Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 1561). This legislation is crucial to America maintaining its role as the world leader in innovative technology.

Intellectual Property is the currency that drives innovation in America's high-tech economy, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is charged with granting the important patents and trademarks for these innovations. The PTO serves a critical role in the promotion and development of new products and commercial activity in our country.

The PTO is of vital importance to the technology sector of our economy, and it is vital that this agency have proper funding to execute its mission. This legislation will allow the PTO to accomplish this goal--while allowing small business innovators to compete with larger corporations.

H.R. 1561 will eliminate patent fee diversion and will ensure that all fees paid to the PTO will be used to expedite the time-consuming and costly procedures associated with granting patents and trademarks.

This legislation is the first step toward improving patent and trademark quality while reducing application backlogs. This reform will help eliminate some of the bureaucracy that hinders businesses from success in the marketplace and hinders the advancement of technology in America.

I urge final passage of H.R. 1561.

Mr. Speaker, as legislators, it is our responsibility to stand up and protect innocent members of society. Presently, an individual who commits a Federal crime against a pregnant woman receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the woman's unborn child while committing the crime.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects pregnant women and their unborn babies. The current Federal law is unjust, and Laci and Conner's Law will protect women from further abuse. This new law will send the right message that both a mother and a child should be protected.

Right now, the law says that the pregnant mother is the only victim in a crime, and nothing could be further from the truth. There are two victims harmed in this crime, the mother and her unborn baby. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I will work to ensure it is enacted into law this year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for House Concurrent Resolution 359, permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to commemorate the Days of Remembrance of victims of the holocaust.

It is appropriate that we commemorate those who perished during the Holocaust. It is also important that we not forget that genocide and human rights abuses continue to occur elsewhere around the world. As the leader of the Free World, the United States must use its power and influence to bring stability to the world. History serves as a lesson to all, and we must ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust must never happen again.

I am proud to be a founding trustee of the Virginia Holocaust Museum and am pleased that a growing number of community-based Holocaust museums around the county are a reflection of our increasing awareness of the lessons of the Holocaust. Only when every person understands the magnitude of death, destruction, and utter horrors of the Holocaust can we feel we have done everything to prevent its recurrence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Virginia's White Coat Day. As many as 1,500 physicians from all over the State marched on the Virginia Capitol today to make the case for common-sense medical liability reform in the state legislature.

Led by the Medical Society of Virginia, today's White Coat Day march on Richmond is designed to educate State lawmakers on how doctors' skyrocketing malpractice insurance is limiting patients' access to medical care. Outrageous runaway jury awards are causing malpractice premiums to rise uncontrollably, and many doctors are being forced to shut their doors.

The doctors' offices across the Commonwealth that are closed today for the march are symbolic of what out-of-control insurance premiums are doing to our medical system. Doctors being forced to close their doors because they can no longer afford insurance directly affects rural, low-income and senior health care in my district and State.

Mr. Speaker, the pattern of doctors nationwide protesting high medical insurance premiums is a clear sign that the entire system is broken. Not only should the Virginia Legislature address this issue, but we as a Congress need to do the same. We need to take President Bush's lead in ending the jackpot payouts that our legal system encourages. While the House has passed legislation to reform the medical liability system, it is now time to enact common sense reforms into law.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the doctors in Virginia for taking a stand today. I know they do it for their patients.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, in listening to the speakers that have come before me in talking and debating about what this debate is actually about, I will tell you what this debate is about. This debate is about a principle from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which permits religious organizations to employ persons who are members of or agree with the organization's religious principles. This element of religious liberty was recognized by the framers of that act as well as a unanimous Supreme Court as a fundamental component of the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.

We all have stories in our districts of individuals who have come together, many around faith-based principles, connected with faith- based institutions or ideology who perform tremendous good for our communities; actually, organizations that do much better than what the government may have tried to do in any given instance. I know these organizations, as all of you do. They bring people together, they improve lives, they clean up inner cities, they feed the poor, they help drug addicts return to a productive avenue in life. And these are all roles that perhaps the commercial endeavors have failed at or certainly the government has failed at in many instances.

