Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ROTC Campus Access Act. This bill is wrong. It isn't about promoting military recruiting, its about punishing institutions that promote equal access to opportunity.

The fact is this bill will prohibit colleges and universities from applying their same non-discrimination policies to the military that they apply to other employers. And, if they try to do so, it will bar them from receiving federal funding.

Passage of this legislation is not only wrong, it's unnecessary. Current law already provides the federal government the ability to deny federal funding to colleges and universities that refuse to allow military recruiters or ROTC programs access to their campuses.

This bill takes that law a step further by requiring that such access be equal to the access provided to other potential employers seeking to recruit new employees on college campuses.

The problem with taking this extra step is that it would require many colleges and universities to explicitly ignore their own non- discrimination policies or lose their federal funding.

Many colleges and universities require employers to sign a non- discrimination pledge before they recruit on campus. That means employers cannot discriminate against prospective employees on many bases--including sexual orientation. Yet, our Military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy is straight-forward discrimination and in direct conflict with college policies of this nature.

If this bill becomes law, and a college or university attempted to downplay the

prominence of the ROTC recruiting effort by placing them in a not-so- central location for their recruiting efforts, they could lose all federal funding. This is draconian, extreme, and wrong.

We ought to be voting today to overturn the military's don't ask don't tell policy and instituting a policy that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, this Congress is unwilling to take the right step. They're putting the wrong foot forward on this one.

I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up to oppose discrimination and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking out of order here, and I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be yielded 10 minutes of the Joint Economic Committee time for purposes of control.

Mr. Chairman, as the senior Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, I am honored to be here today to continue the tradition begun by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins.

I came here last year and accused President Bush of being a liar. A year later, I feel no reason to apologize or change my opinion. Events have proved that point.

It has been proven that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In the economic report that the President signed, he tried to spin a recovery on jobs but the fact is----

Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I will take that under consideration.

This is the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs during his Presidency. In the same report, the President tried to reinvent history of our current recession and blame it on the Clinton administration; but the National Bureau of Economic Research, the only body that can date a recession, continues to say it began March 2001, under the watch of George W. Bush.

More recently, there was subterfuge to hide an analysis done by the administration experts on the cost of their Medicare prescription drug bill, which narrowly passed the House, with assurance that it would cost no more than $400 billion. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and others assured us that, in fact, it would cost perhaps less than $400 billion, when the administration knew that the costs would be higher than their own analysis says, $535 billion.

They could not have passed the bill if their own Members had known about this price tag. So what did they do? The administration suppressed the information and told the actuary who had done the work if he released that data he would be fired so fast his head would spin.

This is not an administration that can be trusted. They lie, they bury facts, they threaten people to make sure that their side of the story is presented, and it is reason enough alone to vote ``no'' on this budget presented to us today.

The Republicans are playing games with numbers. The Americans deserve to have an honest budget, and I do not think that the Republican budget lives up to that standard. It has got an eternity time frame for Social Security and Medicare; but if they used the same time frame for their own budget, we would see deficits beyond our discovery of life on Mars. Regardless of how we measure it, this budget is one more step to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

For jobs and unemployment, we have got 12.6 million people under- or unemployed and there are no unemployment insurance benefits to fulfill those that expired at the end of last year.

In health care, 1.6 million more Americans, mostly children and pregnant women, will lose their access to health care because of the $13 billion cut from Medicaid and children's health program; 500,000 children will be dropped from their child care by 2009; and in education $9.4 billion less for the No Child Left Behind Act than was promised by the Republican administration.

The Republican budget shortcomings shortchange college students by freezing the Pell grant awards, and it reduces other student aid. Any way we look at it, this budget shortchanges American families. It causes more people to join the ranks of those without health insurance. It endangers the education of our children, and it fails to honestly address the costs of the President's war with Iraq.

