Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the ``Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003'' and in support of the Democratic alternative.

I fully support the Community Services Block Grant. It has helped lift many Americans out of poverty. It has been instrumental in creating programs that provide many Americans

with services and skills to get good jobs and fully participate in their community.

And ``community'' is an important value underscored in this initiative. The Community Services Block Grant is supposed to build stronger communities, not create divided ones where discrimination is tolerated and encouraged.

Yet, the House Republican bill would do just that. It includes a provision that makes it legal for religious organizations that receive funds under the Community Services Block Grant to discriminate against who they hire or provide services to based on one's religious beliefs. This horrible provision will lead to religious organizations denying essential services to many low income Americans based on their religion and ultimately depriving them of the opportunity to use these community services to climb out of poverty.

I will not vote for legislation that reinstitutes government- sponsored discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote instead for the Democratic alternative. It funds all the programs Republicans fund in their bill. But, it does so without opening the door to discrimination and intolerance that is a barrier to self-sufficiency and stronger communities across our Nation.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Community Services Block Grant. It is an extremely important program for more than 1,000 communities nationwide and millions of families. In Wisconsin, there are currently 19 eligible organizations and 11 tribes that receive CSBG funds and last year the State received nearly $8 million in funding. I am pleased that in Wisconsin's Third Congressional District that I represent there are five Community Action Agencies serving our community. They include West Central Wisconsin Community Action Agency, Western Dairy-land, Cooleecap, Central Wisconsin Community Action Council and Southwest CAP. I commend these agencies for all the work they do to fight poverty and assist some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

Over the past several years the Nation's poverty rate has risen so that now more than 34 million people live in poverty with an all-time high since statistics were first kept in 1979. Recent unemployment figures are equally troubling. Since 2001, approximately 2.3 million workers have lost their jobs. Given the current economic situation in this country right now, the reauthorization of a program whose central purpose is to minimize the effects of poverty and to maximize self- sufficiency for millions of people is critically important.

Yet, H.R. 3030 before us today fails to correct provisions in current law that permit religious organizations receiving funds under this Act to discriminate in employment based on religion. While these provisions have existed in current law for 5 years, I cannot condone the continuation of discriminatory policies in any context.

During committee consideration of H.R. 3030, an amendment was offered to remove the discriminatory language. This amendment failed, thus retaining this language, which is why I opposed the legislation in committee and why I oppose it again today.

While I strongly support the right of religious institutions to preserve the integrity of their own religious character when it comes to their activities, I oppose the Federal Government providing Federal funds for secular purposes to any organization that could then use these funds in a discriminatory fashion on religious grounds.

I do support the Democratic substitute offered by my good friend, Representative George Miller, ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee. The substitute restores basic civil rights for workers while ensuring the on-going participation of faith-based groups in CSBG programs.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to reiterate my support for the Community Services Block Grant and express my deep disappointment in having to oppose this bill for the mere fact that the congressional leadership insisted on retaining such discriminating language.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor World War lI veteran, retired Sgt. Bob Lewis. Lewis was an 18-year-old Army recruit in Camp Fannin, Texas, when his captain dropped a grenade during a demonstration. Lewis rolled onto it with his helmet, and then tossed it into a nearby ditch where it exploded into bits of shrapnel. Had the grenade gone off where it was dropped, he says, it likely would have injured or killed many of the 29 infantrymen watching the demonstration.

It was 1945, shortly after U.S. troops defeated Germany in World War II, but after Japan surrendered and, at the time, Lewis thought nothing of his heroic act.

The long-since-retired technical sergeant, who went on to become a well-known Fremont educator, has not received any recognition or medals for his heroic efforts to save the members of his infantry, while still a young recruit.

Because Lewis' act took place nearly 60 years ago, securing the necessary documentation would require months of research. An eyewitness would be almost impossible to locate as most of Lewis' fellow soldiers and superior officers have died.

Lewis may be eligible for the Soldier's Medal, which is awarded for an act of heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. For the time being, Lewis who once guarded 1,400 German prisoners in Bazencourt, France, says he is content with the small green patch, emblazoned with a gold wreath, on his Army jacket. It's a meritorious service unit citation, awarded to his outfit for postwar service.

Lewis not only distinguished himself during his military career but also in his profession as an educator. He worked as principal of Chadbourne, Patterson and Niles elementary schools and assistant superintendent of the Fremont school district.

