Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague very much for bringing forth this very well-thought-out amendment in the time that we have, and I do know that he worked with the Parliamentarian to make it germane.

Let me back up just a moment here before I get started. In the early seventies when the earned income tax credit was started, it was a Republican initiative, and the reason they put it forth and it was adopted is because they said if we give people who earn income, low income, I might tell my colleagues, with children, $34,600 and less, with children, if they will remain working, we will give them an earned income tax credit so that they can keep working and not go onto the welfare rolls. That was the reason for the earned income tax credit as it passed this Congress in the early seventies by Republican initiatives, and I think it was good then and it is certainly good now.

As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) states, this is a hit at those who can least afford it. Statistics show that this may recoup some $9 billion, and we need to go back for that. We need to go and look for the $9 billion for those people who have used the earned income tax credit and are not to get it, that they do not take that from the Treasury. We do need to go back on that, and I think we all feel that.

We also ought to go after the $132 billion that individual taxpayers cheat on their tax forms with. We also need to go for the $70 billion that offshore corporations steal from our Federal Government, and we also need to go for the $46 billion that corporations cheat our Federal Government for.

Our point is that in this budget, where I am proud to serve as a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies with my esteemed chairman and ranking member, $100 million is allowed to go after 45,000 low-income people who work every day and earn less than $34,000 with children, one or more children. Why not go back where the money is?

We have got the biggest deficit our country has ever seen. We need to go back and recoup some of that money. I am standing here in the well of the House tonight to tell my colleagues that money, yes, go get it from those people from the earned income tax credit who are cheating our government; but, more importantly, go after the big corporations, those offshore corporations and other high income and other individuals who cheat our country. This is not the time to again put a black eye and to go after those families who are working every day trying to raise their children. The earned income tax credit is a great program, and we ought not go after it to decimate it.

So what our amendment says is of the $100 million that has been appropriated in this budget, leave $25 million there and go after them, try to find those low-income people who are using the system to cheat our government. We hope that we find them. But with the $75 million that is left of the $100 million, go after the offshore corporations who cheat our country, over $170 billion worth. Go after those corporations who cheat our citizens out of $46 billion. So we want to make it even. Go after those in the earned income tax credit who may be making those claims, and not justifiably, appropriately, for them.

This line in our budget, enforcement compliance in the EITC has increased 68 percent over last year's budget. Do we need to increase it that much or should we go after where the big money is? That is all the Congressman is doing, and I surely support the Congressman and commend him for bringing the amendment forward. I am happy to be a cosponsor with it.

The working poor deserve our support during these difficult times. Many of the working poor have sons and daughters who are fighting offshore. I have some of those in my district. I want to try to help them keep their families together, keep their children safe. And the EITC is just one small thing that this government gives them so that they continue to work, yes, many times with no health insurance, earning less than $35,000 a year, raising their families so that they do not go on welfare.

Of course we can do this, and we offer this amendment to say work with the low-income families. They are not asking for a handout. They just need a hand. And we are the Congress that can do that for them. So I support the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). I think he has done an outstanding job here. I am proud to be a cosponsor. Let us go after the big cheats. That is what that $75 million is there for.

All of us want to encourage policies that encourage tax compliance among tax filers, but we know 100 percent compliance is impossible to obtain. Part of the problem is that the IRS does not have the resources to perform the investigations and audits in just about all filing categories.

However, over the years Congress has concentrated its emphasis on tax compliance efforts at the working poor. None of us wants to encourage tax scofflaws, but focusing greater tax compliance solely on the working poor who qualify for the earned income tax credit demonstrates the mistaken tax priorities of this administration.

Former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti has offered the estimate that the IRS assesses almost $30 billion of taxes that is cannot collect because of tax fraud. That is a big problem, especially when our government is going to generate a budget deficit of $480 billion and possibly even more by the end of the fiscal year.