The critics are saying somehow this is a constitutional issue. But to the critics I say, the Constitution says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I received in my office just yesterday a press release from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just read an excerpt from this memo from this group. In responding to the critics' assertion that this principle involved in the CSBG program fosters some federally funded employment discrimination, the group retorts:

This principle is a fundamental component of

constitutionally protected religious liberties and exactly

analogous to those enjoyed under the first amendment freedom

of association by other private agencies organized around

certain beliefs and principles.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of bankruptcy reform, an issue this body has voted in favor of time and time again.

This reform is long overdue and will go a long way to stop abuses of the bankruptcy code.

This measure will permanently extend the agricultural chapter of the bankruptcy code and will add new protections for the American people, including a ``bill of rights'' for those who file for bankruptcy.

Additionally, this measure will provide new protections for parents and will strengthen their ability to collect child support. This legislation will also fix the system so that high income debtors attempting to protect their excessive lifestyles will be held accountable and not continue to live lavishly at the expense of working families.

By establishing a means test for those who file for bankruptcy, this legislation will ensure that those who can repay their debts will no longer be able to abuse the system. These abuses negatively affect the economy by raising the price of goods while simultaneously lowering the availability of credit. This measure is a victory for the majority of Americans who play by the rules over those who choose to play by their own.

Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to pass bankruptcy reform. These reforms are necessary to protect the American people; and I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Shimon and Leah Stein on the birth of their daughter, Yonina Ariela Stein. In addition to her Hebrew name, Yonna also has an American name, Reagan Alexandra. The family will call her Yoni. Born, October 2, 2003, at George Washington University Hospital, Yoni is Shimmy and Leah's first child. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in wishing the Stein family great happiness and joy in the coming years.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for America. The American people are celebrating today because the President has signed into law one of the most, if not the most, dramatic improvements to the Medicare program since its inception. Finally, Mr. Speaker, seniors across this country will have an option of a prescription drug benefit. Finally, Mr. Speaker, seniors will be given a choice in designing and selecting a benefit of health care delivery under Medicare. And finally, Mr. Speaker, American families across this country will be able to benefit from health savings accounts, providing them an environment and incentive to save for their own family's health care needs in a tax- free environment.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is not about a system that is broken or a process that has gone awry. This debate today on the floor is about a Republican success, of a vision of how to improve health care for our senior citizens across this great Nation. This bill is about doing what is best for our constituents, in particular, our seniors, Mr. Speaker. America's largest senior advocacy group, the AARP, has endorsed this bill because it sees this bill as a way to move us forward and to bring Medicare into the modern era and provide our seniors with a greater health benefit.

Mr. Speaker, it is Republican-led policies that move this Nation forward today, not Democrat politics that we are witnessing on the floor this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great opportunity to return to Israel during this past August. Every visit to Israel brings forth so many emotions, some happy, some sad, but always inspirational. My visit was approximately a year after one of the most senseless and brutal attacks that has taken place since the beginning of the so-called second Intifada. On July 31, 2002, a terrorist placed a bomb in the cafeteria at Hebrew University. Nine young people were killed and many more wounded. Of the nine, five were Americans. I mourn the loss of all innocent lives, but this particular attack stands out for two main reasons.

First, of course, the attack underscores the close relationship of Hebrew University to the United States. This goes beyond the tragic deaths of the five Americans. The fact that so many Americans were there and that so many are still going there to study underscores the close relationship between this university and the people of the United States. Thousands of Americans have studied at Hebrew University, particularly in their exceptional ``year-abroad'' program and in their graduate schools. Many are there still and many more will follow. Many scientists from Hebrew University are also recipients of research grants from the American government and American institutions. Their work has been and continues to be of the highest quality. Second, targeting Hebrew University for such an attack was truly heinous. Throughout its long and distinguished history, Hebrew University has reached out to students and scholars of all religions and races.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the ``flagship'' of Israeli universities, was first conceived in the 19th century against the background of discrimination and persecution in Europe. Jews were barred from higher education in Russia and Romania, and there were similar restrictions in many other countries. Also, there was an increasing demand from high school graduates in pre-state Israel for higher education.

The idea of a university in the Holy Land was proposed by Chaim Weizmann, Israel's first president. Among those backing the idea and assisting in raising financial support for the future university was Albert Einstein. The university's foundation stones were dedicated on Mount Scopus overlooking Jerusalem in 1918. Even before the university officially opened its doors in 1925, there was an inaugural lecture given by Einstein in 1923.

