Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend AARP CEO Bill Novelli for sending a letter Monday to the heads of the leading pharmaceutical companies, requesting their cooperation in holding down drug price increases.

While this Member has questions about limiting drug price increases to an amount no greater than the level of inflation as advocated in this letter, this Member generally supports several of the concepts mentioned by Mr. Novelli, including prescription drug reimportation and drug efficacy studies.

Clearly, millions of Americans are finding prescription drug reimportation from Canada and other countries to be a viable and necessary alternative to high-priced drugs in the United States. The number of those Americans is growing every day. It would be wrong for Members of Congress to ignore this reality and to ignore the excessive cost of prescription drugs in America.

Large pharmaceutical manufacturers have long been gouging American consumers by charging substantially more, in some cases up to 90 percent more, for prescription drugs sold in the United States than in Canada and other industrialized countries. Increasing numbers of Americans understandably refuse to be exploited by the pharmaceutical industry any longer. The exploitation of American consumers must end. The excuse that most of the world's pharmaceutical research and development takes place in America does not justify the continued degree of cost-shifting onto the backs of American consumers. Profit levels of American, foreign, and multi-national pharmaceutical firms are among the highest in the business world, as is the level of their advertising budgets and inducements offered to prescribing physicians.

The reimportation debate is not a battle of right versus left. It is a battle of right versus wrong. It is simply wrong to require Americans to pay the world's highest prices for prescription drugs, so they thereby can subsidize consumers everywhere else on earth to generate the research, advertising and profit revenues for pharmaceutical companies.

As a Member of Congress serving in the people's House, this Member has a responsibility to do what is right for Nebraskans and all Americans. This Member supports prescription drug reimporation because Americans deserve access to quality drugs at world market prices and reimportation seems to be the only solution immediately available to reduce the gross overcharge of American consumers for prescription drugs.

This Member is also supportive of drug efficacy studies. This Member offered an amendment to the House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, requiring the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ to spend $12 million to conduct research on the clinical appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of prescription drugs. This language was maintained and included in the final appropriations measure, which was signed into law.

Americans deserve the best health care for their dollar. It is essential for clinicians, patients, health plans, insurers, and those financing health care services to have access to credible, objective information on the benefits, risks, and costs of prescription drugs so they can make informed decisions about the prescriptions they consume and prescribe. Americans need information regarding the effectiveness, quality, and cost-effectiveness of new drugs, in comparison with existing alternatives, especially when new drugs can cost much more than those now on the market. Understanding which medicines work the best for which patients and at what costs, as well as understanding how to administer and monitor medication use in a way that ensures patients' safety is of critical importance to the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member encourages measures to control the outrageous costs of lifesaving prescription drugs. This is the best medicine for Nebraskans and all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following article from the March 10, 2004, Lincoln Journal Star. According to the article, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce conducted a national survey of 1,402 senior corporate attorneys on the business litigation environment in the different states. This article indicates that Nebraska is ranked second out of the 50 states in this survey which took into account factors such as the treatment of liability and class action lawsuits; punitive damages, fairness and competence of juries, and judge impartiality.

This U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey illustrates that Nebraska is a great state for businesses to grow and flourish. Businesses should want to locate in a state like Nebraska which has a fair judicial system, among the many positive attributes of this great state. As a result of the findings of this survey, this Member hopes that more businesses will move to Nebraska which will create additional jobs.

[From the Lincoln Journal Star, Mar. 10, 2004]

State's Courts Rank Second in Fairness

Omaha.--Nebraska's court system ranks second in fairness

when it comes to liability suits, according to a survey of

corporate attorneys by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It is the second year in a row Nebraska has been listed in

the top five of the pro-business group's survey.

Nebraska's good liability reputation can help the state

business-wise, the group said.

``Businesses go where they are wanted and they bring jobs

and economic growth to states with the best legal systems,''

Thomas Donahue, the U.S. Chamber president, said in a

statement.

The chamber's study says 80 percent of the 1,402 senior

corporate attorneys surveyed said the ``litigation

environment'' in a state could affect such decisions at their

companies as where to locate or do business.

The Chamber of Commerce's survey took such factors into

consideration as treatment of liability and class-action

suits, the issuance of punitive damages, judge impartiality

and competence, and the predictability and fairness of

juries.

