Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to help fulfill the promise made by Congress and the President to our seniors. The ``Preserving Medicare for All Act of 2004'' begins with the framework of HR 1, which was passed in the last days of our first session. But it corrects the legislation's structural defects that will result in more harm than help for our Medicare beneficiaries.

Over the past few years, I have met with thousands of seniors in my district about Medicare and their need for prescription drug coverage. They brought me their empty pill bottles and their pharmacy receipts. With the highest out-of-pocket costs of any age group in the country, they and millions of other seniors across the nation were looking to Congress for real prescription drug coverage that would give them substantial help with their drug costs. They wanted their drug benefit to be provided like other benefits covered by Medicare--administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with a guaranteed benefit, universally available regardless of where they live, for it not to jeopardize existing coverage, and yes, they wanted the choice of their own doctor and hospital and the freedom to choose a private health plan if they prefer that option.

I believe that a clear majority of the House and Senate wanted to enact legislation that met our seniors' needs. Unfortunately, the bill that moved through Congress failed to provide seniors with what they needed or expected. The plan that became law will not be administered by CMS but by private insurers. The government is prohibited from using the purchasing power of 40 million beneficiaries to lower drug prices. There will be no guaranteed benefit, but rather an ``actuarially equivalent'' benefit whose components insurance companies can manipulate to discourage high-cost seniors from enrolling. It will not be universal, because these insurers can offer different coverage in different areas of the country. It will jeopardize existing coverage; the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 2.7 million retirees--half of whom have annual incomes of less than $30,000--will lose the drug benefits they now enjoy as a result of insufficient subsidies to employers. Under the guise of ``choice'' and ``competition,'' this bill gives an extra $12 billion to managed care plans, which are already reimbursed at rates one-fifth higher than fee- for-service Medicare. This so-called ``stabilization fund'' and a premium support demonstration project are not designed to offer choice, but instead to lure younger, healthier seniors away from traditional Medicare and into private plans. These features of the bill do not save money, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. Instead, scarce dollars that could be used to provide a better drug benefit are used

to ensure profits for health plans. Those beneficiaries who remain in fee-for-service Medicare will be isolated in an underfunded program and they will see their premiums skyrocket as a result of phony ``competition.'' Finally, the new law includes a ``cost containment'' provision that actually shifts rather than contains costs. By combining the Part A and Part B Trust Funds and creating a new definition of insolvency that caps Medicare's use of general revenues at 45 percent of total Medicare costs, this provision would force government to cut benefits or raise payroll taxes if this limit is exceeded. More than any other element of the new law, this provision would undermine the entire Medicare system as we know it, shifting the burden of the program onto those least able to afford it.

The bill I am introducing today will modify these damaging aspects of the new Medicare law. First it will authorize the HHS Secretary to use the purchasing power of 40 million seniors and disabled Americans to negotiate lower drug prices. Second, it will guarantee seniors the choice of a nationally available, defined benefit within Medicare. The premium, deductible, copays and stoploss will be set by law, not by private insurers. Third, my bill will fully reimburse employers for the cost of qualified retiree drug coverage and it will permit their costs to count toward seniors' catastrophic limits. Fourth, it will repeal the premium support demonstration and help ensure that Medicare remains a national program with equal access for all seniors. Fifth, it will eliminate the ``stabilization'' fund for private health insurers and dedicate these funds to strengthening the traditional Medicare program for seniors. Finally, it will eliminate the ``cost containment'' provision of the bill, which will harm both working families, seniors, and health care providers.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare prescription drug provisions of this bill will not take effect until 2006. We have time to fix the structural problems that prevent this law from benefitting today's beneficiaries and those who will depend on Medicare in future years. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and help keep the promises we've made to our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I appreciate the distinguished leader's response in regards to this issue.

Let me just point out, if I might, that we now have 300,000 fewer people that are seeking employment because they have given up, and that brings down the unemployment rate when in reality it is higher than it has ever been. And the last time we did not extend the unemployment, the last recession, we did that when there was a significant growth in employment. We have had 1,000 new jobs created in the last month. We have a net loss of over 2.4 million jobs in the last 3 years.

I would just urge the distinguished leader to talk to members of both caucuses. This is an important issue. There are a lot of people who are being lost in this economy that need this help. And I would just urge the leader to consider scheduling debate on the floor on the extension of the Federal unemployment accounts. We have bills sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans on this issue. It is an important subject. And I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I would hope that we will defeat the previous question so that we can bring up the unemployment compensation extension.

Last year, Congress left town without extending unemployment benefits, but at least we came back and did it retroactively.

Now, some are saying that our unemployment is not as bad or not bad enough for us to extend the Federal unemployment benefits. They are saying it is time for the extended benefit program to end.

But let us look at the facts. Never before has Congress allowed the termination of this program when the unemployment rate is higher than when the program started; at least up until now. Congress has never terminated the program with the unemployment benefits when the economy still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than when the recession began. Congress has never stopped the extension of the program where the long- term unemployment rates have tripled. Yet, there has been no offer to give any help. Congress has never allowed the extended benefit program to expire when the exhaustion rate for regular unemployment benefits is the highest since we have been keeping these records. Yet, we are talking about leaving town without extending unemployment benefits. Congress has never refused to extend unemployment benefits when there is $20 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Account, enough money to pay for extended benefits without going into debt, yet we are talking about leaving town today without extending the Federal unemployment benefits.