I join retired Sgt. Bob Lewis' family, friends and admirers in applauding him for his meritorious military service and contributions to our country and to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Girls Inc. of Alameda County's Girls Research Project. The research project is one of the most comprehensive and innovative health and wellness studies by and about teenage girls in Alameda County. Girls, Inc. launched this project as an outgrowth of its strategic plan which revealed that it was extremely difficult to find or gain access to

disaggregated data about teenage girls on a range of critical factors relating to their physical and mental health, access to medical care, educational experiences, perceptions of school and community, and support networks, among others.

The core intent of the Project has been to gather robust qualitative and quantitative data about the health and wellness of teenage girls to enhance youth programs and inform policy agendas while at the same time teaching girls themselves about the power of data and guiding them to become leaders and advocates for positive health outcomes in girls' lives.

The project is unprecedented in Alameda County and has surpassed all original expectations. Successful written surveys were conducted in 11 public and alternative high schools in Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro yielding responses from more than 1,900 girls in the 9th through the 12th grade, representing more than 21 % of the entire female high school population in the target school district. A dedicated group of 20 young women were trained to conduct almost 100 one-on-one interviews of their peers. They also helped analyze and interpret both the qualitative and quantitative data collected through the research efforts.

The resulting analysis presents a mixed portrait of girls in Northern Alameda County. A portrait, which on the one hand, demonstrates the resilience and enthusiasm of teen girls, while on the other hand, reveals continued areas of concern relating to girls' physical and mental health; their engagement in risk behaviors; their negative attitudes towards some academic areas, as well as their perceptions and experiences of safety and violence in their schools and communities.

I applaud Girls Inc. of Alameda County for initiating and completing the Girls Research Project. I am confident the research findings will provide valuable guidance for families, educators, health care professionals, policymakers, and the myriad organizations focused on the health and well-being of teenage girls.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gwen Estes, a recent recipient of the prestigious Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award. The international award, sponsored by a number of peace groups and Morehouse College in Atlanta, was presented to Ms. Estes for her commitment to promoting peace, unity and non-violence.

Gwen Estes is a former parole officer. The job never seemed quite right to Ms. Estes as she has always been about building for the future. Years of watching guards lead shackled inmates into the great abyss of the prison system ran counter to values passed along by Ms. Estes' mother, who spent years teaching school.

Seeking a career change, Gwen Estes followed in the family footsteps and choose teaching. However, she didn't pursue a mainstream teaching job. She opted for Hayward Community School, a last chance outpost for at-risk students who have been expelled for offenses ranging from fighting to selling drugs.

Working tirelessly with students who needed more help than their regular teachers could give, Ms. Estes is saving the lives of troubled teens starving for positive attention, respect and caring.

One need only look into the faces transfixed before her in her portable classroom to better understand why she received the prestigious peace award. Her classroom radiates with trust and compassion and Estes shares a connection with students who have felt alienated and alone in other settings.

Now unlike her years as a parole officer, when her reports could lead to long sentences foreshadowing destroyed lives, Gwen Estes is giving out hope in exceptionally large doses at Hayward Community School.

Ms. Estes is also President of the New Haven Board of Education, another factor that has contributed to success with her students. The confluence of her experiences as a school board member and parole officer gives her the kind of credibility many of her peers lack when working with at-risk students.

She always says, ``I have voted to expel students but I much prefer giving out diplomas.'' Gwen Estes is giving students a foundation to break free of their problems, a reason to care. In many cases, it is something they would not have gotten if it weren't for her.

A description from one of her students aptly describes Ms. Estes' exemplary contributions to her students. ``Even though she is a teacher, she is your friend. We can have good days or bad days, but she always tells us we can be what we want to be. Miss E is one of a kind.''

Gwen Estes epitomizes the essence of the Ghandi, King, Ikeda award. She is bringing peace, unity, and hope to the classroom each day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that recognized the fundamental right to privacy extends to a woman's decision whether or not to have an abortion with freedom from government intrusion. Roe transformed women's experiences in many ways: saved their lives, protected their health, fostered equality and paved the way for greater partnership with men in all aspects of our nation's life.

This anniversary is an occasion for celebration, but also one for grave concern. At a time when the majority of state legislatures, the White House, and both houses of Congress are under anti-choice control, not to mention, the U.S. Supreme Court hanging in the balance, America is at risk of losing Roe v. Wade and the core values of privacy and freedom embodied in it.

I believe Congress should continue the historic principles handed down in Roe by using our influence to plan for healthy families, prevent unintended pregnancies and protect a woman's right to choose.