Delaware was rated the best, followed by Nebraska,

Virginia, Iowa and Idaho. Last year, the top five list was

Delaware, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota and Indiana.

From best to worst, the bottom five in this year's Chamber

of Commerce survey were California, Louisiana, Alabama, West

Virginia and Mississippi.

The survey is done by the Chamber of Commerce's Institute

for Legal Reform and is in its third year.

The group says the wide gap the survey shows between the

best and worst states underscores the need for federal and

state reforms on class-action, asbestos litigation and

medical malpractice suits.

corporate court ranking

National rankings of state court systems according to a

survey of 1,402 senior corporate attorneys by the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce:

1. Delaware

2. Nebraska

3. Virginia

4. Iowa

5. Idaho

6. Utah

7. New Hampshire

8. Minnesota

9. Kansas

10. Wisconsin

11. Indiana

12. Maine

13. Colorado

14. Arizona

15. Wyoming

16. North Dakota

17. South Dakota

18. Connecticut

19. North Carolina

20. Vermont

21. Maryland

22. New York

23. Michigan

24. Washington

25. Tennessee

26. New Jersey

27. Oregon

28. Massachusetts

29. Georgia

30. Pennsylvania

31. Oklahoma

32. Ohio

33. Alaska

34. Nevada

35. Kentucky

36. Rhode Island

37. New Mexico

38. Florida

39. Hawaii

40. South Carolina

41. Missouri

42. Arkansas

43. Montana

44. Illinois

45. Texas

46. California

47. Louisiana

48. Alabama

49. West Virginia

50. Mississippi

Mr. Speaker, on March 9, 2004, this Member unavoidably missed three roll call votes. On all three votes, this Member would have voted ``aye,'' had he been present. The three votes were: 1. Rollcall No. 42, passage of H. Res. 519, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the earthquake that occurred in San Luis Obispo County, California on December 22, 2003; 2. Rollcall No. 43, passage of H. Res. 392, a resolution congratulating the Detroit Shock for winning the 2003 Womens National Basketball Association championship; and 3. Rollcall No. 44, passage of H. Res 475, congratulating the San Jose Earthquakes for winning the 2003 Major League Soccer Cup.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 540) expressing the condolences and deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives for the untimely death of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 540, the resolution under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this Member rises in support of H. Res. 540, as amended, expressing the condolences and deepest sympathy of the U.S. House of Representatives upon the death of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski. This resolution was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

On February 26, 2004, President Boris Trajkovski of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia was tragically killed in a plane crash over Bosnia-Herzegovina, while traveling to Moscow to attend a regional economic conference. He and eight other individuals on the aircraft died in this tragic accident. This Member understands the official State funeral was held Friday of last week in Skopje.

President Trajkovski is one of the most important reasons why Macedonia is making the progress it has made in recent years. President Trajkovski was an important leader and voice of reason in resolving the ethnic conflict that was threatening his country 3 years ago and in implementing the Ohrid peace agreement of August 2001. His leadership and moderation between opposing sides have been absolutely essential in creating the conditions for the progress that his government and his country have made since then.

He worked tirelessly to ensure that democratic values and institutions would prevail in his country and to bring his country closer towards full

integration in the Euro-Atlantic institutions. In May of last year, his country joined Croatia and Albania in signing the Adriatic Charter, an agreement to commit to reforms and cooperation in order to prepare these countries for accession into NATO. His country has been a strong supporter of the international war against terrorism and has contributed forces to operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, his country was scheduled to formally submit its application to become a candidate for membership in the European Union last week on February 26, tragic only because that was the very day of the tragic accident.

Historically, President Trajkovski will be most known for saving his country from civil war. This resolution recognizes that fact and his leadership and his importance to his country. This resolution is an affirmation that the U.S. House of Representatives supports the reforms that President Trajkovski implemented and the progress that all Macedonians have made. May the government of Macedonia and the people of Macedonia continue to follow his example and continue along his path of reform, progress, peace and democracy.

This Member would like to express his deepest sympathies and condolences to his family, to his country and to all the Macedonian people and urge his colleagues in this House to support passage of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor of the resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their appropriate words and sentiments. I urge unanimous support for the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to join the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) in his Special Order to highlight the health care challenges that rural veterans face when attempting to access care through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For many years, this Member has been far from satisfied with various actions of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, such as, one, the use of the health care allocation formula instituted by the Clinton administration and continuing to this day, which in effect penalizes veterans in sparsely settled States like Nebraska; number two, the reorganization of the Nebraska-Iowa region into a larger region headquartered in the Twin Cities of Minnesota; three, the end of inpatient hospitalization in the Lincoln and Grand Island, VA hospitals; and, four, the current procedural difficulties for veterans to have prescriptions filled.