From its core of three institutes in the exact sciences and Jewish studies, the university expanded rapidly to eventually include all areas of higher education--the social sciences, law, medicine, dental medicine, agriculture, social work and education. The War of Independence, with its division of Jerusalem, caused the loss of the Mt. Scopus campus to the university in 1948 and its subsequent dispersal to various sites in West Jerusalem.

After the Six-Day War of 1967 and the reunification of Jerusalem, the university returned to Mt. Scopus, which again became the main campus. Today the university operates from four campuses--three in Jerusalem and one in Rehovot and has a total enrollment of some 23,000 students and an academic staff of about 1,200.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem is an institution of international renown and is a beacon of open inquiry and academic freedom in the Middle East. The key point is that the university is open to all, regardless of nationality, ethnic origin, religion or race. Its Rothberg International School hosts students from dozens of countries, and its Jewish National and University Library is an unparalleled research source used by scholars from around the world.

The following is a copy of a speech delivered by Menachem Magidor, President of the Hebrew University, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the attack on the school.

President Magidor's Speech at the Ceremony Commemorating the First

Anniversary of the Terror Attack on Mount Scopus

Just one year ago.at exactly this moment, this was the

scene of a ghastly event, a scene of broken glass, overturned

tables, blood and the cries of the injured and dying.

``Desolation, devastation and destruction!''

One year has passed--the murdered have been laid to rest,

and among the injured, there are those who have recovered

fully, and there are those who will never return to their

former selves. The blood has been washed away, the blackened

walls have been repainted, students rush to classes, and

young people gather at the new tables in the cafeteria,

engaged in lively and friendly conversations.

Has life simply returned to the way it was before? Of

course not, because of those who are no longer with us.

Because Marla Bennett and Benjamin Blutstein will never

continue on their marvelous journey of discovery of their

roots and traditions;

Because David Gritz will never continue with his unique

combination of philosophy, Jewish Studies and music;

Because David Diego Ladowski will never serve society and

the country as he had aspired to, and to promote the peace in

which he believed despite the forces of darkness exemplified

by those who murdered him;

Because Revital Barashi will no longer share her pleasant

manner with her colleagues in the corridors of the Faculty of

Law;

Because Dina Carter will never continue with her dedicated

work in the Library and Janis Ruth Coulter will never

continue to devote herself to the University in America.

Because we will never again see the wonderful smile that

lit up the face of Levina Shapira,

Because the intelligence and the wisdom which Daphna Spruch

personified has gone and will never return.

And even those amongst us who were not here last year, or

who arrived after the dreadful explosion, cannot return to

being how they were before. Because we all understand that

this University, which is so dear to us all, is hated by the

forces of darkness, and that it was not by chance that the

University was chosen as a target because we are Israeli or

Jewish, but dafka because we are dedicated to openness and

tolerance, because we are part of the free and enlightened

world and the wicked spared no effort to strike at the

University, dafka because our Campuses are oases of wisdom,

of dialogue between people of different faiths and

backgrounds, of different beliefs and religions.

And then, you realize that this Campus is part of the war

zone in the war for the rebirth of the Jewish people in its

land, part of the war zone in the war of the free world

against the forces of hate, intolerance and tyranny.

The year that has passed has not been an easy one. Those

who lost their dear ones have found it difficult to accept

their loss; the wounded have fought to rebuild their lives

again, but the emotional and physical scars will forever be

with them.

The Hebrew University family gritted their teeth, and

returned to the sacred work of research and teaching. We were

faced with almost impossible decisions. The threats against

this University, its principles and all that it represents

haven't disappeared.

We have had to make painful compromises between security

considerations and maintaining a free and dynamic Campus. The

economic situation and the budgetary burdens have not made it

any easier, but the year that has passed has proved to us

all, as has happened so many times during the 78 years of the

existence of the Hebrew University, that this living and

growing tree, called the Hebrew University, is difficult to

uproot.

Because the University's existence draws its life's breath

from the never-ending struggle for truth; because it aspires

to help the advancement of humanity; because it is rooted

deep in the essence of our traditions while its branches

stretch forth to the winds of tolerance, openness and respect

for one another; because despite the forces of darkness that

tried to destroy it, it has not lost its aspirations for

peace.

May the memory of the nine be blessed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, H.R. 2622. This sound piece of legislation will aid in the prevention of identity theft. Additionally, it will guarantee that consumers have access to affordable credit.

