Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the original resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action against Iraq. As a Member of the Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses, I have and will continue to call for the immediate withdrawal of American troops.

I rise today in strong opposition to the President's proposal to send more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. Today's non-binding resolution is an important first step. After its passage, I will encourage my colleagues in Congress to take further steps to end the War in Iraq.

When a scientist uncovers facts that contradict a theory, he or she throws out that theory. But when President Bush learns of facts that contradict his theories, he throws out the facts. As a member of the reality-based community, I continue to be amazed by this President's disregard for objective truths.

The President, however, isn't just a scientist experimenting with chemicals in a laboratory. He is an executive whose decision to take us to war under false pretenses has adversely affected the lives of millions of Americans and Iraqis. The costs of the nearly four-year old conflict are grave.

More than 3,100 brave American servicemen and women, including at least 325 from my home state of California, have already died in the war. An additional 23,000 plus have been wounded. Estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion run even higher, from 47,000 to 70,000. All at a cost of $379 billion to the American people. That's more than $1250 for every man, woman, and child currently living in the U.S.

But these are facts. President Bush is more interested in cockamamy theories.

In the run-up to the war, Bush speculated that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. When intelligence officers suggested that might not be the case, he ignored them. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Bush also hypothesized that the attack would turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. When academic scholars wrote that Iraq's history and culture didn't suggest such an outcome was likely, he dismissed them. Today, despite the election of an Iraqi Assembly and formation of an Iraqi government, the country is in a full-fledged civil war.

During the past four years, the President has repeatedly theorized that America was making progress in Iraq, and that ``success'' was just around the corner. I remember, in particular, Bush's summer 2003 statement that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended,'' his summer 2004 claim that we were ``turning the corner'' abroad, and Cheney's summer 2005 reference to an insurgency in its ``last throes.'' Despite these promises, the situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year, not better.

My favorite declaration came this past summer, when the President said that the formation of a new Iraqi government represented a ``turning point.''

Unfortunately, the body count in Iraq continues to grow. This past July, an average of 110 Iraqi adults died each day, the deadliest month of the war for Iraq. In October, militia attacks spiked 22 percent. In December, more than 100 American troops were killed, the third deadliest month of the war for the United States.

But the November elections did represent a turning point--in the United States. The Bush administration no longer has a Republican Congress to lick its boots. What's more, voting on this resolution will soon suggest President Bush doesn't even have the support of his own party.

When the President in January suggested sending additional troops to Iraq, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle criticized his foolhardy proposal. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, termed it ``Alice in Wonderland'' thinking that would ``represent the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.''

Retired military personnel weren't much more enthusiastic. Former General Barry McCaffrey called the surge ``a fool's errand.'' Retired Colonel Paul Hughes said ``sending more troops to Baghdad is like pouring more water in the sands of Al-Anbar. It's just going to disappear without accomplishing anything.''

I couldn't agree more. The President's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq in the naive hope of winning a lasting peace is another cockamamy theory that contradicts all available facts.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and take this important first step to end the War in Iraq and bring all of our troops home.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Mayor of Newark, California, David W. Smith. Mayor Smith has served the citizens of Newark, California for 27 years. He has the distinction of being the longest serving Mayor in California and presently the fourth longest serving Mayor in the United States.

Mayor Smith is a native of Detroit, Michigan. He has extensive management experience in the private sector and is currently Executive Director for Asset and Enterprise Management Systems at Ohlone College.

His government experience is equally impressive. He was elected to the Newark City Council in 1976 and was elected Mayor in 1978. He has served in the United States Conference of Mayors in a myriad of capacities including Trustee on the Executive Committee, Nominating Committee Chair, Membership Committee Chair, member of the Arts Committee and the Education Committee.

Mayor Smith is past President of the Alameda Conference of Mayors and former Chairman of the Alameda County Transportation Authority. He is Chairman of the Newark Redevelopment Agency, the Newark Community Development Advisory Committee and the Newark Disaster Council.

His awards and honors are noteworthy. He is a life member of the U.S. Jaycees, and had the honor of being selected as one of California's Five Outstanding Young Men, Outstanding Young Alumni at Michigan Technological University and is a former member of Mensa. He is among the Distinguished Alumni of Calumet High School and received the Hometown Hero Award from the Newark National Little League.

On March 22, 2007, the Mission Peak District of the Boy Scouts of America will present Mayor Smith with its 2006 ``Good Scout Award'' at a community breakfast in its honor. I join the community expressing appreciation to Mayor David Smith for his commitment to service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of cleaning up the Republicans' mess. The previous Congress failed to pass 9 of 11 appropriations bills, creating the worst budget mess since the Government shut down in 1996.