In total, these faulty decisions have amounted to discrimination against

veterans in rural areas. First, due to the closure and consolidation of veterans health care facilities in Nebraska, veterans in rural areas frequently travel several hours simply to receive the basic services for which they are entitled and are eligible. As a result of this travel, they must incur transportation costs such as overnight accommodations which other veterans are not expected to incur for the same services. Furthermore, requiring elderly and frequently sick or incapacitated veterans to travel on Interstate 80 or other very busy roads and highways is not only unfair to them, but also places them and other citizens at risk.

The severity of this problem was brought to this Member's attention by a January 2002 Lincoln Journal Star article featuring one Nebraska veteran who served in the Navy during World War II. Three years after he was diagnosed with several diseases, his wife of 49 years could no longer care for her husband. She said that putting her husband in a nursing home was the hardest thing she had ever had to do in her entire life. Medicare and a private insurance supplement cover doctors' expenses, and the couple uses their retirement savings to pay for the $4,000 monthly nursing home cost.

However, additional expenses include $1,000 a month to cover the cost of seven prescription drugs that this veteran must take to stay alive. Although he qualifies for a prescription drug benefit through the VA, in order to obtain this benefit, the drugs must be prescribed by a VA doctor at VA-approved facilities. As a result, this veteran must travel 50 miles every 6 months in order to have prescriptions reauthorized.

Now, because that veteran is 74 years old, confined to a wheelchair, suffers serious blood clots which prohibit him from traveling, this 50- mile trip often proves to be impossible.

With the struggles of this veteran and many others in mind, this Member expresses his strongest support for H.R. 2379, the Rural Veterans Access to Health Care Act for 2003. Indeed, this Member is a proud cosponsor of this measure, which was introduced by my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He is to be commended for crafting this legislation, which addresses a critical problem about which our constituents in Nebraska are increasingly expressing their concerns.

Through H.R. 2379, no less than 5 percent of the total appropriated funds for health care would be dedicated to address veterans health care access problems in highly rural or geographically remote areas. As amended by this bill, highly rural or geographically remote would apply to areas in which the veterans have to drive at least 60 minutes or more to a VA health care facility. Each Veterans Integrated Service Network, that is called VISN, director would receive an equal level of funding from this account and then have the discretion to address rural access issues as best fit each VISN. If a VISN would be unable to use all of these funds from this account, the VISN would not be allowed to retain unused funds. Instead, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would then have the opportunity to reallocate those funds to other VISNs closely nearby or anywhere that is rural and geographically remote.

All Members of Congress should agree that the VA must provide adequate services and facilities for veterans all across the country regardless of where they live, in sparsely settled areas with resultant low-usage numbers for VA hospitals. There must be at least a basic level of acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our veterans wherever they live. There must be a threshold funding level for VA medical services in each State and region before any per capital funding level is applied.

Furthermore, I support H.R. 3777, the Healthy Vets Act of 2004. This Member is also a cosponsor of this legislation, introduced by our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

This measure would allow those veterans in rural areas which are geographically inaccessible to the nearest VA medical facility to enter into contracts with community health care providers on a fee basis to receive primary health care in their own communities. This authority would allow rural veterans to receive preventive regular medical attention without being forced to travel what is too often a prohibitive distance to seek such care.

In spite of the fact that each Congress sets a new record on the amount of appropriation for veterans health care, there have been cutbacks in the access veterans in rural areas have to adequate health care, while there have been advances in other geographic areas. The health care needs of our military veterans must be met to the fullest extent possible. Veterans served in our armed services to protect our freedom and our way of life. As they served our Nation at a time of need, the Federal Government must remember them in their time of need. The debt of gratitude the people the U.S. owe to our veterans surely means we should assist the veterans wherever that need exists.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member remains committed, I would say, to ensuring that Nebraska veterans receive the benefits they deserve, benefits they had expected and which the American people said they want to deliver. I urge support of H.R. 2379 and H.R. 3777.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time for the European Union to face the reality that it must eliminate its destructive agricultural export subsidies. This Member commends U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick for emphasizing this message during his recent visit to Geneva. As Ambassador Zoellick correctly noted, such action is one of the keys to reaching an international ag trade agreement.

