Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is probably the lowest-priced amendment to be offered to this bill, but what it does basically is takes away $84,500 from the Secretary of HHS's management budget. The purpose of the amendment is to establish firmly the rights of Congress in regard to getting information from the administration.

Very quickly, during the course of drafting and debating the Medicare bill that dealt with prescription drugs, the head of CMS Mr. Scully threatened improperly the actuary for CMS and caused this actuary to withhold information from the House of Representatives which would have indicated that the drug bill would not cost $400 billion, but more like $530 or $540 billion. That is a $140 billion difference. It may very well have affected the way many of us might have voted on that bill. It was substantial information. This information was not classified, and it comes under a bill that started back in 1912 when then Senator LaFollette indicated that we should have this information in the normal course of our proceedings available to us. According to GAO, who has recently suggested that the point of this legislation be enacted, never in the history of that legislation since 1912 has anybody violated this law until now. And it was GAO who said that the recourse for violating the law, for preventing a member of the administration from giving us information relative to our business, should be that the salary of the Administrator of CMS was improperly paid during the time from the point he gagged his subordinate until the end of his term when he resigned in December.

So quite simply said once again, it is uncontrovertable that the law was broken by Mr. Scully, that the remedy is that he should not have the salary that he was paid during the period in which the information was withheld from us, and it indeed runs to the prerogative of this House to receive the information that is necessary for us to do our business in the normal course of legislating. And the Secretary can get the $84,500 back if he wants to go after Mr. Scully for it, and it is highly symbolic, but I think it is imperative that we establish our rights to receive information, either side of the aisle, or from any administration in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

I have one more speaker, but I did want to repeat that, as far as this gentleman is concerned, the issue here, I know the dollars are not significant, but I rather suspect that the laws that were violated were written by the Republican Party when it was in the minority, and I do not think it is an issue that is partisan. I really believe this is an issue that does not deal with anything other than the very most basic facts which we need to carry out our duties here. And, yes, the $84,500 is symbolic, but it is the only recourse that we have under the law. The law was clearly broken. It seems to me that we should demand that it be taken and leave it to the Secretary to collect the $84,500 in any manner that he sees fit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, I would, as a matter of prerogative of the House, encourage us all to support this modest amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alameda High School Valedictorian, Ben Hoffman. Ben, a resident of Alameda, California, did not use notes or index cards when he spoke with rhyme and rhythm to his fellow classmates during the graduation ceremonies for the Alameda High School Class of 2004. His remarks were met with a standing ovation.

Ben's Valedictory Address, entitled ``Responsibility'' is an outstanding commentary about the challenges and opportunities facing the youth of today. He shared with his graduating class, remembrances of the past four years, looked at the injustice and violence in today's world and urged his classmates to make the world a better place in the future.

Responsibility

(By Benjamin Hoffman)

A lot of people look at graduation, and say that it will give

us many new opportunities,

I think its more than that, I think it gives us many new

responsibilities

We live in a world where people of different nations

Face starvation, extermination

Exploitation, or discrimination

Based solely on race, religion or sexual orientation

These are the problems that we are facing

Perpetuated by a lack of education

But here we are at our graduation.

For the past four years in this community

We've had a unique opportunity

To get a chance to truly see

The value of growing up in unity

And it'll just take a sec

If we take time to reflect

Bout the great affect

How we learned to connect

Protect and respect everyone we met

Without expecting to collect

And all of this in an atmosphere

That provided not a thing for us to fear

And I'm being sincere when I say I hold dear

The value and promise of these past four years

And now we have a responsibility

Because of our recent history

To promote an end to slavery

And poverty, and adversity

Wherever it may be

Until the world is free.

Free from the confines that define

The lives that so many people are resigned

To be living, without giving

Any hope that mankind is not blind

But much of mankind is blind to the suffering that exists

And our first obstacle is going to be to conquer ignorance.

But we got to start at home

Gotta conquer our own

Before our true potential can finally be shown

Its been so easy to get caught up in only thinking

About doing drugs or drinking,

Or tripping over how your grades are sinking,

Or that one girl you thought you saw winking.

But those days are in the past,

And although they may have been a blast,

This graduation that's come at last, will be marked by

contrast.

We are stepping out into a world that's real

Where people feel that they have to steal

Without another way to deal

With the task of finding a meal

No longer is hiding in ignorance acceptable,

No longer can these lives be expendable

Its time for us to put aside the bull

And be commendable and be dependable.

The problems are complex, and have potential to perplex

So we must always continue learning, whatever happens next

And after teaching ourselves, we got to teach one another

We gotta treat the world as if it were our younger brother

Never stop learning from the cradle to the grave

To gain the strength to be brave

And fight for the enslaved

Cuz only through education can this world be saved

If we're not unaware, there is a chance we just don't care

And as we see others despair, we just say ``life's not fair''

But this I can't conceive, cuz I know we all believe

That when we care for one another, there is nothing we can't

achieve

Today's event will serve as a testament

To represent, the great extent of our discontent

As we lament

A grave injustice long ago

Today several Japanese graduates are recognized

For an opportunity that they were denied

Replaced by internment, and tear-filled eyes

And as we remember with regret, and stifled tears

At the same time we are given hope, that these are better

years

Today, people from opposing sides

Of violent historical divides

With their hearts and minds open wide

Can be seen walking hand in hand.