Today's resolution is far from perfect. But while adhering to the spending limit in the Republican budget, it provides significant funding increases to several important programs.

First, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007 provides housing assistance to 227,000 people through a $1.4 billion increase for section 8 housing programs. Second, it finances construction of hundreds of new community health centers and improvements to existing facilities. Third, today's bill increases funding for Head Start by $104 million to help prevent a drop in enrollments. Fourth, it raises the maximum Pell grant by $260, which will help more than 5.3 million students afford college.

It's time to get to work on the people's business. Cleaning up a mess is never fun, but because Republicans failed to take ``personal responsibility'' for this year's budget, it is necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join Congressmen Ramstad and Kennedy in introducing the bipartisan and bicameral ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This bill is a first step in ending the practice of custody relinquishment, which the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health called ``appalling.'' Every year, families are forced to give up legal custody of their severely mentally ill children to State child welfare agencies in order get these children the health care they need. Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Tom Harkin (IA) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

Imagine being the parent of a sick child desperately in need of assistance. Your private insurance does not cover mental health care, yet you earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. If you want your child to get treatment you must turn over custody to the child welfare or juvenile justice agency. Now, imagine what affect this awful situation has on the child. The child is already battling mental illness and is now ``abandoned'' by their family and stigmatized as a ``foster child.''

These are horrible decisions that a family should never be forced to make. Yet, a 2003 GAO report, surveying 19 States, found that over 12,700 mentally ill children were placed with child welfare or juvenile justice agencies for the sole purpose of obtaining needed mental health care. The actual number of families torn apart is certainly much higher when all 50 States are taken into account.

The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law has further elaborated on the situations that cause parents and guardians to have to give up their mentally ill children to State agencies. These situations include the following:

The family has either exhausted private health benefits, or the benefits did not cover the required services, such as residential treatment programs.

The family lives in a jurisdiction in which children are deprived of mental health services through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) as a result of a restrictive definition of serious mental illness. For example, the school simply labels these children as ``discipline problems'' and do not properly identify their mental illness.

The family resides in a jurisdiction that falsely interprets federal child welfare law (Title IV-E of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program) as requiring custody relinquishment even for temporary out-of-home placements.

Whatever the cause may be for the families' desperate situation, their nightmare is certainly real. The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is a first step toward ending this nightmare and ensuring children get the care they need without being torn from their families.

This bill does two primary things:

It creates $100 million in competitive State grants over 6 years to improve access to State mental health and family support services for families in danger of losing their children because they cannot afford mental health care. States are eligible if they are willing to end the practice of child custody relinquishment and create alternate avenues to getting children needed care while keeping them with their families.

It establishes a federal interagency task force, as recommended by the April 2003 GAO report, to monitor and evaluate the family support grants. The task force will make recommendations to Congress for improving mental health services and removing barriers that have caused child custody relinquishment. This will give Congress the information we

need to take further action in the future to end custody relinquishment across the country.

This bill is a great start, however, the bill is only large enough to provide a handful of States with grants. Therefore, it is critical that we work with the aforementioned task force to examine what is working in the grantee States. We can then begin to implement those solutions in all States.

We have known about this problem for many years. Along with my colleagues, Senator Collins and Harkin and Representatives Ramstad and Kennedy, I have worked hard to educate the public and the Congress about this issue. Unfortunately, education and awareness are no longer enough. We first introduced legislation on this issue in 1995. Now is the time to act.

The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is a crucial first step toward ending the barbaric practice of custody relinquishment. I hope my colleagues and I can work together to quickly implement this legislation. This bill will allow many, but not all, States to develop innovative new programs that address the mental health needs of children while keeping families intact. Once we have learned what succeeds at the State level, we must then return to this issue and enact legislation that will end the practice of custody relinquishment in all States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alameda County Sheriff Charles Plummer who spent his last day on the job as Alameda County's top cop on January 8, 2007. His retirement ceremony included helicopter flyovers, bagpipes and literally hundreds of handshakes. It was a fitting ceremony to a stellar 50-plus years in law enforcement.

A native of Fort Bragg, on the Mendocino coast, Charley Plummer worked as a teen in a shingle mill and as a lumberjack. One evening, hitchhiking back to Fort Bragg, a California Highway Patrol officer picked him up. The officer told him he had the right build and a good personality and should become a cop. Soon thereafter he left Santa Rosa Junior College and took an exam to become a Berkeley police officer and joined the force in 1952.