Like my friend, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, points out, and I agree, this is a faith-based budget. It is a memo to God. It is our Nation, the Republicans in it, telling God what our highest priorities are, and in this Republican budget, we are telling God that making the rich richer is much more important than educating our children, providing quality health care for all our citizens and helping those between jobs.

It is a sad commentary when we have to rely on distorted facts, made- up figures, I am not allowed to suggest prevarication; but when we do not have the numbers and make them up, the country should not have to rely on falsehoods.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor Nancy Davis Stark on her induction this past January to the State of California Superior Court for Contra Costa County.

Judge Davis Stark is a highly competent and capable addition to the bench having worked tirelessly for the past 2 decades as an accomplished Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County. In this position, Judge Davis Stark served as Chief of the Sexually Violent Predator Unit, was on the felony trial staff, and held several supervisory positions and assignments.

Judge Davis Stark has been a member of the California Bar since 1982, the same year she earned her Juris Doctor from the University of California's Hastings College of Law. She received her bachelor-of-arts degree from California State University at Hayward.

The daughter of Eugene and Amelia Davis, Judge Davis Stark grew up in the Bay Area having spent her childhood in Oakland and Castro Valley. For the past 14 years, she has been a resident of Alamo where she is a committed volunteer in her community, most notably as the creator and one-time manager of a children's string ensemble known as the Alamo Ensemble Players.

Perhaps most important to me, Judge Davis Stark--Nancy as I call her--is the mother of two beautiful daughters--my granddaughters-- Gretchen and Claire and devoted wife of 18 years to my son Jeff. I am grateful to have Nancy as my daughter-in-law. I am even more honored that her years of hard work and service to the public have earned her a rightful place on the Superior Court.

Mr. Speaker, I know Nancy's sound intellect, strong sense of fairness, and demonstrated commitment to the law and justice will be a welcome addition to the bench. I wish her well in this pursuit.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to submit to the Congressional Record an article that appears in the current issue of VIA Magazine, celebrating the culinary contributions of several Afghan American restaurateurs in my city of Fremont, California.

These establishments deserve praise, not only for satisfying many appetites with delectable food, but for enriching our community with their enterprise and important cultural gifts that make Fremont a better place to live.

I am honored to represent the largest Afghan American community in the nation and gladly invite my colleagues to come to California to enjoy, as the author of this article exclaims, ``some of the best Afghan food and goods this side of Kabul.'' I couldn't agree more myself.

[From VIA Magazine, Mar.-Apr. 2004]

Little Afghanistan: Discover the Flavors of Kabul in the Bay Area

(By April Thompson)

Handmade Afghan ravioli and rugs in sleepy, suburban

Fremont? The Northern California city is home to the nation's

largest Afghan American community and some of the best Afghan

food and goods this side of Kabul. Afghanistan's cuisine has

been influenced by Russia, India, China, and Persia, and its

dishes star the rich, sweet, and tart tastes of cardamom,

cilantro, rose water, and homemade yogurt.

The storefronts on Fremont Boulevard may look plain, but

inside their shelves are stocked with pomegranate juice,

sugared chickpeas, apple tobacco, and other goods imported

from Bombay, Cairo, and numerous points between.

At the Pamir Food Mart, you can buy long loaves of Afghan

naan warm from the oven. Bring a hearty appetite and sense of

adventure to Salang Pass, one of four Afghan restaurants on

the boulevard. Don't miss gabili pilau, Afghanistan's

national dish of baked brown rice with lamb and raisins;

aushak, ravioli stuffed with leeks and spices; or the burani

kadu, soft pumpkin sauteed with garlic and cardamom. Across

the street, carnivores should check out the De Afghanan Kabob

House, where every plate features skewered meat.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. We ought to be honoring those who gave their lives, their limbs and sacrificed their futures for our country. So far, 565 service members have lost their lives, more than 3,000 have been wounded--many losing limbs--and now we are seeing American civilians becoming targets.

Instead, we are here today making hollow political pronouncements that the war was right and just and that somehow our Nation and our world are more secure. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to be true. Americans are less safe and the world is more dangerous--precisely because of the Bush policy in Iraq.