This is what Alameda has been all about

But as we all go off on our own different routes

We'll encounter intolerant people day in and day out

But its important to recall

That these people weren't born with such gall

Its just how they were taught since before they could crawl

And that leaves us with hope, that there's a way off that

slippery slope

And all these people need is for us to toss them a rope

To help them replace their ambivalence with tolerance

And begin to appreciate our every difference

As they find some sense, and stop acting so dense

So we've recognized the problem and want to participate

In ending hate, and yet the world awaits, with us trapped

behind a gate

A gate created by fear

This Post-9/11, orange alert threat

White powder in the mail making you sweat

Insane with duct tape and cellophane

In this arcane campaign to abstain from pain

Every time we see the world getting scarier

Our first response can't be to build another barrier

We got to tear them down, and stop sounding the alarm

And instead open our hearts and open our arms

To embrace the world, and all those in need

From those who bleed, to those who can't read

In order for us to move ahead

We gotta get out from hiding under our beds

Instead of continuing to spread the fear that we've been fed

And once we're not afraid, we will refuse to fade

And answer those who've prayed

For someone to come

To their aide

But what I fear most

Is that with all the problems we host

You'll think the world's toast

And all that's left is a ghost, cold and morose

From coast to coast

And lose all hope, cuz we're not even close.

And as we see the depression

Caused by years of oppression

And violent aggression

We get the impression

That all the people in possession

Of such lost expressions

Have become resigned to the repression

As we ask ourselves the question

I'm only one person, what can I do?

Well to this, I remind you all, history is made by only a

few.

Never let your apathy, impede your sympathy

To the point where you fail to see

That it is WE that hold the key

To unlock the chains and set the world free

Never underestimate

A small group willing to dedicate

Their lives to something great

With intellect, courage and humanitarian trait

And in the four years that I've gotten to know this class, I

believe THAT is our fate.

Our lives will have meaning and we'll have stories to tell

Fighting to the end as the world goes to Hell

The journey won't be easy, and we may get beat

But at least we'll be right there, and have a front row seat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Michael Yoshii, a clergyman in the city of Alameda, California. Reverend Yoshii has quickly become an integral part of Alameda's Asian community as a champion in the struggle for both human and civil rights. Reverend Yoshii will be honored for his outstanding contributions at a reception in his honor on Saturday, October 16, 2004.

A third-generation Japanese American, Reverend Yoshii has been a strong advocate and spokesperson for a number of important issues, such as housing for the poor, racial diversity, and civil liberties. Reverend Yoshii has also helped to initiate discussion forums among Alameda's citizens, in an effort to encourage those of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds to become better acquainted.

Reverend Yoshii has also been responsible for the creation of several school and community programs. In particular, he was instrumental in the establishment of the Alameda Multicultural Community Center. This center offers services to the Alameda community ranging from yoga classes to children's art classes. Reverend Yoshii has also contributed to the creation of several youth projects, including the Asian Pacific Youth Institute and the Asian Pacific Peer Counseling Project.

Several years ago, Reverend Yoshii worked alongside community members in lobbying the Alameda School District and the Alameda Board of Education to conduct a diversity audit. The diversity audit produced new hiring goals to increase diversity among the district's workforce. Reverend Yoshii has also helped reinvigorate programs like the Organization of Alameda Asians, which promotes voter registration for the Alameda community. He also was the convener for the Coalition of Alamedans for Racial Equality (CARE), a community response to racial controversy within the Alameda Police Department. Currently, CARE has evolved into a multicultural training program for students to address issues surrounding identity, culture, and racism.

I join in congratulating Reverend Yoshii for his commitment in creating new multicultural relationships in Alameda. I am confident Reverend Yoshii will continue to be an invaluable resource to the city and a tremendous asset.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) headquartered in Hayward, California. CRIL has been providing exemplary services to individuals with disabilities for the past 25 years.

This outstanding organization was inspired by a group of individuals' awareness of the diverse unmet need for services in their communities to assist the disabled. Through the work of such individuals as longtime Executive Director Johnnie Lacy, CRIL was able to establish itself by occupying and purchasing its own office building in Hayward, California in 1979. Since then, CRIL has expanded its presence by opening its Tri-Cities office In Fremont and its Tri-Valley office in Livermore.

In the years since its founding, CRIL has helped to represent the disabled community by advocating tirelessly for both their rights and needs. As a result, they have helped to eliminate societal barriers to participation, empowerment, and independent living. CRIL has also taken a central role in co-sponsoring the creation of housing for people with disabilities. In particular, CRIL is responsible for the creation of the Olive Tree Plaza and EC Magnolia Court Apartments in Hayward and the Redwood Lodge in Fremont.

For over two decades, CRIL has become a resource for thousands with disabilities. It is my honor to recognize their tireless commitment and hard work to the disabled community and I am confident CRIL will continue to make a positive difference in the lives of the disabled population for years to come.

I join the community in expressing my good wishes to CRIL on its 25th anniversary and sending best wishes for continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3313, the So-Called ``Marriage Protection Act.'' This blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation speaks volumes about the uncontrollable homophobia of the Republican Party and its desperation to change the subject from the quagmire in Iraq.