In 1973, Charley was named acting chief in Berkeley, a post he held for 9 months. He left Berkeley to become police chief in Hayward. He held this position for 10 years before friends convinced him to run for sheriff. He won the race for sheriff and the rest is history.

He changed the Alameda County Sheriff Department's culture by bringing a high level of discipline to the department. Under his leadership, the department has become the only law enforcement agency west of the Mississippi to gain accreditations in five different functions: bomb squad, health care, law enforcement, corrections and crime lab. He also entered the department into lucrative law enforcement contracts with AC Transit and BART.

Although Charley Plummer will no longer hold the title of Alameda County Sheriff, he will be known as Sheriff Emeritus and will devote his time to charity. He serves as a director or trustee on numerous boards and will continue his exemplary commitment and devotion to making a difference in the community.

Charley has never minced words nor failed to step up to the plate to take responsibility for activities or implementation of programs for the safety and welfare of residents in Alameda County. He leaves a legacy of commitment, straight-talk and no-nonsense service. He has cut to the chase and his accomplishments are beyond measure. I join his friends, colleagues and admirers in thanking Sheriff Emeritus Plummer for his exemplary track record and marathon of service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act. This bill eliminates $7.7 billion in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and raises another $6.3 billion for the Federal Treasury from new royalties on oil and gas removed from Federal waters. This $14 billion is a good down payment on future energy policies that can help eliminate our oil addiction and stop global warming.

This bill is a good first step, but I will work with my colleagues to eliminate many of the other unnecessary tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Oil companies are enjoying record profits. Every time the price of gas increases, the value of existing tax subsidies increases and they make even more money. At a time of record gas prices and record profits we should not provide tax incentives for exploring, extracting or refining oil and gas.

The best ways to eliminate our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to lower demand and reduce emissions from power plants and vehicles. For example, fuel economy standards for passenger cars have not been raised since 1985, and even lower ``light truck'' standards encourage manufacturers to produce gas-guzzling SUVs. I support raising fuel economy standards to at least 33 miles per gallon, which would save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 and 2.6 million barrels by 2025. Those who say that we can't do any better than 20-year-old technology might also like to trade their DVDs for VHS tapes, cell phones for pay phones, ipods for boomboxes, and then see just how advanced 1980s technology seems today.

Eliminating tax subsidies will increase revenues, but we must spend those revenues wisely in our quest for clean renewable energy sources. Incentives for clean coal, ethanol and nuclear are not the answer. We must focus our efforts on promoting advancements in wind, hydrogen, solar and thermal power. These renewable sources can provide significant energy output with minimal environmental impact.

I support H.R. 6 and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for a cleaner America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of making higher education more affordable. Access to college is absolutely necessary if our country is to fulfill its promise of economic, social, and political inclusiveness for all individuals. By cutting interest rates in half on needs-based student loans, we will make college more accessible to hundreds of thousands of students from low- and middle- income families.

Last November, the American people sent a clear and powerful message. They are tired of

business as usual in Washington. Instead of economic policies that help the rich get richer, they want education policies that will help their children to realize an American dream that is increasingly difficult to come by. Since 2001, college costs have risen by 41 percent. According to the Department of Education, such increases put college out of reach for as many as 200,000 would-be students a year. Rising costs have also forced more and more students to rely on loans to pay for college, which now saddle the average graduate with $17,500 in Federal student loan debt.

The College Student Relief Act, H.R. 5, offers real relief to students priced out of college and burdened by debt. According to USPIRG, my home State of California has 228,500 subsidized loan borrowers. This bill will save the average California student enrolling in college this fall $2,490. When fully implemented, it will save the average student who starts college in 2011 $4,830.

Today's legislation is an important first step in what I hope will be an ongoing effort to make college more affordable. This effort should include raising the maximum Pell Grant amount and exploring other policies to open the doors to college to a larger slice of our society. Our guiding principle should be ensuring that all students who meet academic requirements for undergraduate study can afford to attend college, not just those from wealthy families.

I urge my colleagues to heed the voice of the American people and take this initial step toward making higher education accessible to all.

Madam Speaker, this week, President Bush confirmed what I have known for some time: He is delusional. Twenty-thousand more troops in Iraq? No one supports this escalation: not the Join Chiefs of Staff, not the Iraq Study Group and certalnly not the American people.

This administration has made mistake after mistake in an unnecessary war of its choosing. Now the President insists on sacrificing more lives, more money, and more goodwill on an increasingly lost cause.