The Washington Post got it right when it compared this to the last recession. It said, ``But in 1993, employment had grown for 22 of the 23 previous months, and the overall number of jobs was above the prerecession level. This time around, employment has grown for only 4 months in a row, following 6 straight months of job losses. Overall, the number of jobs is down 2.4 million since the current downturn started in early 2001.''

Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong for us to leave town without helping those people who do not have jobs through no fault of their own. Unemployment compensation is not a luxury. We need to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, because I believe we are getting near the end of the business of this session of Congress, and at least on this side, we are not aware of whether the majority will allow unanimous consent requests in regard to the unemployment compensation extensions.

As my colleagues know, at the end of this month, we will expire the Federal Unemployment Compensation Program, and 80,000 to 90,000 individuals a week will exhaust their State unemployment benefits and will not be entitled to any Federal relief.

So I was wondering if the gentleman could just advise us as to whether the majority is prepared to allow unanimous consent requests, since there are no further recorded votes, I believe, anticipated today, so that we could at least bring up the extension of the unemployment compensation benefits to deal with the people who cannot find employment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection at this point, and maybe we will have a chance a little bit later to talk about this.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider an additional continuing resolution which will allow us to go home over the holidays, and at this time, there is no indication from the majority that they are prepared to bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of our fellow citizens who will be running out of unemployment insurance benefits during that period of time. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would not approve the previous question so that we could bring up this unemployment insurance extension.

Let me just remind my colleagues that 1 year ago we were in a similar position, and the majority did not bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits, and at Christmastime, we had to tell hundreds of thousands of Americans that they ran the risk of losing the Federal benefits that they needed during this recession. We are faced with the situation again.

Two days after Christmas, the current Federal 13-week unextended benefit program is scheduled to expire. If we do not do anything about it, 80- to 90,000 people in this Nation, every week, will exhaust their State extended benefits and will not be entitled to any Federal extended benefits; 1.4 million Americans during that 6-month period, until June of next year, are anticipated would be without benefits.

The exhaustion rate, those who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding employment has reached the highest level on record, the highest level on record, 43 percent. Two million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months, nearly triple the amount compared to the beginning of 2001. We have 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to 2\1/2\ years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader recently said, I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better off than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from what the record shows, and I could go through a list of the economic indicators from the last downturn in our economy and this time, but this one I think really puts it all in proper perspective.

The current amount of jobs that were created before we terminated the Federal unemployment benefits in the 1990s was 2.9 million additional jobs. What we are looking at now is 2.4 million less jobs in this recession. The majority leader refers to some slight job growth that we had, and we hope that continues, because, currently, if someone's looking for a job, there are three people looking for every job that is available today. These are people who cannot find employment, but the loss of employment in our economy in the last couple of years is 2.4 million jobs. The jobs are not there. People want work. They cannot find work. That is why we have the Federal unemployment benefit program.

There is $20 billion in the fund today to fund this program. The money is there. The money is there for this purpose. We should extend it before we go home. So I hope we will use this opportunity because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any other opportunities coming along. This may be our last chance by using this vehicle so that we can consider legislation that would extend the Federal unemployment benefits for some additional weeks, and by the way, we should also take care of those who have already exhausted all their benefits.

The economy just is not there yet. We all hope we will get there. We usually do this on a bipartisan basis. Let us get together and help our uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. I had hoped that I would have an opportunity to vote for a real prescription drug benefit within the Medicare system, or at least I would be able to vote on a bill that provides the foundation on which we could build a real benefit within Medicare. Instead, this conference report provides no guaranteed benefit whatsoever to our seniors for prescription drugs. It uses what is known as ``actuarial equivalent'' which depends solely upon private insurance companies.

We know what happened to Medicare+Choice with private insurance companies. The eight that were operating in my State of Maryland are all gone, leaving my seniors.

It has an ineffective mechanism to control prescription drug costs. It denies the government the tools that every other industrial nation in the world is using to bring down the cost of prescription medicines.

But worse than this, Mr. Speaker, it actually causes harm to our seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 2.7 million retirees will lose their prescription drug benefits by the enactment of this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is not a voluntary bill for those 2.7 million Americans; they have no choice. It cost-shifts costs on to our seniors from basic Medicare because of premium support and triggers and caps. We overpay HMOs, using money that could be available to help our seniors. We make it more difficult for our seniors to get cancer treatment by the changes that we make on the reimbursement for cancer drugs.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill does more harm than good. I support providing our seniors with a meaningful prescription drug benefit within the Medicare system that will strengthen Medicare. Therefore, I must oppose this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment with the conference report on HR 1. For the past several years, I have worked toward enactment of a prescription drug benefit for those who rely on the Medicare program for their health care needs.

A meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit must be affordable, guaranteed, and available to all, it must contain an effective mechanism to lower the cost of medicines and it must be built on a sound structure that can be improved upon in future years.

I have carefully considered the legislation that is before us today, and it fails each of these tests. This Congress has missed an opportunity to enact far-reaching, bipartisan legislation that would provide the help that millions of seniors need and deserve.

Some have criticized the Medicare program as outdated, inefficient, a dinosaur. These members are ignoring Medicare's success in providing universal, comprehensive coverage. They are ignoring Medicare's low administrative costs--3%--relative to private insurers at 15 to 20 percent. They are ignoring Medicare's ability to cover a population that has been shunned by private insurers for decades.

