the International Fellowship of Reformed Episcopal Churches, previously known as the International Fellowship of Reformed Episcopal, Pentecostal Churches of the Syro-Atiochan Rite.

While this marks an important milestone for Bishop Lunsford and for the members of his congregation, I believe it is also important for the broader community to be aware of the many ways in which he has contributed to improving the lives of Taunton residents, and improving the quality of life in the greater Taunton area. Indeed, he offers an excellent example of the way in which clerics contribute to their communities simultaneously on two levels: as spiritual leaders for the members of their particular houses of worship or faiths, but also as participants in important community efforts to address social concerns that go beyond the doors of their own houses of worship. It is from that perspective that I would like to acknowledge the valuable services Bishop Lunsford has performed--and continues to perform--for Taunton and its environs, and also overseas (obviously, in this case, the term ``community'' has a much more expansive meaning than we sometimes give it).

Bishop Lunsford moved to Taunton in 1983 with his wife, when he took on the position of pastor at the Crossroads Christian Center. He has been active in area religious and civic affairs since that time. From its inception in 1987, he has been an advisor to Barnabas Ministries, an international missionary organization that has provided encouragement and training to thousands of pastors in more than 27 developing countries throughout the world. He was also the founder of two local human service programs: Eagles Nest, an after school program established in 1998 that focuses on tutoring, reading programs and other youth services; and The Lord Cares Food Program, which began in 1993 and provides nutrition assistance to needy families by means of donations and volunteer work. He was also the founder in 2001 of Crossroads International, a multi-racial ministry headquartered in Taunton, with branches in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island and Port Limon, Costa Rica. Crossroads International works on promoting business development, youth empowerment and anti-drug initiatives, among other efforts.

Bishop Lunsford is also on the board of Youth Challenge International, an anti-drug abuse organization, and is a member of numerous local human service and community boards, including Taunton Cares, Pro Home, Taunton Emergency Task Force, Community Counseling, Greater Taunton Clergy, and the Department of Mental Health.

Because his work is very much in the American tradition of combining spiritual and community leadership, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Michael R. Lunsford on his many contributions to Taunton, his elevation to the position of Bishop and his ongoing commitment to helping less fortunate people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I agree with the words of the gentleman from Ohio.

First of all, let me express the regrets of our colleague from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who was a major sponsor of this bill and who, I think, is the Representative of the National Federation of the Blind. He very much wanted to be here. He had a previous engagement, and he stayed here until the very last minute. I know he has a statement for the Record, but I did want to convey to people his having made an extraordinary effort to be here personally.

As I said, I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. I will say that I had inquired as to whether or not there might be some alternative financing arrangement. I appreciate this is a first-rate organization that makes enormous contributions. There are some other organizations that work in the field as well. But it was not possible to work anything out, and I did not want to stand in the way of this very important legislation, both in terms of commemorating Louis Braille and in terms of making the funding available.

So I give this legislation my support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, said. In the Committee on Financial Services, on a bipartisan basis, we marked up a bill that would authorize increased funding, but accompanied that with some reform. Let me go back to a couple of years ago, when, at the initiative of a bipartisan pairing of Members, our former colleague, Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska and our continuing colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) took up the cause of reforming the flood insurance program.

We began that process. Frankly, I find it a little ironic. Some of those who have been critical recently of the flood insurance program were some of those who resisted our efforts to make tougher reforms back then. But at the insistence of those two Members who I mentioned, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley); the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Ney and I and others worked hard. We did insist on some reforms. We didn't get everything we wanted.

This year, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, or last year, in this Congress, we again had a very serious markup in our full committee. It was controversial. One or two items that some of us supported were defeated, but we worked this out, and we had a bill to come to the floor that would have increased borrowing authority, but would also have further reformed the program, and this is a case, by the way, where environmentalism and protecting the taxpayers go together. It is not in anybody's interest to have buildings put into places inappropriately.

Unfortunately, the Senate did not show any interest in doing the same, and we have heard some comments from some Members of the Senate about reform, but their preference for reform seems very abstract. It does not often make its way into legislation.