This bill provides more money for increase tax compliance efforts. But where does it focus its efforts at greater tax compliance: fraud and mistakes in the Earned Income Tax Credit Program. The administration is shocked by that the EITC has an error rate that is estimated between 27 and 32 percent. According to the IRS, the avoidance costs amount to $7.8 billion or 2.8 percent of the tax compliance problem. Now that's going after the big bucks.

If you looked at the tax compliance mandate contained in this, you would come away with the impression that the working poor are the number one tax scofflaw problem facing the nation. This bill increases provides $100 million in the EITC enforcement budget, over a 68.percent increase. Never mind the fact that 56 percent of the non-compliant taxpayers have incomes in excess of $100,000, and yet they are in the income category that is less likely to be audited.

Simply put, the tax compliance priorities contained in this bill is a misallocation of funds.

The Cooper, DeLauro, Kilpatrick amendment scales back the EITC precertification pilot program to $25 million and intends to restore greater balance in our tax compliance efforts by making more money available for investigating and auditing large and medium sized businesses. That's where the money is. That's where the greater incidence of tax cheating occurs.

The amendment allows the IRS to move forward with the precertification program, but it also encourages the IRS to go after the big tax dodgers like major tax shelters such as corporate trusts, offshore accounts, other abusive corporate tax shelters.

This amendment says lets go after tax cheats poor and rich, and represents a departure from the administration's policy of increasing the tax burden on the poor.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start, which in these desperate economic times should be strengthened and not weakened.

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. My opposition is based on the following reasons. The bill will make it legal for faith-based institutions that receive Federal funds and run Head Start programs to discriminate in their hiring practices. I contend that our focus should be on continuing to fund a wonderful pre-school educational program. Unfortunately, this bill undermines current anti-discrimination laws, and will allow institutions to establish a litmus test in their hiring programs. Let me make it clear, I respect and admire the tremendous work performed by faith-based organizations. However, the Head Start Program is being used as a political vehicle to institutionalize discrimination in an early learning environment.

We all believe in educating our youth in their embryonic learning states. I am struck though by the rhetoric from my majority colleagues that they are motivated to help disadvantaged students. That is a laudable goal, but the goal can be achieved through the current Head Start program. I am struck by the hypocrisy of the bill before us. The majority abhors affirmative action, yet they seek legal protection to discriminate based on religion. They allege that affirmative action is discriminatory. Yet they seek to sanction religious-based discrimination through the pre-school educational process. The logic and the method are flawed.

I also oppose this bill because it purports to administer Head Start through a state block grant. States can also use block grant money to supplant Federal funds, in addition to not requiring performance standards. I question the wisdom of relying on states to use their discretion in this manner. Increasingly, we have witnessed the administration promote policies that the House and the Senate pass as laws that re-direct power to the states. The majority recipe has produced catastrophic results, the most glaring example is the No Child Left Behind Act. The majority promised wholesale reform, and it is delivering widespread misery. If H.R. 2210 is enacted, more misery is surely on the way for America's poor and disadvantaged children. I urge my colleagues to reject the false premises put forward by the proponents of H.R. 2210, and to embrace the Woolsey amendment that restores civil rights to Head Start teachers, and the Miller substitute amendment that retains Federal-to-local funding and which strikes hiring discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003, sponsored by Representatives Gutkneckt and Emerson. I appreciate their hard work and efforts to bring this bill up for debate in this chamber. They have faced considerable obstacles in trying to get this bill considered by this chamber. They are to be commended for their success in having H.R. 2427 debated tonight.

Opponents of this bill suggest that patients whom we intend to help with the passage of this bill will actually be harmed. They charge that they will be vulnerable to purchasing unsafe prescription drugs and that we are encouraging patients to purchase lower-cost drugs from countries that have less stringent regulatory regimes. Opponents are also concerned that the bill repeals language that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that reimportation of prescription drugs is safe before any reimportation occurs. There are more objections to the legislation, but I have mentioned the major arguments advocated by the bill's opponents.