Before Medicare was enacted, there was little private interest in covering elderly and disabled Americans. And there is still little private interest in doing so. That is why in my own state of Maryland, several hundred thousand seniors who once had the choice of eight Medicare HMOs, now have no HMO options available to them. As the options dwindled between 1998 and 2002, the remaining plans quadrupled their premiums, slashed their drug coverage and eliminated extra benefits. By 2003, the M+C HMO penetration rate in Maryland was zero percent. Nationwide, since 1997, more than 2.4 million seniors have been abandoned by private insurance plans, even though the plans were paid at 119 percent of fee-for-service Medicare costs.

This conference report changes the name ``Medicare+Choice'' to ``MedicareAdvantage,'' and adds $20 billion in subsidies to private plans, boosting their payments to equal more than 125 percent of the amount paid for traditional Medicare. But it cannot create private interest in the senior market. We have tried that and failed.

To be successful, a drug benefit must be within basic Medicare and based on a sound structure that can be improved over time. Only a benefit that is based on a solid foundation will give seniors the stability they need and deserve. Rather, this bill relies solely on the willingness of private insurance companies to offer the benefit. In the Ways and Means Committee, I fought for a fallback within Medicare that would be available to every beneficiary in the country. It would have a set premium, deductible, and copays that would always be there regardless of where seniors live and what plans enter their region. If the private sector offered a superior, more efficient plan, seniors would choose the private plan. But if the private plan never materialized, or if it offered a premium that was unaffordable, Medicare would be there for them. In rejecting my amendment, and choosing a ``fallback'' that could come and go from year-to-year, the conferees bypassed the opportunity to continue Medicare's promise of universally available health care for all seniors.

Ask your constituents if they want a choice of more private plans. They do not. They want a choice of hospitals and doctors, and they want stability, reliability, and real help with paying their prescription drug costs.

This conference report lets them down. It offers seniors an inadequate benefit. The President and the Republican leadership say that this plan gives seniors the same benefits enjoyed by Members of Congress and federal employees. That is untrue for several reasons. First, the benefit packages are nearly mirror images of one another. In most FEHBP plans, federal employees receive 80% coverage for prescription drugs. A federal employee with annual drug costs of $5,000, would pay about $1,000 out-of-pocket. But under this legislation, seniors with annual drug costs of $5,000 would have to pay $4,020 out-of-pocket.

Second, the Medicare drug benefit has a wide coverage gap that will leave many of our seniors paying premiums for several months when they are receiving no benefits. There is no plan approved by OPM that would require federal employees to continue paying premiums when we are receiving no benefits. Seniors should not have to do that either.

Third, under this bill, seniors who want to remain in traditional Medicare would have to enroll in a stand-alone drug plan to get prescription drug benefits, but there is no such plan in the under-65 market. The conference report does not guarantee them what their premium will be; only that a private company will offer them an actuarially equivalent benefit that can change from year to year. It is a level of uncertainty that our senior should not have to face.

Our seniors now know the details of this bill. They are calculating their prescription drug costs at kitchen tables across the country tonight. They are calling Congress to say how

disappointed they are at the inadequate benefits this bill provides, and they are urging us to vote no.

Rather than providing relief to our seniors, this bill shifts additional costs from government onto their backs. Although the drug benefit premium is estimated at $35, the conference report gives insurers license to charge much more. The Medicare Part B deductible will increase by ten percent in 2005 and then by program costs each year.

Some of my colleagues have tried for years to curtail Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, usually in the form of targeted provider cuts. But our hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and rehabilitation providers need fair reimbursement, and Congress has usually answered the call. In addition, these members have found difficult to argue the need for drastic cost containment given that Part A Medicare solvency is now the third longest in the history of the program. So the conferees have taken a surreptitious approach, adding a provision that was not in the House or Senate-passed bills. They created a new definition of insolvency that caps Medicare's use of general revenues at 45 percent of total Medicare costs and would force government to cut benefits or raise payroll taxes if this limit is exceeded. By triggering an increase in payroll taxes, which disproportionately affect lower-income Americans, this provision shifts the burden of Medicare away from those most able to support it to those who are least able, further jeopardizing Medicare's long-term stability.

Because we are limited to $400 billion in this bill, it would make sense to use every instrument possible to get the best price for prescription medicines. But the conference report contains an inadequate mechanism to lower the price of drugs, which have escalated steadily over the past few years, and show no signs of decreasing. This bill specifically prohibits the Secretary of HHS from using the federal government's purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices, a tool that has been used effectively in nearly every other industrialized nation in the world. Instead, it relies on pharmaceutical benefit managers, which have had mixed results in past years.

I had hoped that this bill would improve health care for seniors. Unfortunately, the provisions affecting oncology drug reimbursement will do just the opposite for cancer patients and reduce their ability to get needed cancer care. The final bill still contains severe cuts to cancer care providers, nearly $1 billion annually. If this bill becomes law, many cancer centers will close, others will sharply reduce their staffs, and others will be forced to turn away patients.

The Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee have examined this issue carefully. We recognize that the current payment system for cancer care needs to be fixed. Medicare over- reimburses for the drugs themselves, while it under-reimburses for the services that oncologists provide. I support appropriate reimbursement for cancer drugs, but we cannot make cuts of this magnitude without simultaneously paying oncologists fairly for the care they render. To do so will endanger the lives of cancer patients.

