Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense Appropriations bill. This bill is flawed for many reasons. It gives money to programs that don't need more money and advances policies that ought to be ended. But most egregious of all, it slips in a provision that has nothing to do with Defense Appropriations: raising the Federal government's debt limit.

Why have the Republicans hidden this provision in the bill? Because they're embarrassed--they're embarrassed that their economic policies require such a huge increase in our national debt. And they're afraid. They're afraid that if the American people hear a debate on raising the debt limit, it will expose their failed policies and damage their chances for re-election. How cynical. How embarrassing indeed.

Republicans have so failed in their economic policies that they have to hide a provision like this in a Defense bill, hoping that our debate on defense policy will overshadow their shenanigans. This is one more debacle to add to the Republicans' long list of governing failures.

Just 4 weeks ago, I voted against the Defense Authorization bill because it called for billions in funding for Star Wars, continued the Pentagon's addiction to wasteful and duplicative projects that pad the pockets of big defense contractors, and authorized $25 billion for Iraq without a clear or articulated exit strategy. This bill provides more of the same.

The bill provides $9.7 billion for missile defense on top of the $130 billion American taxpayers have already shelled out since 1983. Wasting more money on this program is absurd. It has proven to be completely inoperable and the idea that it will ever work is the dream of a mad scientist. This bill also calls for nearly $680 million for procurement and upgrades of the Trident II nuclear missile. These Cold War era weapons do not help us defend against terrorists, they only raise the nuclear ante around the world.

The bill provides $3.6 billion for 24 F-22 Raptors, despite GAO reports showing cost overruns and technical problems. In fact, the cost of these fighters has actually increased from $200 to $300 million per plane. Boneheaded marine general would continue to use a plane that doesn't work. This bill also continues to fund the Osprey, a plane so dangerous and which has led to so many American deaths, it is inconceivable that the Pentagon would continue to use them.

Imagine what we could provide our children--the next generation--if we discontinued these programs. Already, the Nation's public schools have been denied $27 billion dollars promised them when Congress passed No Child Left Behind.

Imagine what you could do for working families. In my district in California, low-income families are being evicted because the Federal government has cut funding for housing subsidies. Others throughout Alameda County face the specter of losing their health care coverage.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation certainly needs to spend money on its defense. But defense means more than just guns and planes. It means defending our children from ignorance through education, defending our sick from disease through health care, and defending our elderly from poverty through Social Security. It is time we incorporate our other vital national priorities into our Defense Budget. I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that wastes money and threatens to waste the future we owe our children.

Mr. Speaker, very seldom do I find myself almost speechless. If it were not for the rule which appears to gag all of the Members from offering any amendments that would perhaps help this bill and correct the problem which we know as FSC, and it is the first time that I have known that when you take away a subsidy that was not any good, that was improper in the first place, that for some reason you owe business the money that you have been improperly paying them all of these years.

As anybody who has ever had a job in private industry would know, this bill does very little for producers or farmers or small business. It is a return to right-wing radical McCarthyism.

The real serious problem, as I have thought about it this morning, my young 8-year-old son is here, and he is going to be paying for this bill for a long time. It is us elderly white, mostly elderly white males who are doing this to help the lobbyists who have contributed so generously to the Republican campaigns who are going to make these youngsters pay for it, and I think that is an obscenity that will stand long after we have left these halls.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strident opposition to H.R. 4520 the so-called ``Jobs Creation Act.'' This bill is a sham and a disgrace--and everybody knows it. Repealing the extraterritorial income (ETI) regime is absolutely necessary to avoid retaliatory duties imposed by the European Union, but replacing that regime with unnecessary corporate tax cuts, and including extraneous provisions that have no business in a corporate tax bill, is ludicrous.

We have known for years that tax systems benefiting exports are clearly prohibited under our international trade agreements. Now we are faced with growing duties on certain exports, which hurt manufacturers and put American jobs in jeopardy. A bill to put the United States in compliance with World Trade Organization trade laws has been turned into a Christmas tree of special interest give-aways. By reducing from nine to two the number of foreign tax credit baskets, foreign controlled subsidiaries of U.S. corporations will have new tax shelters including domestic companies to move even more jobs overseas. During this jobless economic recovery, we cannot afford to give corporations even more incentive to ship jobs offshore. I'm appalled that such a bill would even be considered on the House floor.

The Republicans have always claimed to be fiscally responsible, but this bill is one of the most fiscally irresponsible pieces of legislation I have ever seen. According to a February GAO report, on average, 61 percent of all U.S. controlled corporations reported no tax liability between 1996 and 2000. When nearly two-thirds of U.S. corporations already have no tax liability, it is preposterous that we would reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35 to 32 percent at an estimated cost of over $63 billion over the next ten years. It would only cost $50 billion to make corporations whole after the loss of the ETI exclusion, but the Republicans are reducing corporate tax revenue by another $29 billion with these new rate reductions.

Fiscal irresponsibility surrounding the ETI exclusion is reason enough to vote against this bill, but H.R. 4520 goes even further, adding a total of $34 billion to the national debt through a litany of unnecessary tax breaks. For example, the bill would allow foreign controlled corporations to move income back to the U.S. with a one time 85 percent deduction for that foreign income. This provision would cost more than $3 billion over ten years, and rewards corporations who have moved jobs overseas in the past. In addition, the reduction of foreign tax credit baskets from nine to two categories will decrease revenue by almost $8 billion during the next 10 years. These provisions and many others mortgage the future of our economy and create an enormous tax burden for our children and grandchildren.

Even if the American Jobs Creation Act merely repealed the ETI exclusion and replaced it with fair tax breaks for domestic production, I could not support this bill. Why? Because it contains so many blatant and shameful provisions that have no business being in a tax bill! The Republican leadership refused to write a bill that could garner bipartisan support, so they tossed in these provisions to buy members votes. This is not democracy. This is a Republican House bowing to the power of corporate America and doing whatever it takes to get this ridiculous piece of legislation passed.

The most egregious portion of this legislation is a dangerous buyout for the tobacco industry that would cost $9.6 billion dollars, most of which would line the pockets of large tobacco manufacturers like Phillip Morris. The tobacco buyout is nothing more than an election year bribe to enlist southern Democrats' votes on a bill they would otherwise be unlikely to support. Just recently the Surgeon General released a report saying that tobacco causes diseases in ``nearly every organ of the body.'' Instead of using this opportunity to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, Republicans are giving a huge windfall to the tobacco industry while doing nothing to reduce tobacco production and improve public health.