The Republicans' fear of the Federal courts is somewhat surprising. The Supreme Court, after all, despite occasionally tempering the Republicans' hatred of minorities, immigrants, the accused, and others who have the gall to insist on their Constitutional rights, has been pretty good to the Republican Party. It gave them the President they wanted and has given them great leeway to run roughshod over the environment and the disabled in the name of States' rights.

Most legal experts agree that this Court would likely uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and yet the Republicans would rather set a new, frightening precedent of letting 50 different State courts be the final arbiters of our laws. They prefer that State judges, rather than Federal judges confirmed by the Senate, make Constitutional law.

Thankfully, the right wing wasn't in control of the Republican Party back when desegregation and Miranda warnings were before the courts, as there were court-stripping proposals on those subjects, too. They would never think of passing a bill today barring African Americans from seeking the protection of Federal courts, but sadly, gay and lesbian Americans incur their wrath over everything from the breakdown of the family to the continued inability of the Red Sox to win the World Series. Their delusion would be funny if it weren't so reckless and harmful.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is all about re-directing blame. Everyone here realizes that if Congress could just pass whatever laws it wanted and throw in a line to keep them from being held unconstitutional, our Constitution and our Separation of Powers would be rendered meaningless. So let's just admit what this is really about: changing the subject from Iraq and attacking defenseless Americans.

Shame on any Member of this body who will trample on our Constitution just to score a few political points. If the Oath we all took to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' means anything to you, you will ``No'' on this election-year ploy.

Mr. Speaker, time sure flies when you're having fun. Just last week I expressed serious misgivings about the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement (FTA), noting, among other problems, that it set a bad precedent for future trade bills. Those concerns are confirmed today by this bill. The U.S.-Morocco FTA is a bad agreement that protects U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers while ignoring labor standards and the healthcare needs of Moroccan citizens.

I warned you last week that a vote for the Australian FTA was a vote against prescription drug reimportation, and it's true again today. We cannot continue to allow USTR to include intellectual property provisions in FTAs that undermine Congress's ability to provide affordable prescription drugs through reimportation. True, we aren't going to be importing drugs from Morocco any time soon, but what happens in the next FTA, and the one after that? It should be clear by now that the USTR is merely a shill for the pharmaceutical industry, engaged in nothing more than closing the door to drug reimportation at the request of the Administration.

Unfortunately, the Morocco agreement doesn't stop at undermining the debate over reimportation. In fact, it goes much further by limiting access to potentially life saving drugs in Morocco. Because the agreement limits parallel importation, if a pubic health emergency breaks out, Morocco cannot import affordable drugs from neighboring countries if a U.S. country manufacturers the drug.

Once again, the pharmaceutical industry has used the administration and a free trade agreement to protect its profits, without any concern for global health. If Morocco has a public health crisis, it would be forced to purchase drugs from U.S. manufacturers instead of getting immediate access to the same drugs from nearby countries. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been gouging prices here in America for years; just think what they can do to prices when a developing country is in crisis.

You would think one provision limiting access to drugs in Morocco would be victory enough for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, but this industry just does not stop. Also included in the FTA are limits on the use of test data and market exclusivity provisions that could raise the price of drugs in Morocco and further limit access.

Because the FTA limits test data usage and creates 5 years of market exclusivity, the introduction of generic drugs in the Moroccan market will be substantially delayed. When generics are not available, prices increase--along with manufacturers' profits--and poorer citizens have less purchasing power to obtain life saving drugs.

There is also the strong possibility that these data and exclusivity provisions will further tie the hands of the Moroccan government during a public health emergency. The FTA and side letter are amazingly vague on whether Morocco can engage in compulsory licensing of otherwise patented drugs during a

health crisis. Here again, the pharmaceutical manufacturers will do anything to make sure they are the monopoly power, even when lives are at stake.

Today we vote on nothing less than the future course of domestic and international pharmaceutical policies. USTR will continue to use trade agreements to limit our ability to import affordable pharmaceuticals from other countries. It is also clear that future negotiations are going to limit drug access in other countries so that U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers can make even more money abroad. These are bad policies, and we should not let the Administration continue to implement them by slipping them into free trade agreements.

I am also concerned that USTR has once again failed to include core labor standard requirements in a free trade agreement. USTR should not continue to use the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in FTAs without developing countries. I understand Morocco is moving in the right direction in terms of labor rights, but there is no reason this FTA should not have held them to the core labor standards developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO standards ensure workers' human rights and their right to organize and strike. We cannot have acceptable free trade without a level playing field, and these standards are the key to ensuring trade between the U.S. and other countries is both free and fair.

This is a bad free trade agreement that sets a bad precedent for all future trade negotiations. We cannot continue to let the administration make health policy without Congressional input, and we surely would not let the pharmaceutical industry have their way just because of their large campaign donor status. We also cannot ignore workers' rights by allowing trade partners to enforce their own laws when those laws do not meet international labor standards.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Morocco Free Trade Agreement and believe it will promote domestic growth in manufacturing and exports. I look forward to seeing this agreement enacted into law. I also support, thank and congratulate the United States Trade Representative and staff in negotiating the inclusion of full duty drawback and duty deferral rights for U.S. manufacturers, exporters and workers in this FTA. Free trade agreements should include no language that eliminates or otherwise restricts the application of duty drawback and duty deferral programs to U.S. manufacturers and exporters. The language in the Singapore, Australia, Israel and Jordan FTAs and in the CAFTA, for example, have no such restrictive language and we should continue to model future agreements after these FTAs. This issue is of significant importance to many U.S. manufacturers and exporters, including those in my home State of Louisiana.