Finally I cannot support a conference report that harms currently covered retirees. I remain concerned about the impact of this bill on retirees with employer-sponsored drug coverage. Because of the inadequate reimbursements to retiree health plans, CBO estimates that 2.7 million retirees are expected to lose their benefits. The bill also encourages employers to drop the coverage they now provide by excluding private plan spending from counting toward the catastrophic limit. Because of provisions written into the bill, most seniors with retiree coverage and high drug costs will never reach the point at which Medicare resumes coverage. The authors of this bill say that the benefit they're devised is voluntary, but for those seniors who lose their private retiree health coverage, this plan won't be optional, it will be the only game in town.

Tonight's vote caps several years' efforts to provide Medicare beneficiaries with desperately needed prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, the conferees have produced a bill that won't result in better health care for our seniors, a more efficient Medicare program, or fiscal responsibility. It will eventually do more harm than good to Medicare, and to those who depend on it for their health care needs. I support providing our senior a meaningful prescription drug benefit within the Medicare system that will strengthen Medicare. Therefore I must oppose this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that there are some very important provisions in this bill. I see my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on the floor, and I know that we are both pleased that the 30- year Treasury replacement is included in this bill.

I think we are both very disappointed that it is not for a longer period of time and does not include other provisions and legislation that we filed earlier that would have also helped preserve defined benefit plans properly funded for the workers of America, but at least there is some relief in this bill that is needed, and I am glad to see that is included in the legislation.

Let me say I appreciate the way the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has presented the Armenian situation because I think he said it exactly right. There are human rights problems within Armenia. The Armenia Assembly of America, a respected group in this body, said the people of Armenia deserve nothing less than the declared aim of their government for free, fair, and transparent elections. As reported in depth by the OSCE, this achievable standard was not met.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of our Helsinki Commission, and myself as ranking Democrat sent the letter to the Committee on Ways and Means in April of 2003. I just want to quote one line from that letter where we said: The underlining intent of the Jackson-Vanik language is to foster democratization and protect human rights. Our commission puts a very high premium to carry out the responsibility of this body to make human rights development in these emerging democracies a top priority. We are disappointed that more progress has not been made.

In Armenia's case, they do have normal trade relations, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) very much for the understanding that the process that was used in Armenia's elevation will not be the process used as we consider other countries for elevation on normal trade relations; and clearly, we will be looking at the progress on human rights issues.

Mr. Speaker, let me, if I might, spend the remainder of my time on the unemployment insurance issue. I must tell my colleagues I am extremely disappointed that the majority did not include an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits in this extender bill. We are going to be faced with the same thing that happened last year. The Christmas present to our unemployed will be that they are not going to get any additional benefits. The present program expires at the end

of December. We might be out of session by the end of the week, and yet the majority sees no urgency in extending the unemployment insurance. Eighty thousand to 90,000 workers every week will lose their Federal unemployment benefits if we do not extend this program.

The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), said, and I am quoting from today's paper, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.''

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. The extended benefit program in the early 1990s did not end until the economy had created nearly 3 million jobs, compared to the pre-recession levels. The current program is scheduled to end when the economy is still suffering a deficit of 2.4 million jobs. The current unemployment rate, 6 percent, has risen since the extended program was established in March of 2002. While starting at a higher level, the unemployment dropped substantially in the 1990s before we terminated the program.

The number of the long-term unemployed had dropped significantly before the 1990 extended program had expired. Today, the number of long-term unemployed, 2 million, has remained at a high level. The percentage of workers exhausting their unemployment benefits is higher today, 43 percent, than when the 1990 program ended, 39 percent. There are more people receiving unemployment today, 3.5 million, compared to the 1990s, 3.1 million.

Mr. Speaker, I just give those numbers because all we have to do is be in the trenches to know that people are hurting, people cannot find jobs, where every person seeking a job, there is only one job available. People want jobs, but cannot find them.

We need to extend the unemployment insurance Federal program. We have always done that in a bipartisan manner. We have always done it in every recession until we are on the road to recovery where people can find employment. That is not the case today. By every indicator that we have ever used in prior recessions, we should be extending the unemployment insurance program in this legislation. We should not be putting at jeopardy the needs of the people of our Nation.

So I am extremely disappointed; and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the majority will allow us the chance to vote on the extension of unemployment insurance benefits before we adjourn this session of Congress. I know that there is support on the other side of the aisle for these programs. There have been two bills that have been filed. One has been filed by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn). I filed one. There has been legislation filed on both sides of the aisle. It is important that we consider it. It is important that we consider it as quickly as possible, and I hope that we will find a way to bring this up. Maybe the other body will include it in this legislation. I think we missed an opportunity to include it in this bill, and I am disappointed about that, and I urge my colleagues to figure out a way that we could address this issue before we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and just associate myself with the comments that he has made, that the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) has made and those that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has made. I think we are all in agreement that the United States must continue its leadership role in the international community to condemn in the strongest possible way the use of torture and to be a leader in rehabilitating those victims of torture.

We are talking about the physical and mental rehabilitation of people who have suffered from torture. These are people who need help, and this legislation will provide that additional assistance. It is the right thing to do.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has been a leader in this Congress on so many human rights issues in so many different ways. He has really, I think, provided the moral compass for this Congress to take up many of these very important issues. So I applaud all of his efforts in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from California on his assessment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of our Helsinki Commission. I have had the honor of being the ranking Democrat, and our commission has put a very high focus on the issues of torture. And, quite frankly, we do not care whether the country has good relationships with us or not. If they use torture, it is wrong, and we are going to bring it to the international community's attention, and we are going to do everything we can in order to make sure it does not occur.