On this anniversary of the war we ought to include in this resolution the names of the heroes who gave their lives. We ought to be honoring and commending these brave Americans for what they have given and sacrificed along with the troops who continue to serve valiantly. But, the Bush administration doesn't want to talk about--or expose--the 565 Americans who've been killed and the 3,254 wounded.

The omission of this remembrance demonstrates that President Bush and his Administration are good at taking credit, but terrible at accepting responsibility.

We've seen in the past few weeks the President cloaking himself in September 11th. He's put images of ground zero in his campaign ads. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't go so far as to give his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination at that very site as the entire Republican Party politicizes September 11th at their upcoming convention.

Yet, President Bush won't attend any funerals or memorial services for soldiers killed in action in Iraq.

In fact, he's prohibited access to Dover Air Force Base to the media altogether. The Department of Defense has broken a long tradition by prohibiting arrival ceremonies because the images of these casualties are an embarrassment to President Bush.

The President knows that American troops were sent to Iraq ill prepared and without enough equipment to keep them safe. Soldiers face daily threats there. They don't have sufficient body armor or armored vehicles as rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs take lives and limbs.

The President knows the troops wouldn't be there in the first place if he hadn't misled the American people. We now know--far too late-- that the intelligence community never told the President or senior administration officials that Iraq posed an imminent threat or that it had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, President Bush continually referred to Iraq as an ``urgent,'' ``mortal'' and ``immediate'' threat in making his case for war.

The President knows his mind was already made up to go to war. Today, he should know the world is not a safer place as a result, especially for our troops. I will not support a resolution that falsely makes any such claim.

While senior defense officials have told Congress that we will run out of money and need another $19 billion in September, the President's Budget does not include a single penny of this spending. He simply refuses to give the American public the plain facts.

America and our security would benefit from a new approach to foreign policy. Imagine a President who embraces global cooperation, respects international law and institutions and promotes political and economic freedom and human rights around the globe. Imagine America exercising responsible leadership that reflects our priorities and capable of partnerships that make our world safer.

This would be a fitting tribute to those who gave their lives in Iraq. We should work for what these servicemen and women believed they could achieve: a more secure future for America and stronger, more peaceful world. That's the resolution I wish we were here considering today instead of this overblown rhetoric attempting to justify a failed Presidential agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my California colleague Henry Waxman and 24 of our Democratic California colleagues to introduce important legislation to protect California's Medicare beneficiaries from being forced into HMOs.

The Republican Medicare prescription drug law has many downfalls. The legislation we are introducing today corrects only one of them, but it is an especially important fix for seniors and people with disabilities who live in California.

As part of the prescription drug law, Republicans insisted on including a demonstration project beginning in 2010 that would require the traditional fee-for-service program to compete against private HMOs and other managed care plans for payment. This so-called ``premium support'' or ``comparative cost adjustment'' demonstration will cause Medicare beneficiaries who choose to remain in traditional fee-for- service Medicare to pay more and more for that choice. This cost differential will economically force people into HMOs--even if those plans do not meet their health care needs. Its part of the overall goal of the bill to dismantle Medicare as we know it.

Because we don't want California's seniors to be forced into health plans against their will, we've authored legislation to exempt California from eligibility for this wrong-headed demonstration program.

Senator Boxer has introduced companion legislation in the Senate (S. 2116). Upon introduction, she said the following:

In California, 12 of its metropolitan statistical areas

(MSA) now qualify for the demonstration project. If the two

largest MSAs are chosen for this demonstration project, 1.4

million Californians will be faced with a Hobson's choice.

They will be required to join an HMO or pay higher

premiums.

That brings us to the real question: Why is this necessary?