The Senate sent us a bill, which, as I understand it, they intended to keep going until July. Frankly, that troubled me, because if we were to extend this program until July, given this being the even year of the session, with all that implies, the likelihood of our getting to the reforms would have diminished. What I like about this bill, and I hope it is a reassurance to some of those who want reforms, our understanding is you can't be precise if you don't know exactly how the spendout is going to be, but this should run out in May. That means that we have got to pass legislation again on this subject, as the gentleman from Ohio said.

I want to serve notice now, and I think I speak for the Members on my side, and I know this is something that both the subcommittee chairman and the full committee chairman agree with in desirability, we need to do further reforms. We are not talking about depriving people of the benefit of this program, we are talking about improving it from an environmental and efficiency standpoint.

By the way you do people no favor if you encourage them to build where they are then going to be the victims of a diaster. I know the chairmen of the full and subcommittee feel strongly about this.

Let me speak for myself. I will support this bill. I will not support a further grant of increased borrowing authority unless we have had a chance to deal with the reforms. If some of the changes that I support are voted on, and I am defeated, I accept that.

But to be confronted with a situation where the Senate sends us legislation that simply extends the money without any consideration of reform will be unacceptable to me. I don't want to victimize the people who are there, but it is simply does not comply with our duties to the taxpayers, to the environment, and elsewhere, to the public interest, to simply continue to put more money into this program without further reforms.

As I said, we did begin the process. So I will support this now. I am pleased that the chairman of our committee has noted we have a bill which was marked up in our committee, which has some reform. I hope we will bring our further bill to the floor with those reforms and let Members work their will on it and send it to the Senate.

But I again want to stress, I agree with those who say we need more reforms. I congratulate the leadership of the committee who have scaled this back in terms of how long it will last, so that we will not get an extension that makes it unlikely that we will be able to do some further reform.

I do not plan to support a further increase in funding to keep this program going until both Houses have dealt seriously with the need for reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been one of the two leading Members of Congress in recent years to try to improve this program.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I understand there probably has been some confusion about how long things are going to go. I will say I am now convinced that the problem is FEMA has no idea of what the spend-out rate is, and this is a further indication.

While we are on the subject, since we are talking about FEMA, I do have to say it is not on a related subject, it is not related, but the decision by FEMA to evict people who have lost their homes, who are living in hotels because some of them did not fill out the right forms, is the single cruelest most senseless public policy I have seen. It serves no purpose. It is an infliction of further misery on people who have already been beset. And it is an example of incompetence and callousness compounding each other.

Let me get back to this. Here I sympathize with my friends on the majority who have the responsibility of trying to make sense out of what they are hearing. We do not want to cut off the people who need help. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Let me say we have put a bill out. I hope we will see that bill on the floor soon, that we will get to vote on it, that we will send it to the Senate. And until and unless we get Senate consideration on the kinds of things we are talking about, I will vote for this one, but for no further ones.

I think, given the calendar, we should do it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, a study completed last month by Alicia Sasser, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's New England Public Policy Center, contains good news for those of us who have been pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. Ms. Sasser's very careful and well-documented conclusion is that an increase in the minimum wage in the State of Massachusetts would have significant overall benefits for the people of the State. To summarize her conclusion, ``increasing the minimum wage by $1.50 in Massachusetts is likely to have a small impact on employment--roughly on the order of 1 to 4 percent of affected workers. In addition, according to the analysis presented in this report, the combined impact of the two wage increases (contemplated and pending legislation in Massachusetts) would result in an estimated net wage gain of approximately $255 million. It should be noted, however, that the benefits of this increased wage gain may be diminished if employers respond by cutting hours or reducing their contributions to health insurance.''