I have a list here of all the different hearings and briefings we have had on our commission, and you will see the country list, unfortunately, is very long. It includes many countries. We have put a spotlight and I think we have done a lot of good in slowing down the use of torture and making it clear that there will be a price to pay if you use torture in your country.

This legislation basically extends our role, to make it clear that the United States will continue to be a leader on this issue internationally by doing what we can here domestically, as well as internationally, to aid the victims of torture. I am pleased that it significantly increases the dollars that will be made available for our treatment programs here in the United States, as well as our participation internationally.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) mentioned the first center in the United States in Minnesota, and she is very proud of the role that was played by her State and herself, through her leadership, on this issue. I am pleased there is an organization in my district, the Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma that aids victims of torture. Since 2000, the number of people that have sought assistance in this center has tripled. That is an indication of the problem that we are confronting in being a country that is willing to take people who have to flee other countries because of persecution, and now we have a responsibility to bring them back fully within our society. The funding of these centers will help to do that. It is the right thing to do. Without these additional funds in my community, it would take over a month to get an appointment. We hope this money will speed up the opportunity to seek and be able to receive the appropriate type of assistance.

The bottom line is this is an important bill. It is going to help people and will continue our commitment to fight torture and to be a player in rehabilitating the lives of those who have suffered from the use of torture. I encourage all of colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588, to authorize military spending for fiscal year 2004. This bill authorizes the funding necessary to defend our country and promote our interests throughout the world. The bill makes significant enhancements to our combat capabilities, continues our efforts to transform the military to meet the terrorist threats of the 21st century, and provides a number of new benefits to American soldiers throughout the world.

Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect the national security of our nation. When our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress's responsibility to make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.

I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. Much of the funds in this bill will go directly to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Under this bill our men and women in uniform will receive a 4.15 percent average increase in base pay. At the same time the bill reduces the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from the current 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent, and eliminates out-of-pocket expenses completely by fiscal year 2005. The bill also extends special pay and bonuses for active duty personnel through the end of 2004. Family separation allowance for service members with dependents is increased, from $100 to $259 per month. The special pay rate for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger is increased from $150 to $225 per month. The legislation also extends TRICARE health coverage to National Guard members and reservists and their families if such servicemembers have been called to active duty. The bill also authorizes nearly $10 billion for military construction, family housing, medical facilities, and child development centers.

This legislation also continues the transformation of our military to meet new challenges of the global war on terror. The bill funds research and procurement of countermeasures to protect troops and the homeland from chemical, biological, and nuclear attack. It increases weapons and equipment procurement for Special Operations Forces. It funds programs to dismantle, secure, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and facilities in Russia and the former Soviet republics.

There are several significant shortcomings in this legislation, however, that I would like to discuss.

This conference report contains an inadequate proposal to address the Disabled Veterans Tax imposed on our military retirees. Under current law, military retirees are taxed one dollar of their retirement pay for every dollar they receive in veterans disability compensation. Denying service-disabled men and women the benefits they have earned breaks our promise to those who placed their lives on the line for America's freedom. Any veteran with a service-connected disability, regardless of the length of his or her military service, can retire from a federal civilian job and receive both retired pay and disability compensation without penalty.

America's troops are united as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and here at home. Our veterans were united as they fought for our country. They remain united today in their love for our nation. But the Disabled Veterans Tax compromise before the House today seeks to divide them. It leaves behind more than 390,000 disabled military retirees--more than two-thirds of those who would receive full compensation under HR 303. Those retirees with a Purple Heart or combat-related disability would be eligible this January. Others who have 50 percent or greater disability would have to wait for ten years to receive their full benefits. Those with less than 50% disability still will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities.

Because this compromise is phased in over a ten-year period, many of our older veterans, particularly those from World War II and the Korean War, may not live long enough to receive the full benefits to which they are entitled. In my district in Maryland, there are 1,519 veterans who are now subject to the Disabled Veterans Tax. This bill leaves 1,000 of them behind.

More than 85 percent of the members of this House have cosponsored HR 303, yet the compromise before us falls far short. Many of my colleagues also signed the discharge petition that would compel the House to consider this bill. For these reasons, I urged my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. It would have stripped from the bill the inadequate compromise language that only helps two-thirds of America's veterans, and replace it with full, immediate concurrent receipt. Our disabled military retirees deserve no less.

I am also disappointed that conferees chose to include in this bill a far-reaching plan to revamp the DOD civilian employee system.

Under this agreement, more than 700,000 civilian workers in the Defense Department will lose fundamental protections that have been in place since President Kennedy's administration. These protections were put in place to safeguard against the patronage, political favoritism, and nepotism that were rampant before the advent of the civil service system.

These DoD employees will lose many of their current due process rights. The conference report retains the right of employees to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board but only as an appellate body. As a result, DoD civilian employees would have far fewer rights to appeal personnel actions than other civilian employees have. They would lose guarantees on overtime pay, hazard pay, weekend pay, and holiday pay. Finally this provision empowers Secretary Rumsfeld and all future Secretaries of Defense to create an entirely new personnel system for DOD civilians. I am also very concerned that enactment of these provisions will set a dangerous precedent that will lead to erosion of protections in other federal department and agencies. In these times of uncertainty and turmoil, we are asking more of our civil servants than ever before in our history. To remove these important safeguards now is the wrong thing to do.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have failed to provide the full concurrent receipt to our veterans that they deserve, and that we have eroded some of the civil service protections for Defense Department employees. However, I will support this legislation because it provides additional resources for our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world as they prosecute the global war on terrorism. Our military must be given every available tool for its arsenal as it combats emerging threats to our soldiers and our homeland.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time and also thank my friend from Texas for his service to our country and for this bill coming before us.