Is it because seniors can't choose HMOs under the current

system? No. Seniors can choose to join an HMO right now if

they wish. I'll tell you why: It is a backdoor attempt to

achieve Newt Gingrich's vision for a Medicare that will

`wither on the vine.' ''

We agree with Senator Boxer. Seniors and people with disabilities should have the right to join a managed care plan in Medicare if they feel that plan will best meet their health care needs. That right exists in Medicare today and is preserved in the Republican-passed prescription drug legislation. However, no senior should be FORCED to join an HMO because it is the only way that they can obtain affordable health care.

That's why we've joined together to introduce this bill to exempt California from eligibility for the demonstration program--a demonstration that would force seniors into a Hobson's choice that will limit their access to the health care they need and result in the real goal of the Republican-passed Medicare legislation: the dismantling of the Medicare program.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. This legislation is unnecessary. Lawsuits brought against fast food companies for allegedly causing obesity have been routinely thrown out. The fact is the law has worked in repelling bogus legal claims.

Yet, I suppose just like every other self-serving business lobby in Washington, the fast food industry wants the Republicans to protect them from being responsible. It's as if they're asking the GOP to ``super size it'' with a massively overreaching bill that grants fast food companies broad and unprecedented liability protection even in instances where they are clearly negligent.

Remember now that this legislation is an unnecessary response to a completely imagined problem. Consider then the impact it will have on ordinary Americans if they are injured by reckless behavior.

Well, to start with, this bill says that if a fast food chain is reckless and causes injury in a manner that is not already prohibited under state or federal law, they can't be held accountable. Second, if a fast food restaurant does break a state or federal law but says they didn't mean to do it, they get off just as easy.

This is a question of responsibility. I don't think most Americans believe anyone ought to get this kind of special treatment, especially when the result might well be more reckless and dangerous behavior.

Finally, let me just say that I find it interesting we would bring up the issue of obesity without a meaningful discussion of ways in which we can promote better health.

There is no discussion in this chamber today about making sure children are learning about and getting better nutrition. There is not a word mentioned about better food labeling so that Americans are better informed about the impact their choice of diet has on their health and longevity. We aren't talking about making sure the fast food industry fully discloses the health risks of high fat food that they have continually marketed and made easily accessible in every corner of this country.

I ask my colleagues to vote down this unneeded and potentially damaging legislation--it's a matter for the courts, not Congress. We ought to focus on bringing Americans to better health, rather than the healthy profits of the fast food industry.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the numerous achievements of the Peace Corps during National Peace Corps Week from March 1-7, 2004.

I commend the Peace Corps for its 43 years of attentive humanitarian service and contributions around the world. Since its inception in 1961, the Peace Corps has served to promote a mission of world peace throughout the 137 countries where its volunteers have diligently served. The work of these volunteers has become more vital today than ever before, with many Americans interested in humanitarian service, and a multitude of host countries eagerly awaiting their arrival.

Currently, more than 75,000 volunteers are serving in 71 countries around the world. This number includes five volunteers from California's 13th District: Julie Chang (Mali), Sarah Knueven Brett (Haiti), Rosalind Lwin (Kenya), Brian Stanke (Romania), and Judy Wong (Ukraine). These volunteers share their time and talents as teachers, advisers, agriculture and youth workers, and health educators in the countries where they serve.

During National Peace Corps Week, I am proud to honor the American men and women who are selflessly eager to serve our Nation by fulfilling the mission of the Peace Corps. The noble actions of these volunteers have empowered people in developing countries through their grassroots development efforts.

I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the Peace Corps on its 43rd anniversary for its continuing humanitarian efforts throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. For far too long, the pharmaceutical industry has jeopardized patient safety and inflated prescription drug prices by using tax-deductible dollars to underwrite their marketing efforts. The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act would root out this unethical and potentially fraudulent behavior by denying tax deductions to pharmaceutical companies for the gifts they lavish on physicians.