It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that this is an analysis of what will happen in one State if that State alone raises the minimum wage. One of the potential negative effects is the loss of jobs for competitive reasons to the nearby State of New Hampshire, which does not have a minimum wage. What this means is that if we were to adopt a minimum wage increase on the national level, we would get, I believe, the advantages that Ms. Sasser's analysis, shows without that particular competitive disadvantage that comes from two States of virtually identical social composition right next to each other, having significant minimum wage differentials. While obviously there is international economic competition, it is not nearly as direct, especially in the industries that are affected by minimum wage increase.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that Members read this report. It is too long for inclusion here in the Record, but it is New England Public Policy Center Research Report Series, No. 06-1, issued in January. This analysis in my view--I do not impute it to either the Federal Reserve or Ms. Sasser--strongly argues in favor of Federal legislation to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Congenital Heart Defects, CHD, Awareness Week. Across America, over 1 million families face the challenges and hardships of raising children with congenital heart defects. Roughly 1 in 125 children are born with 1 of approximately 35 different congenital heart defects in the United States. Some of these are treatable with medications while others require surgeries or even transplants. Heart defects are the No. 1 birth defect in the United States, affecting 32,000 babies in the United States every year. They are also the leading cause of birth defect related deaths worldwide during the first year of life, and while genetics or environmental factors are assumed to be the cause for congenital heart defects, it will take more research to help uncover their cause.

The Grace Alice Campbell Foundation, founded by her parents Brenda and Chris Campbell of Mansfield, MA, which is in my district, has been established to raise public awareness of these birth defects, assist in the treatment of these children, and raise research funds to help doctors discover the cause of congenital heart defects and find a cure. Grace Alice was born on September 4, 2003, with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, and by the time she was 5 months old, she had already had two open-heart surgeries. Now as a toddler, Grace Alice's perseverance is a wonderful example of love and courage for others every day. The foundation, launched by her parents, serves as a support group for the families of those affected, encouraging these families to celebrate life, remember loved ones lost, and to honor dedicated health professionals.

I extend my congratulations and express my admiration to the Grace Alice Campbell Foundation for its hard work on behalf of those affected by congenital heart defects and their families. I also ask that, because of the resolve of the Campbell family as well as many others across the country, the article, ``Heart Buddies,'' by Deborah Knight Snyder in the Norton Mirror, published on Friday, February 3, 2006, documenting the courage and struggle of these families, be printed here.

Heart Buddies

(By Deborah Knight Snyder)

One in every 100 babies is born with a heart defect.

February 7-14 is Congenital Heart Defects (CHD) Awareness

Week, and a group of Massachusetts mothers agrees word needs

to get out about the many children living with CHDs. For

these mothers, that awareness is simply a way of life,

because their children were born with heart defects.

``People know more about conditions like Down's Syndrome

and spina bifida than they do about heart defects, when heart

defects are actually the number one birth defect in the

United States,'' said Lyn McPhail of Braintree during a

recent support group meeting in Mansfield for mothers of

children with CHDs.

Increased consciousness will hopefully lead to more help

and, ultimately, to more funding, she said. There are

approximately 35 different types of congenital--meaning

present at birth--heart defects.

McPhail is the mother of 15-month-old Cameron, who was

diagnosed with a CHD when he was just 1\1/2\ days old.

Cameron has had two heart valve operations already and

still needs a valve replacement. The quandary, his mother

explains, is what to do next. There is a small mechanical

valve available for children who are at least 2 years old,

but that valve will become too small as he grows and would

ultimately require yet another operation. However, she said,

there is clinical testing currently underway in Canada and

Europe which could produce better options.

``You're just racing against time,'' she said.

McPhail is a member of Heart Buddies, a group of mothers

and kids from all over the Boston area who get together every

month at each other's homes to lend and provide support. The

mothers initially met through literature from Children's

Hospital and through Little Hearts, Inc., a Connecticut-based

organization which lends support to families of kids with

CHDs.

The children--who outwardly appear to be healthy, chubby

babies and toddlers--play, while the mothers talk about their

experiences.

The mothers--who sound like cardiologists to the untrained

ear--discuss the children's progress and their setbacks, and

about new medicines and treatments which could help their

kids.

When the mothers are together, they share a special bond

and code of understanding.