Finally, the Republicans have thwarted the democratic process by refusing to allow the Democrats an amendment in the nature of a substitute for this bill. Are the Republicans afraid that the bipartisan approach that passed with flying colors in the Senate might actually have enough votes to pass in the House? My friend and colleague Mr. Rangel has been working on a bipartisan approach to solving the FSC/ETI problem for years. But we won't have the opportunity to vote on that proposal today because the Republicans don't want anyone to compare our fair and responsible

alternative to their unfair, irresponsible corporate tax break grab bag.

The so-called American Jobs Creation Act does not create jobs. Instead, it creates new incentives for U.S. corporations to send jobs overseas. The fiscal irresponsibility of adding another $34 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years while the economy is trying to recover from recession is inconceivable to me. Finally, the extraneous provisions in this bill are mere gifts to Republican friends. This bill is a disaster for the American people and our tax code. Republicans should be hanging their heads in shame--but Republicans have no shame, as this bill clearly shows. I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4520.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4568, the Interior Appropriations bill.

This legislation shortchanges our Nation's environment and ignores the important priority Americans place on protecting our pristine lands, parks and open space. Republicans have broken a basic commitment to conservation. Back in 2000, Democrats and Republicans agreed to provide $12 billion over six years for land and water conservation. These are resources dedicated to preserving lands and wilderness, protecting wetlands and wildlife, and creating parks and open space in local communities.

Unfortunately, this bill breaks that promise. Funding for conservation efforts in this bill is 50 percent below what we agreed upon in 2000. In fact, there is no money provided to acquire and set aside new lands and open space. This is extremely short-sighted considering our growing problems with urban sprawl and Americans' desire to preserve natural areas. Indeed it is downright cynical when you consider Republican efforts to open up natural lands for drilling and other harmful development.

Most tragic of all, this bill ignores the jewels that Americans treasure most: our national parks. For years, the National Park System has been overburdened by a maintenance backlog of decaying infrastructure, trails, and roads. Our parks have been forced to get by with insufficient resources for their operations. As more and more Americans flock to our national parks each year, this will mean diminished public access and less opportunity for recreation at our parks.

This bill's paltry funding does little if nothing to help our parks or stop their decline. California is home to some of the most popular national parks, like Yosemite, Sequoia and the Redwoods. We should be increasing our funding of these national treasures. Yet under this bill, funding will go down. The same is true for the Grand Canyon and close to 250 parks throughout the country.

This is a real shame. Americans love their National Parks and consistently and repeatedly ask their leaders to fully care for these treasures. We owe it to our children and future generations to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this insufficient and irresponsible bill. The environment--and the American people--deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Energy Policy Act, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act, and the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act.

Billions of dollars in last-minute industry giveaways couldn't save the energy bill when we voted on it for the second time last November, so I guess the Republican Leadership is hoping that the third time is a charm. This is what now passes for legislating: declare ``energy week,'' bring up the exact same bill with a different number, and add a couple others that by all accounts have no effect on the problems they purport to solve.

We all agree that gas prices are too high and that we need to bring stability to the energy market; but, not surprisingly, the Energy Information Administration found that giving billions of taxpayer dollars to oil companies won't have any effect on what consumers pay.

It gets worse. Because the subsidies couldn't pass on their own merits, the Republican Leadership threw in an MTBE waiver and ethanol mandate to buy votes. Under this legislation, our municipalities would be stuck with a $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination, and drivers in California could pay up to 9.6 cents more per gallon for ethanol that neither saves energy nor reduces smog.

What passes for investment in renewable energy in this bill is the repeal of the excise tax on diesel fuel for railroads and inland waterway barges and a tax credit for nuclear power production. I'd call that conserving corporate profits, not energy.

The Energy Policy Act is one of the worst examples of cynical, industry-driven legislating I have seen in Congress. Yet just when we thought every bad idea had been rolled into one big bill, industry has two more: waive environmental protections in disadvantaged communities for refinery construction and change government oversight of renewable energy projects from best alternatives to a no options, yes-or-no on what industry wants to build.

If you kicked out the industry lobbyists and asked economists and energy experts what would lower gas prices, they'd tell you to make a significant investment in renewable energy research, reduce the number of fuel blends in the country, and raise the fuel efficiency standards of cars and SUVs. If we made the SUV standard the same as it is for cars, we'd save one million barrels of oil per day and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by ten percent. None of these bills contains these simple, effective changes.

On behalf of my constituents in California, who pay among the highest gas prices in the country; on behalf of our environment, on behalf of our energy security, and on behalf of the old-fashioned notion that science and reason should have something to do with our national policies, I vote no on these industry giveaways.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor U.S. Army Lieutenant Ken Ballard who was tragically killed on Sunday, May 30th in Najaf, Iraq. Lt. Ballard served as a platoon leader in the U.S. Army's 2nd Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division.

Lt. Ballard grew up in the Bay Area of California. After graduating from Mountain View High School in 1995, he joined the Army where he served in Germany, Bosnia, and Macedonia. He won an ROTC scholarship to Middle Tennessee State University and earned a bachelors degree in international relations prior to his deployment to Iraq.

Lt. Ken Ballard comes from a proud tradition of military service. He is the fourth generation on both sides of his family to serve our country in uniform going back to World War I. Lt. Ballard served courageously and with honor through unimaginable circumstances, acting bravely to protect the lives of those with whom he served.

Ken Ballard gave his life at the age of 26 with a bright and promising future ahead of him. It is with both sorrow and pride that we remember Lt. Ballard. As many in his hometown of Mountain View and across the Bay Area gather to mourn his loss, we honor Lt. Ballard's leadership, selfless sacrifice, and courageous service to our nation. Lt. Ballard was an outstanding American and a great Californian.

Our thoughts and condolences go out to his mother Karen Meredith and father Tom Ballard and all his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw my colleagues' attention to a new report by Common Cause, ``Democracy on Drugs, The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill: A Study on How Government Shouldn't Work.'' This report does a very good job of highlighting the egregious methods used to gain passage of the Medicare prescription drug legislation. I encourage each of you to review this report to remind yourselves how democracy was trampled in the passage of the Medicare prescription drug law.

The Medicare/Prescription Drug Bill: A Study in How Government

Shouldn't Work

Democracy on Drugs

(A report by Common Cause)

Introduction

Our Constitution reflects the over-arching concern of the

Founding Fathers that the rights of the minority be jealously

preserved and protected, even in the presence of a strong

majority. From start to finish, the $535 billion Medicare

bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush late

last year has been a study in shutting out opposing voices

and suppressing the flow of vital information.