Not too long ago a pharmacist from Michigan visited with my Washington staff. He told my staff how seniors would leave his pharmacy in tears because they did not have the resources to purchase their medicine. This is an important issue to seniors. It is an important issue to all Americans because the high cost of prescription drugs is driving many families to dilute prescribed dosages in order to stretch out their prescription orders to make them last longer. If pharmacists were able to purchase drugs, lower costs would be passed on to our seniors and families who are struggling with the high cost of health care.

This is the only opportunity that this Congress will have to vote on legislation dealing with the cost of prescription drugs. I am using this opportunity to support lower drug prices for many Americans. This bill puts people before profits. It puts affordable health care for Americans ahead of profit margins for the pharmaceutical industry. It is time to send the industry and the Administration a message: Americans want affordable drug prices. Support this bill and put people ahead of the profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for his leadership in steering another bill to committee under difficult times. To the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our ranking member, who is committed to the international community and has shown that in the leadership, I thank her for yielding me this time and for crafting a bill that I will support in the end as we go through this debate.

As most Members of Congress know and very few members of the country know, the foreign assistance bill is only 1 percent of the total budget of the United States of America. Our budget is $2.2 trillion, and as the leading power in the world, this foreign assistance bill is not quite 1 percent of that. A good sum and we should be there for the other countries of the world. This budget funds many countries of the world, as was mentioned by our chairperson. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt are fully funded, and I think they should be. Other countries of the world are not so taken care of, and I think we can do better.

At a time when we find the budget shrinking, deficits soaring, and this year we expect a $455 billion deficit at least, we do have to make certain decisions in how we fund our Government, how we fund our domestic programs, how we fund education, health care, housing, and those things that Americans need. So I understand it when some Americans do not understand that we have a responsibility as a superpower in the world to help other countries less fortunate and who are strategic allies to this country of the United States of America. So the budget before us today crafted by both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is a good budget. It does have shortcomings, as was mentioned, and I would like to go over a few of those.

The Child Survival and Health account needs to be more fully funded to take care of the problems of the world. We have heard much discussion and we will hear more today about the pandemic of HIV and AIDS. India with over 1 billion people, China with nearly the same or more people, the Caribbean, Russia, and other countries are now finding epidemic proportions of HIV and AIDS. We have servicemen and women in those countries who may be afflicted if we do not act now.

The President was recently in Africa, and I commend him for going. I also commend him for beginning in setting up the Millenium Challenge Account. Any additional foreign assistance that we can give, and the President has shown that he understands this, as the superpower in the world, I believe we must do and I commend him for that.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic is at pandemic proportions. All over this world where our servicemen and women now represent our Nation and in some instances fight to secure the world, we must as the superpower in the world fund this pandemic appropriately and we have not done that. Malaria, tuberculosis, maternal health, family planning we have to step up as the superpower in the world and help those countries as partners in this humane society that we live in. Postnatal care, those kinds of things that help various countries who are less fortunate and who are not able to help themselves, we should be there for them, and many times in this budget we are unable to do that.

Agriculture, in many of those same countries, agriculture is how they not only feed themselves but are able to export their agriculture products, thereby making it a revenue base for their countries. It is our responsibility to join with them in partnership to help them with that. In some instances we do, but I believe that we can do better. The ESF account, the Economic Support Fund, that we also use to help other countries is also underfunded. It could be better and it is less than what the President recommended and less coming out of our budget. Those are just a few areas.

We are the superpower of the world. It is up to us as leaders of the free world to maintain stability around the world where we can, and we must not forget the men and women who risk their lives every day for us, freedom in this country and around the world, to make sure that they have the best health care that they need to sustain themselves and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would begin to meet the President's pledge as he traveled to Africa less than a week ago. During the time in Africa, President Bush pledged to five heads of State and millions of people that he would fund the AIDS initiative at $15 billion over 5 years.

On March 27, this Congress passed an authorization for that $15 billion commitment over 5 years. In that authorization in March it had $3 billion as the first installment on that $15 billion pledge. My amendment offers $300 million to begin to meet the pledge, and again not fully funding the pledge, understanding the restraints that we are within.