Duty drawback and duty deferral programs reduce production and operating costs by allowing our manufacturers and exporters to recover duties that were paid on imported materials when the same or similar materials are exported either whole or as a component part of a finished product. Duty drawback positively affects nearly $16 billion of U.S. exports each year. Additionally, nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs are directly related to exported goods that benefit from drawback, and these high quality jobs could be adversely affected by eliminating or restricting drawback. In my own home State of Louisiana, drawback and duty deferral programs provide substantial benefits to local industries, allowing them to compete on a level playing field in the global market. Drawback and deferral prevents outsourcing and saves U.S. manufacturing and jobs. As long as the programs provide a competitive advantage in production and sales for U.S. manufacturers and exporters, they will assist in preventing U.S. jobs from moving offshore.

Drawback makes a significant difference to U.S. companies at the margin when exporting to our FTA partners where they compete against foreign producers that either have substantially lower costs of production or enjoy low or zero import duty rates. This export promotion program is one of the last WTO-sanctioned programs that provide a substantial advantage to U.S. companies participating in the export market. The application of these programs to U.S. manufacturers and exporters should not be restricted in future free trade agreements that we negotiate with our trading partners.

We need to work hard to complete free trade agreements that provide as many competitive advantages as we can to U.S. manufacturers competing in the global market, encourage growth in U.S. exports, and create U.S. jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Hospital Accreditation Act of 2004. Forty years ago, the Congress abdicated the federal government's regulatory responsibilities to ensure that hospitals meet Medicare requirements. Congress empowered the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) with a unique authority to deem hospitals as eligible for Medicare payments with minimal government interference. That was clearly a mistake. In the decades that JCAHO has had this unsupervised authority, serious inadequacies in hospitals have gone unchecked. Our current process is not working and it's time for the federal government to reassert its authority. This bill would do just that.

This bill today responds to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-04-850) raising serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current system used to accredit and oversee hospitals that serve Medicare beneficiaries. The investigation, based on a retrospective survey of 500 hospitals, indicates that JCAHO failed to detect a large number of serious deficiencies subsequently found later by a team of government inspectors. These deficiencies are not superfluous. They are important, basic minimum standards needed to ensure both a safe environment and quality health care. For example, JCAHO accredited hospitals with inadequate procedures for preventing the spread of infections, inadequate safeguards to assure competent performance of physicians and nurses, and hospitals that outright failed to protect patients and staff from fire-related disasters. While this survey cannot be generalized to the entire hospital community, it implies a troubling lack of compliance with important safety standards and is a signal for change.

This is not the first time that problems in the Medicare hospital accreditation and oversight process have come to light. In 1990, we held a hearing on this issue in the Ways and Means Committee. Gail Wilensky, the Medicare Administrator for President George H.W. Bush, expressed concern that JCAHO-accredited hospitals displayed serious deficiencies when subsequently surveyed by government surveyors. In 1999, an investigation by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concluded that JCAHO accreditation surveys were not likely to identify patterns of deficient care. Finally, for the past three consecutive years, CMS has found that JCAHO failed to meet the CMS performance standard for the hospital survey process. This is one more indication of JCAHO's need to improve its performance, and, more importantly, the need to increase CMS' authority to oversee JCAHO.

Despite this body of evidence, until now, the federal government has done little to address the problem. This stems in part from the original Medicare law passed by Congress in 1965. In that Act, JCAHO was granted the authority to ``deem'' hospitals as meeting the Medicare conditions of participation and qualify for Medicare payments. As a result, the federal agency administering the Medicare program was not granted adequate oversight authority. The agency had no authority to regularly review JCAHO's surveying processes, to mandate or approve changes to the procedures, or to sanction JCAHO for inadequate performance. No other accrediting organization is immune from government oversight.

Thus, Congress delegated oversight to a private entity that is essentially under the control of the very industry it attempts to regulate. In fact, the American Hospital Association and key physician groups appoint approximately 70 percent of the JCAHO Board of Directors! This special status is even more alarming when JCAHO's role in the market is taken into consideration. In addition to its Medicare activities, JCAHO accreditation partially or fully substitutes for state regulators in 49 states, it certifies VA facilities, and is often used by private insurers and plan sponsors as a requirement for plan participation and payments.

The hospital oversight process is comprised of a three-legged stool-- the private Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and their delegates at the state level, and the Congress. This report shows that each party needs to act to improve patient safety and assure that taxpayer dollars are spent in facilities that meet Medicare's minimum requirements.

Along with Senator Charles Grassley, who is introducing companion legislation in the Senate, the bill I'm introducing today is the first step toward addressing this problem. This legislation would provide CMS with the same oversight authority over JCAHO that it has for all other national organizations with deeming authority. We may need to do more, but this is an important start.

In addition, the Administration has also agreed to make significant improvements under its current, limited authority. Administrator McClelland has worked closely with us on this issue and is committed to make the needed changes. Establishing a clear chain of command will improve accountability, and that is our goal.