Anti-choice politicians, however, are attacking the right to choose from every angle. In the past year alone, they have pushed through a significant increase in state restrictions on the right to choose, as well as the first ever criminalization of safe abortion procedures, better known as the so-called ``partial birth'' abortion. President Bush went even further by placing extreme anti-choice ideologues on the federal courts, took away access to contraception, stripped foreign family planning clinics of desperately needed U.S. funds, and shifted priorities away from family planning services to unproven abstinence only programs.

If these drastic measures weren't enough, I have only more bad news to share; it's very likely we'll find this year in Congress to be much of the same. just yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee began markup of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Proponents of this bill claim this legislation will protect unborn children from assault and murder, a mere smokescreen for the real intent of it's passage, another sneak attack on a woman's right to choose. Instead, Congress could enact serious and meaningful laws that prevent and punish violence and provide services to women and their families--which I would strongly support.

So, on this anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the pro-choice majority in this country, especially those in the 13th District of California, and act immediately and powerfully to safeguard our liberty or it will be lost. The time to act is now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make clear to my colleagues how the current Bush Administration and their cadre of religious zealots are again attempting to impose their ideological views not just across our country, but across the world. The Administration, with the backing of the anti-abortion movement and several predominantly Catholic countries, is strongly lobbying members of the United Nations General Assembly to vote for a resolution to enact a worldwide ban on therapeutic cloning.

The Administration was not satisfied with their successful effort to cripple stem cell research in this country. Now, they want to use their considerable resources to destroy this promising research field throughout all United Nations member countries. And who will suffer if this effort is successful? People of all races, creeds, religions who suffer conditions as varied as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, chronic heart disease and spinal injuries. These are the individuals who have the most to lose if therapeutic cloning is banned.

The following is a statement released by Don Reed who is a constituent from Fremont, California. Don and his wife Gloria are tireless advocates of spinal cord research. Their interest in this area is passionate and very personal. Their son Roman was a star college football player until he was paralyzed by a game injury that broke his neck. Since the accident, Roman has been confined to a wheelchair. The Reeds are very much aware of the promise of therapeutic cloning and stem cell research to someday help their son, and many others, to live less restricted lives. This statement describes the efforts of the Administration at the United Nations and provides a poignant view of its effect on his spinal injured son.

White House Behind Christmas Attack on Stem Cell Research?

``This is like Scrooge putting Tiny Tim's doctor in jail,''

said stem cell activist Don C. Reed today, reacting to news

that White House officials were part of a stealth campaign at

the United Nations to internationally ban all forms of

cloning with an up-or-down vote planned for December 8.

``My son is paralyzed with a spinal cord injury,'' said

Reed. ``Therapeutic cloning for stem cells is our only

realistic hope of cure: that he will one day stand up

and walk. But the White House continually attacks that

research, apparently because of the religious convictions

of the President.''

As reported in Thursday's Financial Times of London, the

Bush-backed Costa Rica plan would ban cloning everywhere.

This would overturn the November 6 vote by the U.N.'s Legal

Committee. By a razor-thin margin, (80-79, with 15 nations

abstaining) that vote postponed a decision on the

controversial therapy for two years.

``Mr. Bush did not like the way that vote turned out,''

said Reed. ``And he wants a new vote. Well, I did not like

the way the 2000 Presidential election turned out, but I

don't get to have that vote re-done. Millions of people will

suffer, if the President can overturn the November 6th U.N.

vote. That vote did not approve or disapprove therapeutic

cloning. It only says, we should take time to make this

important decision carefully. What's wrong with that?''

A more moderate measure, sponsored by Belgium and backed by

the UK, would ban reproductive cloning but allow member

nations to make their own decisions on therapeutic cloning

for medical research. This is opposed by the President, the

Catholic church, and anti-abortion organizations.

``The American Medical Association supports therapeutic

cloning,'' says Reed. ``As does our own National Academy of

Science.'' Exhaustive studies have been done on therapeutic

cloning again and again, both nationally and in the state of

California, as well as in countries like England, Israel,

Singapore and China. All arrive at the same conclusion:

reproductive cloning of children is dangerous to the unborn

child, and should be banned; but therapeutic cloning of stem

cells is potentially enormously valuable to cure hundreds of

diseases and disabilities, and should be preserved.

``None of the stem cell lines approved by the White House

can ever be used to help people,'' says Reed. ``Because all

of those stem cells were fed on rat feeder layers, which not

only brings the possibility of interspecies infection, but

also disqualifies them for human use according to FDA

guidelines. To individualize embryonic stem cells for human

use, therapeutic cloning for cells is a must.''