The EU's outrageous use of export subsidies hurts U.S. farmers, distorts international trade, and harms developing countries. If the EU would end its export subsidies, this Member is confident that the U.S. would be more than willing to eliminate its much smaller export subsidies. It should be noted that the American export subsidies are only used occasionally as a shot across the bow of the EU for the third country export markets.

This Member believes the American agriculture community is willing to make certain changes in the current domestic subsidy program as well, as long as it is accompanied by meaningful subsidy reforms in the EU as well as in Japan and Korea.

Mr. Speaker, real change in the European Union's agriculture export subsidy programs, and especially its elimination of their ag export subsidies, would be of great benefit to farmers and consumers around the world.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to call the attention of his colleagues to the excellent editorial on Haiti in the March 2, 2004, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. The Bush administration has responded properly to the crisis in Haiti. The citizens of that desperately poor country have suffered greatly under the regime of the autocratic and quixotic Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Now he is finally gone and good riddance. The international community under the leadership of the United Nations needs to be fully engaged in bringing peace and stability to this terribly troubled country so that the livelihood of its people can begin to receive the necessary attention.

[From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 2, 2004]

Haiti's New Hope

The Bush administration has had sharp foreign policy

disagreements with other countries. But in responding to the

political collapse in Haiti, the international community is

in general consensus. For Haiti to move forward, it's widely

agreed that the country's president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide,

had to go.

That is a reasonable stance. Aristide is a former priest

reinstalled in 1994 by a U.S. military campaign as the duly

elected president. But during the past decade, he amassed a

record of shamelessly backtracking on his promises to uphold

democracy.

He even copied the fascistic tactics of Haiti's old-time

dictator, ``Papa Doc'' Duvalier, using gangs of thugs to

intimidate and murder members of the political opposition.

Four years ago, such tactics spurred the Clinton

administration to end all aid to Haiti except for

humanitarian assistance. The foul tactics also led the United

Nations to refuse to recognize the validity of the country's

tainted Senate elections. In 2000, Aristide was elected

president in a contest boycotted in protest by the political

opposition.

Bush's Democratic critics are arguing that the

administration should have sent in U.S. Marines last week to

buttress Aristide. But Bush's refusal to maintain Aristide in

power had the support of leading players such as France and

Canada (whose governments were at loggerheads with Bush over

the Iraq war last year).

It was the political opposition in Haiti that may well have

made the key decision leading to Aristide's downfall. Last

week the United States headed a multilateral diplomatic

effort that was poised to force Aristide to agree to accept a

politically independent prime minister. But opposition

leaders balked at the proposal, saying Aristide couldn't be

trusted.

Now Aristide has fled to a safe haven in Africa

(facilitated by the efforts of U.S. Secretary of State Colin

Powell to find him a host country), and U.S. Marines are

arriving in Haiti to provide order. Up to around 1,000

American troops will ultimately be placed there, with a large

contingent serving as gendarmes, Powell says.

A multinational security force, approved Sunday night by

the United Nations Security Council, is also in the works.

Prospects for a politically stable Haiti (which this year

marks the 200th anniversary of its successful revolt against

French rule) are unclear. Armed bands, seemingly tethered

only to an agenda of plundering and vendetta-settling, have

proliferated. The gap between the country's rich and poor

feeds tremendous resentments. The large amounts of aid that

the Clinton administration pumped into Haiti in the 1990s for

police training and economic development appear to have done

little good.

Nonetheless, the end of Aristide's regime provides

encouragement. Particularly welcome is the widespread support

from abroad that Haiti enjoys as it attempts to pull itself

away from the injustice and brutality of the past.

For all the problems their country faces, the Haitian

people can count on the support of the United States and many

other countries in the effort to make the fall of Haiti's

latest dictator the turning point it can be to a better

future. In that, there can be great hope.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to thank his friend the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Price, for working with me and introducing a resolution to establish the House Commission for Assisting Democratic Parliaments. This Member is proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure, along with the chairman and the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Rules. Having been involved in the Frost-Solomon Task Force, which undertook a similar effort a decade ago, this Member is enthused to offer this new initiative.