If God really does talk to this President, I wish God would tell the President to ``Bring the troops home now!'' This is what the Iraqis need and it's what the American people overwhelmingly declared they wanted in November.

President Bush is incapable of managing the debacle in Iraq. Congress must therefore take matters into its own hands, blocking funding for the ``surge'' in particular and stopping all funding for the war in Iraq in general. Let's bring our troops home.

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

I will be submitting for the Record an editorial from today's New York Times which concludes by suggesting that the bill, H.R. 4, does not require the Secretary to negotiate prices for all 4,400 drugs used. A smart Secretary could simply determine which prices paid by the plan seem most out of line with prices paid by other purchasers and then negotiate only on those drugs. The private plans are exclusively allowed to negotiate even lower prices, if they can. This sort of flexibility would pose no threat to the free market.

It is time for the Medicare drug program to work harder for its beneficiaries, without worrying so much about the pharmaceutical companies.

Then, I would also like to respond to what I am sure was not, by one of the previous speakers, an intentional fabrication or misstatement, just probably a remark due to the inability to read a bill and understand what it means. And it is quite correct that in 2000 our motion to recommit had some wording that limited interference by the Secretary. But it is also important to note that it was a completely different bill; and as such, the motion to recommit had no relationship to this bill. And to suggest otherwise is an outright lie. And I will let it stand with that. If anybody would like to see the previous bill, we have information that will cover it.

I rise in support of H.R. 4. It is a simple, straightforward bill that should pass by unanimous consent if the Members of Congress want to help senior citizens, rather than the special pharmaceutical interests.

The bill rights a wrong included in the prescription drug act passed in 2003. And it takes away the special interest protection that prohibits the Secretary from negotiating to get better prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

The present law includes a flat out prohibition against using the negotiating ability and clout of 43 million Medicare beneficiaries to get better prices. That is wrong. We don't prohibit the government from negotiating prices for airplanes, even for oil royalties in the gulf, for highway construction or for anything else the government purchases.

Our bill today eliminates that prohibition and goes one step further. It requires the Secretary to use the market strength of Medicare's 43 million beneficiaries to negotiate better prices for seniors and people with disabilities. We had to go further than simply eliminating the prohibition because the current administration has been so vocal in their opposition to using this tool,

even if given the authority. Indeed, they have threatened to veto.

Countless studies show that Medicare beneficiaries are not getting very good deals on their prescription drug prices. The Bush administration has shown their ability to negotiate discounts on other drugs. Secretary Thompson did this twice, once when we had the anthrax attacks and then again when we faced the flu vaccine shortage.

This change shouldn't be controversial at all. It is a change that is supported by over 90 percent of the American public, and it is a change that should lower taxpayers' and seniors' expenses. It is a change supported by advocates for Medicare beneficiaries, the physicians who care for them, and the community pharmacists who fill their prescriptions.

It is a change that is even supported by AARP, which I continue to contend wrongly endorsed the Republican bill in the first place. But even they agree that the government should be empowered to negotiate better drug prices.

The only interests standing up against that legislation are the same interests who got the prohibition on negotiation included in the first place, the pharmaceutical drug lobby and those whose campaigns they funded.

Those days are over. Congress is no longer about special interests. It is about the interests of the American people, and that is why we brought this bill up as part of the first 100-hour agenda. We urge the President to reconsider his opposition to it, and to work with us to get Medicare beneficiaries a better deal on their prescription drug prices, and to get a better deal for the American taxpayers.

It is an important first step in our goal to improve the Medicare prescription drug program for seniors and people with disabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration to improve the Medicare program.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 12, 2007]

Negotiating Lower Drug Prices

From all the ruckus raised by the administration and its

patrons in the pharmaceutical industry, you would think that

Congressional Democrats were out to destroy the free market

system when they call for the government to negotiate the

prices of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Yet

a bill scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives

today is sufficiently flexible to allow older Americans to

benefit from the best efforts of both the government and the

private rug plans.

The secretary of health and human services should be able

to exert his bargaining power with drug companies in those

cases in which the private plans have failed to rein in

unduly high prices--leaving the rest to the drug plans. The

result could be lower costs for consumers and savings for the

taxpayers who support Medicare.

Under current law, written to appease the pharmaceutical

industry, the government is explicitly forbidden from using

its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices for

Medicare beneficiaries. That job is left to the private

health plans that provide drug coverage under Medicare and

compete for customers in part on the basis of cost. The

Democrats' bill would end the prohibition and require--not

just authorize--the secretary of health and human services to

negotiate prices with the manufacturers. That language is

important since the current secretary, Michael Leavitt, has

said he does not want the power to negotiate.