``If therapeutic cloning is banned, embryonic stem cell

research is effectively killed,'' said Reed, ``and my son is

imprisoned in his wheelchair forever. This is not the sort of

Christmas present one expects from the President of the

United States.''

My fellow colleagues; advanced cellular research is a ray of hope for the Reeds and many others. And this hope is based in reality. According to the National Institutes of Health, therapeutic cloning and stem cell research has ``enormous'' potential to improve the lives of many. We should not interfere with this progress; we should embrace and support it. I ask you to join me and protest the efforts of the Bush administration at the United Nations to ban therapeutic cloning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible Omnibus spending bill. This Republican bill is a stealth attempt to impose an extremist agenda on America--an agenda that most Americans don't support. But, therein lies the Republican's deceitful strategy: to hide numerous controversial provisions in the minutia and complexity of a huge Omnibus bill, then ram it through with less than a few hours of debate.

Let's take a moment to see what this bill actually includes.

It will deny workers their right to overtime. It gives President Bush--despite all his false rhetoric about caring for working families--the green light to impose government regulations denying overtime pay to millions of hardworking Americans. That's right, it takes away worker protections for fair pay.

Does the bill then at least make sure workers who can't find jobs receive extended unemployment benefits? No. Nowhere in this bill is there a dime for working Americans who are unemployed. Why? Well, because Republicans simply refuse to extend unemployment benefits to the over 2 million Americans who are suffering from long-term extended unemployment. These are folks who have been out-of-work for 26 weeks or more unable to find a job. His father, when he was President, extended federal unemployment benefits for these people, but this President Bush doesn't see any need to be that compassionate.

While the President talks about recent minimal job growth as if it was ``mission accomplished'' on the economy, it isn't enough to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared since he took office. There are still 14 million Americans either out of work or making due with part time employment. We must do more to help these families survive. But, nothing is included in this last bill that Congress will consider this year.

Of course this Republican Omnibus doesn't stop at making life harder for working Americans or ignoring Americans out of work. It also goes after America's veterans. It cuts the budget for the Veterans Administration by $443 million. This includes a $15 million cut

for medical care. Putting veterans health care on a shoestring budget isn't the way to reward those who have fought for this country or those who have come back critically injured from their duty in Iraq.

This bill also hurts women's reproductive rights. It prevents federal employees from accessing reproductive health services under the health plans they pay into. It prohibits the District of Columbia from offering assistance for low-income women to access needed reproductive services. These women should not be singled out and prevented from exercising their constitutional right to reproductive choice. But, that is exactly the path this bill sets us on.

This bill shortchanges America's public schools. It does this by taking a first step toward a federal program of vouchers for private schools by creating a school voucher demonstration program for Washington, DC. It doesn't matter that this demonstration will take money away from the DC public school system which serves all DC's students, while providing necessary funds for only a few students to attend private schools.

This bill also undermines the diversity of our media marketplace by opening the door for the concentration of corporate power and influence over the public's airwaves. Even though the House and Senate each voted to maintain the existing Federal Communication Commission limitations on media ownership, this bill permits the FCC to allow greater concentration of media ownership. It will diminish the diversity of viewpoints and programming placing our very marketplace of ideas in the hands of a few major media conglomerates.

With Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the White House, this type of appropriations process in which everything is thrown into one, huge bill should be unnecessary. But, the facts is that this bill exists because the Republican leadership could not get their job done. Congress did not pass 7 of the nation's 13 spending bills that are required to keep the government operating.

But, I also suspect that the Republican leadership has done this on purpose--using the Omnibus bill to all their extreme objectives enacted when they couldn't pass on their own. After all, the House already voted down destroying overtime pay for America's workers. The Senate had been unwilling to vote on school vouchers. And, both the House and Senate voted down new media ownership rules. Yet, they have all reared their ugly heads again in the Omnibus bill that will be the final business the House will consider this year.

If most Americans were allowed to hear a real debate on this shameful and irresponsible bill, they would urge us to vote it down. I urge my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act of 2003. My bill would expand Medicare eligibility for uninsured patients with advanced chronic kidney disease before their condition progresses to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) status. The bill would provide access to healthcare and most importantly disease management and pre-ESRD educational and counseling services. It would improve the health and quality of life for those suffering from kidney disease and could provide real savings for the Medicare program by helping chronic kidney disease patients delay costly dialysis treatments and kidney transplants associated with the end stage status of the disease.