Parents of kids who are ``heart healthy''--a term the

mothers use to describe children without a CHD--just can't

comprehend their daily lives.

``It's nice to able to talk and not have to explain

everything,'' said Brenda Campbell of Mansfield, whose

daughter, Grace, now 29 months old, was born with a

congenital heart defect.

``We can ask each other `does she look blue to you?' That's

our life now,'' Campbell said.

A bluish color could be an indicator that the child is not

getting enough oxygen, and is a possible precursor to these

parents' worst fear: that their child is going into

congestive heart failure.

``That's certainly a daily worry,'' Lyn McPhail said.

Many of the mothers got their diagnoses while they were

still pregnant, while others received the news--which they

all called ``devastating''--when their babies were just

one or two days old.

Grace Campbell was born without a left ventricle in her

heart. She had her first surgery when she was just six days

old and her second surgery at 5\1/2\ months.

``They put in totally different plumbing to help her right

ventricle do all the work,'' Brenda Campbell explained.

The Campbells have taken a proactive approach by organizing

the Mansfield based ``Grace's Run,'' which annually raises

money for families with children with CHDs and for Children's

Hospital.

Zachary Duong of Wilmington was born on the same day as

Grace, and his mother, Sheila, met Brenda Campbell in the

hospital. Zachary is now 2 years old. He was diagnosed with

his CHD the day he was born and was rushed to Children's

Hospital, where he spent the first three months of his life.

Megan Lea of Mansfield, now 18 months old, was born with a

very rare set of CHDs. She has a condition known as Ebstein's

anomaly, an abnormality in the tricuspid valve. She also has

cardiomyopathy, a disease of the heart muscle that can cause

it to lose its pumping strength. With cardiomyopathy, doctors

have told the Leas that about one-third of the kids get

better, one-third stay the same, and one-third get worse, so

Megan's parents have no choice but to wait that one out.

There is a possibility that she will need a heart

transplant at some point. She will also probably need valve

surgery for the Ebstein's anomaly. Right now doctors are

trying to manage her conditions with medications, and she is

currently on four different heart drugs. Megan was on oxygen

for the first 10 months of her life but is now breathing well

on her own.

``The progress they're making is unbelievable, but it's

scary because we don't know what their future is,'' Ellie Lea

said. ``Her cardiologist said that Megan looks a lot better

than expected. We just take it one day at a time.''

``The mother's group is good, because we understand each

other,'' she continued. ``Friends who aren't `heart moms'

ask, `So, is she all fixed?' ''

``I hate it when people ask that!'' exclaimed Delys Poynton

of Braintree, the mother of 19-month-old Amy, who was born

with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHP). Kids with HLHP

undergo a total of three operations--known as the Norton

procedure, after the doctor who discovered it--and then hope

for the best. Like some of her friends in Heart Buddies, Amy

has undergone two of those three operations already.

``These little kids have already experienced things most

people never have to experience in their whole lives,'' Delys

Poynton said. ``They get so used to seeing doctors, they get

stranger fatigue'' which affects the way they react to other

people.

Ellie Lea recalled taking Megan to a hospital to visit a

friend, and Megan ``freaked out'' as soon as she got into the

hospital. Though just a baby, Megan understood exactly where

she was, and she wasn't happy about it.

There's a name for the babies' reaction: ``white coat

syndrome.'' The children are so used to being poked and

prodded by doctors that they develop an aversion to them.

Also, Delys Poynton said, many of the CHD kids develop

eating problems.

``When you have tubes up your nose for so long, you don't

want anything in your mouth,'' she said.

Liz Bogyo of Chelmsford is the mother of 14-month-old

twins: Allison, who is heart healthy, and Andrew, who was

born with a CHD. Andrew was diagnosed when Liz was 17 weeks

pregnant.

She recalled the trauma and exhaustion of having a brand

new baby at home, Allison--``who we didn't even get a chance

to know'' because she and her husband were spending so much

time at the hospital with Andrew.

Andrew has undergone two operations and will have to have

one more. If that one goes well, he has an 85 percent chance

of survival, his doctors have said.