Recently, Congress passed a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that falls far short of giving seniors the relief they need from the high prices of prescription drugs. In fact, the average senior will still pay $1660 out of pocket per year under the new drug benefit, and a total of $2080 out of pocket when premiums are included. Unfortunately, the new drug bill does nothing to lower prescription drug prices. In fact, it specifically prevents the government from using the bargaining power of 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices. At the same time, it continues to prohibit seniors from shopping for a better price on the global market, despite broad bipartisan support for allowing them to do so.

Relief is all the more urgent because prescription drug prices are rising for seniors, who now pay an average of $2,322 for their drugs. Between 1998 and 2003, of the 50 drugs most commonly prescribed to seniors, nearly three-quarters of them increased in price by at least one and one-half times the rate of inflation, and more than half increased by at least three times the rate of inflation. We must do all that we can to lower the price of prescription drugs and to spend our healthcare dollars wisely.

Yet, drug companies are spending billions of dollars on promotions to entice doctors to prescribe their products, and these dollars are tax deductible. An April 2002 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that pharmaceutical companies spent $13 billion in 2001 on incentives for doctors, or more than $15,000 per doctor. Sixty-one percent of physicians surveyed said they had received gifts from the industry. Drug companies often give out free meals, tickets to the theater, concerts, or sporting events, gifts such as watches and jewelry, and pay for physicians' travel to symposiums or conferences.

These gifts are often attempts by the pharmaceutical industry to induce doctors to prescribe their products even when it is not in the patient's best interest. For example, recently disclosed court documents have revealed that Warner-Lambert encouraged hundreds of doctors to prescribe Neurontin for unapproved uses by inviting them to dinners, weekend trips to resorts, and free tickets to the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Just a few months ago, the U.S. Attorney's office filed court papers accusing the company of implementing a ``marketing scheme that is rife with false statements and fraudulent conduct.'' The U.S. Attorney concluded that the public interest can only be served when drug promotion is ``free of the insidious effects of kickbacks and related financial conflicts of interest,'' which artificially inflate sales and prices. These gift-giving campaigns contribute to preference and rapid prescribing of new drugs, and decreased prescribing of generics. In other words, tax-deductible dollars contribute to the rising prices of prescription drugs.

These campaigns and inflated prices are particularly outrageous, given the level of profit the drug companies make at the expense of patients. The pharmaceutical industry is consistently the most profitable industry in America, with profit margins in 2001 more than five times the median for fortune 500 companies. Spending on prescription drugs has increased by 20% each year between 1997 and 2001. Between January 1997 and January 2002, the average price of the most commonly used prescription drugs for seniors rose by 27.6%, more than twice the rate of inflation.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) pretended to discourage these improper marketing ploys by issuing conflict-of interest guidelines in April 2002. After announcing the guidelines with fanfare, they then paid the American Medical Association to ``educate'' their members on these guidelines-that is, they gave doctors financial incentives to promote ethical guidelines that called for an end to financial incentives! It is obvious that PhRMA is not serious about ending the practice of giving financial incentives to doctors. This bill would create an incentive for drug companies to adhere to their own code of conduct.

Not only are these incentives unethical, but they could even be illegal. The HHS Inspector General issued final guidance to pharmaceutical manufacturers saying that many of these gifts to doctors could be considered illegal kickbacks. By allowing tax deductions for these gifts, current tax law actually encourages this potentially illegal practice. This bill seeks to redress this perverse incentive.

The Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act would help ensure that pharmaceutical companies' behavior matched their rhetoric. This bill eliminates the tax-deduction that pharmaceutical companies currently receive for the gifts they give to physicians. Clever marketing ploys that influence physician prescribing habits do little to actually save lives, but do much to increase drug prices and corporate profits. By removing incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lavish gifts of dubious public value on physicians, I hope that pharmaceutical companies will either redirect those funds toward research and development of lifesaving drugs or reduce the prices of prescription drugs for seniors and all Americans. These price reductions will provide much needed relief to America's seniors, who face an ever-increasing burden when paying for their prescriptions, and will stretch scarce Medicare drug benefit dollars further.