This Common Cause report chronicles a series of incidents,

large and small, that add up to a consistent effort by the

Administration and Congressional leadership to bypass or

undermine the rules and laws that are in place to ensure that

our government works in an open and accountable manner and

that all voices are heard on critical public policy issues.

The Medicare bill (see appendix) is the product of a

process that included:

Charges of bribery, delayed votes, inappropriate cabinet

member lobbying and censoring of C-SPAN cameras.

The Administration misleading Congress by withholding its

own cost estimates for the prescription drug legislation--

estimates that greatly exceeded what the President was

telling the public. A career civil servant being threatened

with his job if he told Congress the truth.

Congressional Members excluded from the House-Senate

conference committee that finalized the bill. Only a

``coalition of the willing'' was invited to participate.

A principal author of the bill was forced to step down as

head of a powerful House committee after it was reported that

he was negotiating a $2 million a year lobbying job with the

drug industry while he was moving the proposal through his

committee. And a key Administration official involved in

pushing the legislation was also offered lucrative private

sector healthcare jobs.

The drug industry showered Congress with campaign

contributions and spent millions of dollars on highly paid

lobbyists who swarmed Capitol Hill while the bill was being

considered.

A propaganda campaign waged by the Department of Health and

Human Services. The Administration paid people to pose as

journalists in television segments that praised the benefits

of the new Medicare law, and spent tens of millions of

dollars on a campaign promoting the new program.

Charges of Bribery on the House Floor

At the break of dawn on Nov. 22, 2003, Representative Nick

Smith (R-MI) was about to cast his vote against a Medicare/

prescription drug bill so flawed and controversial that the

Republican House leadership held the vote open for three

hours while they pressured their own Republican colleagues to

vote for the bill. Votes in the House typically are open

for 15 minutes.

Strong-arming Members of the House to vote with the

leadership is routine business, but what went on in those

early morning hours appears to have slid over the line from

political pressure to outright bribery.

A Nov. 23, 2003 column written by Rep. Smith appearing on

his website reads: ``I was targeted by lobbyists and the

congressional leadership to change my vote, being a fiscal

conservative and being on record as a no vote. Secretary of

Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson and Speaker of the

House Dennis Hastert talked to me for a long time about the

bill and about why I should vote yes. Other members and

groups made

offers of extensive financial campaign support and

endorsements for my son Brad who is running for my seat. They

also made threats of working against Brad if I voted no.''

On Dec. 1, 2003, in a radio interview with Kevin

Vandenbroek of WKZO in Kalamazoo, Mich., Rep. Smith said:

``They started out by offering the carrot, and they know

what's important to every member, and what's important to me

is my family and my kids. And I've term-limited myself, and

so Bradley my son is running for [my congressional seat] and

so the first offer was to give him $100,000-plus for his

campaign and endorsement by national leadership. And I said

No, I'm gonna stick to my guns on what I think is right for

the constituents in my district.''

Since Rep. Smith went public with his allegations, he has

made several attempts to modify his original statement.

Speaking to David Frownfelder of the Daily Telegram in

Adrian, Mich. Rep. Smith said: ``I was told there would be

aggressive, substantial support for my son, Brad [in his race

for Congress] if I could vote yes on the bill. There were

offers of endorsements and so maybe a member [of Congress]

sitting close by said, `Boy that really could be big money.'

Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. But never was I

offered any exact amount of money in exchange for my vote.

Technically, in the legal description that I later reviewed

on what a bribe is, probably it didn't meet the legal

description of a bribe.''

Censoring C-SPAN

C-SPAN cameras perched above the House floor have for 25

years allowed the public to see for themselves how their

representatives are carrying on the public's business. But

the night of the vote on the prescription drug bill, the

House leadership censored the public's view of the chamber.

In an interview on the 25th anniversary of C-SPAN's

television coverage of Congress, the head of C-SPAN, Brian

Lamb, noted that the congressional leadership has always

controlled the cameras in the House and Senate chambers,

generally focused on whoever is speaking, but also panning

across the chamber to show activity on the floor. Lamb

pointed out how the leadership's control of the cameras can

subvert C-SPAN's studiously nonpartisan, objective coverage

of Congress. Lamb said: ``You saw what happened in the middle

of the night over the vote on Medicare on the floor of the

House of Representatives, when they controlled the cameras.

And I noticed that the camera wasn't moving from--it usually

moves constantly from side to side. For almost the entire two

or three hours that they had it open, the camera was showing

the Democratic side. And that's where people don't get a fair

shot.''

In other words, the Republican leadership of the House

intentionally diverted the C-SPAN cameras away from the

Republican side of the House floor. Consequently, there is no

visual record of who was talking to who that night while

votes were sought by the leadership.

HHS Secretary on the House Floor

Rep. Smith said he was pressured during the three-hour vote

by his own House leadership, but also, to his surprise, by

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary

Tommy Thompson, who made an unusual appearance on the House

floor that night.

While House rules allow federal department heads to be in

the House chamber, it is rare for such an official to be

lobbying for legislation being considered by the House.

According to National Journal's CongressDaily, Secretary

Thompson defended the fact that he had broken House customs

by lobbying members on the House floor during the final,

three-hour roll call vote on the Medicare reform bill. ``I

spent five months working on this bill. I think it was only

proper my being on the floor,'' Thompson said. But it appears

Thompson's activities that night were a sharp departure from

House customs.

Misleading Congress and Withholding Pivotal Information

In 1997, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) added language to the

Balanced Budget Act conference report citing the importance

of access by Congress to the estimates of HHS chief actuary

(then, as now, Richard Foster). Some of that language in the

conference report reads as follows: ``It is important to

emphasize that the Senate Committee on Finance, the House

Committee on Ways and Means, and the House Committee on

Commerce all rely on their ability to seek estimates and

other technical assistance from the Chief Actuary, especially

when developing new legislation. . . . The process of

monitoring, updating and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid

programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial

information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees

of jurisdiction in the Congress. When information is delayed

or circumscribed by the operation of an internal

Administration clearance process or the inadequacy of

actuarial resources, the Committees' ability to make informed

decisions based on the best available information is

compromised.''

Flying in the face of this statement, Foster, who has been

the chief auditor in HHS for several years, said that he was

threatened with dismissal if he released his official

estimate of the cost of the prescription drug bill. His

estimate added $156.5 billion to the estimated cost and

likely would have led to several conservative Republicans

voting against the bill.