I do have one concern, and I would like to clarify congressional intent in regard to this legislation. It is vitally important for consumers that the information reported about them to credit bureaus is accurate. When errors occur, they must be corrected. The overwhelming majority of disputes are properly handled through existing procedures as defined in section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Nevertheless, a very small percentage of unusual disputes are not completely resolved through the reinvestigation process. Section 312 of the conference report for the bill provides a means by which some of these cases could be submitted directly to the furnisher for possible resolution.

I recognize that there are potential risks in the adoption of this section. For example, I am very concerned that any mechanism designed to address these few cases is not burdensome. If it becomes burdensome, furnishers may become discouraged from reporting complete and accurate information in the first instance. Additionally, this could lead to misuse by credit repair clinics to overwhelm furnishers in an attempt to cause them to change accurate information.

The conference report for H.R. 2622 has charged the relevant agencies with issuing rules only after they have determined the benefits of a direct resolution process. Congress has provided the agencies with four criteria to review in connection with any rulemaking pertaining to the direct reinvestigation of consumer disputes with furnishers. This criteria must be satisfied before any rules are to be issued.

I believe it is a positive piece of legislation that will give consumers the tools to fight identity theft and continue to access affordable credit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, tonight is a truly historic night. Tonight we will reform and modernize the Medicare system to reflect the needs of seniors. This legislation will save Medicare for our children while allowing seniors access to affordable prescription drugs starting next year.

One important feature of this legislation that allows seniors to have more control of their health care is the inclusion of new Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). These tax-preferred savings accounts work like IRAs and allow individuals, not the government, to make choices that best suit their needs. HSAs, will put individuals back in the driver's seat when it comes to their own health care.

The success of 529 college-savings plans and Roth IRAs proves that HSAs will work. I am glad that we were able to add this conservative and common sense proposal to the bill.

Tonight for the first time in Medicare's history, we will provide nearly 1-million Virginians with access to affordable prescription drug coverage. I am proud to deliver this much-needed and past-due assistance to my fellow Virginians.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Medicare legislation before us. It is a critical step in the right direction, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 409-- Repudiating the recent anti-Semitic sentiments expressed by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the outgoing prime minister of Malaysia, which makes peace in the Middle East and around the world more elusive, sponsored by my good friend Representative Roy Blunt.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has repeatedly crossed the line voicing offensive and inappropriate criticism of Jews. Instead of speaking about fighting terrorism or furthering peaceful cooperation, he chooses to preach hate. Mahathir's verbal attacks on Jews lent credence and legitimacy to the hateful message of terrorists.

Today the Congress will do the right thing by condemning Mahathir's remarks and by making military aid to Malaysia conditional on religious freedom, including greater tolerance of Jews.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar this afternoon complained that the religious freedom vote was an example of the United States trying to ``discipline the world in their own mold.''

To the Malaysian Foreign Minister, I respond, you are absolutely correct. In America a person is not judged because of who they worship and they are not persecuted by the government for believing in the wrong God. For over 200 years America has been a beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world. We have stood the test of time; defending the rights of the individual to pursue happiness as they choose. America has an obligation to aid nations that further peace through tolerance and freedom, Malaysia needs to understand that.

Europe and The Organization of the Islamic Conference needs to issue a strong and real renunciation of Prime Minister Mahathir's remarks. The renunciation of these hateful comments would do more to create a safe and secure world than all the hate-filled rhetoric ever will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too am delighted to be here to debate with the gentleman from Florida the motion to instruct which he offered.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a consensus in this body that we do something to save the Medicare program. All of us know the demographics, all of us know the health of the system itself is in jeopardy, and we must do something to reform the program to ensure its financial health and longevity.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida insisted that we ought not go the route of market-based competition and we ought not allow the competition of private sector plans to come into play to give seniors a choice of how they want their health care delivered. But I heard no ideas come forth from the gentleman. Where is his solution?

I think it is fairly indicative that there is no solution coming from the other side, and that they probably, I do not want to put words in the gentleman's mouth, are satisfied with the status quo. But we cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We must reform the system. We must modernize it, and we must update it so that seniors can have a choice and seniors can have access to a prescription drug benefit.