The spread of parliamentary democracy in Central and Eastern Europe is one of the great success stories in recent history. Of course, the efforts by those nations to overthrow their communist dictatorships in some cases traces back several decades, but the rapid downfall of those regimes began after the events of 1989 and accelerated in the early 1990s.

Sadly, some countries that gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia simply traded communist dictatorships for new dictatorships of nationalists and former apparatchiks. But most of these countries moved quickly to establish new democracies, holding free and fair elections and transforming their parliaments from rubber- stamp facades into independent legislatures. However, this task proved easier on paper than in practice.

As we well know in this Congress, our ability to legislate independently of the executive depends on our access to independent information and analysis. We are fortunate to have our own staffs and support agencies to which we can turn to research an issue and provide alternative points of view. Recognizing the importance of this, the Congress has created agencies like the General Accounting Office, Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office to provide Members with independent views and oversight.

In the newly democratic parliaments, this capacity and expertise was lacking. Recognizing its importance for legislative autonomy, in 1990 the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Frost, established a task force through the Speaker's office to help them develop the needed capabilities. In cooperation with the late gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, the gentleman from Texas developed a program that allowed the House of Representatives to share the expertise of Members and staff, especially from the Congressional Research Service, with the newly democratic parliaments. The task force provided modest donations of information technology-related office equipment and reference materials for parliamentary libraries, thereby facilitating the establishment of independent research services.

The task force also helped those parliaments develop parliamentary procedures and the means to inform Members and the general public about parliamentary activities in a timely and open fashion. At a modest cost, we were able to help these parliaments become effective legislatures and play their part in a democratic system.

The Frost-Solomon Task Force was terminated in 1996. While most of those countries that received aid have indeed become full-fledged democracies, others still need a helping hand. The Price-Bereuter Resolution aims to provide that assistance.

The resolution that has been introduced would create a House Commission for Assisting Democratic Parliaments, comprised of eight House Members--four Republicans and four Democrats--and it would have a small staff to coordinate its activities and help Members determine which parliaments would most benefit from such assistance.

Much of the expertise that these parliaments require can be found in the House and its support agencies, so the resolution would allow congressional offices to detail employees to the Commission. Recognizing that many of those who worked on the initial Frost-Solomon Task Force have retired or are about to retire from congressional employment, the resolution allows the Commission to use those retirees as consultants, so that parliaments can benefit from their years of expertise.

In addition to providing expert advice from Members and staff, the resolution envisions a modest assistance program to provide parliaments with information, technology-related equipment and with reference materials so that they could establish a research service and better disseminate legislative information. When the Commission identified needs in selected parliaments, it could recommend that the Agency for International Development provide certain equipment, materials or technical assistance to enable those parliaments to become more efficient and transparent.

The first task of this Commission should be to finish the work that was begun in Central and Eastern Europe, but the resolution does not limit the Commission's scope to that region. Once this program is established, it could expand to assist parliaments in other countries, as appropriate, like those in the Caucasus and Central Asian regions and perhaps in other parts of the world. For example, the United States is committed to help create representative democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be worthwhile if the House were to work with the new parliaments in those nations to help them develop as autonomous institutions in a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, this Member was pleased to play a small part in the Frost-Solomon Task Force in the 1990s by participating in Frost-Solomon congressional delegations that reviewed the accomplishments of the assistance that had been given. Today, we have an opportunity to further assist in the emergence of democratic parliaments by enabling this House to share its expertise and to work with AID in providing the necessary assistance. This Member urges his colleagues to become co- sponsors of the Price-Bereuter-Dreier-Frost resolution to create the House Commission for Assisting Democratic Parliaments.

Madam Speaker, Members of this body should be alarmed that Secretary Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, named Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan, a vocal opponent of importing drugs from Canada, to lead a government study of reimportation. This decision is a bad one and is a slap in the face of 243 Members of Congress who voted in support of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

As head of the FDA, Dr. McClellan has vehemently opposed the importation of drugs from Canada. Despite the assurance of Secretary Thompson that the study will be balanced and fair, with Dr. McClellan at the helm there is no way this study will be seen as objective. With the proper effort and technology, it is clearly possible for pharmaceuticals to be safely reimported from Canada and from other countries. American consumers are now asked to subsidize the consumers in the rest of the world by the prices we are charged. This is an issue that will not go away.