I offer this amendment because, as was mentioned before, the pandemic in the world and certainly in Africa on that continent, sub-Saharan Africa, 48 countries, over 700 million people with a high incidence of HIV and AIDS need the assistance. In addition, in India, with over 1 billion people, China with similar populations, Russia, the Caribbean, there is a pandemic of enormous proportions all over the world. This is the number one country in the world. We ought to set the pace. I do not want our commitments to be taken lightly. The President has seen firsthand what this illness has done to families, to communities, to countries of the world, and I urge him to accept our amendment.

We ask that the $300 million be offset, and I fully support the Millennium Challenge Account and commend the President for beginning the process of establishing it. The $300 million offset would come from the $800 million in this foreign operations bill, which would leave $500 million in the Millennium Challenge Account. And I might add, this House just passed the MCA account last week. The Senate has yet to act on this account. We do know that the bills will be sent to the President soon, he will sign them and he will begin initiating the administration in setting up the Millennium Challenge Account.

I want to discuss what things have to happen before any of this $500 million can be spent. The President will appoint a CEO, with support and advice from the Senate, who then will hire a board and put a board in place to administer the MCA. They will then hire 150 to 200 employees to implement the things that the legislation requires. Twelve countries will then be identified that meet certain criteria in the bill. The proposals have to be drawn up, they have to be submitted, the countries have to respond again, and then the money then has to be given out. We believe much of that $500 million will not be spent before the first quarter in this fiscal year.

The pandemic stretches across these countries I have mentioned, over 42 million people living with HIV/AIDS today. UNAIDS has already said to us that of all the monies coming into the U.N. for the pandemic, we will be $3 billion short of what we really need to address the pandemic. Given that situation, given the whole process that the MCA must go through between now and October 1 when we think it might be initiated and funded, right through the spring before all those steps can be taken and fully implemented, we believe that the offset matches and that there will be enough resources in MCA, which I fully support, to begin the process of establishing the Millennium Challenge Account.

At the same time, people living with HIV and AIDS are dying as we speak. The money will not be pilfered, as one Member said earlier today. These are things happening on the ground in these countries around the world today. There are proven success stories in many countries around the world.

So I urge my colleagues to accept the Kilpatrick amendment. It is on time, it is right now, and it is something that millions of people need all over this world as we speak. I want everybody to know again that the $3 billion shortfall that the UNAIDS says is needed is needed today and can be spent today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) for yielding to me.

This has been an excellent discussion as we talk about saving lives. There will be $500 million in the Millennium Challenge Account to implement for up to 12 countries, 74 of the poorest countries, the Millennium Challenge Account will probably address 12 of those, and we are happy for that.

People are dying today. That is why we are here offering this amendment for $300 million to put into the pandemic that is around the world, centered in Africa. The epicenter is moving to India, Asia, the Pacific, the Caribbean, Latin America. What better time than now to stand up?

Our President said 2 weeks ago that this House and this Senate must fully fund this initiative, $15 billion over 5 years. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that, does not recommend, does not fund $3 billion, and this Congress and America now knows that the deficit for America for this year will be $455 billion at least, some predict will be more than that.

The time is now. We must fund this initiative now. I thank all of my colleagues who are speaking out in support of this to save lives. Children are dying every day. People are dying every day.

Offered By: Ms. Kilpatrick

Amendment No. 20: Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.

Page 6, line 21, after the second dollar amount insert

``(increased by $300,000,000)''.

Page 30, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $300,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers have given the U.S. Congress the authority to allocate their hard-earned money to build and repair highways, bridges, mass transit systems and transportation projects of all kinds. In keeping with our Nation's traditions, this program is largely funded by the Federal Government but conducted by the States.

However, there lacks sufficient oversight tools to monitor how Federal transportation money is being spent at the State and local levels. More than 80 percent of comparative studies have found that contracting-out engineering, design and inspection costs of transportation projects cost more than doing this work in-house. The taxpayers could have saved some money and gotten a similar quality if state and local engineers handled the projects.