So if we call premium support, as the gentleman said, a voucher, I think it is a characterization that perhaps may not adequately or accurately reflect what the House bill does. And let us start back from the very beginning when a bipartisan commission on the future of Medicare studied this. It concluded that the best way to reform Medicare was to provide beneficiaries with a choice of plans similar to the choice available to Members of Congress, the FEHBP plan, which we all have access to. And certainly I would think we would want to share that same type of health care with the millions of seniors out there who may not currently enjoy the same type of options under the plan.

But to talk to the gentleman's allegations that the House bill would only squeeze out the unhealthy seniors and would deny them access is simply not true. Absolutely not true. At 2010, when competition sets in, the rates that are set at that point are not just the average rates.

And since we are talking about the facts, and the gentleman says he hopes we can agree on the facts, the facts are that in the House bill the average rates are a blended rate, a blended rate of the then- private plan rates as well as the government rate that was used as a benchmark up until that point. And at that point we will then have market forces coming to bear, and we will enable plans to compete for business. And if plans can come in under that benchmark or that blended rate, then there will be a benefit for seniors to choose those plans because they, as well as the government, will be able to share in the savings in the costs of those premiums.

But to speak to the gentleman's conclusion, that if we have competition we will ultimately deny seniors health care, that is just preposterous. There are provisions, if he would look at the facts in the House bill, there are provisions which allow for an adjustment in premiums of the government program. No one ever said that there would not be an option in the government program. Nothing changes a senior's entitlement to Medicare. There is no change in entitlement.

And if, as the gentleman suggests, that perhaps there is a disproportionate number of the population of ill or more sick seniors that are in the government program, there is a provision in the bill which allows there to be an adjustment in the premium so as to avoid the exact problem the gentleman points out. Those are the facts.

And to conclude, Mr. Speaker, again, we have got to do something about Medicare. Medicare and the demographics supporting that program do not bode well given the current state of affairs. I do not hear a single solution coming from the other side, which seems to suggest that there perhaps may be an obstructionist plan not to allow Congress to pass a prescription drug benefit plan this year, but that is what America's seniors wants and that is what we must do.

The bill that passed the House offers us a way to reform the system, to achieve savings, to allow seniors to have choice in their health care, and choice just as we here in Congress enjoy in the FEHBP program.

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

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

Just to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey's statements, first of all about the need for us to reverse the trend toward giving people and businesses back more of their hard-earned money, so they can invest that money creating opportunity, so we can actually grow this economy the way we are seeing it grow as a result of the Bush tax cuts that we have passed in this Congress. And setting that aside, Part A is funded by the trust fund, and Part A has a surplus in it. But Members know the demographics. Just like the Social Security situation, the demographics in this country are betting against us because as more and more people retire, less money will be paid into the program and more people will be on the back side benefiting from the program. That is the problem with Part A.

Part B is funded by general revenues. As we continue to put money into Part B, and we continue to see rising health care costs, estimates are that a third of people's income will be used in the next 20 or 30 years to fund the Medicare program. I do not think any of us want to see our children and grandchildren saddled with that kind of debt off into the future. That is why we have to act now. That is why we have to reform this program, we have to afford ourselves efficiencies, we have to save money, and we have at the end to provide seniors with a health care plan that affords them choices.

I will also tell the gentleman, I am having difficulty following the argument about the blended rate and about the fact that we are going to have a blended rate that reflects both private rates, as well as the rate in the government program. That is the beginning. That is the transition into the formula which after 5 years will then reflect basically the rates that are out there in the marketplace for the predominance of the public, the seniors who are in the private plans. And the gentleman just said the private plans will be cheaper, so if the private plans are cheaper, then the government plan and the fee to get into the government plan will reflect the costs offered by the private plan. I am having trouble with the sort of circular argument that you cannot have these private plans succeed because only the nonsick will enter them and will leave all of the sick people in the government-run program which we already said there are provisions in the bill to address that.

Also, we are talking about doing something to reform and better the program. We are talking about updating and modernizing the program. I hear nothing from the other side of the aisle which even suggests that we should go forward to offer seniors a real choice in health care just as we have as Members of Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to call to the attention of the other side of the aisle, in H.R. 1 on page 260, line 18, in very bold print it says, ``No change in Medicare's defined benefit package. Nothing in this part or the amendments made by this part shall be construed as changing the entitlement to defined benefits under parts A and B of the act.''

Again, nothing is going to change the entitlement for seniors to these benefits, as we said earlier in the House bill.