Like the other families, the Bogyos said they take each day

at a time and hope for the best.

Ruth Kennedy of North Reading found out when she was 19

weeks pregnant that her son, Ewan, now 2 years old, had a

CHD. She received an initial diagnosis of just ``heart

defect'' with no additional details and recalls ``just

sobbing'' as she walked past the other women at Mass General

who were waiting to get their ultrasounds. Ewan has had two

operations with another one coming up.

``Long-term, they can't tell you what to expect. No one

survived before. You just have to take it day by day and be

happy with what you have,'' Ruth Kennedy said.

Because of the advances they've made in the last 20 years,

there is no existing group of adults who would have had

access to the medical care these babies are now receiving,

the mothers said. Consequently, there is no real information

available on what kind of future awaits these children. Their

parents have been told by the children's doctors not to

expect Olympic athletes, but to hope for a normal life.

Still, no one knows for sure. The situation has given the

mothers a different outlook on life.

``It's like a poem I heard about,'' Lyn McPhail said. The

poem is all about planning for a trip to Italy, and

anticipating being in Italy, but when you arrive at your

destination, you're actually in Holland. You deal with being

in Holland, she said, ``but the dream you had of going to

Italy is still very real.''

``You just appreciate every little thing all the more.

You're so grateful for the good things,'' said Ellie Lea.

``It's a very humbling experience.''

Mr. Speaker, in the February 8 issue of the Sun Chronicle, published in Attleboro, Massachusetts, there is a very good article about the reaction of hospitals to the President's proposal to change the Medicare law so that future spending would be less on Medicare than it otherwise would be.

In particular, the article quotes Linda Shyavitz, who is the president and CEO of Sturdy Memorial Hospital, an excellent medical facility that serves a very important and diverse population in the city of Attleboro.

Reading the article, including the comments of Ms. Shyavitz, reinforced my view that these proposed changes that the President has put forward are ill advised and would do social damage. I think it is important for Members to understand what people who are charged with important responsibilities think about these proposed reductions in future spending patterns that the President has called for, and because Ms. Shyavitz is an extremely well-qualified and thoughtful administrator of a very important medical facility, I was particularly pleased to have this chance to share her views with our colleagues.

[From the Sun Chronicle, Feb. 8, 2006]

U.S. Budget Cuts Worry Hospitals

(By Gloria LaBounty)

Attleboro.--Hospital administrators are keeping a wary eye

on Congress as it plows through the Bush administration's's

proposed cuts in Medicare.

``I think hospitals all over the country will be fighting

this,'' said Linda Shyavitz, president and chief executive

officer of Sturdy Memorial Hospital in Attleboro.

According to initial reports, Bush's new $2.7 trillion

budget plan would mean a loss in Massachusetts of $758

million in Medicaid funds.

It would also mean a reduction of $213 million in Medicare

payments to health-care providers over five years.

The Medicaid impact is still vague, however, because the

state is redesigning its program, the Massachusetts Hospital

Association says.

The Medicare piece already has hospitals concerned.

Although information so far has been presented in broad

terms and details are still days away, Shyavitz said

indications are that the proposal could mean a reduction to

Sturdy of $575,000 per in Medicare payments.

All elderly patients would still be cared for at Sturdy,

but the hospital would get less reimbursement for the care it

provides. Shyavitz said.

Asked how the hospital would compensate for the loss in

revenue, Shyavitz said it would be premature to speculate

because the information has just come out and the president's

intentions are still being absorbed.

But she said what hospitals will do in the short term is

urge members of Congress to reject the cuts and not support

the budget.

Paul Wingle, senior director of communications for the

state hospital association or MHA, said the Medicare cuts

would put a financial strain on hospitals, and more of them

would serve patients at a loss, or at a very thin margin.

``Hospitals would have to scramble to make up the loss,''

he said, and some might do that through cutbacks, or through

attempts to make up the revenue elsewhere.

That in turn creates pressure for rate increases.