As far as I am concerned, the GAO report indicates that all three legs of the hospital oversight process need to be revamped. JCAHO needs to improve its ability to assess the extent a hospital is meeting the Medicare quality conditions of participation. CMS needs to make better use of the limited authority over JCAHO it currently has and be prepared to assume increased authority with the passage of this legislation. Finally, Congress needs to correct a decision made nearly 40 years ago to allow the federal government to abdicate its regulatory responsibilities to ensure that hospitals meet Medicare requirements.

I am are here today to announce our bipartisan, bicameral commitment to work with each other, our colleagues, the Administration and the community to do just that. I encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to support this legislation. It will provide CMS with the tools it needs to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive quality hospital care in a safe environment. The time to act is now. It is a matter of life and death.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I really meant to talk about celebrating the 35th anniversary of Apollo 11, but I can see that my distinguished colleague from California was there with me. I thought we were really talking about accounting, and we are talking about H.R. 3574, which is appropriate, because it is sheer lunacy.

While our soldiers are fighting overseas, our children are crying out for better schools, 45 million people have no health insurance, we have set the goal today of ``Let's help the rich get richer.'' Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker, let us give more money to the millionaires.

Frankly speaking, do you know how high gas prices have gone? Do you know how much jet fuel costs? Do you know how much private jet pilots earn? We must help those people so they do not have to go from $4,000 to $5,000 to fly those little things. And that is what this bill today is doing.

I am glad to see we are helping. Why? Right now, corporations can deduct stock options for tax purposes, ha-ha, and not pay the income tax, but they do not have to report those expenses to shareholders on their SEC financial statements. That is what I call sleight of hand.

You cannot have it both ways. If you want to not deduct options, then do not take them off your income tax. It makes some sense.

This accounting loophole was encouraged by companies like Enron and Cisco to artificially inflate the value of their company while deceiving their investors and evading corporate income tax. It is much simpler than moving to Bermuda. Even Alan Greenspan has criticized this practice.

To fix this problem, the FASB board has drafted a rule requiring that we expense the options. It makes some sense. But rather than following FASB, a board made up of professional accountants, I might add, to implement a sensible rule, why, Congress has decided to use their accounting expertise.

I look around the room at my fellow Congressmen, and wonder how many of them have taken the accounting course I took?

And if they did, they all know that debits are in the column next to the windows, except as one looks around this Chamber, there are windows on four sides. No wonder we are confused.

So let the FASB rule be damned; we are going to set some rules of our own about accounting around here. Do my colleagues know what? They anticipate that there will be criticism that lets rich corporate executives off the hook, so they are going to limit it to the top five executives. I say to my colleagues, nice try, but as Warren Buffett points out, that is like saying in a large company which gives everyone a bonus, only five bonuses have to be expensed.

This bill requires companies to assume also that stocks have zero volatility. Stocks with zero volatility? Now, that does not pass the laugh test. Ask Martha Stewart about stocks with no volatility. She knows something about stock volatility. I suspect Ken Lay could tell us that it is a real phenomenon that we cannot do away with by legislation.

So the bill perpetuates the Bush administration's failed economic policies, while simultaneously lining the pockets of their fat cat friends. And the sponsors of this bill should be proud. It increases the deficit, it falsifies corporate earnings, and it serves the millionaires in this country well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jan Perkins, City Manager for the City of Fremont, California, a community of 208,000 people. Jan has provided exemplary service during her more than 26 years in city management. She will soon retire from her position as Fremont's City Manager and she will be sorely missed.

In addition to serving Fremont, Jan's city management included Morgan Hill as City Manager, Santa Ana as Assistant City Manager, and as Assistant City Manager in Grand Rapids and Adrian, Michigan.

Jan received her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Kansas. She also received a certification for the Program for Senior Executives in State & Local Government from the acclaimed John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

A member of the International City Managers Association, Jan has chaired several committees within the Association, including the International Committee, the Awards Committee, Innovations Advisory Committee, and Conference Planning Committee. She is President of the California City Management Foundation, is a member of the Executive Board of the City Manager's Department of the League of California Cities, a Fellow with the national Academy for Public Administration and a member of the Niles Rotary Club in Fremont.

Jan's dedication, expertise in city management, and her proficient leadership abilities have greatly benefited the city of Fremont and beyond. I applaud Jan Perkins for her contributions and wish her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

There are many important initiatives in this bill, specifically: the extra funding for economic assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world, the additional funding for the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the sizable funding allocation for the implementation of development programs to support women in Afghanistan. This will help improve the lives of poor people in every corner of the globe.

As the AIDS epidemic continues to wipe out enormous segments of the world's population, funding to improve and implement effective medical programs and infrastructure is vital. America has a responsibility to stem this horrific epidemic that claims hundreds if not thousands of lives every day. This bill provides significant funds toward that effort and thus deserves our support.

Even as I vote for this bill today, however, I have serious concerns about this Congress' proclivity for taxpayer subsidization of foreign militaries and U.S. defense contractors. The bill continues this wrongheaded policy when Congress ought to be working to reduce the number of weapons in the world.

I am also strongly concerned about the restrictions placed on the $25 million provided to the U.N. Population Fund or UNFPA. Throughout the last three decades, UNFPA has provided over $6 billion in assistance to more than 150 countries for maternal and child health care and voluntary family planning. My Republican colleagues have successfully sought, year after year, to hobble this international health program under the dictates of their extreme ideological agenda, despite its success in lifting the yoke of poverty and disease from people around the world. Simple compassion tells us to provide funding for this effort without unfounded restrictions preventing UNFPA from fully addressing the interconnected issues of health, family planning and poverty.