I would also, Mr. Speaker, at this time like to point out, the gentleman from Ohio says that Republicans do not like Medicare. It is interesting that we on the Republican side are the only ones, once we took majority in this House, who put preventive benefits into the Medicare package. We now have as current law colorectal cancer screening which seniors are entitled to, mammograms, pap smears, prostate screening. In the current bill that we have before us that is in the conference committee, there is an initial physical that will be offered to seniors. There is screening for diabetes, screening for cardiovascular disease provided to all seniors. All seniors. That is what the bill provides for.

As the gentleman also knows, there has been much discussion and much work on the part of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) in the area of chronic disease management. Together with these screening provisions and these benefits that are going to be offered to seniors, we will be able to address some of the potential for these diseases early on, thus saving an awful lot of money and lengthening seniors' lives. I find it hard to even digest the gentleman's suggestion that Republicans do not like Medicare.

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

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

I would just like to respond, number one, the gentleman from New Jersey suggests that the best way that we can control the escalation in cost in health care is essentially for the government to fix the price and for the government to be the player. That is essentially what we have got now in Medicare. We have got a one-size-fits-all government plan determining benchmarks, government determining reimbursement rates. I would just ask the gentleman whether he really believes that we have done anything to really control costs. I am not yielding to him right now. He can respond on his own time. Does he really believe that the costs have come under control and that we are facing a deflationary trend in the cost of health care?

Then I would like to also say that in terms of the accusations that we in some way through passing the House bill are forcing people into HMOs, there is no provision which forces anyone into an HMO. In fact, the bill takes great strides toward creating regional provider networks, so that individual Medicare beneficiaries will have the ability to go and seek care within the network. They can go outside the network. No one is forcing anyone into an HMO, which again goes back to the central point of what we are trying to do and that is to afford seniors a choice. Not everyone wants the same type of health care. And certainly I would suggest that no one wants a Canadian-style health care. No one wants to see a nationalized health care. It is almost like the other side calls for Hillary-care. No one wants that.

As far as the gentleman from Ohio in his discussion on the pharmaceutical end, I thought that the motion to instruct on the part of the gentleman from Florida related to part C, not part D.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to respond to the gentleman's remarks about discriminating against seniors and thereby denying them access. I think the gentleman will agree, again we are talking about facts, that current law already provides that under Medicare there can be no discrimination based upon age or based upon one's health. And in this bill there is a requirement that the plans that participate and opt to participate in the Medicare program must have uniform pricing and uniform premiums. There are safeguards. And so all this doomsday prediction that the gentleman offers is not going to occur because there are safeguards provided in the bill for that.

I would also like to point out to the gentleman that studies have shown that the poor that are existing now under the Medicare program, they by far are opting for the Medicare+Choice plans versus the standard Medicare program because they are, frankly, more affordable. Again, this is the marketplace at work. I think it brings us back full circle to the fundamental difference between the parties here. We believe that seniors are individuals and they deserve to have a choice and we should bring in the same type of choice that we all have as Members of Congress in the FEHBP, that seniors should also have that and with the safeguards that we have spoken about, seniors can have that choice just as we do, and not be suffering under a one-size-fits- all government-run program that, frankly, is going to run out of money. So we have got to do something.

The gentleman says he is only in a position to offer a motion to instruct. I have heard no solutions being offered by the gentleman or any of the speakers on the other side of the aisle other than some notion of recreating Hillary-care.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to respond to the question, because, again, we are talking about the philosophy. Do you want the government out there fixing prices? Do you want the government out there coming up with the formulary? That is what you are talking about. Many States across the country do that, they come up with a formulary, and we all know how difficult it is to get anything through this Congress.

So as the drug industry comes up with more and more miraculous lifesaving and life-lengthening drugs, we will be stuck and mired in the bureaucratic process of approving a change in the formulary, so it will almost be impossible for that to happen.

Again, I think that the Secretary of Defense and any other agency that negotiates on behalf of its agencies, its employees, has a mission. But we are talking about negotiating on behalf of the public and people out there that have different needs.