Shyavitz said hospitals cannot simply raise rates, and

would have to negotiate increases with health insurance

companies. But she said many hospitals will want to do that

if the cuts materialize.

Shyavitz said she is confident that Massachusetts

congressmen and senators, including Sen. John Kerry and Sen.

Edward Kennedy, and U.S. Reps. James McGovern and Barney

Frank. will oppose the cuts.

Kennedy has already spoken out by telling the Associated

Press that Bush's budget proposal ``shortchanges our

competitiveness, shortchanges our opportunity, and

shortchanges our future.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak in the gentleman from California's place.

Mr. Speaker, many of us want to join in wishing Mrs. Gingrey a happy birthday. And I guess we would say it is 8 o'clock, and she knows where her son is tonight at least.

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the assault on freedom of expression that we are seeing in the world today. I want to be very clear. The newspaper in Denmark, the name of which I will not even try to pronounce, had every right to print the cartoon. That does not mean the cartoon was not offensive or disrespectful. Free speech, freedom of expression means nothing if it does not mean the right to be mean and disrespectful and obnoxious. It is easy to be for free speech when it is polite and civil and when you agree with it.

One of the dangers that comes to free speech are those who say, well, yes, we believe in freedom of speech, but it should be respectful. We believe in freedom of speech, but it has to be reined in. No it does not. Freedom of expression means that as long as you are speaking or writing, as long as you are not acting, you are free to exercise what you think you need to say, what you think you need to write. Now, people who are offended by that writing have every right in return to be very critical and, indeed, even to boycott the organ that printed it.

But we see something today that is terribly frightening that goes far beyond it. First of all, we see this extraordinarily disproportionate violent reaction. I am struck that in parts of the Middle East and elsewhere, people who were apparently not moved to action by death and destruction and murder and famine, are moved to violence because somebody printed a cartoon. The values of people who put a cartoon ahead of serious damage to individuals as a cause of outrage are seriously deficient.

But it is also wrong when people say they are going to put pressure on the entire nation of Denmark because it will not censor a newspaper. Again, people have a right to boycott the newspaper. People who exercise their free speech have to expect there might be a response. But what we are being told is that people are going to punish the entire nation of Denmark because that government will not censor a newspaper. That is a terrible threat to free speech. It would be a grave error for the country of Denmark to give in. When I read that people are going to boycott Danish goods, I am myself moved to try to go out and buy some Danish food. I wish some of it was not quite so fattening, from what I look at.

But we must repudiate the notion that it is legitimate to punish the government and the country of that government because it will not censor a newspaper. That is a terrible threat to free speech. It is a threat to free speech again when people defend the newspaper in such a halfhearted way or when people say, well, they should not have printed that, and we understand why people are doing this. And freedom of speech must be tempered by respect for the views of others. No, it must not.

And I speak as someone who has espoused that principle in a variety of categories. I am Jewish and I believe that the Nazis had a legal right to march in Skokie, as despicable as I thought that was, as much as I thought people ought to have expressed their disagreement. I am a patriotic American, but I would not vote to put you in prison if you burned the American flag. And I must say, let us have some consistency here. People who are for jailing those who disrespect the American flag seem to me ought to be thinking about what kind of reaction they are seeing now because people dishonored the prophet Mohammed.

There are people who put their religion ahead of their country. That is not necessarily an irrational or an immoral thing to do. Let us be very careful. And by the way, I think that newspapers in the Arab world have a legal right to print vicious anti-Semitic cartoons that deny the Holocaust, that talk about ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.''

Again, let us have some consistency here. The consistency ought to be this: people have a right to write or say whatever they wish. People who are offended by that writing or that speech are entitled to retaliate, nonviolently, but by boycotts, by criticism from the person who expresses it. But when we see this kind of violence, when it is suggested that a cartoon justifies violence, when people are halfhearted in condemning the violence, when we have people say that it is legitimate to punish a government, not for publishing a cartoon, but for failing to censor the publication of that cartoon, then free speech is in danger.