Furthermore, skilled and dedicated professionals have been leaving State and local governments for private sector, not only because salaries are higher and career opportunities are greater, but it is also because transportation departments have been reducing their staffs, holding down their pay and contracting-out the most interesting work.

Now that the ``baby boom'' generation of engineers is preparing to retire, State and local transportation departments need to take action to retain existing engineering and technical employees and to recruit skilled and dedicated professionals to take the place of those who are leaving.

Because of the oversight deficiency and an intention to keep professional engineers with the State and local transportation departments, I would like to introduce H.R. 1980, The Safety, Accountability, and Funding Efficiency for Transportation Act of 2003, to encourage State and local agencies that carry out surface transportation projects to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before procuring architectural, engineering and related services from a private contractor.

By conducting the cost-benefit analysis, a State's and the Federal Government agency will be able to determine if using private contractors is cost effective and if it is in the public interest to use a private contractor or in-house resources when procuring such services.

My constituents through National Association of State Highway and Transportation Unions, the AFL-CIO's Department of Professional Employees, AFSCME, Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America, have shown their support for H.R. 1980, Safety, Accountability, and Funding Efficiency for Transportation Act of 2003.

The heart of this bill is to require government agencies to prepare cost benefit analysis for private contracts with a Federal funding value of $100,000 or more. The analyses must contain the cost comparison of a proposed project if it is done by a private contractor and a government agency.

In my opinion, it is now time to put accountability in utilizing the taxpayers' hard-earned money at State and local levels, especially in spending Federal transportation funds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the outrageous display of discourtesy and disrespect shown to Democratic members of the House and Minority Leader Pelosi. In a brazen display of disregard for Democratic members of the House, the Capitol Police were dispatched on three occasions to disrupt the reading of legislative text by Democratic members who serve on the Ways and Means Committee. The Members were attempting to ascertain the text of the legislation that was drafted without their consultation and for which their dissent would not be heard or heeded.

The actions of the Republican Chairman and the Members of the committee was indeed egregious and beyond the pale of House decorum. Indeed, the actions and attitudes witnessed, and the rhetoric and rationale put forward by the majority dishonors the foundation of civility and respect of the House of Representatives. It is clear that a political fissure exists between the majority and the minority. I call upon my majority colleagues to embrace the age-old methodology and attitude of, ``. . . do unto others as you would have them do unto you.''

Today was a sad day in the annals of House deliberations. I hope that the American public does not have to ever witness this type of behavior again. I also hope that my esteemed colleagues will re-embrace the spirit and method of appropriate House decorum.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McCrery

I was unable to cast a vote on the following rollcall votes, Nos. 396 and 397. I was forced to return to my congressional district on official business after rollcall vote No. 395. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 396 and ``no'' on No. 397.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery of one of Michigan's fine Air Guardsmen. Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald of the Michigan Air National Guard 110th Fighter Wing made courageous decisions when his aircraft was hit by a surface-to-air missile while flying over Baghdad, Iraq on April 8, 2003.

On April 8, 2003, Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald took off from Al Jaber Air Base Kuwait on his second mission of the day. He and his wingman learned that they would be among the first Close Air Support aircraft to fly over the city of Baghdad. His aircraft was shot at numerous times during the next 30 minutes, while he provided vital intelligence about Iraqi ambush positions. The flight was low on fuel and leaving Baghdad when it was suddenly struck by a surface-to-air missile. Major Ewald flew the wounded-bird for about 12 minutes, while preparing for an injury-free ejection. Before ejecting, he and his wingman managed to complete several battle damage checklists, identify critical aircraft system operations, make tentative plans for aircraft recovery, and gather important information about threats affecting future Close Air Support operations. A friendly U.S. Army forces rescued Major Ewald 15 minutes after his parachute landing. Following a physical examination, he returned to active duty.

Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald entered the active duty Air Force on January 15, 1989 and served in the active duty until July 1, 1998 when he joined the Michigan Air National Guard. During his active-duty career, he flew in support of contingency operations over Bosnia, Operation Deny Flight, in support of the United Nations Forces in the Republic of Korea, and over Iraq in support of Operation Southern Watch. In 1998, he separated from active-duty and joined the 110th Fighter Wing where he has served as Flight Instructor and Squadron Weapons Officer. Since his transfer to the 110th, Major Ewald has deployed with the unit to numerous stateside training exercises and recently returned from a four-month tour of duty in Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom where he flew over 30 combat sorties.

With the heroic example of Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald, I would also like to laud all 1,500 members of Michigan Air and Army National Guard who are now serving their country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the Detroit Regional Chamber's leading role in fostering Michigan's prosperity over the past century.

The Detroit Regional Chamber was founded in 1903 with 253 charter members. It is now the largest Chamber of Commerce in the United States with more than 19,000 active members. For a century, the Detroit Regional Chamber has made many important contributions throughout Southeast Michigan. From its significant participation in the ``Campaign for Good Roads'' in 1910 and 1911 to its influential work toward setting up the SMART bus system, the Detroit Regional Chamber has demonstrated itself as a dependable community leader in Southeast Michigan.

With a new century come new challenges for our region. Looking at its endeavors in the past 100 years, the Detroit Regional Chamber will continue to remain the important leader that Southeastern Michigan has come to depend upon. I stand ready and look forward to cooperating with the Detroit Regional Chamber and other community leaders to meet these new challenges.

I salute the Detroit Regional Chamber on its 100th anniversary and I thank the officers and staff of the Chamber for their hard work. They have worked tirelessly to make Detroit attractive to the business community. I appreciate all that they do. With their continued hard work, I am confident they will achieve greater accomplishments for the Detroit Chamber of Commerce and the City of Detroit in the 21st century.

Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to this bill, and for many of the same reasons already mentioned: the underfunding of the Leave No Child Behind Act, the cut in the children's health programs, the LIHEAP energy assistance program for low-income people, Head Start, and cancer treatment and research.

Today, however, Madam Chairman, I would like to speak on urban hospitals, the hospitals in America that treat most Americans when they have traumatic illnesses. Urban hospitals need help in our system, and we are not in

this bill giving them that help. Urban hospitals treat hundreds of thousands of people with uncompensated care, no insurance or underinsurance.

It is unfortunate that our country, the richest in the world, cannot at this time help our hospitals that are in critical condition. I met with my group of doctors just this last Monday, the Michigan State Society of Medical Doctors. They all talked about not being able to treat patients, about the reimbursement rates and the underinsuring. Many of them are dropping patients. We have got to do better by our health institutions. Our health system is in critical condition. This Congress could help support that. This bill does not do that.

I cannot support this bill in its present form, and I would hope we could go back to get a better bill to help the people of America, to help the seniors that have built this country, and so that our health care system in our urban hospitals can sustain themselves and take care of their mission, which is taking care of the people of America.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my dismay and concern about H.R. 2660, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies. This bill is being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our children, in addition to providing financial resources for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented.

The bill is terribly flawed for the following reasons. First of all the bipartisan supported No Child Left Behind Act is a gargantuan un- funded mandate. The President promised to revamp our educational system, to make schools accountable, to raise standards, to increase teacher competency and training, and to increase parent involvement. Instead, what has been delivered amounts to lip service.

The Labor HHS bill seriously under-funds the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion and provides the smallest percentage increase in education funds in eight years. The bill requires school districts to meet student testing requirements, improve teacher quality and imposes other mandates. Additionally, the bill falls $350 million short of the $3.3 billion promised in (real terms) to states to improve teacher quality. Fifty-four thousand fewer teachers will receive high quality, federally-supported professional development.

This bill falls $334 million short of the $1 billion in Title I funds promised. In my home state of Michigan, under this bill, the children of Michigan will lose $202 million in Title I grants below the amount called for by the No Child Left Behind Act. This situation is further compounded by the fact that after-school learning opportunities are being short-changed. Under this bill, Michigan will lose $23 million in After-School Program Funding.