No data is publicly available to indicate what prices the

private health plans actually pay the manufacturers. But

judging from what they charge their beneficiaries, it looks

like they pay significantly more for many drugs than do the

Department of Veterans Affairs--which by law gets big

discounts--the Medicaid programs for the poor, or foreign

countries. The administration argues, correctly, that the

private plans have held costs down and that there is no

guarantee the government will do any better. The bill, for

example, prohibits the secretary from limiting which drugs

are covered by Medicare, thus depriving him of a tool used by

private plans and the V.A. to win big discounts from

companies eager to get their drugs on the list. The secretary

does have the bully pulpit, which he can use to try to bring

down the cost of overpriced drugs.

The bill also does not require the secretary to negotiate

prices for all 4,400 drugs used by beneficiaries. A smart

secretary could simply determine which prices paid by the

plans seemed most out of line with the prices paid by other

purchasers and then negotiate only on those drugs. The

private plans are explicitly allowed to negotiate even lower

prices if they can. This sort of flexibility should pose no

threat to the free market. It is time for the Medicare drug

program to work harder for its beneficiaries without worrying

so much about the pharmaceutical companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who, like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, knows that H.R. 4 would be an important step to improve part D.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, who agrees with AARP that the Secretary can achieve additional savings for beneficiaries under H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who agrees with AIDS Action that an effort to ensure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to negotiate drug prices is important to the continuing success of part D.

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to recognizing the distinguished majority leader for 1 minute, I would just like to remind my friend from Missouri that at least in California we require law students to be able to read well enough to understand that bills they wave in the air are different from the bill we are considering today.

I wouldn't call it a lie to suggest that what we passed in 2000 is different from what we have today, but I would consider it close to shysterism in terms of at least dealing with law.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this point to recognize the distinguished majority leader for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) for a unanimous-consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who agrees with the Reliance for Retired Americans that, by harnessing the bargaining power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, H.R. 4 will bring relief to older and disabled Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my good friend from Wisconsin that he is quite right about the motion to recommit, but it was to a different bill. It was to H.R. 4770, which has no relationship to the bill that we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who, like the Medicare Rights Center, knows if this bill becomes law, lower prescription drug prices will help millions of Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who agrees with the American Nurses Association that the direct negotiation authority in this bill is a commonsense means of improving access to needed prescription medications.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who agrees with the National Senior Citizens Law Center that H.R. 4 is an important step toward making the prescription drug benefit simpler, more affordable, and reliable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield at this point 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the authors of the bill, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), who concurs with Consumers Union that government-priced negotiations on behalf of consumers could cut pharmaceutical drug prices roughly in half.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished member of our Ways and Means committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who agrees with Families USA, the national voice of health care consumers, that H.R. 4 is an important first step in improving part D.

Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the next speaker, I would like to concur with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois. Many of us on this side of the aisle shared his concern with the rapidity with which we had to bring this to the floor. I want to commend both the ranking member and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee as well as the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee for attempting to have as much time as we could for Members on both sides of the aisle to work on this bill before its coming to the floor today, but I do concur with his statement.

Having said that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) for 1 minute and comment that, before joining us, he served for 24 years as Mr. Lane Evans' district director, a man who is known on both sides of the aisle for his support for veterans' issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), one of the cosponsors and coauthors of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a lady for whom I serve as an honorary district representative on the island of Lanai.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), who agrees with the National Community Pharmacists that the non-interference clause has directly disadvantaged independent pharmacies throughout the implementation of part D.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who agrees with the Center for Medicare Advocacy Assessment that H.R. 4 will keep drug prices from skyrocketing. And I yield to the gentlewoman for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield our remaining 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) to close for our side. She recognizes that the Center for Diabetes is a front group for PhRMA.

Mr. Speaker, this bill to allow federal funding for stem cell research involves a simple question: should we use frozen cells to help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, or throw them away and claim moral superiority?

A supermajority of the American people wants to advance medical science. Congress has already passed this same legislation only to be met with President Bush's veto. Because we know that the President never lets the facts get in the way of his decisions, we know he won't change his mind. It is up to a handful of Republicans to say yes to the voters and no to the Christian Right so we can pass this bill by a veto-proof majority.

I urge my colleagues to prove that they heeded the message of the recent election to stop posturing and start passing common-sense legislation.