ESRD patients are the only group of patients eligible for Medicare enrollment solely due to their medical diagnosis. ESRD is characterized by a permanent loss of kidney function, which results in the need for dialysis treatments or kidney transplantation in order to sustain life. Under current law, a physician must certify that an individual's kidney functions have deteriorated to end-stage status for a patient to be eligible for the Medicare ESRD program. Subsequently, there may be an additional waiting period of up to 3 months depending on the type of dialysis procedure chosen by the patient before the individual becomes eligible for benefits. Thus, benefits are only received after the cessation of adequate kidney functioning.

The cost to the Federal Government for providing care to an ESRD patient is very high. The average per capita expense for all ESRD patients was $33,282 in 2000, approximately 8 times the annual cost of care for the average Medicare beneficiary. The annual cost for in- center hemodialysis, the most frequent form of dialysis used, approaches $55,000.

There has been a substantial amount of research within the past several years indicating that the provision of improved medical care and disease-related pre-ESRD educational and counseling services to advanced chronic kidney disease patients prior to their progressing to end-stage renal status has multiple positive effects. The provision of these pre-ESRD services slows down the progression toward ESRD status, decreases the occurrence and intensity of related diseases and decreases overall mortality rates. By allowing uninsured patients with advanced kidney disease to access care prior to qualifying for Medicare due to an End Stage Renal Disease diagnosis, this bill wisely and appropriately addresses a critical unmet health need.

Under the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act, uninsured, pre-ESRD chronic kidney disease patients would be eligible for full Medicare coverage and pre-ESRD counseling and educational services. To be eligible, a physician would need to certify that a chronic kidney disease patient has reached a level of kidney functioning deterioration predictive of a need for dialysis or a transplant in the next 1\1/2\ years under a widely accepted clinical standard. Individuals eligible under the bill would pay Medicare Part B premiums. Pre-ESRD educational and counseling services provided by this legislation address treatment options, disease management, and nutrition. These new services would also be available to current Medicare enrollees who become diagnosed with chronic kidney disease.

This bill also requests that the Secretary of Health and Human Services establish at least 2 demonstration projects in cooperation with recognized kidney patient organizations, to devise ways, or demonstrate means through which peer education procedures can slow progress to ESRD and improve outcomes for patients with this disease.

Today, more than 300,000 individuals are covered under the Medicare ESRD program. By 2010, it is expected that this number will more than double. This bill, which is supported by the National Kidney Association and the American Association of Kidney Patients, will help minimize the damaging impact of this chronic illness and slow the growth of individuals suffering from ESRD. By delaying the need for either dialysis or transplantation, one can also anticipate substantial cost savings to the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Chronic Kidney Disease Management Act so we can make these vital improvements to the Medicare program for those who suffer from chronic kidney disease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill despite being one of its cosponsors and having voted for it when it came before the House on October 15th.

I strongly believe Syria's actions ought to be called into question. To say this regime is a bad actor is putting it mildly. Their actions are rightly condemned, especially when it comes to their tacit support for terrorism and ongoing occupation of Lebanon. The United States ought to use the tools at our disposal--both political and economic--to demand an end to their egregious policies.

There is, however, a reason why I am voting against this resolution. It is based on my long held reservations about the President's intentions on foreign policy. Given his belligerent declarations yesterday, I have genuine concerns that he may seek authority in this resolution to pursue aggressive military action against Syria.

After all, Mr. Speaker, this President did not need much to march to war against Iraq. At best, the evidence was soft, the intelligence was trumped up and now not a grain of proof can be found showing Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. But, ultimately, President Bush used past declarations of Congress meant merely to reprimand Iraq for its policies to justify full-blown war against that regime.

This resolution today contains provisions that rightly admonish Syria, but do so on the basis of reasonable beliefs and assumptions, not proven facts. Most notably, there is reference to Syria's ``hostile actions'' in regard to the United States and our troops in Iraq. Although our suspicions are well founded, there is as yet no proven connection between the government of Syria and terrorism in Iraq.

I have concerns the President may not draw this distinction and take these words as grounds for pursuing preemptive military action.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't trust this President. His actions toward Iraq have clearly demonstrated his willingness to lie to the American people. But, they also underscore his willingness to use force indiscriminately without the burden of proof.

I cannot support a resolution that might be used as a vehicle for the President to act counter to the interest of the American people. I vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record at this point a letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that outlines some of the bases for our request for more time to evaluate the bill.