We are a market-based country. We are a country where people have the option to choose for themselves. We are not living in a country where I think, one would think, the government can decide which medicine, which prescription drugs you ought to have and which you ought not to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on that, again, it goes to the fundamental difference between the two parties here, whether you think the government ought to be in there for you negotiating prices, or whether you ought to let the private sector and the plans that have an incentive to attract customers and attract seniors into the plan to make their formularies more attractive, if we are talking about prescription drugs, to give the market the incentive to do that for seniors. Let the seniors choose which plan is better for them, because if you have got the government doing it, there will be no choice. There will be a one-size-fits-all, government-run plan.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman and the Members on the other side, I have enjoyed the debate. I think it is always a healthy experience for this body and the country to have an active discussion on very important issues.

I happen to think that the Medicare reform bill that we hopefully will be voting on soon is probably one of the most important things we will do in our careers in this body, because it does affect so many people. It impacts them in an area of their lives in which everybody is concerned, and that is health care. So I appreciate the debate.

I would just like to underscore, once again, the bill that we have in place and that we have passed out of this body is a bill designed to shore up the failing actuarial numbers in Medicare and the fact that we are on a road to ultimate bankruptcy of the system if we do not do something to reform it and if we do not do something to allow seniors to continue to enjoy that benefit.

The way that this House has spoken, the way we will do that, hopefully, is through inviting in competition from the private sector, allowing seniors to choose health plans that best fit their own family and their own health care needs.

We also, as we have discussed, have in this H.R. 1 provisions which protect seniors and which ensure that they will have access to quality health care, and, at the same time, protection that there is never going to be any denying of the entitlement of Medicare to seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 1828 and want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engle) as well as the chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee on International Relations, the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for pushing this bill forward because it comes at a very important time.

And it is true that the time has come to hold the Syrian Government accountable for its role in sponsoring the activities of terrorist organizations. Passage of this bill will send a message that the American people are fed up with the broken promises and unmet obligations of Bashar Assad and his government. Syria has a long- standing history of providing safe haven, refuge, and logistical support to a number of terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas. When innocent people are blown up and killed in Jerusalem, they issue the press releases in Damascus. This must come to an end.

President Bush has been resolute as he leads our country and the world in the fight against the terrorists. Under the Bush doctrine, we cannot and will not allow there to be a gap between the state sponsors of terrorism and the terrorists themselves. Closing this gap in Syria is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, not only must we pass this bill here today, we must also work to persuade some of our European and Arab state allies to take similar action.

Working to strengthen economic ties with a terrorist regime is unacceptable while American men and women are dying in Iraq fighting these same terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make all the Members aware that the House has completed voting for the day and the week. We will postpone until next week any votes called on the three pending motions to instruct.

Next week, the House will convene on Wednesday at 2 p.m. for legislative business. At that time we expect to consider several measures under suspension of the rules. Any votes called on these measures will be rolled until after 6:30 p.m.

On Thursday, we plan to begin consideration of the Iraq supplemental, which the Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to mark up tomorrow. In addition to this measure, Mr. Speaker, we expect that a number of conference reports could be ready for the House to consider.

While it is difficult to predict the ability of the House and Senate conferees to reach agreements, I would

note that the more likely candidates are probably the interior and military construction appropriation measures.

Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do expect to have votes next Friday, October 17, and may be working late that afternoon. Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and will be happy to answer any questions he may have.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say to him that we are working to complete those appropriation conference reports and it may be that the Iraq supplemental and the discussion and debate on that will go into Friday as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, I would respond to him by saying that I think it is possible, although nothing has been decided yet. I know our staff on this side has begun to meet with your staff there, and we will do everything we can to cooperate to try and make sure that all have the opportunity to engage on this issue.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that as I said earlier, the process has begun with discussion among the staff on both sides of the aisle. I would say that, certainly, past precedent would certainly be a guide to what the shape of the debate will look like on the Iraq supplemental. I would be confident that the chairmen of both the Committee on Rules as well as the Committee on Appropriations would be consulted as to the nature of that debate.

I could also assure the gentleman that all the Members on this side are just as anxious as any to make sure that we fully fund the needs of our men and women in the Armed Forces, so we can continue with their mission in Iraq.

Again, I would say to the gentleman that the process is ongoing, and we will work together to try and make sure that all the necessary issues are addressed; and that, yes, we will look forward to discussion and passage of that measure next week.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia will continue to yield, I would say again to the gentleman that there are a variety of factors, as you know, that go into the rule which will govern the debate on the Iraq supplemental. As I said before to the gentleman from Georgia, there is historic precedent that will also serve as a guide. We will consult with the chairmen of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Committee on Rules in ensuring that the issues are addressed in the rule