Madam Speaker, as we vote later this week on negotiating better prices for Part D drugs in Medicare, we must remember that the debate is about much more than prescription drugs. Requiring the Secretary to negotiate for lower drug prices is just one small step in the fight against Medicare privatization and the conservative push to end the Medicare entitlement.

Madam Speaker, I ask that the Paul Krugman Op-Ed from the January 5, 2007, edition of the New York Times be printed in the Record.

First, Do Less Harm

(By Paul Krugman)

Universal health care, much as we need it, won't happen

until there's a change of management in the White House. In

the meantime, however, Congress can take an important step

toward making our health care system less wasteful, by fixing

the Medicare Middleman Multiplication Act of 2003.

Officially, of course, it was the Medicare Modernization

Act. But as we learned during the debate over Social

Security, in Bushspeak ``modernize'' is a synonym for

``privatize.'' And one of the main features of the

legislation was an effort to bring private-sector

fragmentation and inefficiency to one of America's most

important public programs.

The process actually started in the 1990s, when Medicare

began allowing recipients to replace traditional Medicare--in

which the government pays doctors and hospitals--with private

managed-care plans, in which the government pays a fee to an

H.M.O. The magic of the marketplace was supposed to cut

Medicare's costs.

The plan backfired. H.M.O.'s received fees reflecting the

medical costs of the average Medicare recipient, but to

maximize profits they selectively enrolled only healthier

seniors, leaving sicker, more expensive people in traditional

Medicare. Once Medicare became aware of this cream-skimming

and started adjusting payments to reflect beneficiaries'

health, the H.M.O.'s began dropping out: their extra layer of

bureaucracy meant that they had higher costs than traditional

Medicare and couldn't compete on a financially fair basis.

That should have been the end of the story. But for the

Bush administration and its Congressional allies,

privatization isn't a way to deliver better government

services--it's an end in itself. So the 2003 legislation

increased payments to Medicare-supported H.M.O.'s, which were

renamed Medicare Advantage plans. These plans are now

heavily subsidized.

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an

independent federal body that advises Congress on Medicare

issues, Medicare Advantage now costs 11 percent more per

beneficiary than traditional Medicare. According to the

Commonwealth Fund, which has a similar estimate of the excess

cost, the subsidy to private H.M.O.'s cost Medicare $5.4

billion in 2005.

The inability of private middlemen to win a fair

competition against traditional Medicare was embarrassing to

those who sing the praises of privatization. Maybe that's why

the Bush administration made sure that there is no

competition at all in Part D, the drug program. There's no

traditional Medicare version of Part D, in which the

government pays drug costs directly. Instead, the elderly

must get coverage from a private insurance company, which

then receives a government subsidy.

As a result, Part D is highly confusing. It's also

needlessly expensive, for two reasons: the insurance

companies add an extra layer of bureaucracy, and they have

limited ability to bargain with drug companies for lower

prices (and Medicare is prohibited from bargaining on their

behalf). One indicator of how much Medicare is overspending

is the sharp rise in prices paid by millions of low-income

seniors whose drug coverage has been switched from Medicaid,

which doesn't rely on middlemen and does bargain over prices,

to the new Medicare program.

The costs imposed on Medicare by gratuitous privatization

are almost certainly higher than the cost of providing health

insurance to the eight million children in the United States

who lack coverage. But recent news analyses have suggested

that Democrats may not be able to guarantee coverage to all

children because this would conflict with their pledge to be

fiscally responsible. Isn't it strange how fiscal

responsibility is a big concern when Congress is trying to

help children, but a nonissue when Congress is subsidizing

drug and insurance companies?

What should Congress do? The new Democratic majority is

poised to reduce drug prices by allowing--and, probably,

requiring--Medicare to negotiate prices on behalf of the

private drug plans. But it should go further, and force

Medicare to offer direct

drug coverage that competes on a financially fair basis with

the private plans. And it should end the subsidy to Medicare

Advantage, forcing H.M.O.'s to engage in fair competition

with traditional Medicare.

Conservatives will fight fiercely against these moves. They

say they believe in competition--but they're against

competition that might show the public sector doing a better

job than the private sector. Progressives should support

these moves for the same reason. Ending the subsidies to

middlemen, in addition to saving a lot of money, would point

the way to broader health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. For far too long, working class Americans have been struggling to make ends meet at $5.15 an hour, a wage that leaves a family of three more than $6,000 below the poverty line. Today we can make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

In 1997, the last time the minimum wage was raised, $5.15 went a lot further than it does today. A gallon of gas cost $1.27 and a loaf of bread was only $0.88. It may not seem to most like $2.29 for a gallon of gas or $1.14 for a loaf of bread is too much, but tell that to the minimum wage worker with gross weekly income of only $206. They still have to drive to work and put food on the table, which is nearly impossible at $5.15 an hour without multiple incomes or a second job.