This is an important bill. It contains many provisions that will be important for the people who are affected by the changes that are made, our military families that have served our Nation so well. They deserve the consideration of this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) pointed out, this is either the fourth or fifth time that we have been taking this bill up in this body, and at last, it looks like we are going to be able to get this bill to the President for signature, and I think that is good news for military families.

I think we should learn the lesson, though, that the other body put in offsets, revenue offsets, so that there will be no net impact on the deficit as a result of passage of this legislation. That is as a result of adding Customs fees, user fees to the legislation. That is a good thing to do. We have a large deficit. We should try to pay for what we do here, and I am encouraged about what we have done on this legislation. And I hope we will use it as an example for other legislation that has come out of the committee I serve on, but is not paid for. And I expect it is going to have a much more difficult time in the other body, until we also figure out a way to find offsets for tax changes that we bring forward.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that contains many important provisions for the military families that will be affected by it. We have mentioned the death benefit. Obviously, this is the least that we can do.

We mentioned some of the tax impacts of certain benefits that are changed by this. The home sale tax relief, that is very important for military families that are often called upon to sell their homes, to make it a little bit easier for them to handle the tax consequences of a move.

The overnight expenses for our National Guard and Reservists, above- the-line deduction of $500. It is a modest amount, but I think it recognizes the fact that our National Guard and Reservists are a very important part of our national defense and homeland security needs. That became particularly apparent in our current efforts on fighting terrorism in Iraq. We have called upon our Reservists. We have called upon our National Guard. We should recognize the fact that they have additional expenses that should be treated fairly in our tax code, and I hope as my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) pointed out, I hope the provisions in this bill are a starting point, not an ending point for dealing with these tax issues. So we can try to provide some appropriate relief to our military families.

Let me last mention the point that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) raised about those in our military academies that have been discriminated against under Section 529, the educational savings accounts. I am glad that we finally are able to correct that error in the law. I have the honor of representing the jurisdiction that includes the United States Naval Academy, and we have been contacted by families that felt that was terribly unfair, and they were right. Now, we have listened to them, and we have corrected that. It is another reason why I hope that we will unanimously support this very important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and acknowledge the fact that the work done by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking minority member in moving the appropriation bills through this body has been on time. We understand that. And we understand that there is a political process that must go forward in order to reconcile the differences.

I agree completely with the ranking member that the parameters in which we are operating under make it very difficult for us to work this out, and we should acknowledge that sooner rather than later so that we can finish the appropriation bills.

I also understand it is unlikely we will finish all our work by November 7. But, Mr. Speaker, I would think that we would use this time to get our work done, rather than a very short week and not dealing with the business that needs to be done. The committee I serve on, the Committee on Ways and Means, has two very important issues we have to resolve before Congress adjourns, and yet we are not doing any work as a collective body on those two issues.

One of the two issues I refer to is unemployment insurance, which is scheduled to expire at the end of December; and yet our committee has not even held a hearing or done any work at all on extending the unemployment insurance bill. One would think that we would use this time in order to make sure that we do not do what we did last Christmas and adjourn leaving those people who cannot find employment

without the help they need and deserve through monies that are held in the Federal unemployment trust account. There is $20 billion there. We should be using this time to extend the unemployment insurance system for people who are going to need that help. Instead, another week goes by with no action at all.

Mr. Speaker, let me mention the second issue which my friend from Arkansas mentioned earlier, and that is the prescription drug issue. Since last week, I have had three or four town hall meetings in my district in which the seniors have asked me what is going on on the prescription drug issue, and I have to tell them I do not know because the conference has not met in the open. The House Democrats have been excluded from the conference. I do not know why that is true. After all, one would think that this is an issue that we would want to get completed this year, where we have a real benefit within the Medicare system for our seniors to cover their prescription drug needs.

In my district, there are literally thousands of seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs. They are cutting their pills in half. They are taking a pill every other day when they should be taking it every day. We need to get that done before Congress adjourns. But the only way, as my friend from Arkansas pointed out, that that is going to be done is if we have a true, open conference in which Democrats and Republicans can work together to bring out a bill that really provides a real benefit within the Medicare system to get our work done.

So I understand we are going to extend the CR for another 7 days so that Congress can try to work its will on the appropriation bills. I also understand we are nearing the end of the session, whether it is Thanksgiving or Christmas; and one of the, I would hope, must-do bills is the prescription drug bill. But not just any bill; not a bill that will hurt seniors, not a bill that is going to affect those who already have prescription drugs and they are going to find out their employer is going to terminate their prescription drug coverage because of what we are doing here; not a prescription drug bill that has no true benefit our seniors can rely on; not a prescription drug bill that has gaps in coverage where seniors are wondering why they are paying high premiums and not getting any benefits; not a prescription drug bill that does not do something to bring down the cost of prescription drugs in our country. That is not what they want.