I said earlier, this bill has been misrepresented. This fact is true. Children and entire school systems are going to be left behind. The American public has been fed a feel-good diet of positive rhetoric by the President regarding our educational system. The reality is, the promises are empty, the financial cupboard is bare, administrators are disillusioned and our children are the losers. The insult that is added to the injury is that State budgets are crippled by unprecedented tax cuts that have been enacted, despite the reality of downward spiraling State economies.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been a witness to the collegial discussions about the constrained budgetary environment we are forced to operate within, thereby causing the under-funding of vital programs such as No Child Left Behind. I cannot sit by idly and embrace the current rhetoric that our Nation's school systems and their students are well-served by the bill before us today. This is not a good bill for America's children.

Madam Chairman, we are telling our children that the pursuit of an education and obtaining a degree will unlock the doors to opportunity. I am compelled to pose the question, where will the money come for to pay for students to attend school? Let us consider this, tuition at colleges and universities is increasing rapidly. Under this bill, grants such as Pell Grants, will finance only 38 percent of the cost of a public university--compared to 84 percent when the Pell Grant program was established. Students are confronted with greater costs and fewer means to pursue their dreams.

I stated earlier that this bill is being touted, even hailed, as a major achievement on behalf of supporting the education of our children. Furthermore, the President has informed Americans that needed financial resources are being provided for our Nation's schools. The facts of the matter are, this bill is terribly flawed, under-funded and misrepresented. The bill under consideration does not best serve the needs of so many of our Nation's students and school systems who were promised a first-class funded educational system, but instead they will receive thrift store funding. False hopes were created and broken promises in the form of un-funded mandates will now be the reward. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

We are experiencing a health care crisis in our Nation. In my district alone, there are two hospitals that are operating at such negative losses that they may be forced to close. These urban-safety net hospitals, like most other urban hospitals across our Nation, have a high percentage of uncompensated, uninsured and underinsured care. They do not turn anyone away. We cannot turn our backs on them as well.

The closing of these hospitals across our Nation creates a cascading effect that only adds to the health care emergency in our Nation. When one hospital closes, other hospitals must take on the burden of uncompensated care and the problem continues until the next hospital closes. When are we going to step up to the plate and ensure that we provide the funds necessary to fix our shattered health care system?

Instead of passing tax cut after tax cut that only raid our cupboards and benefits the wealth, Congress should take heed of the problem our urban hospitals are facing and provide a funding stream to help these important health care entities in this bill that provide a high percentage of uncompensated care. But no, tax cuts are more important.

Our distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations committee, Mr. Obey tried to offer an amendment that would have restored Medicaid and SCHIP coverage to children who have been removed from those programs over the last two years. This amendment was defeated on a rollcall vote in committee. The amendment would have provided the funds by making modest reductions in the benefits that the highest-income taxpayers received under the 2003 tax bill.

At a time when high unemployment is causing many Americans to lose their job-related health care coverage, the State fiscal crisis is leading States to cut back health coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP and various state-finance programs. This is acceptable to many here in Congress that would prefer to see massive tax cuts than a strengthened health care infrastructure.

With States making the difficult decisions of cutting Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility, more and more individuals are joining the ranks of the uninsured. This in turn puts more of a burden on our hospitals that already are struggling to keep afloat. We need to get our priorities straight. We can do much better than what we have done with this bill to help those across our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time in this most difficult discussion, but what a sham we have today for our seniors of America who built this country. Not only do you not have a prescription drug benefit, but this one you will not get till 2006, if you get it at all. It will privatize Medicare by the year 2010.

What most people want in America, including seniors, is to contain the high costs of prescription drugs. This bill prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs. That in itself is enough to say vote ``no'' on this bill. What a sham for the seniors who built this country.