In a public statement, Foster said: ``For many years my

office has provided technical assistance to the

administration and Congress on a nonpartisan basis. But in

June 2003, the Medicare administrator, Tom Scully, decided to

restrict the practice of our responding directly to

Congressional requests and ordered us to provide responses to

him so he could decide what to do with them. There was a

pattern of withholding information for what I perceived to be

political purposes, which I thought was inappropriate.''

Foster has said that he gave analyses in June 2003 to the

White House and the Office of Management and Budget--which

were not shared with Congress--predicting that prescription

drug benefits being drafted on Capitol Hill would cost about

$156 billion more than President Bush said he wanted to

spend. Since Congress passed the Medicare bill, the

Administration has revised its estimated 10-year cost of the

program to $534 billion. Its original estimate was $395

billion.

Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs,

says that he was warned repeatedly by his former boss, Thomas

A. Scully, the Medicare administrator for three years, that

he would be dismissed if he replied directly to legislative

requests for information about prescription drug bills

pending in Congress. In an email released by Foster, Scully's

assistant, Jeffrey Flick, instructed the actuary to answer

Republican queries regarding provisions in the Medicare bill

but was warned--in bold font--not to provide information for

Democratic requests ``with anyone else until Tom Scully

explicitly talks with you--authorizing release of

information. The consequences for insubordination are

extremely severe,'' Flick wrote in bold type. Interviews

with federal officials, including Foster and Scully, make

clear that the actuary's numbers were circulating within

the Administration, and possibly among some Republican

supporters of the bill on Capitol Hill, throughout the

second half of last year, as Congress voted on the

prescription drug bill, first in June and again in

November.

At a hearing on Feb. 10, Secretary Thompson told lawmakers

as much. Thompson said, ``we knew all along'' that the

administration's cost estimates would be higher, but said he

did not have a final figure until Dec. 24, 2003, after the

bill was already signed into law.

On April 26, the Congressional Research Service issued a

letter on the legality of Scully's decision to withhold

information from Congress. Its conclusions read in part as

follows: ``. . . actions which purposefully result in the

transmission of knowingly false information to the United

States Congress, and actions that involve the intentional and

active prevention of the communication of accurate

information to Congress in derogation of Federal law or

responsibilities, might in certain circumstances involve

activities which constitute violations of federal criminal

provisions . . . The issuance by an officer or employee in a

department or agency of the Federal Government of a `gag

order' on subordinate employees, to expressly prevent and

prohibit those employees from communicating directly with

Members or committees of Congress, would appear to violate a

specific and express prohibition of federal law.''

Conference Committee Lockout

When the House and Senate each passed their own version of

the Medicare bill, the Republican leadership at first

followed routine procedure by appointing a 17-member

conference committee to work out the differences between the

two pieces of legislation. Seven Democrats were appointed to

the committee. However, only two of those Democrats, Senators

Max Baucus (MT) and John Breaux (LA), were included in the

closed-door meetings that had actually produced the final

legislation. Why? Because they were among the few Democrats

who would not raise significant objections to the bill.

According to conference members from both parties, when the

bill was made available to the rest of the committee, they

were given just one hour to review the 678-page document

before they voted.

The ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, Rep.

Charles Rangel (NY), was among the members of the original

conference committee. However, he was excluded from the

closed-door meetings. He arrived uninvited to one meeting,

and Rep. Thomas, the conference chairman, stopped substantive

discussion of the legislation until Rep. Rangel left.

Democrats and others have complained the tactics like those

employed during the conference on the Medicare bill are

becoming more common. Similar lockouts were staged during

crucial conference committee meetings on huge energy and

transportation bills. More and more the role of the full

conference committee is perfunctory while the details of the

legislation are hammered out in closed meetings that include

only a small coterie handpicked by the party leadership.

Scully Cashes In

In December 2003, as the ink of the President's signature

was drying on the Medicare bill, Thomas A. Scully, the

government official responsible for Medicare, announced that

he was leaving the government for lucrative healthcare jobs

in the private sector. He joined Alston & Bird, a law firm

that represents hospitals, drug manufacturers and other

companies in the health care industry.

Scully also accepted a job with Welsh, Carson, Anderson &

Stowe, a New York investment firm specializing in

telecommunications and health care.

Surprisingly, even though federal law generally bars

presidential appointees such as Scully from discussing

possible employment with firms involved in matters handled by

those officials, Scully obtained a waiver from the HHS ethics

officer so that he could negotiate with potential

employers while he helped write the Medicare law. These

jobs did not just drop into his lap in December. He had

apparently been negotiating with healthcare-related firms

at the same time he was helping the Administration push

the controversial prescription drug legislation through

Congress, which directly affected those industries.

Apparently in response to criticism of Scully's waiver, the

White House ordered federal agencies to cease issuing ethics

waivers for senior Administration appointees that would allow

them to pursue jobs with private companies while influencing

federal policies that could affect those companies. A memo

issued on Jan. 6, 2004 by the White House Chief of Staff

stated that, effective immediately, such waivers could only

be approved by the White House.

Tauzin Negotiates PhRMA Job While Negotiating Prescription

Drug Bill

As Medicare chief Scully was job searching while also

helping pass the drug legislation, a powerful Member of

Congress was also looking for a new job.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association

(PhRMA), the trade group for name-brand drug producers,

reportedly offered Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) the top

position at PhRMA and a compensation package that ``would be

the biggest deal given to anyone at a trade association,''

around $2 million a year, according to The Washington Post.

The offer came just two months after Rep. Tauzin helped

negotiate a $534 billion Medicare prescription drug bill

widely viewed as a boon to pharmaceutical companies, which

stand to make billions in profits while avoiding government

price restrictions.

In February 2004, Common Cause called on Tauzin to resign

his chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce

Committee, saying ``Even if your job negotiations with PhRMA

began after your work on the Medicare bill was over, as you

have reportedly said, it leaves one wondering whether you

were trying to please PhRMA and what PhRMA may have promised

you in return.''

Tauzin denied there were any dealings with industry in

exchange for his work on the bill, but he stepped down from

the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

in early February, while negotiations over the PhRMA lobbying

post continued. The job remains open and Tauzin may still be

eligible if it remains open at the end of his term.