So I think it is very important for us to say that people may have whatever view they have about the cartoon, but we must speak up against what is a growing systematic campaign of intimidation that will result in a diminution of those important freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I do suggest a possible compromise, because there is a certain self-interest. Let us be honest among the Members. Perhaps the modification could be that any former Member using any piece of equipment would have to yield to a current Member.

Mr. Speaker, the problem that we are dealing with is exemplified by what we are dealing with today, a bill that comes to the floor under suspension of the rules. I do not think the party of reform distinguishes itself by bringing up this issue in a way that does not allow amendment. Why not bring this to the floor in an open rule?

The fact is that we have had in this House for years now, under Republican rule, a suppression of democracy, a failure to throw things open. Why was there a necessity to have this under a suspension? Why should not this be open?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman misses the point entirely. The

question is not whether we pass something, which frankly seems to me rather trivial. I am going to vote for it, I think it is better than not. It is interesting it took the party of reform, what, 11 years to stumble across it.

But what is important is what is not here. The gentleman misunderstands the legislative process if he thinks that he satisfies it by saying, okay, we will take one piece of this and we will bring it up and we will decide what is up and what is not, and we will open it up to debate.

It is the lack of debate that has been a problem. It is also the case, of course, that the corruption we are dealing with goes very deep. And I have to say that the suggestion that the Republican Party, the assertion, is a party of reform simply does not square with the facts.

Let us talk about some of the legislation. The problem frankly has not been former Members. When you came to prescription drugs and dealing with the pharmaceutical industry in general, it has been future former Members.

That is current Members who plan to be former Members in the arms of the industry that they were voting to regulate.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have got a serious systemic problem of corruption that I am prepared at this point to correct myself. I am one of those who talks about in Washington a vast right-wing conspiracy. It now seems clear to me that we instead have had a vast right-wing kleptocracy, and putting people out of the gym is not a beginning of dealing seriously with that problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I agree with what the gentleman from Arizona said. We have made a bipartisan effort on our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, to really address the problem of Indian housing, which has shamefully been, I think, ignored and given inadequate attention by both the executive and the legislative branch, and by both parties. There is more than enough blame to go around.

We also need to say, and I am myself a supporter of casino enterprises by Indians, but not every tribe has one. Not every tribe wants one. And we need to deal with the fact that while some people have this image of those tribes which have casinos doing very well, there continues to be some of the worst poverty in America on the reservations and among the tribes.

This legislation is very important. The gentleman from Arizona and I and others, also earlier this year, had a hearing in which I must say I was dissatisfied with the responses we got. There are questions when you do Indian housing that come out of the land title situation, because of the atypicality by American legal standards of Indian landholding; and we have not had at either the legislative or executive branch or on behalf of either party the attention that the people deserve to their housing needs.

This is a step. It is not the end. I am glad we are doing this. But I think I can serve notice, and I know the gentleman from Arizona agrees with me, that next year those people in the executive branch charged with this can be expected to be held to a much higher standard of performance than they have been held to before. We are determined to correct this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman mentioning our colleague from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who has been very active in this, and also the staffs from our committee have worked very well together. I think it is the first time that such attention has been devoted at both the Member and staff level. I am very appreciative of our ability to do that together.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the combination of institutional incompetence and ideological extremism that has us contemplating this bill at this hour with further important legislation to go, all kinds of stuff gets put in and the regular process gets degraded.

I just want to call attention to one wholly irrelevant provision, irrelevant to the defense. The Boy Scouts of America have been found by States and cities to be violating their anti-discrimination policies with regard to both sexual orientation and religion, and some cities have said that they do not want anyone who fails to follow their State or city's policy getting free facilities. That I suppose can be debated or not as to whether it is right or wrong, but it does not seem to me that there is any argument for having it in the Armed Services authorization bill in a Congress run by supposed States rights conservatives, a provision that says to every city in America you will let the Boy Scouts use your facilities for free whether or not you think they violate the law against discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation.

Now, that is probably going to be found unconstitutional, but I find that to be way beyond the scope of this bill and an example of the degradation of the legislative process that it is in here.