Although I am frustrated by the lack of commitment to disarmament and family planning programs in our annual foreign operations bills, I cannot deny the significance of so many other initiatives included in this bill, most notably the commitment to fighting global AIDS. I look forward to working with like-minded colleagues and advocates to improve this bill before it returns to the House as a conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield such time as he sees fit.

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

I am in opposition to H.R. 4759, Mr. Speaker. It deals with issues of credibility, and it deals primarily with issues of pharmaceutical drugs and the possibility of reimportation, an issue dear to the hearts of many of the seniors in this country who are paying outrageous prices and are not being helped by the recent Republican pharmaceutical benefit.

We have been repeatedly either lied to or have had information withheld. I know many of my colleagues are aware that the actuaries in CMS knew that the drug bill was going to cost closer to $500 billion, or $550 billion rather than the $400 billion which was promised. That information was withheld.

For those of my colleagues who read The New York Times this morning,

they are aware of further withholding of information on the part of the Republicans. I guess it is not a lie, but I only bring it up at this point to indicate that I do not think we can trust any statements as to what the trade negotiator or trade representative may or may not be negotiating with Australia and what their intention is in the future.

We were told by OMB in the pharmaceutical drug bill that 2.4 million employees would lose their retiree prescription benefits when we voted for this last pharmaceutical bill under Medicare. Well, guess what? Just earlier this week, we received from the CMS, another branch of the administration, a memo showing that 3.8 million workers will lose their drug benefits as a result of the Republican drug bill. A mere mistake of 1.4 million Americans who are going to lose drug benefits after we were opportuned to pass that bill with the idea that only 2.4 million would lose coverage.

Now my colleagues may or may not care about another almost 1.5 million workers being denied their retirement drug benefits, I know the Democrats do, but I raise these two issues, a difference of almost $200 billion low-balling us on the cost of a drug bill and then subsequently, just today, finding out that 1.5 million more workers are going to lose their benefits. Now how can we depend on the administration to tell us anything straight that is in this trade bill?

I get now to my point. We are concerned that intellectual property language allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to contractually prohibit reimportation of prescription drugs from Australia. We know that. Once we approve this language, any attempt to pass reimportation language will immediately run afoul of the Australian Free Trade Agreement. This is not just about the U.S. and Australia. This is a bill that was engineered by the pharmacy lobby.

Let me point out, when the trade representatives met, they have a board, there were 15 members of the pharmaceutical industry sitting down to advise the trade representative and not one representative of the consumer community. What does that tell us? It tells us that certainly the trade representative representing the administration can undermine the will of the people in this country and the majority of Congress through trade negotiation power over which we are powerless to change after we vote today.

The last time that I checked, reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs was a domestic health policy issue that should be debated in Congress, and we should be making domestic health policy in this Chamber, not the U.S. Trade Representative.

Now, the trade representative is promising to use this language over and over again in future free trade agreements, and eventually it is going to come back to haunt us.

Now I have no doubt that the trade representative knows how to negotiate free trade, but I have a real question if he has any interest in protecting the health care of American citizens. Not only have we given PhRMA the keys to the kingdom, we are now letting them pillage their way through our health care programs.

In a brief moment of honesty, the U.S. Trade Representative admitted that transparency requirements in annex 2(c) of the Fair Trade Agreement actually do apply to a Medicare Part B drug reimbursement decision. In its current form, the proposed change to an average sales price reimbursement system does not meet the transparency requirements of the FTA, it opens the door to challenges, and it frustrates the ability of this body to pass reasonable, safe reimportation that will lower the cost of drugs for our senior citizens by, in many cases, 50 percent, far more than the mere 5 or 10 percent that this cockamamie Buck Rogers discount card that the administration has brought out.

So we are here with a subtle underlying problem, and that is the health care of 42 million seniors in this country, and now it turns out almost 4 million more employed Medicare beneficiaries or people who are receiving their benefits as retirees, and we cannot sell them down the river, Mr. Speaker. That is not the right thing to do.

We could argue the trade bill all day long, take some of these things out, and it is probably all right, but it is engineered not to be amended. We were not allowed to amend it in markup in committee, we cannot amend it here on the floor, it is up or down. So our only choice is to vote it down, send it back to the committee, do it right, and then proceed.

So I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield that time as he sees fit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4759, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Once again the administration has given the pharmaceutical industry open access to the cookie jar. The result, to no one's surprise, is a free trade agreement that ensures the continued profitability of pharmaceutical manufacturers at the expense of average Americans who must buy drugs from other countries just to afford the prescriptions they need.

This agreement is about trusting the administration on prescription drugs. Unfortunately, the administration's recent record on this issue shows they are less than willing to tell the truth. During the debate on the Medicare prescription drug bill the administration hid the fact that the prescription benefit would cost $534 billion instead of the projected $400 billion.

Just today we learned that the administration has again missed the mark on an important estimate. According to this morning's New York Times 3.8 million people will lose retiree health coverage under the new Medicare law. This CMS estimate is 1.4 million people higher than the 2.4 million we were told during the Medicare debate.

The moral of the story is we can't trust the administration to make domestic health policy without congressional guidance. I don't trust USTR and the administration on prescription drugs, and you shouldn't either.