Drug Industry Money Undermined the Process

As the Congressional fight on prescription drugs loomed,

the drug industry drew up plans for raising millions of

dollars to defeat efforts to reduce drug prices. The

financial stakes were huge and the industry began to spend

enormous amounts of money on campaign spending, lobbying, and

advertising to influence the outcome of the legislation.

No group epitomized this more than PhRMA. PhRMA not only

had a tremendous stake in the bill, but also turned out to be

a major winner. The law prohibits the federal government from

negotiating for lower drug prices and prohibits the

reimportation of prescription drugs that are produced in the

U.S. but sold for significantly less in other countries,

which would also bring down the price of drugs.

PhRMA increased its yearly budget 23 percent to $150

million in anticipation of the upcoming Medicare fight. While

PhRMA's interests range from international policy to local

initiatives, industry protection in the Medicare reform bill

was its top priority. According to published reports, PhRMA

planned to spend $1 million for an ``intellectual echo

chamber of economists--a standing network of economists and

thought leaders to speak against federal price control

regulations through articles and testimony, and to serve as a

rapid response team.'' Says one PhRMA document, ``Unless we

achieve enactment this year of market-based Medicare drug

coverage for seniors, the industry's vulnerability will

increase in the remainder of 2003 and in the 2004 election

year.''

PhRMA is well known as one of Washington's most powerful

lobbying forces. The trade group alone spent $16 million on

lobbying in 2003, according to federal lobby disclosure

reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Including lobbying spent by all of PhRMA's companies, the

group spent at least $72.6 million lobbying in 2003--or

roughly $135,701 per member of Congress.

PhRMA has capitalized on hiring former Members of Congress

and their staffs as part of its lobbying army. According to

reports, PhRMA lobbyists include former Reps. Vic Fazio (D-

CA), Vin Weber (D-MN) and Bill Paxon (D-NY). Other drug

industry lobbyists include David W. Beier, former domestic

policy advisor for Vice President Al Gore; Dave Larson,

former health policy advisor to Senator Bill Frist (R-TN);

and Edwin A Buckham, former chief of staff to Rep. Tom DeLay.

The industry maintains a constant presence among

policymakers. For example, in the weeks following the House

and Senate's passage of their respective Medicare bills in

June, pharmaceutical companies organized parties for

congressional staffers that worked on the legislation.

According to The Washington Post, the drug company Johnson &

Johnson planned a cocktail party near the Capitol. The

invitations read, ``in recognition of your part in the

historic passage of Medicare drug bills by both houses of

Congress . . .'' After Common Cause sent letters to Senate

conferees and House leaders stating that attendance by staff

members to the party could violate congressional ethics

rules, the leadership discouraged their staff from going and

the party was later cancelled. Congressional staff still had

the opportunity, however, to attend a ``Rooftop Rendezvous''

thrown by PhRMA and hospital trade groups.

HHS Propaganda Campaign

Once legislation passes Congress and is signed into law by

the President, it is the job of the executive branch to

implement the new law, including informing the public of the

effect or the benefits of the new law. HHS, charged with

implementing the new prescription drug law, immediately

launched a multi-million dollar campaign promoting the new

prescription drug benefit under the guise of public service

advertising.

Early this year, HHS created a TV ad designed to educate

the public on the new drug benefits, but many criticized the

ads as being political advertisements for the Administration

that mislead the public about the facts of the new program.

Adding to the concern about politicization of the

prescription drug program was a contract for $9.5 million for

producing and distributing the ads that went to a partisan

media company, National Media, Inc.

HHS has also produced videos that were sent to broadcasters

around the country touting the new program. The videos

feature hired ``reporters'' who appear to be delivering

straight news stories, but do not identify the government as

the producer. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who

says, ``In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting.'' The

``reporter'' in the commercial is reading from a script

written by HHS.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) is now investigating

these `fake video news' clips. The GAO will determine if they

constitute illegal ``covert propaganda.'' Federal law

prohibits the use of federal money for ``publicity or

propaganda purposes'' not authorized by Congress.

Conclusion

Posted on Congressional websites is a document called ``How

Our Laws Are Made.'' [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ lawsmade.toc.html]. No one really believes the process

meticulously detailed in the document is followed exactly--

legislating is a messy process. But the laws, rules and

procedures cited in the document are there to ensure that

democratic principles are not empty words in the

Constitution, but inform the way our government operates on a

daily basis.

This report has told a tale of the rush to pass a thinly

supported prescription drug bill that was a prime political

goal of the Administration. In that rush, supporters showed

disregard for the law, congressional rules, and other

procedures and customs. We must reform and strengthen some of

those laws and rules and, perhaps more importantly, those

public officials must be held accountable. Americans must be

assured that democracy is not just another word, but an

integral part of how our government operates.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 444, the so-called the ``Back to Work Incentive Act.''

This bill is based on flawed assumptions and is an insult to the 1.8 million Americans--22 percent of the total unemployed--who have been out of work for more than 6 months. The Republicans believe that all long term unemployed Americans simply aren't looking for jobs because they are living comfortably on an average weekly unemployment benefit of $256--or about 37 percent of their former wages. That's ridiculous!

H.R. 444 takes $50 million of valuable funding from effective programs within the Workforce Investment Act to fund ineffective Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs). The purpose of these accounts is to provide an incentive payment of up to $3,000 to unemployed workers to encourage them to find employment faster. It does this despite all of the research, which shows that PRAs don't work. You would think living off $256 a week would be enough incentive to find work. However, these out-of-touch Republicans believe that $256 a week allows households to pay for their mortgages, groceries, utility bills and college educations for their children.

If President Bush and House Republicans are so fond of linking bonuses to job performance, then we should offer the President a bonus if he actually creates jobs. Since President Bush came to office, 2 million American jobs have been lost. The problem with this economy isn't lazy unemployed workers, it's ineffective economic policy management.

Even more puzzling about this legislation is that the provisions of this bill do not make sense. Supporters argue that PRAs help workers get jobs because the money provided can be used for job training and other services such as child care and career counseling. However, if a worker were to get the maximum PRA of $3,000 it would not be enough to pay for job training alone, which costs on average $5,000-6,000. That doesn't take into account all the other costs unemployed workers confront.

Instead of wasting the American people's money on unproven programs, this Congress should extend unemployment benefits to the over 1.5 million workers who have exhausted their benefits and expand the funding for the free job training already provided under the Workforce Investment Act. These programs provide needy families with immediate economic relief and the necessary skills to find new jobs.