Madam Speaker, in closing, no matter what barriers they erect and excuses the FDA or drug companies offer, Americans will continue to search for the much lower drug prices found everywhere else in the world.

[From the Omaha World Herald, Mar. 1, 2004]

Choose Someone Else

The Bush administration on Wednesday took a step toward

establishing a common-sense policy on importing prescription

drugs from Canada. Then it took two steps back. That's no way

to reach a reasonable policy on a highly significant issue.

Good: Officials announced a year-long study of how drugs

could be safely imported from Canada, where the prices can be

60 percent or more lower than U.S. citizens pay. Importation

is technically against the law, but many senior citizens,

some encouraged and even aided by their local or state

governments, do it anyway. The saving is significant for

those on fixed incomes and the risks appear minimal.

Bad: U.S. officials appointed Dr. Mark B. McClellan,

recently nominated to head the Centers for Medicare and

Medicaid Services, to lead the study. McClellan has been a

vocal and vehement opponent of any change in the rules that

prohibit drug imports, and his agency has threatened legal

action against local and state governments that help seniors.

In the Senate, Democrats and some Republicans have

objected. ``Putting the fox in charge of the chicken house,''

observed Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. McClellan has already

shown ``a personal bias'' against drug importation, said a

spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Health and Human Services Department leaders promised a

balanced commission and a thorough study of the issue. But

Director Tommy Thompson has launched a leaky ship with

serious holes in its credibility merely by appointing

McClellan to captain it.

Drug importation distresses the pharmaceutical industry for

obvious reasons. The Canadian government regulates

prescription prices. In the recent Medicare reform bill that

would give senior citizens a prescription drug benefit in

2006, Congress forbade the federal government from

negotiating for lower drug prices for Americans. That is

industry-friendly to the extreme.

So is the appointment of McClellan to such a sensitive

post. The administration shouldn't squander the opportunity

to settle this contentious issue in a rational manner. And it

shouldn't squander its credibility by so blatantly stacking

the deck. A more objective professional should be chosen.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from February 6, 2004, Omaha World-Herald.

While the energy bill conference report is obviously not perfect--it contains excesses and too much parochial pork-barrel--the legislation would provide many important improvements over the current situation. Among its beneficial provisions, the measure is designed to improve the nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability. It also supports alternative power sources and promotes a cleaner environment. As the editorial indicates, the conference report can be improved in certain ways while retaining its beneficial provisions.

It is imperative for Congress to pass a sensible long-term energy policy which will help assure Americans of development of diverse, reliable, affordable energy sources with an emphasis on energy conservation. After years of inaction, this Member believes that it is absolutely essential to enact comprehensive energy legislation. It is overdue.

[From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 6, 2004]

Thawing Energy Policy

Signs of movement are appearing in Congress' deadlock over

a comprehensive energy bill.

The $31 billion bill passed the House but fell two votes

shy of breaking a filibuster in the Senate last November. The

bill was a mixed bag, containing needed electrical-grid

improvements and tax breaks and incentives for alternative

energy sources, including a doubling of the nation's ethanol

production. But it also would have rolled back some air and

water pollution standards and was bloated with more than $11

billion in tax breaks and favors to gain votes.

Among the objectionable provisions was liability protection

for makers of the gasoline additive MTBE. That would shift to

state and local governments the estimated $29 billion cost of

cleaning groundwater contaminated by MTBE.

Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee,

said he'll drop that provision. Good. It's an outrageous

provision, but killing it will need the agreement of the

House, where it still has strong backing from Majority Leader

Tom DeLay.

Also likely to be cut in negotiations is the bill's

exorbitant cost--more than half of which was targeted to

existing oil, gas, coal and nuclear power production.

The electric-grid and ethanol proposals, fortunately,

appear likely to emerge in either a slimmed-down energy bill

or as separate proposals.

But the energy bill had many other provisions aimed at

making a start (a small one, but a start nonetheless) on

setting a new course for the nation's energy policies: tax

breaks for alternative-fuel vehicles; tax credits for

consumer-level energy-efficiency measures; tax credits for

power plant investments in clean coal technology.

These are the important provisions for Congress to

safeguard as compromises are sought to pass this vital

legislation. (The fact that compromises are finally being

openly discussed, after a Republican-only conference

committee cooked up the current bill behind closed doors, is

a victory all its own for political debate.)