Less than one year ago, this House passed a bipartisan bill directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations allowing for reimportation of prescription drugs. There remain a number of pending proposals in the Senate that would legalize reimportation, as well. However, instead of fronting the reimportation issue in open debate, the administration took a back door approach, slipping language into the Australia agreement that effectively prohibits Congress from passing reimportation legislation.

Last time I checked, reimportation was a domestic health policy issue that should be debated in Congress. When the administration realized they were losing the battle, however, they turned to trade negotiation authority and their wealthy donor friends at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), to find another alternative.

Last year the pharmaceutical industry spent $108 million on federal lobbying, and it is now clear they have purchased the keys to the kingdom. PhRMA used its power and influence during the FTA negotiations to obtain language that effectively precludes Congress from passing legislation allowing reimportation. As a result, U.S. citizens will never have access to affordable prescription drugs and the pharmaceutical manufacturers will continue to profit at the expense of Americans' health.

A vote for this FTA sets a dangerous precedent for the future of domestic pharmaceutical policy. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Josette Shiner has already explained what will happen next. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, Ms. Shiner said the pharmaceutical provisions in the Australia FTA ``lay the groundwork for future FTAs,'' which will ``steer us in ongoing and future global, regional, and bilateral negotiations--including upcoming FTA negotiations and consultations with Canada and other major trading partners bilaterally and in international fora like the OECD.''

While I have no doubt the USTR knows how to negotiate a free trade agreement, I question whether they have any idea how their negotiations affect domestic health policy. During the negotiations with Australia, USTR pushed for language that would have decimated how the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense buy drugs for our soldiers, veterans and their families. Though this language was later removed, the final agreement is so ambiguous, there are no guarantees Australia will not challenge our domestic drug procurement procedures. Besides the VA and Department of Defense, this could also affect Medicaid, Medicare and other federal programs.

In a brief moment of honesty, the Administration admitted that the transparency requirements in Annex 2-C of the FTA actually do apply to Medicare Part B drugs. Though no changes are currently necessary to comply with the FTA, there is no guarantee that we won't have to act in the future to change Medicare drug policy because of the Australia FTA and future agreements that share this transparency language. One possible problem in the near future is the switch to average sales price for Part B drugs in 2006. It is very clear that this payment policy change does not meet the transparency requirements of Annex 2-C, but as long as PhRMA is happy, I guess we should all rejoice and turn our backs on policies designed to lower the cost of Part B drugs for Medicare beneficiaries.

I urge all members today to think long and hard about what this vote means for the future of domestic prescription drug policy. Don't let anyone tell you that this vote is just about the U.S. and Australia and therefore you have nothing to worry about. If you have been touting the benefits of reimportation to constituents, but decide to vote for this FTA, I suggest you be prepared to deal with the backlash. If you truly care about reimportation and want to be able to use the issue on the campaign trail, vote against the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kathy Putman, an exemplary educator, who is retiring after forty years in the classroom at John F. Kennedy High School in Fremont, California. Immediately after graduating from San Jose State University, Kathy's career in education began at Kennedy High School.

She was among the first instructors when the new high school was opened in 1965. Teaching Government and Economics to high school seniors at Kennedy High School is the only job Kathy has ever had. She was only a couple of years older than her first students. Over the decades, she has taught many children of former students in her class.

For years Kennedy High School had a contest for ``Most Popular Teacher.'' Kathy won so often the contest was discontinued. Each year her yearbook is filled with the penned thoughts of adoring students. Thousands of young Fremont students have passed through her classroom where the walls are covered with photographs and notes from former students. Assuming Kathy had 200-300 students a year, for 40 years, this adds up to between 8,000-12,000 students she has touched during her career.

I, along with former Congressman Don Edwards, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer

and a host of political and civic leaders have been privileged to speak to students in Kathy's government classes. She was a true believer in exposing her students to firsthand experiences in government. She encouraged student involvement and referred her students to my office for internships.

I have never met a more experienced, committed or enthusiastic teacher. Kathy is a model for all educators to follow. I commend her on her 40 years of outstanding service. Kathy has left an indelible mark on her students and the community of Fremont and her contributions will be long remembered and felt with utmost respect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Dan Cohen's retirement from the Newark, California Police Department, and to honor his 30 years of exemplary service in the field of law enforcement.

After completing two tours of duty in Vietnam, Sgt. Cohen's law enforcement career began in April 1972, when he served as a Deputy Sheriff for the Mineral County Sheriff's Department. He worked as a Deputy Sheriff until February 1973. In September 1974, Sgt. Cohen was hired as a Railroad Police Officer for the Southern Pacific Transportation Company where he worked until April 1980.

Sgt. Cohen began his employment with the Newark Police Department in May 1980. He worked in various capacities on the police force, including Patrol Sergeant, Administrative Sergeant, Detective Division Sergeant, Narcotics/Vice Detective, Homicide Detective and as the Hostage Negotiation Team Leader. Dan was also a member of the SWAT Team and a Range Master.

It is my honor to recognize Sergeant Dan Cohen's remarkable career in law enforcement. He has demonstrated his commitment, leadership, and courage and leaves a lasting impression with the community and his colleagues as an outstanding member of the Newark Police Department.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4663, the so-called Spending Control Act of 2004. This bill is another shameless attempt by the Republican majority to shove their radical, right wing agenda down the throats of the American people. What are they going after this time? Medicare and Social Security. And what are they trying to protect? Tax cuts.