I hope that my colleagues will join with me in support of the Prescription Drug Safety and Affordability Act. Prohibiting industry gifts to physicians is a nonpartisan issue that should receive bipartisan support. In fact, the Republican appointed Health and Human Services Inspector General issued guidance restricting the practice, and, next door in Maryland, a Republican state representative has introduced a bill to prohibit these gifts. It is time to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund the industry's marketing campaign to doctors, which puts profits above patients.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 1997, the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' I am deeply disappointed that Republicans are using this controversial bill as a vehicle for their blatant attacks on a woman's right to choose.

The Republican majority party could enact a number of serious and meaningful laws that prevent and punish violence against women. However, instead of bringing common-sense measures up for debate, anti- choice lawmakers bring the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to the floor. It's perfectly clear why they're raising it. The Bush Administration-- along with Republicans in Congress--are trading the wishes of their conservative base for votes in the upcoming elections.

This bill creates a separate Federal offense if, during commission of certain crimes, a person causes death or injury to what the sponsors of this bill call ``a member of the species

homo sapiens at all stages of development.'' If this bill passes, it will for the first time in Federal law, recognize a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus as a ``person'' that can be an independent victim of a crime. This bill does this even though the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Let's be clear, this bill will not help address the serious issue of violence against women, which affects nearly one in every three women during their adulthood. If its intent were truly this, I would fully support it. In fact, domestic violence organizations, like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence--that do not take positions on abortion--oppose this legislation.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act isn't the right solution. That's why I oppose it and will instead vote for the substitute being offered by my colleague Representative Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment, the Motherhood Protection Act, will help to prevent crimes against pregnant women, rather than embroil the issue surrounding the abortion debate. It would create a second Federal offense for harming a pregnant woman and would impose the same penalties for harm to, or termination of, a pregnancy as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But, importantly, the Motherhood Protection Act recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victims of a crime rather than the fetus. This guarantees appropriate penalties in the law without getting us into a volatile, unnecessary debate over abortion.

Further exploiting the issues of violence against women, anti-choice advocates have resorted to using the unfortunate case of Laci Peterson's murder to push the legislation--even though passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been one of their top legislative priorities since 1999, long before the Peterson tragedy. Any doubts about the sponsors' true motives were erased when Senator Orrin Hatch told a reporter: ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does. But that's irrelevant.''

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act clearly fails to address the very real need for strong Federal legislation to prevent and punish violent crimes against women. Congress should be protecting pregnant women from violent crime without having to resort to controversial bills like the one before us. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this deceptive bill, which does nothing to thwart acts of violence, and vote ``yes'' on the substitute being offered today, a real remedy for assaults made against pregnant women.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Social Security Program Protection Act.

This legislation makes a strong Social Security program even stronger for the millions of Americans who rely on its benefits for stability through old age, disability or loss of a loved one. And this bill will help to protect the promise of economic security for future generations--a promise we must keep.

I strongly support the protections this legislation provides for some of the most vulnerable recipients of Social Security. Today, many beneficiaries are unable to manage their own benefits so a representative payee is often appointed to do so on their behalf. While this is undoubtedly necessary, too many seniors and people with disabilities have fallen victim to fraud and abuse.

This bill makes dramatic improvements to the representative payee system to help protect beneficiaries. It does so by initiating strict oversight of representative payees and expanding the ability of the Social Security Administration to repay benefits that have been misused or stolen. For many, this puts real financial security back in Social Security.

Despite the strengths of this bill, I am disappointed, however, that Republicans refused to accept an amendment I offered to this bill in the Ways and Means Committee to reduce the Government Pension Offset penalty. This penalty unfairly reduces or even eliminates Social Security benefits for millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers and others who serve the public.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Social Security Program Protection Act to extend the promise of retirement security for every American, today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Long Term Care Hospital Moratorium Act. This bill places a moratorium on the

growth of costly Medicare Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH) beds until enough information is available to determine whether continued growth is required to meet the needs of our seniors and people with disabilities.