The chance to plot such a course change for the nation's

energy policy is an opportunity not to be missed. We're glad

to see it's now open to reasonable compromise.

Mr. Speaker, on February 3, 2004, this Member unavoidably missed Roll Call vote No. 14 on H.J. Res. 84, a resolution honoring former President Ronald Reagan on the occasion of his 93rd birthday. Had this Member been present, this Member would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President George W. Bush proposed new job-training grants for community colleges. This Member is extremely pleased with this proposal, as the initiative would allow America's community colleges to train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs.

Nebraska community colleges are certainly encouraged by the President's proposal, as evidenced by the November 22, 2004, Omaha World-Herald article entitled, ``Nebraska Educators Like Sound of Bush Proposals.'' Mr. Jerry Moskus, President of Metropolitan Community College in Omaha was quoted in the article saying, ``The great part about this was seeing the Members of Congress stand up and applaud for community colleges. I think that was the high point of my month.''

Job training programs are essential, according to Mr. Barry Kennedy, President of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry. ``Those of us involved with economic growth have been talking about this for the last year or so,'' Kennedy told the World Herald. ``We still have people who say they would hire more people if they could just find people with the skills they needed.''

The President's proposal would also encourage students to take more rigorous courses in high school. As an incentive for students to take more demanding high school courses, the President's proposal would provide larger grants for college under the Pell Grant program. This program is said to be consistent with Nebraska's P-16 Initiative, an initiative that integrates a student's education beginning in preschool and ending with a 4-year college degree.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member is intrigued and enthusiastically supportive of the President's proposal. Also, this Member would like to express his support for community colleges and the quality education they provide.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for S. 1920, as amended. The Rules Committee has reported-out a rule (H. Res. 503) which upon passage, automatically modifies this bill by substituting the text of H.R. 975 which the House passed on March 19, 2003. This Member was a cosponsor of this earlier passed measure.

It is important to note that bankruptcy reforms bills have passed both the House and Senate in the 105th, 106th, and 107th Congresses. In the 105th Congress, the House passed a bankruptcy reform conference report, while the Senate failed to pass the conference report. In the 106th Congress, former President Bill Clinton pocket vetoed a bankruptcy reform conference report. During the 107th Congress, the rule under which the bankruptcy reform conference report was to be considered was defeated in the House because of a tenuous connection drawn to the subject of abortion clinics by conferees from the other body.

This Member would thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts in bringing, S. 1920, as amended to the House Floor for consideration. This Member supports S. 1920, as amended, for numerous reasons; however, the most important reasons include the following:

First, this Member supports the provision which provides for a means testing (needs-based) formula when determining whether an individual should file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy allows a debtor to be discharged of his or personal liability for many unsecured debts. In addition, there is no requirement that a Chapter 7 filer repay many of his or her debts. However, Chapter 13 bankruptcy filers commit to repay some portion of his or her debts under a repayment plan.

Some Chapter 7 filers actually have the capacity to repay some of what they owe, but they choose Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are able to walk away from these debts. For example, the stories in which an individual filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and then proceeds to take a nice vacation and/or buys a new car are too common. Moreover, the status quo is costing the average American individual and family increased costs for consumer goods and credit because of the amount of debt which is never repaid to creditors.

As a response to these concerns, the needs-based test of this legislation will help ensure that high income filers, who could repay some of what they owe, are required to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy as compared to Chapter 7. This needs-based system takes a debtor's income, expenses, obligations and any special circumstances into account to determine whether he or she has the capacity to repay a portion of their debts.

Second, this Member supports the additional monthly expense items that are exempted from consideration under the needs-based test which determines, under this legislation, whether a person can file either a Chapter 7 or 13 version of bankruptcy. These expenses include the following: reasonable expenses incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and debtor's family from domestic violence; an additional food and clothing allowance if demonstrated to be reasonable and necessary; and actual expenses for the care and support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled member of the debtor's household or immediate family.

Third, this Member supports the permanent extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy in this legislation since it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. Using the Chapter 12 bankruptcy provision has been an important and necessary option for family farmers to reorganize their assets in manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer.

It is important to note that S. 1920, as passed by the other body on November 25, 2003, would extend Chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches through July 1, 2004. Chapter 12 bankruptcy expired on January 1, 2004.