The only way we are going to make sure that we carry out our commitment on prescription drugs is we openly meet, with the public looking at what we are doing, and resolve these differences in a way that makes sure that we get our job done well and right.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we use these next 7 days not only to reconcile the differences on the nine remaining appropriation bills that should have been passed by October 1, which we should have done well before this date, but we reconcile our differences on the other mandatory bills before Congress adjourns to provide prescription drug benefits for seniors who desperately need it within the Medicare system, a real benefit, a benefit that they know will help them deal with the ever-increasing costs of prescription medicines, and a bill that will extend the unemployment benefits not just to those 80,000 Americans every week who are exhausting their State benefits, but also the million and a half who already have exhausted their Federal benefits that need extra weeks that are included in the legislation that has been filed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time so we can put this particular legislation in context. It is not just about extending government, it is also giving us an opportunity to get our work done before we adjourn this session of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for offering this amendment. The gentleman has brought forward an important amendment that I hope we will consider and pass.

Regardless of how one may feel in support of the supplemental appropriation, I hope we all agree that reconstruction aid requires a higher level of scrutiny. That is exactly what this amendment does. It provides 50 percent of the money now. That is consistent with the analysis of the World Bank, the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund as to how much funds can effectively be used by Iraq in the next year. It is consistent with our initiative to get our allies to pay a larger share of the reconstruction act.

The vote in the United Nations Security Council yesterday was encouraging. If Members believe our allies should be paying more of these reconstruction funds, Members should support the Kind amendment.

It is also consistent with our desire to have the Iraqis repay some of this money. We know that the other body has already taken action in that regard. If Members believe that we should be considering whether the Iraqis have the resources to repay some of these funds later, then Members should support the Kind amendment.

It is consistent with our responsibility for oversight. It is our responsibility to make sure these monies are properly spent, to monitor the use and get more accounting. If Members believe we should exercise that responsibility, they should support the Kind amendment.

It also allows us to get a plan from the administration to transfer authority to the Iraqis and bring our troops home. We should have that information. This amendment is consistent with that request.

Then if more funds are needed, this body can take it up with the condition, and in the form, that is consistent with the goals that we are trying to achieve. At that time, the Congress can take up additional resources and act on that request. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the right thing for us to do in order to successfully complete our mission in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, the Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect the national security of our nation. When our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress' responsibility to make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions. Although I disagreed with President Bush's request for unrestricted use of force against Iraq, such a resolution was approved by Congress. It was clear to me from the outset that although we would win the war, the Administration did not have an adequate plan to win the peace; that is, to rebuild Iraq, and to establish democratic institutions in that abused country. To succeed after the war it was critical to engage the international community. Yet the Administration refused to seek international support early or to share responsibility with the international community for the governing of Iraq.

Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing attacks. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq.

I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. We should provide our troops with all the resources necessary to carry out their mission. Therefore it is necessary to support the supplemental appropriations bill. Most of the funds in this bill will go directly to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding of the reconstruction efforts are also fundamental to the successful completion of our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, I believe that the Administration's request of $18 billion for reconstruction requires a higher level of scrutiny. There were a series of amendments considered by Congress during the consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill that I supported. These amendments included:

(1) An amendment to transfer some of the Iraqi reconstruction funds to repair and replace military equipment used in current operations, as well as improve the quality of life for the families of active and reserve forces. The amendment failed by a vote of 209 to 216.

(2) An amendment which would have converted half of the Iraqi reconstruction grants into loans. This amendment was similar to an amendment that was adopted by the Senate yesterday. Although the amendment failed in the House by a vote of 200 to 226, I hope in conference the House will agree with the Senate action.

(3) An amendment which I authored with Congressman Kind of Wisconsin, which would have reduced the reconstruction funds to Iraq by 50 percent. I sponsored that amendment because I thought it was important for the administration to obtain more help from the international community, use loans rather than grants, provide more details to Congress and the American people on the use of these funds, have a plan to transfer authority to Iraqis, and have a plan to bring home our troops stationed in Iraq within a reasonable period of time. The Administration could then seek Congressional approval of additional resources if needed once these conditions have been met. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by a vote of 156 to 267.

The Administration has relied almost exclusively on U.S. troops to take most of the risks in Iraq. The Administration's ``go-it-alone'' strategy must end. I am pleased that on Thursday the United Nations unanimously adopted a resolution, initiated by the Secretary of State Colin Powell, which will strengthen the role of the United Nations and the international community in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq must make a transition to a nation that adopts a constitution, holds elections, and creates a democratic government that respects minority rights and operates under the rule of law. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our allies to effectively implement this U.N. resolution, so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the quickest way to bring our troops back home is to reach out more aggressively to the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and transfer authority to the Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time, and let me point out from the outset that each Member who has spoken on this particular issue I have worked with on pension reform legislation, and we have worked together to try to increase the security for retirees. We share a common objective, and that is to provide more pension security for America's workers and for all individuals.

I have many concerns about the legislation we are considering today. I feel compelled at least to mention some of these concerns.

First, I am pleased that the legislation incorporates a replacement for the 30-year Treasury, which is a corporate bond mix which was included in the Portman-Cardin legislation. The Portman-Cardin legislation, that I have worked on with my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle, the two of us have worked together and developed a process that is not just bipartisan. It is a process that uses the procedures here about hearings and listening to all parties. It works with all stakeholders, tries to work consensus. As a result, we have been successful in enacting some very important legislation.

I regret that that process was not used in the legislation before us. It certainly does not represent a consensus among the stakeholders. So let me tell my colleagues the problems as I see in this legislation.