The number of these facilities has increased substantially from 109 to 300 in the past decade and Medicare expenditures directed to these facilities have grown from $398 million in 1993 to an anticipated $2.3 billion in 2005. The recent 275% increase in facilities and over 500% increase in Medicare expenditures are dramatic. It is time for Congress to question whether this rapid growth reflects a true increase in clinical need or just a means to game robust profits from Medicare.

LTCHs are one of four types of post-acute settings that are reimbursed under Medicare. Patients in these facilities have medically complex conditions that include ventilator dependency, multiple medical system failures, complicated infectious conditions, wound care and post-surgical recuperation. These patients generally have stays in these facilities of 25 days or more. Currently, only 1 percent of Medicare beneficiaries discharged from acute hospitals are transferred to LTCHs. These facilities are the most expensive on average of all the post-acute alternatives with a base rate cost per patient episode being $35,700.

The growth in the long term care hospital sector is being fueled by large for-profit companies that are reporting significant revenue increases and robust profit margins. Their margins are significantly higher than those for acute hospitals and skilled nursing facilities. Wall Street recognition of the industry's positive financial outlook is likely related to the 300 percent increase that has been posted this year in the stocks of these publicly-traded companies.

Recent data from the non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) suggests that there may also be substantial overlap between the types of patients being treated in LTCHs and skilled nursing facilities; despite LTCHs costing 4-5 times more. The potential for LTCHs to substitute for less costly skilled nursing facilities is exacerbated by the fact that there is currently no clinical patient admission criteria under Medicare for LTCHs.

A review of the LTCH Medicare provider network raises a number important public policy questions. These questions include:

Is there evidence of clinical need to support the rapid growth in LTCH facilities?

Is the current Medicare payment system inappropriate or is the reimbursement amount excessive for LTCH services?

Are LTCHs and skilled nursing facilities clinical substitutes? If so, are there clinical criteria that can be developed to determine which patients require LTCHs vs. skilled nursing facilities?

This legislation simply places a moratorium on the future growth of this provider network category until these questions are answered. The Secretary of Health and Human Services may terminate this moratorium upon obtaining adequate information to address these questions and implementing any required changes to the Medicare payment system for these services. The Secretary is also required to submit a report to Congress at least one month prior to terminating the moratorium specifying the rationale and evidence supporting the termination.

It is appropriate for Congress, who is responsible for providing fiscal oversight of Medicare, to enact this legislation. Both MedPAC and the Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General are already investigating aspects of these issues. The LTCH and skilled nursing home industries, patient advocacy groups and other relevant sources can offer additional data. Using the data obtained during this moratorium, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Congress can make an informed decision on what interventions are necessary within the LTCH industry to both ensure beneficiaries are receiving the treatment they require and that Medicare funds are being prudently spent.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to pay tribute to Council Member Doris Rodriquez, who is retiring from the Hayward City Council at the end of her term on April 6, 2004. Ms. Rodriquez will leave a legacy of 27 years of dedicated service to the city of Hayward, California.

Her initial service was on the City of Hayward Citizens Advisory Commission from 1977 to 1984, followed by an appointment to the city's Planning Commission, where she served a seven-year stint. Rodriquez was first appointed to the City Council in 1991 and was elected in 1992 and has served consecutive four-year terms.

The city of Hayward has benefited from Rodriquez's tireless contributions as a city council liaison on the Airport Committee, Commercial Center Improvement Committee, Citizens Advisory Commission, Downtown Revitalization Committee, Public Agencies Committee and the Route 92/880 Interchange Citizens Advisory Committee. Serving as the council's liaison, Rodriquez has been the city's vital link to the community. She has garnered wide-ranging respect with all segments of the community. Her intellect, her sound judgment, her calming personality, her sincere interest in Hayward issues and its citizens, and her ability to work with myriad organizations have benefited Hayward immeasurably.