This plan will destroy the retirement benefits that companies in my district like General Motors, like Daimler Chrysler already are giving to their retirees. This plan is a disincentive for them to keep giving that. Vote ``no'' on this plan. It is unfortunate I do not have any more time. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment and opposition to H.R. 1. We, in Congress, over the last few years, have repeatedly pledged to provide seniors with the prescription drug coverage they so desperately need--and deserve. My Republican colleagues have touted this day as a ``historical day.'' Unfortunately, for Democrats, who support a meaningful, universal, and comprehensive drug plan under Medicare, this day is not a ``historical day'' in the positive sense but a day when we failed on our promise to come through for our seniors. What this bill does do is afford the Republicans the ability to say to seniors, ``We came through on our pledge.'' Unfortunately, their rhetoric does not match up to the emptiness that will be felt in our seniors' pocketbooks. Nor does it match up in providing seniors with real choice and a meaningful, comprehensive prescription drug program.

The GOP Prescription Drug Plan is a flawed plan, period. It would put the power in the hands of private insurers--those same insurers who have abandoned seniors in providing essential health care services in the past. Why our Republican colleagues want to give even more power to HMOs and private insurers is a question I cannot answer. However, the consequences of such actions will be felt by the most vulnerable in our society.

The majority of seniors across our nation live on fixed monthly incomes. With so many seniors today living longer, this also means that they need to save as much money as they can to ensure their survival over the years. They cannot afford to pay exorbitant costs for their drugs. Moreover, seniors need security. What they do not need is to be forced into private managed care plans that are able to opt-out of coverage for seniors at their free will. Seniors deserve better--they deserve a universal, comprehensive, affordable, and meaningful drug plan under Medicare.

The House Republican prescription drug bill is even worse than the one considered by Congress last year and goes much further in privatizing Medicare. Seniors would need to use private insurance companies for drug coverage and these private insurance companies and managed care plans would design the new prescription drug plans. These insurance plans would also need to commit to the program for only one year. What does this mean? It means that seniors can be dropped from their plan year-to-year. They would have to change their plan, their doctor, and the drugs they take every 12 months. This puts seniors at the mercy of private insurance companies, rather than giving them an option that provides

them with the security and stability they need. Seniors do not want to be forced into an HMO. In fact, 72 percent of seniors polled say they do not want to be forced into getting coverage through an HMO. We need to listen to those we are trying to serve.

The GOP plan also receives an ``F'' on the affordability scale. Under their plan, seniors would be required to pay high premiums even if they are not receiving coverage. The Republican plan would deny assistance to those seniors with drug costs between $2,000 and $4,900. Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries would fall into this ``coverage gap'' every year; however, they would still be expected to pay the monthly premium. Seniors would be asked to continue paying for a service they are not receiving--a service that does not honor seniors with meaningful support in the first place.

Another glitch in the Republican bill is its inability to deal with the underlying problem--the rising costs of prescription drugs. Seniors want help in curbing the increasing costs of prescription drugs. In fact, seniors prefer cost control measures by a vote of two to one. While seniors want help in purchasing their medicines, they also want solutions in curbing the rising costs. The Republican bill does not do this. It neglects to include an important provision supported by Democrats to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to negotiate for lower prices like the Veterans' Administration has done. Including cost-control provisions is the right and responsible thing to do; however, our Republican friends do not see the benefit of this. How unfortunate.

The Democratic Substitute, which I proudly support, is the coverage that will fulfill our pledge to seniors. It provides them with real assistance within Medicare and includes provisions to curb the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors do not need to worry about paying more in the future if they decide to stay in the traditional Medicare program. They do need to worry about this with the Republican bill, since the ``competitive bidding'' provision would force seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs than they do now. Seniors want a plan that is straight up, no-nonsense, and significant. That is what Democrats have provided in the substitute measure.

I want to do right by the seniors in my district and for seniors all across the nation who are struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need to live fulfilling and healthy lives. H.R. 1 was constructed with the interests of pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies at heart. The voice of seniors was nothing but a faint echo in the rooms where this bill was constructed and their best interests have been left in the dust. For these reasons, I vote against passage of H.R. 1. We need to safeguard our nation's seniors, not private insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today. Had I been present for legislative business, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following measures under consideration of suspension of the rules, H. Res. 264, H. Res. 177, H. Con. Res. 209, and H.R. 2465.