What a surprise. What a surprise that the Republicans would put tax cuts over Medicare and Social Security. I guess it shouldn't surprise us anymore.

This bill purports to be a budget bill. It is supposed to set up rules to restrain spending and reduce the national budget deficit. That's a worthy goal. Too bad the bill doesn't advance us toward that goal. One provision which purports to advance this goal is the pay-as- you go (PAYGO) rule. Under such a plan, any new spending on one program must be paid for by a reduction in spending from another. Such a rule is problematic. Under this plan, if I want to add an important benefit to the Medicare program, I must cut spending elsewhere in the Medicare, or in some other vital program like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. In this time of huge budget deficits, I know we must control our spending habits. But robbing Peter to pay Paul makes no sense when we are talking about the health and well being of our fellow citizens.

That said, I would have no problem supporting PAYGO rules for mandatory spending if the Republicans made them apply to tax cuts as well. But guess what? Under this proposal, tax cuts would be exempt from the PAYGO rules! In other words, we have to eliminate programs to add something to Medicare, but the Republicans can cut taxes until the cows come home! The Republicans could therefore pass another huge tax cut for millionaires without replacing the lost revenue with spending cuts. This then leads to huge deficits because of the exponentially widening gap between spending and revenue. Does this make any sense at all? Of course not!

What makes this bill worse is the fact that increasing mandatory spending for programs like Medicare cannot be paid for by closing tax loopholes and increasing revenue by charging taxpayers what they really owe. For example, if I proposed legislation to fill in the doughnut hole in the Republican prescription drug benefit, I could not pay for that expanded benefit by closing corporate tax loopholes that effectively allow most corporations to go untaxed. In fact, a report by the General Accounting Office found that, on average, 61 percent of all U.S. corporations reported no tax liability between 1996 and 2000. But under this budget legislation we couldn't make a single one of those corporations pay the taxes they owe so that I could provide Medicare beneficiaries the prescription drug benefit they deserve.

Not so many years ago we enjoyed a projected $5.6 trillion surplus that could have put a huge dent in our national debt, or paid for health insurance for the 44 million uninsured in this country. Since the original PAYGO rules expired and the Republicans started cutting taxes for their wealthy friends, that surplus has turned into a $2.9 trillion deficit, which will push our total debt over $9 trillion. Who do you think is going to pay for that debt if we fail to reinstate PAYGO rules that work? You and I will not foot the bill for this irresponsible policy. Our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will.

This bill is another colossal mistake which the Republicans want to inflict on our country. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute, which applies PAYGO to both spending and tax cuts, and to vote against this one-sided Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Like my colleagues, I support a strong and stable State of Israel. Like my colleagues, I support the peace process and fervently hope that peace will someday come to this troubled land. This resolution, however, does not advance that process in any helpful or meaningful way.

This resolution does not call on both Israelis and Palestinians to work together to find a peaceful solution to this conflict. In order to reach peace, all parties in the process must work together. This resolution does not make that clear.

I am disappointed that the House Leadership brought this resolution to the floor instead of House Resolution 479, of which I am a cosponsor. House Resolution 479 applauds Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace and encourages both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize on the opportunity offered by these peace initiatives. I'm enclosing, for the record, a copy of that resolution.

Ultimately, Middle East peace can only be achieved with all parties working together to find a solution. To play a constructive role, the United States must be perceived by all parties as an honest, objective broker. This resolution frustrates that goal.

H. Res. 479

Whereas ending the violence and terror that have devastated

Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza since September 2000 is in

the vital interests of the United States, Israel, and the

Palestinians;

Whereas ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict strengthens

extremists and opponents of peace throughout the region,

including those who seek to undermine efforts by the United

States to stabilize Iraq and those who want to see conflict

spread to other nations in the region;

Whereas more than 3 years of violence, terror, and

escalating military engagement have demonstrated that

military means alone will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict;

Whereas despite mutual mistrust, anger, and pain,

courageous and credible Israelis and Palestinians have come

together in a private capacity to develop serious model peace

initiatives, like the People's Voice Initiative, One Voice,

and the Geneva Accord;

Whereas those initiatives, and other similar private

efforts, are founded on the determination of Israelis and

Palestinians to put an end to decades of confrontation and

conflict and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity,

and security, based on a just, lasting, and comprehensive

peace and achieving historic reconciliation;

Whereas those initiatives demonstrate that both Israelis

and Palestinians have a partner for peace, that both peoples

want to end the current vicious stalemate, and that both

peoples are prepared to make necessary compromises in order

to achieve peace;

Whereas each of the private initiatives addresses the

fundamental requirements of both peoples, including

preservation of the Jewish, democratic nature of Israel with

secure and defensible borders and the creation of a viable

Palestinian state; and

Whereas such peace initiatives demonstrate that there are

solutions to the conflict and present precious opportunities

to end the violence and restart fruitful peace negotiations:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) applauds the courage and vision of Israelis and

Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic,

serious plans for achieving peace;

(2) calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize

on the opportunity offered by these peace initiatives; and

(3) urges the President of the United States to encourage

and embrace all serious efforts to move away from violent

military stalemate toward achieving Israeli-Palestinian

peace.