Rodriguez is an integral part of Hayward's fabric. She is a member of numerous organizations. Her name is not merely listed on the membership rosters but she is intricately involved in the heart of the organizations to make a positive contribution to Hayward. These organizations, who continue to benefit from Rodriquez's experience and commitment, include Friends of the Hayward Library, Hayward Area Planning Association, Hispanic Elected Local Officials, Southgate Home Owners Association, League of Women Voters, and Sun Gallery.

On March 19, 2004, the City of Hayward will host a farewell dinner to thank Council Member Doris Rodriguez for her tireless efforts on behalf of Hayward and its citizens. I join the fine citizens of the city to thank Doris for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jacob Eapen, M.D, a Frerfront, California pediatrician, who is the recipient of the first Physician Recognition Award from the Medical Board of California. The California Medical Board, which licenses physicians throughout the State, created a Physician Recognition Task Force last year to begin an annual program to recognize physicians for outstanding service.

On January 30, 2004, Dr. Eapen received the award in recognition of his career devoted to improving public health for the underserved worldwide, as well as for his current work as a pediatrician for Alameda County Health Services, where he reaches out to poor children in East Bay communities and children being held at Juvenile Hall in San Leandro, California.

He has been the commissioner of public health in Alameda County for more than four years.

A native of India, Dr. Eapen graduated from the Tivandrum Medical College at Kerala University and traveled to Africa, where he worked as the director of the pediatric unit in Agha Kahn Hospital in Tanzania. He also worked and taught in Nigeria.

While he was working in a Nigerian hospital, Dr. Eapen saw hundreds of children die from diseases because of malnourishment. Since then, he has dedicated his career to pediatric services for the underprivileged. He has also served as a United Nations' health adviser in the Philippines.

Dr. Eapen earned a master's degree in public health in 1984 from the University of California, Berkeley. He completed a second residency in 1992 from Stanford University, which allowed him to practice in the United States. He has been honored by Stanford Medical School as one of the 40 outstanding Stanford Medical alumni from among 7000 graduates of the last sixty years.

Dr. Eapen has embraced Public Health Services in an explicit attempt to foster more appropriate and effective policies and practices to benefit poor, underserved patients. He devotes his time and energy to working in the county health system to improve public health.

After receiving his award, Dr. Eapen told the Medical Board of California that epidemics have no borders, and he also spoke against the potential closure of clinics in Alameda County, California, because of costs.

Dr. Eapen epitomizes the essence of the award he received from the Medical Board. He is indeed dedicated to improving public health care and is working daily to usher in real changes in the lives of people. To quote Dr. Eapen: ``There's so much to be done.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the American Dental Association for organizing the 2nd Annual Give Kids A Smile National Children's Dental Access Day. Today, dentists from across the country will be generously volunteering their time to provide free screening and dental care services to children in need.

In its inaugural year last year, dentists participating in Give Kids A Smile National Children's Dental Access Day provided free care to an estimated 1 million disadvantaged children nationwide. Beyond providing free dental services and dental health education, this annual effort is aimed at raising awareness about the large number of children that go without dental care each year and the impact this can have on their overall health and wellness.

Give Kids A Smile Day provides a tremendous opportunity for parents who lack adequate health or dental coverage to get needed dental care for their kids. There is a clear need for this. According to a recent report on health care quality, only 38 percent of children in poor health and less than half of all children between the ages of 2 and 17 have seen a dentist in the past year.

Access to good health care is synonymous with access to good dental care and too many children and families are being left behind. Given the impact untreated dental disease can have on a child's health, school performance and overall quality of life, there is no question that we need to improve awareness about and access to dental care.

I applaud the American Dental Association for spearheading this effort. I commend the California Dental Association for their participation and the many dentists in my district from the Southern Alameda County Dental Society and the Alameda County Dental Society for performing this public service. Their contributions now and in the future will go a long way in improving the health of many needy children.