For years, states have responded to the inadequacy of the federal minimum wage by passing higher minimum wages. Those states haven't lost employers or faced higher than normal unemployment because of higher minimum wages. Small businesses in California, for example, haven't gone broke because of the high state minimum wage. The argument that small businesses can't afford to pay the minimum wage is fallacy. Organizations making that argument are probably paying a lot more than $7.25 an hour to their snake oil salesmen.

Some argue that increasing the minimum wage is paramount to the government engaging in class warfare. One of the richest men in the world, Warren Buffet, doesn't see it that way. ``There's class warfare, all right,'' Mr. Buffett said, ``but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.'' Failure to pass a minimum wage increase would be a huge victory in the class warfare by the wealthy against hard working Americans.

Since 1997, Members of Congress have increased our salaries by 24 percent. We can't look our hard working constituents in the eye and honestly say we deserve big pay raises and they don't. Today we can give a raise to someone other than ourselves for a change and have a positive impact on millions of working poor in this country. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask that the following article from the January 10 edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Minimum Wage, Maximum Myth

(By Steven Pearlstein)

With Wall Street hot shots and corporate chiefs raking in

obscene amounts of money, and with pay in the bottom half of

the workforce barely keeping up with inflation, you'd think

raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade would

be a political and economic no-brainer for the new Democratic

Congress.

But you'd be forgetting about Max Baucus.

Baucus is a Democratic senator from the Republican-leaning

state of Montana, which means he is on the political

equivalent of the endangered-species list. So you can

understand Baucus's need to vote with his constituents on

things like sugar subsidies and gun control and grazing fees

on public lands.

But while Baucus is surely entitled to his opinions, and

entitled to do what is necessary to assure his own political

survival, he is not entitled to be chairman of the Senate

Finance Committee, which handles such key Democratic issues

as health care, trade and tax policy. That position ought to

be reserved for a statesman with enough political confidence

and backbone that he isn't constantly sacrificing the

interests of his party and his country to the narrow

interests of his subsidy-addicted constituents.

You'd think Baucus would have learned his lesson in 2001,

when he won the enmity of Democrats everywhere by striking

the deal that led to passage of the Bush tax cuts, including

the phase-out of the estate tax. Apparently not. For on the

very day the new Democratic House is set to push through a

long-overdue minimum-wage increase, over in the Senate,

Baucus has called a hearing on how to offset the ``economic

hardship'' caused by the higher minimum wage with yet another

round of business tax breaks.

Consider, for a moment, the economic logic that lies behind

Baucus's hearing this morning, when senators will hear from a

panel of witnesses that includes Dave Ratner, owner of Dave's

Soda & Pet City in Agawam, Mass.

No doubt Ratner and the others will point out that workers

making at or near the federal minimum wage are nearly all

employed by small businesses. We will hear all the sob

stories about how struggling small businesses with thin

margins will be forced to cut back on hiring, pull back on

expansion plans and, in some instances, close their doors.

Moreover, this won't be a tragedy just for small-business

owners and employees but for the economy as a whole, since

everybody knows that small business creates virtually all new

jobs. Only another round of tax breaks can keep the great

American jobs machine humming.

And here's the thing: Most of it is nonsense.

To begin, both economic theory and history suggest that

small business will, in time, pass on its increased costs to

its consumers. Small businesses that pay low wages tend to

compete with other small businesses that pay low wages, so

they will all face the same cost pressures and respond in

similar fashion. The worst that can be said is that a higher

minimum wage will add, very modestly, to overall inflation.

There is also general agreement among economists that a

higher minimum wage, at the levels we are talking about, will

have a minimal impact on adult employment. Slightly higher

prices might reduce, slightly, the demand for Wendy's

hamburgers, cheap hotel rooms and dog-walking services. But

largely offsetting those effects will be the increased demand

for goods and services by tens of millions of Americans who

will finally be getting a raise. A higher minimum wage

doesn't lower economic activity so much as rearrange it

slightly.

The biggest lie of all is that small businesses have

created most of the new jobs in America. This canard,

perpetrated by the small-business lobby and embraced by

politicians of both parties, has been used for decades to

justify all manner of special subsidies for small business.