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, Nov. 19, 2003.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, House Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I first start by reminding the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington that the Seattle Times said that one suspects that many conservatives do not really care how the chips fall as long as they are heavy enough to break the back of traditional Medicare. All this talk about choice and updating or modernizing Medicare with market competition is pure malarky. So it does appear that somebody from the State of Washington understands what is going on here tonight.

But we are faced with a problem, and the Republican Party from the very top of its leadership to the very bottom have been lying to us. They have been lying to us about the war. They have been revising history. They have been going back on their word to give us 3 days. They have proven that we cannot trust them.

Just recently, the past few minutes, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means indicated that they had attempted to put in preventative measures. He seems to have forgotten that in 1995 he voted against colon cancer testing. He voted against prostate cancer testing. He voted against annual mammography. He voted against diabetes management. He has voted more often to cut Medicare benefits than he can remember, it appears.

So we are faced tonight with people who want to destroy Medicare. They will lie to us. They will lie to seniors for the pure purpose of their own messianic desires to destroy a system that will protect the fragile seniors in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who understands that the United Steel Workers of America have said a vote for this measure is a vote to destroy the stability and long-term viability of the Medicare system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who knows that all of the other members of the Older Women's League understand that this bill was supposed to modernize Medicare, not eviscerate it; and to deny basic health services for those who need it most, to increase the profits of the health care industry is criminal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), who agrees with the Arizona Daily Star from Tucson that by doing nothing to address the cost of medicines and by raising payments to private HMOs that want to compete with Medicare, the bill dooms the Medicare program to major problems down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous request to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who agrees with the Boston Globe that this experiment needs to be stopped before the Republicans in Congress damage a program that has served the elderly well for 38 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) who agrees with the Houston Chronicle, the Republicans are interested only in the illusion of providing a popular benefit, a Republican driven bill to, quote, improve Medicare is impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who is a woman who agrees with Al Hunt, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that this is an open rip-off by HMOs. There is a reason most Americans and, virtually all who have endured serious medical issues, despise HMOs. They are, with few exceptions, vultures.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans can lock out two of the leading Democratic legislators from their conference committee, but just to show you that we are bigger than all that, we will turn the other cheek. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) that the seniors do not need to be misrepresented. I will not call it lying, but nowhere in that bill does it mention any percentage that they will save on the drug discount. You cannot find it in the bill because it is not in there. So do not tell the seniors something that is not true. It is not respectful.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

There they go again. I do not think they understand their own bill. Between 135 percent and 150 percent of poverty, there is a 15 percent copay, and regardless of what my colleague says, there are many, many poor seniors are going to pay more under this

bill than they do now, but it is sad that the people who wrote the bill do not know what they are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the distinguished member of our caucus who is in the pharmaceutical business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who agrees with the Albany Times Union that what older Americans can least afford is for Congress to rush into a sweeping overhaul of a successful health care program without doing its research. This is not only an imperfect bill. It may also be a disastrous one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and pending that, I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut that 41,000 people in Connecticut are likely to lose employer-sponsored coverage under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds of that precious time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), one of the gentlemen who was a conferee but does not know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my longtime friend Lillian Kessler. It is with sadness that I announce Lillian's recent passing. She resided in my 13th congressional district and I was pleased and proud to have her support and friendship for many years.

As a truly committed political and community activist, Lillian spent years volunteering in the community and working tirelessly to elect individuals to public office. She was proud to call herself a Democrat for more than 50 years. Lillian and her husband Mike were the first two people to encourage me to seek my present office in Congress.

Lillian was an active member in the Hayward Demos Democratic Club. Her fellow club members describe her as ``a tower of strength for their club, the Democratic Party and progressives everywhere. She was a quintessential activist, organizing precinct walking, phone banks, fundraisers, all the necessary jobs to run and win grassroots campaigns.''

I shall remember with fondness and admiration Lillian's passion, strength and perseverance to make a difference. She believed that just one progressive idea or action, no matter how small, could strengthen each and every community for the better.

Lillian will be sorely missed by me and all who knew her. My thoughts and condolences are with her husband Mike and her children, Civia and Stuart.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my thanks as well to the gentleman from North Carolina for his enterprise and efforts in seeing this bill brought to the floor, and to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her work, as well as the people who have been mentioned, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and others who have been concerned about it.