If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not permanently extended for family farmers, its expiration on January 1, 2004, would continue to be a very painful blow to an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have no viable option but to end their operations, it likely will also cause land values to plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will affect the ability of family farmers to obtain adequate credit to maintain a viable farm operation. It will impact the manner in which banks conduct their agricultural lending activities. Furthermore, this Member has received many contacts from his constituents supporting the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our Nation's farm families. It is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting and by a permanent extension of the Chapter 12 authorization, Congress can avoid one more negative possibility.

Lastly, this Member supports the provisions in this legislation, which requires that people convicted of a felony or who owe a debt from a securities fraud violation in the 5 years before filing for bankruptcy cannot claim an unlimited homestead exemption. This Member believes that this provision in the conference report is imperative in light of the recent corporate scandals at Enron and WorldCom. For example, this provision would apply to the $7 million penthouse in Houston of Kenneth Lay (if he still owns it), the former chairman of Enron, if he both files for personal bankruptcy in the future and owes a debt due to any conviction of securities fraud. In addition, this provision may also be relevant to Scott D. Sullivan, the former chief financial officer of WorldCom, who at one time was building a $15 million mansion in Boca Raton, Florida.

In closing, for these aforementioned reasons and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support S. 1920, as amended.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 8, I was attending the Memorial Service for former Member Barber Conable. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the resolution, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H. Res. 491, which supports efforts to encourage more individuals to become mentors. In addition to raising awareness, a key provision is to commend those who give their time and talents to support mentoring initiatives.

This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this important resolution to the House Floor today; this issue is very timely as January 2004 is National Mentoring Month. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman form Nebraska [Mr. Osborne] for sponsoring H. Res. 491 and for his personal interest in establishing mentoring opportunities nationwide.

Many children throughout the Untied States face difficult situations--and when matched with a caring and responsible adult, positive results ensue. Research has shown that mentoring benefits young people in a positive manner by increasing school attendance, improving rates of secondary school graduation and college attendance, decreasing involvement with drugs and alcohol, and reducing violent behavior.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H. Res. 491.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. This Member, who is a cosponsor of the House measure, would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) for introducing the measure.

Under S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Program, which is an employment verification program, would be extended through 2008 and, indeed, would expand access to the program for the entire U.S.

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 correctly prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens or people with non-immigrant visas. Unfortunately, at that time, Congress did not give employers the corresponding tools with which to comply with this Act.

For example, due to concerns regarding discrimination, employers are limited in the questions they may ask of potential employees to verify if those individuals are authorized to work in the U.S. If the employment verification documents that potential employees produce appear to be legitimate, then employers must accept the documents as legitimate without further inquiry of the potential employee.

During Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforcement raids, certain employers were found to have hired large numbers of illegal aliens, either knowingly or unintentionally, and subsequently they were subject to penalties. As technology has progressed to allow for the cheap and quick production of legitimate-looking fraudulent documents, the inability of employers to distinguish between valid documents and fraudulent documents has significantly increased. It became clear that businesses dedicated to complying with the IRCA needed new tools to assist with the endeavor.

When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 was enacted, it authorized the creation of three employment verification tools, including the Basic Pilot Program. Initially, employers in California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York, and Iowa could voluntarily use the Basic Pilot Program to compare the information received from potential employees with Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) databases to determine if potential employees could be employed legally in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the 1990's, many legal immigrants and illegal aliens moved to Nebraska seeking jobs in the meatpacking industry. Subsequently, this Member began to receive contacts from businesses in his district concerned about their capacity to comply with the IRCA. Therefore, on November 30, 1999, this Member joined his House and Senate colleagues in the Nebraska Congressional Delegation in a letter to then-INS Commissioner Doris Meissner requesting the extension of the Basic Pilot Program to Nebraska. This Member continues to firmly believe that providing Nebraska businesses with the tools to hire a legal workforce is an important component in maintaining a stable economy in the state and in meeting needs to effectively enforce immigration laws in this country's interior. On March 19, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice granted Nebraska businesses access to the Basic Pilot Program. Currently, about eight Nebraska businesses actively utilize the program.

Mr. Speaker, for Congress to allow the Basic Pilot Program to lapse following the horrific and unspeakable terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, would demonstrate true negligence. More than ever, the U.S. must fully enforce its immigration laws to protect its citizens from future attacks. In its capacity to identify document fraud and illegal aliens, the Basic Pilot Program can indeed play a role in the fight against terrorism.

In conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for S. 1685.