But as economist Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise

Institute reported in a paper last year, new jobs have been

created by both large and small businesses in roughly the

same proportion.

In truth, the bulk of new jobs have always been created by

a relatively small number of new firms that grow fast and get

quite big--think of companies like Southwest Airlines,

Google, CarMax. Most have little in common with the small-

business lobby in Washington or fast-food restaurant chains

or the members of the Kiwanis Club in Helena, Mont. As a

rule, companies like these couldn't care less about the

minimum wage or special tax breaks to offset it.

Linking the minimum wage to small-business tax breaks is

specious for other reasons, as well.

During the last decade, when inflation-adjusted pay of

minimum-wage workers was declining, tax rates for small

businesses were also declining, thanks largely to the Bush

cuts. If it is now imperative to reduce business taxes when

the pay of minimum-wage workers is rising, you have to wonder

if there will ever be a time when the small-business lobby

thinks it doesn't deserve a tax cut.

It's also worth noting that, according to the Internal

Revenue Service, small-business owners, sole proprietors and

the self-employed are, as a group, the biggest tax cheats in

America, responsible for $153 billion of the estimated $345

billion tax gap in 2001. What these folks deserve are more

frequent visits from IRS auditors, not more tax breaks.

Real Democrats know that raising the minimum wage is the

right thing to do--economically, politically, morally. The

question is why they have chosen a Senate Finance chairman

who can't articulate that position without equivocation or

apology even before the first vote is cast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an important bill that will make America safer and more secure.

Today's legislation ends years of gridlock by finally enacting recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission over two years ago. H.R. 1 will distribute homeland security grants based on risk, enhance nuclear non-proliferation, and improve education and economic development in Arab and Muslim countries.

Under the Republican regime, I was never one to jump on the homeland security bandwagon as Congress passed meaningless resolutions intended to frighten and divide the American people, repeatedly and falsely claimed progress was being made in Iraq, and conducted no oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. In contrast, the Democratic Congress is already taking meaningful action to improve American security. H.R. 1 is short on rhetoric and long on reforms and tough new security requirements.

The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act contains common sense, bipartisan ideas. Opponents may argue that this bill is too ambitious, but they won't find a single provision inserted merely to instigate a political fight.

In the recent election, Democrats pledged to work across the aisle to pass substantive legislation that will affect the everyday lives of all Americans. This first bill meets that pledge. I urge my colleagues to heed the pleas of our constituents to stop posturing and start legislating by voting yes to make America more secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Tax Relief and Health Care Act

of 2006. Today's legislation is a perfect example of the reckless priorities that voters rejected in giving Democrats control of both the House and Senate. Adding another $45 billion to the deficit is a fitting last act from Congressional Republicans. They've added trillions to the debt in the last 6 years and have no remorse about adding a few billion more on the way out the door.

This bill destroys our environment with expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and though not in this bill, California is the next logical target. It expands school vouchers for Washington, D.C. as part of the Republican crusade to shift money to private and religious schools and undermine public education. On the healthcare front, this bill wastes a billion dollars on health savings accounts for the rich. It also expands the Medicare Advantage program, adding to the $5.2 billion in annual overpayments taxpayers already cough up to private insurers.

I am glad that this bill includes a temporary update for physicians, giving us a little breathing room heading into next year. But we're still going to have to do some very heavy lifting in order to dig ourselves out of the $250 billion hole Republicans created by kicking the can down the road the last few years. In the next Congress, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle work with me to address this problem once and for all.

Tax breaks for the rich and new oil for Cheney and the gang--looks like Republicans really won one for the Gipper today.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this fiscally irresponsible package and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in rejecting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are apparently so concerned about the pain of unborn children that they are willing to promote junk science and have Congress dictate the contents of a brochure given to all women seeking to have an abortion. Where is the sense of urgency for children once they are actually born? What has this Congress done to address increasing rates of child poverty and hunger, decreasing access to health care, and the abysmal state of education and child care in this country?

Inevitably, my Republican colleagues say it's a ``state issue'' or that there's not enough evidence that federal action would work. I guess this bill proves that if the issue is important enough to the Christian Right, federalism and evidence get tossed aside. If only the needs of children or the demands of voters had similar power to break through right wing ideology. This is a fitting end to the Congress that found the time to meddle with Terri Schiavo and vote against the fabricated war on Christmas but couldn't make time to finish nine appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, the jig is up on this pathetic excuse for governing. Let's begin a new direction for America by voting against this divisive bill.