It is time that President Bush and the Republican Congress stop blaming unemployed workers for the lack of jobs in this country. Instead, the Republicans should show some leadership and take responsibility for their poor economic management.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 444 and ask the Republican leadership to consider legislation to actually help unemployed workers and create jobs in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding piece of journalism that appeared in The Mercury News in San Jose, California. The article, ``Discount Card Doubt'' presents the realistic confusion Medicare beneficiaries face in choosing a discount card. As the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and individual card sponsors bombard beneficiaries with glossy marketing materials, I am proud to know that my constituents are receiving a fair and balanced account of the drug card debacle. I would like to thank Barbar Feder Ostrov for her exceptional reporting, and for informing the people of my district about the benefits and dangers of the Medicare approved drug discount card program.

It is with pleasure that I submit the attached article, ``Discount Card Doubt,'' for inclusion in the Congressional Record. The article originally appeared in the May 26, 2004 edition of The Mercury News.

Discount Card Doubt

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this defense authorization bill. We are voting today on another bloated Pentagon budget full of wasteful and irresponsible spending. It seeks billions more for Iraq without mention of an exit strategy. It does not go far enough to help our troops who continue to fight in harms way.

This bill continues to waste billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. It authorizes $10.2 billion on pie in the sky missile defense, a $1 billion increase over last year. Yet, this unproven cold war concept does not address the very real security threat posed by weapons of significant magnitude that are readily delivered in a suitcase or cargo container.

This bill also throws money at building up nuclear weapon capabilities for use in conventional warfare. It authorizes $28 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or ``nuclear bunker buster bomb'' and $9 million for research on so-called low-yield nuclear weapons to be deployed in combat. The bill also provides nearly $30 million to replace plutonium pits in existing nuclear warheads without evidence that such upgrades are necessary.

This rush to nuclear weapons development won't deter terrorists or rogue nations like North Korea. It challenges them to answer in kind, especially as the Bush administration pursues its belligerent policy of preemption. It also undermines cooperative efforts to stop the proliferation of destructive weapons that keep them out of the hands of those who would do us harm.

There is no question that this money is better spent securing uranium stockpiles, assisting cooperative threat reduction and advancing nonproliferation programs. But Republicans seem content to take that gamble with our national security and the cooperative security of the world.

This bill also authorizes the President's request for $25 billion for Iraq. Make no mistake, our troops in Iraq deserve all the support we can provide to keep them safe. But, as their deployments are extended and hostilities increase, our troops also deserve to know our exit strategy. Even after the June 30 transfer of power, 135,000 troops will remain on the ground, in the words of General Myers, ``for the foreseeable future.''

There's no question that America can't cut and run, but the American people ought to know what lies ahead and at what cost. We've spent $166 billion thus far in Iraq without any clear strategy. Earlier this year, the administration said they didn't need any money. The President didn't account for anything in his budget. Now, they say they only need $25 billion.

But, if you tally up what will be required for over the coming year, this just isn't enough. When you consider the over $4 billion we spend each month and the cost of replenishing needed equipment, the price tag is closer to $66 billion. I'm not sure how any American can be confident that we're really being told what is required. Yet, it is clear that we can no longer shoulder this effort alone and must move to share the responsibility with our major allies.

Even as Republicans move forward to authorize this $25 billion for Iraq, they refuse to accept quality of life and force protection initiatives to help our troops. They refused to allow an amendment providing targeted pay raises to retain our forces. They shot down funding to test countermeasures to improvised explosive devices that continue to take the lives and limbs of our troops in Iraq. And they dismissed a proposal to provide free life insurance for soldiers serving in harms way.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this wasteful and irresponsible bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, an accounting for what is truly required in Iraq, and the best possible support we can provide our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4359, the ``Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004.'' Once again the Republicans are giving a new and unnecessary tax break to wealthier Americans at the expense of the hard working middle class. For this reason I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican proposal and support the Democratic substitute, which provides real relief for middle-class families and ensures working families benefit for years to come.

Making the child tax credit expansion permanent is one of the best things we can do to provide tax relief for working families. However, the Republicans have made a mockery of this expansion by giving the full credit to families that make $250,000 a year. Members of Congress don't need this tax credit, but under the Republican proposal, many members would qualify for thousands of dollars in new tax credits they do not receive under current law.

No big surprise, the Republicans also don't want to pay for this new tax cut for households making over $110,000 per year. Just yesterday they passed a budget that specifically exempts this and other tax cuts from a requirement that they be paid for. Even Republican Senator John McCain said this week

it was fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes given the current status of our domestic and international obligations.

The Democratic substitute is a real solution for working families. Our tax credit expansion is indexed so that the value of the credit keeps pace with inflation and doesn't lose value over time (something the Republican bill ignores). We ensure lower-income families get the benefit of actual money in their pockets by increasing the refundable portion of the credit and lowering the income threshold. Our substitute also refuses to make this credit available to families making over $110,000 per year who don't need it. Finally, we pay for our proposal by asking households making over $1,000,000 to pay a little more.

The Republican bill proposed today gives $70 billion in tax cuts to families in the top 10 percent of income, but does nothing to ensure real low and middle class families get the permanent relief they deserve. The Republican agenda is clear, more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the majority of hard working American families. My agenda is also clear, I will continue to oppose these unfair, fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of the fat cats while taking it away from those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 793 Americans who have given their lives and the 4,524 who've been wounded courageously serving their country in Iraq. It is fitting that we should share in a moment of silence on the floor of this House to honor their memory and sacrifice.

It is with particular sadness that I pay tribute to a Marine from my district whose service will not be forgotten. On Tuesday, April 6, 2004, Lance Cpl. Travis J. Layfield, a 19-year-old from Fremont, California, was killed during a firefight in the Anbar Province of Western Iraq. Travis served courageously through unimaginable circumstances. He is a credit to the US Marine Corps to which he was deeply dedicated.

A 2003 graduate of Washington High School, Travis is a hero for his service with the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp Pendleton. Travis entered ROTC while in junior high school, committed to a career in the Marine Corps. Last year, he completed 12 weeks of basic training at the Marine Corps recruit depot in San Diego. He left for the Middle East in February 2003, first heading to Kuwait and later Iraq.

There has been tremendous outpouring of love and respect for Travis from his classmates and friends at his high school as well as from the entire Fremont community. We have joined together to mourn the loss of this proud young Marine. We shall long remember Lance Cpl. Travis J. Layfield. He gave his life for peace and democracy and died, as a noble Marine, serving our country.