First, I have heard my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) talk about underfunded plans; and, yes, there are underfunded defined benefit plans. There is no question about that, but using an accurate interest assumption will not make the underfunding situation worse. In fact, it will help the PBGC because it will encourage companies that are properly funded to remain in the defined benefit world. It actually helps the plans using an accurate interest assumption. So why are we afraid to enact a permanent replacement for the 30-year Treasury?

Defined benefit plans are the best security for American workers. They have guaranteed benefits that they know they will receive when they retire. They do not have to worry about the market going up or down. It is guaranteed. The company puts money on the table. It provides in almost all cases annuitant retirement so that an individual has income and is not tempted to take out their retirement in a lump sum, spend it and not have it for their own retirement needs. It is the one form of retirement that we all should be here today to try to encourage more, and as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) pointed out, we are seeing a hemorrhaging of these plans. They are terminating, they are converting, they are freezing their contributions.

So what does this bill do in order to help the situation? It provides a 2-year, and a 2-year fix only, on a 30-year Treasury that does not exist. My concern is that because it does not provide the necessary predictability to companies that have to make a decision, whether they are going to continue these plans or not, that many plans will, in fact, convert or freeze and many companies will not even look at starting defined benefit plans.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said that we should not require companies to put more into their plans than is required. Yet, that is exactly what we are doing in many cases. So why would a company or its workers want to put too much money in a pension plan when it is only one part of a compensation package? There are so many issues dealing with adequate funding that have been left out of this bill that were included in the Portman-Cardin bill. Let me just go through some of the issues that are not included in this bill, in addition to the fact that we had a permanent replacement and this is only 2 years.

It has nothing on mortality schedules. The mortality schedules are out of date. Treasury will acknowledge the mortality schedules are out of date. There are companies that are contributing too much; there are companies that are contributing too little. And yet we are going to do nothing on the mortality schedules in this legislation. We have multi- employer plans that have been left out completely from this

legislation. We have the 415 plans that are left out. These are small employers, small companies, and they are not going to get any relief under this legislation. That should have been corrected. It was in the original bill. The multi-employers are not affected by the 30-year Treasury replacement. They still have a problem. We do not deal with that.

Assets moving to take us through good times and bad times are not included in the legislation. We know that the current interest assumptions encourage individuals to take their money out in lump sum. It discriminates against annuitant retirement. Accountants will tell my colleagues that. It discriminates against annuitant retirement, and it means more money is coming out of plans than perhaps would need to and add to.

What it does is it makes the plans even more underfunded because we do not deal with the lump sum. Nothing in this legislation deals with the lump sum issues. And I think most tragically, I have heard my colleagues say, well, we are going to study these issues for the next 2 years and then come back with something. Nothing in this bill provides any study. I am just afraid 2 years from now we will be back exactly where we are today, and we will not have made the progress and we will not have taken advantage of the opportunity this year to deal with this matter in a more comprehensive way.

There is something good I can say about the bill. It does not incorporate the administration's proposal for a yield curve. I think that would have been disastrous. I am glad that is not legislation. I do agree with each of the prior speakers that this Congress has to act.

So I am going to vote in favor of the bill today. I hope that as it moves through the process the other body will show more wisdom and we will be able to have a more comprehensive bill, a longer term than just 2 years, covering more, at least a study, so that we are committed to dealing with all of these funding issues, and that we can get back on track to try to encourage companies to stick with it through defined benefit plans, because I think that is in the interest of American workers. We just do not want to see remaining this underfunded plan. We want these well-funded plans to continue to provide the benefits necessary for American workers, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues so that hopefully we can get back on track on important pension reform legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for his strong support on this important issue. He has been steadfast in helping families in the adoption arena, and this is just one more chapter in his record in this area. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for the way in which this bill was handled in our subcommittee. It was done in a bipartisan way involving the views of administrators, advocates, and experts in the field; and we have come up with an excellent bill which I encourage my colleagues to support.

This bill deals with foster children. Obviously, the first goal of placement for foster children is to try to reunite them with their birth parents, but that is not always possible. When that is not possible, we want to find a safe and permanent home as quickly as possible for that foster child.

In 1997, we enacted the Safe and Stable Families Act. This legislation, H.R. 3182, continues the record that we started in 1997. It includes adoption incentive bonuses for payments to States that increase the number of adoption of children out of foster care. And as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) pointed out, since the enactment of this legislation in 1997, we have seen a 64 percent increase in the adoption of children out of foster care, and that number has held true for children with special needs.

H.R. 3182 extends that program for 5 years. That is certainly our goal, to reauthorize programs that work for a 5-year period; and this bill does that. We also update the baseline. That is a very important fact because it allows more States the opportunity to benefit from these payments. We enhance payments for older children in foster care that are adopted.

Mr. Speaker, over half of our children currently in foster care are over the age of 9. They are the more difficult children to find permanent homes through adoption. This legislation recognizes that and rewards States that are able to find permanent placement adoptions for children over the age of 9. Funds can be used for a variety of child welfare services, including post adoptive services, so we are providing the

wherewithal, particularly in these tough economic times, to our States in order to move forward in this important program to help America's most vulnerable children.

We also direct the agency to move forward with another option for permanent placement, and that is subsidize guardianship where the foster child is placed with a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or other family member. In many cases, that is the preferred option; and we are making it easier for that option to become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys broad support. It is supported by the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Center for Law and Social Policy, Voices for Adoption, and the list goes on and on. It is a very important bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.