I think that I have today to give credit where credit is due. This bill should really be referred to as the Deborah Stark bill. Now, who is Deborah Stark? She happens to be the mother of my children and my long- suffering wife. And this bill has its genesis right down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue where she went one day, when we still lived in California full time, to have her eyes examined because her contact lenses were giving her problems and, hopefully, to get a new prescription and send it out to California to have it filled, so she would have her new contact lenses when she arrived home in California.

So she went to this physician down the road. And as she was about to leave, having then paid the bill, she was told that she could not have a copy of the prescription. She was, not surprisingly, incredulous. I was not only incredulous, I was mildly upset, and that led to this day.

So we do not sit back here, as many people think, as Members of Congress, and just dream up ways to make life complicated for ophthalmologists and optometrists. We respond, generally not to constituents quite so close to home, but we respond to the problems that people in this country have, and it takes us often a long time, in this case almost 10 years. But when we get there, we do a good job, as we see with the many people who have worked to do this.

I would like to add that Consumers Union was one of the early supporters of this bill and helped us to work it through. It is the law in California already, and I am sure that the other 30 million people who do not reside in California who wear contact lenses, I am too cowardly to stick my finger in my eye, so I do not, but many people will be pleased, and it will be of great convenience to them. I am one who happens to believe in free enterprise, and I think it is going to create some competition in the world and perhaps make lives better for everyone concerned in this.

So, again, my thanks to those people who worked so hard. It is a good bill. The consumers will benefit. The advocates for all the providers involved have worked with us to support it, and I urge its adoption.

I'm pleased to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act and urge every Member of Congress to join us in voting for this important consumer protection legislation.

This bill requires eye care professionals to provide their patients with a copy of their contact lens prescription so the patient can choose to purchase their contact lenses from that professional or seek an alternative provider. The bill also enforces a verification system for prescriptions that puts the onus on eye doctors to quickly verify their patients' contact lens prescriptions. This makes real the option for consumers to purchase their contact lenses through third parties-- such as online venders--which are often more affordable and convenient for consumers. This is a law my home State of California has already enacted and one that consumers deserve to have in all parts of our country.

This might not be a high profile issue, but it is important to the 36 million of contact lens wearers around the country. Eyeglass wearers have enjoyed unobstructed access to their eyeglass prescriptions since the Federal Trade Commission issued regulations in 1978 requiring their automatic release. Yet, 25 years later, similar action has yet to be taken for contact lens wearers. If this bill is enacted, we will finally have brought contact lens consumer protections up-to-date.

I got involved in this issue more than a decade ago when my wife asked her eye care provider in D.C. for her contact lens prescription so she would have it if she needed it while we were in California. To her--and my--astonishment, the provider refused to give her the prescription saying that the law did not require him to do so. We checked it out and he was correct. I've been working to fix this problem ever since.

The simple fact is that contact lenses are fast replacing eyeglasses as the corrective vision instrument of choice for consumers. Despite this trend, many States allow prescribing eye care professionals to refuse to release contact lens prescriptions to their patients. Eye doctors cite health concerns, but the fact is that they have a strong financial incentive to restrict consumer access to the contact lens market. Without their contact lens prescription in hand, consumers are forced to purchase

their lenses from their prescribing eye doctor--who obviously profits from each and every sale.

Over the years, I've introduced several bills to require the release of contact lens prescriptions. For the last several years, Representatives Burr, Dingell, Tauzin, Waxman, Schakowsky and I have been working together to fashion a bipartisan bill that can garner the support of a broad coalition to ensure its passage.

That day is here. I started out this effort with the support of Consumers Union and I'm pleased they have endorsed this version of the legislation as well. I'm also pleased that the American Optometric Association has been willing to come to the negotiating table and has also endorsed this final version of our legislation.

That tells you this is a good bill--we've got consumers and optometrists--the largest providers of contact lenses--agreeing that this day has come. It is time to update our consumer protection laws to ensure that contact lens wearers have the right to safely purchase their lenses from the provider that best meets their needs. Join us in support of H.R. 3140 to give consumers that right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this final Energy bill. It's fiscally irresponsible, unfair to consumers and a threat to our health and environment. It provides too little for conservation and clean, renewable energy sources. And it won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil or lower energy costs for consumers as Republicans have claimed.

No matter the Republican rhetoric, this isn't smart energy policy. It doesn't reflect forward thinking. It isn't the result of thoughtful debate or bipartisan cooperation. Democrats were shut out as this backroom deal was cut by special interests on the backs of American taxpayers. And as they say, to the winner go the spoils.