Travis is but one example of the thousands of young Americans who answered the call of service and paid the ultimate price in Iraq. As a nation we mourn his passing and offer our solemn gratitude to him and to all those who have given life or limb for their selfless service and sacrifice to our country. Our thoughts are with Travis' family and the families of all those who have served and continue to serve courageously in our armed forces in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kate A. Scannell, MD for bringing to light many of the shortcomings of the Medicare drug discount card program. Dr. Scannell is not only a respected geriatrician in the Bay Area, she is also a noted medical ethicist and author. With years of experience delivering services to Medicare beneficiaries, there is no one more qualified to pass judgment on the Medicare drug card program than Dr. Scannell. I appreciate her honesty, and willingness to stand up and inform people in my district about the confusing and wasteful drug card policy.

It is with pleasure that I submit the attached article, ``Deliriously Dumbfounding Drug Discount Cards,'' for inclusion in the Congressional Record. The article originally appeared in the May 16, 2004 edition of The Argus (Fremont, CA).

Deliriously Dumbfounding Drug Discount Cards

(By Kate Scannell)

Medicare officials call it the ``drug discount card''--a

code phrase referring to a small piece of paper that has the

capacity to blow up your mind and destroy your sanity. These

``drug discount cards'' or ``DDCs''--also known as

``deliriously dumbfounding cards''--are supposed to offer

pharmaceutical discounts between 10 to 25 percent to Medicare

enrollees who have no prescription drug coverage. However:

The DDCs were launched last week when the federal

government initiated its new ``discount drug program'' or

``DDP''--otherwise known as ``Doing a Darn Pittance'' about

outlandishly high drug costs. While the official stated

mission of the DDP is to make drugs more affordable for

elderly and disabled Medicare recipients, in practice the

system is cumbersome, confusing and inefficient.

The new program also smells like a political ploy during an

election year. By giving Medicare enrollees a card to make it

appear as though they had some control over out-of-control

drug costs, the DDP functions to distract everyone from the

root causes of excessively high drug prices: profit-driven

pharmaceutical companies that wildly over-charge for

medications, and a federal government that can't (or won't)

help to control drug prices.

Here's how the new card system and drug program operate.

The DDP requires that elderly or disabled Medicare enrollees

first try to obtain ``the card.'' Here we encounter our first

daunting hurdle, in that there exists not one but many cards

from which to choose. Medicare enrollees must select a single

card from among at least 40 companies and organizations that

have been approved by the Department of Health and Human

Services to distribute them.

Fortunately, all our elderly and disabled Medicare patients

are tech-savvy, and they own personal computers equipped with

Internet services which they can navigate freely for the

necessary comparison shopping.

Those Medicare patients will also want to print out Excel

spreadsheets to help them sort out the fine details, because

each card provides different savings on different

medications. And it would be wise to keep a copy of the

spreadsheet in a readily accessible location, because the

companies can change the prices of those drugs at any time.

I have heard nothing but disappointment, confusion,

frustration and anxiety voiced by Medicare enrollees who are

trying to make sense of the president's drug card program.

Its inhospitable and labyrinthine structure defies the will

and the capacity of people to negotiate it.

To make matters worse, the new Medicare Web site

(www.medicare.gov) unveiled last month by the Bush

administration contains substantial inaccuracies and errors.

Proposing to offer helpful information about the DDP and drug

price comparisons, the site was found to be riddled with

erroneous information and incorrect prices. For example, a

spokeswoman for Walgreen's reported that about half their

drug prices were listed inaccurately. To rub more salt into

the wound, the prices of drugs from Canada tended to run

below those offered by the Medicare discount cards.

Finally, millions of Medicare patients will spend many

precious hours trying to choose the best card and to decipher

the DDP when the stunning fact remains that the entire

program is scheduled to end in January 2006. At that point,

we will be under the thumb of the disastrous Medicare Drug

Bill--the subject of my first installment of ``Weapons of

Medicare Destruction.'' In that piece, I wrote about the

sweetheart deals our government made with the politically

powerful pharmaceutical companies. Most notable and mind-

boggling was our government's forfeiting its right to bargain

with drug companies for price reductions on the drugs it

offered through the Medicare program.

Further illustrating the unhealthy collusion between our

government and the pharmaceutical industry, last week the New

York Times reported that employees at companies that the Bush

administration certified to distribute the drug discount

cards already contributed almost $1.8 million to Republican

candidates in this year's election. This included a $275,000

contribution to Bush's reelection campaign.

The drug discount card system exacts a phenomenal waste of

effort and time and money that would have been better spent

in a more cost-efficient manner by creating direct subsidies

to Medicare recipients--like automatic rebate cards.

Still, we must be wary of any surface deceit offering

``discounts'' because it only masks the real problem:

unregulated pharmaceutical costs that are driving our seniors

into poverty or to Canada.

The fact is that ``discounts'' are easily ``discounted'' by

the drug companies.

They can bump up the price of any drug and wipe out the

effect of any apparent discount.

I urge everyone to become ``Armchair Activists'' and to

contact their legislators by phone or e-mail to voice concern

about prescription drug costs and our government's conflicted

relationship with the drug industry. This is not a time to be

``discounted.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to S. Con. Res. 95, the ``Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005.'' In these times of economic uncertainty it is unthinkable to pass a budget that will leave this country over $8 trillion in debt at year's end.

I have often quoted my friend, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, when talking about the Federal budget. He explains the budget as a Memo to God, outlining our highest priorities as a Nation. In tune with the Republicans' faith-based initiative, I give you this year's memo to God, and ask everyone to think if this is the message we really want to send to God and the American people.

To: God.

From: Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration.

Re: FY 2005 Budget Priorities.

Date: May 19, 2004

God, it has been a really tough year. We are on track to

have the worst jobs growth record since the great depression,

we have lost nearly 800 of our bravest young men and women in

Iraq, and 43.6 million Americans have no health insurance.

With this in mind, we have proposed a budget that is both

fiscally and compassionately conservative, which we have

outlined below.

We feel it is absolutely necessary to have a $690 billion

deficit in FY 2005, which will raise the national debt to

over $8 trillion dollars. We are raising the debt limit under

the Hastert rule, thereby precluding the House from ever

debating whether the coming years' budget should be allowed

to increase the Federal debt by such an alarming amount.

Every man, woman, and child will have over $26,000 in

national debt to call their very own by the end of FY 2005.

God, we know it's a sin, but we haven't been very good at

telling the truth lately; first it was weapons of mass

destructions, and now it is Medicare. Our own experts have

told us that the Medicare prescription drug bill we passed

last year will cost $534 billion dollars over 10 years.

However, we didn't tell anybody before we voted, so there is

no reason to pretend it is reality now. The budget resolution

assumes this legislation will only cost $409 billion over ten

years, meaning we have purposely underestimated the $609

billion deficit to further cover up previous mistakes.

Since we have been so dedicated to healthcare this year

with Medicare, we have no choice but to make broad cuts in

the Medicaid program. Over the next five years we promise to

cut mandatory Medicaid spending by nearly $900 million

dollars. We are aware that many low-income children and

mothers may lose access to affordable healthcare services,

but this is the price we have to pay for continuing huge tax

cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans.

Racking up an over $600 billion deficit also requires large

doses of fiscal irresponsibility. As the party of fiscal

conservatism we are dedicated to paying for our increased

spending--unless that spending is earmarked for the war on

terrorism--but not the decreased revenues caused by our tax

cuts. Pay-as-you-go rules worked to balance the budget during

the Clinton Administration, so we cannot possibly use them to

balance our budget. Yes, we did pretend to require new

spending and tax cut offsets for one year, but that has no

real effect on our agenda because we exempted three major tax

cuts that we plan to enact this year that will cost $551

billion over the next ten years.

Finally, we have further endangered Social Security and

Medicare by increasing the

debt, thereby increasing the amount that must be borrowed

each year from the trust funds. With the baby boomers

approaching retirement, we know we can't continue to pilfer

these trust funds, but we do it anyway. In the end, the only

plausible option will be to cut Social Security and Medicare

to continue paying for our unjustified wars and irresponsible

tax cuts for the upper class.

God, we know you will understand why it is necessary to

continue tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while we cut

vital services for the elderly, people with disabilities and

the poor. This memo is about our priorities, and upon close

analysis of this budget I think you will see what true

compassion and fiscal conservatism is really all about.

That is the message that House Republicans are sending to God and to the American public. It's not a message I agree with and that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this misguided priority list for our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support Representative Susan Davis' amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to repeal the complete abortion ban for women in the military. This amendment is a reasonable compromise. It would not require the U.S. Government to fund abortions at military facilities around the world. It would simply allow U.S. servicewomen, or military dependents, to use their own funds for abortion care at overseas military hospitals.

Our brave servicewomen enroll in the military to protect the civil liberties of American citizens. Unfortunately, under existing law the very liberties they are trying to protect are being taken away from them through this draconian policy.

As a result, our servicewomen must sometimes resort to illegal, unsafe procedures to get an abortion. In the military, pregnancy is often cited as an attribute that makes women less desirable as soldiers, but at the same time the military institution denies women safe and reasonable access to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses.

Servicewomen should have comprehensive reproductive healthcare regardless of where they reside. I urge my colleagues to show support for our servicewomen, and vote yes to repeal this overreaching abortion ban for women in the military.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3722, the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments Act. This draconian bill would convert our nation's hospitals from health care providers to border patrol officers.

If enacted, it would seriously endanger the health and lives of immigrants who need emergency care--and jeopardize our nation's entire public health system in the process. This bill would deny critical federal reimbursement to hospitals for the emergency care of undocumented immigrants unless the hospital determined patients' immigration status and obtained employer information for transmission to the Department of Homeland Security for purposes of beginning deportation procedures for undocumented workers.

Today, the House Republicans are proving that President George Bush's promise to reform America's immigration system is not real and is nothing more than an election year ploy to gain votes from immigrants. If President Bush were concerned about the well-being of immigrants, he would publicly denounce this bill and would have made clear to the House Republican leadership that it did not deserve to see the light of day. He's done no such thing.

This bill also clearly demonstrates the Republican Leadership's willingness to sacrifice the health needs and safety of America's immigrants to ensure their large donors--the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance industry--get their billions of dollars in subsidies from the Medicare bill. HR 3722 is on the floor today because of a commitment the House Republican leadership made to the bill's author in exchange for his vote for the Republican Medicare bill when it narrowly passed the House last November. Its yet another example of the dirty dealing it took to get their Medicare bill through Congress.

If enacted, this policy would create a chilling effect in which both documented and undocumented workers would fear coming into hospitals for critical medical services. The result would be immigrants suffering from more serious health complications and eventually leading to the unnecessary deaths of many immigrants.

This bill would also threaten the public health of this nation. Since this bill would surely drive a significant proportion of this country's population away from seeking needed medical care, it would undermine our public health system's ability to track and prevent the spread of contagious disease. Clearly, such a change would impact health care beyond the immigrant community.

Instead of limiting health care, this Congress should be finding ways to expand health care to the 44 million Americans without health insurance. This bill would take us in the exact opposite direction. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to protect our hospitals' abilities to continue to provide medical care to those who need it. To do otherwise is to endanger the health of us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4275, the reckless Republican bill permanently extending the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, and in support of

the Democratic substitute that provides real, fiscally sound relief for middle-class families who deserve it most.

Expanding and extending the 10 percent tax bracket is a great benefit to many low-income Americans. But, let's not forget that this bill also benefits the wealthy who get more of their income taxed at a lower rate as well.

Low- and middle-income Americans deserve this tax break. But, the Republicans are unwilling to pay for it, leaving a $200 billion hole in lost revenue. Even worse, when this proposal is added to the other tax bills that have recently passed or are being proposed, the price tag is over $500 billion in new debt thrown on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The Republican plan is also flatly unfair to a lot of taxpayers because it refuses to spread benefits out equally. Just last week, the Republicans passed a one-year patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that helps the wealthy but fails to protect lower-income families while driving the country further into debt. Unfortunately, the Republicans' bill today does not apply to anyone who pays the AMT, which means a full one-third of all taxpayers cannot benefit from this tax cut at all. Some deal if you ask me.

In contrast, the Democratic substitute is fair, fiscally responsible and a whole lot better for most American families. Our bill extends the 10 percent bracket expansion, but it does so while requiring that Congress find a responsible way to pay for this change to the tax code in order to make it permanent. To finance the immediate costs of this change, the substitute requires the wealthiest Americans--those earning over $1,000,000 annually--to give back a small portion of the huge Bush tax cuts. Finally, the substitute applies this tax cut equally to all taxpayers by ensuring even those paying the AMT get the benefits of the expanded 10 percent bracket.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the unfair, fiscally irresponsible Republican proposal and support the Democratic substitute, which provides equal relief for all taxpayers without burdening our children and grandchildren with billions of dollars in new debt.