This bill is nothing less than a special interest giveaway piled high with huge corporate tax breaks totaling $23.5 billion. Half of these go to the oil and gas industry alone despite huge profit margins and a robust energy market where crude oil prices have risen over $30 a barrel. But, there are also tax breaks for renewed development of nuclear power and subsidies for the production of so-called ``clean coal''--an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

With all this money for pumped up fossil fuel production, what about conservation? After all, that is a critical piece of reducing energy costs and ending dependence of foreign oil. Well, this conference agreement falsely claims to provide $9 billion in tax incentives for energy conservation. But, consider what this is for: the repeal of the excise tax on diesel fuel used for railroads and inland waterway barges; a tax credit for nuclear power production; and an extension of energy production credits. I'd call that conserving corporate profits, not energy.

So what about clean renewable technologies such as wind and solar power? Well, to use the words of the lead Senate conferee in opposing subsidies for renewable energy, ``You will be sick of seeing windmills in about 10 years.'' Well, most Americans are sick of the kind of pollution big oil companies put into our air and water or the way drilling can destroy our oceans and wilderness.

Make no mistake, it is the oil industry that makes out big under this bill. And don't think these Republicans hold these big energy corporations any more accountable with all these subsidies. They expect less--not more--from industry when it comes to protecting our air and water. Consider the byproducts this Republican Energy bill is dumping on the American people:

Under one special interest provision, the EPA is barred from taking enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act against Halliburton and other oil companies for using a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing. This process speeds up oil extraction by shooting diesel fuel into the ground, allowing this fuel and its cancer causing agents to leak into underground aquifers and contaminating drinking water supplies.

Oil companies are exempted from the Clean Water Act's so-called waste-water runoff rules allowing them to pollute our Nation's waterways with industrial byproducts. Another provision allows these and other energy producers to flaunt the Clean Air Act by delaying deadlines for compliance with air quality standards in certain, select areas in which they operate. This means that clean air standards will be weakest in the areas in which air pollution is the worst.

But, that's not all.

Local taxpayers get stuck with the bill for cleaning up pollution caused by the fuel additive MTBE, which the National League of Cities estimates will cost $30 billion. This is a serious problem in my State of California. But, in a recent study, the U.S. Geological Survey found that nearly 55 percent of all urban water systems have been polluted by MTBE. Yet, Republicans are exempting oil and gas companies from any liability for the drinking water contamination caused by their fuel additive.

That simply isn't fair to the cash-strapped local communities that will have to bear this burden. Nor is it responsible to threaten the health of every American as expensive clean-ups are further delayed without the resources to carry them out. I believe we ought to hold these corporate polluters accountable, especially as Republicans dole out huge subsidies to the oil and gas industry that is responsible for this mess.

Now, you may be asking yourselves then, what exactly do Americans get in return for all this pork and swindle? Cheaper gas prices? Cheaper electricity? Hardly.

The Republicans fail to take a stand to protect consumers against exorbitant energy prices or fraudulent pricing schemes. Given the billions Enron swindled from consumers in California, this ought to be a top priority. But lo and behold, the Republicans have barred the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from instituting new rules to protect consumers from price gouging. Their bill fails to include strict anti-fraud provisions to crack down on shady business schemes such those employed by Enron--those that sparked the Energy Crisis. Republicans even repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act that insulates ratepayers from bearing the cost of risky energy ventures while protecting investors from tricky corporate accounting maneuvers.

I urge my colleagues to say no to this shameful bill. Americans deserve better than this special interest giveaway. Let's stand up for an innovative, clean and responsible energy policy that conserves our resources and

preserves our environment. Vote down this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Veterans Day on November 11, 2003 and to pay tribute to the veterans in Alameda County, California. As we pause to remember the valiant men and women who have nobly served our country, I join the Alameda County Veterans' Affairs Commission and the city of Hayward to commemorate Alameda County's 50th Annual Veterans Day Parade.

The Alameda County Veterans' Affairs Commission is a diverse group of men and women who stand together with the same discipline and patriotism and the same values and uncommon valor that they fostered in the battles they fought for our nation. Last year's program, Honoring All Who Served, stated, ``as long as there are men and women in uniform, stationed across the world, there will be a body of veterans' organizations defending and upholding the rights of our fighting men and women.'' I commend their tireless efforts.

This year, the Commission has again taken the charge to prepare and promote the annual Veterans Day Parade ceremonies. I join them in honoring our veterans and in dedication to world peace.