Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eden Housing, Inc. of Hayward, California on the occasion of its thirty-fifth anniversary. Eden Housing, Inc. was founded in 1968 by a group of dedicated individuals who were concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Alameda County. The original board members developed Eden's first affordable development, the 150-unit Josephine Lum Lodge for seniors in Hayward, California.

Since starting its first project nearly 35 years ago, Eden Housing has created 4,200 units of affordable housing for low income families, seniors and persons with disabilities, and has become one of the most active non-profit affordable housing developers in California. As it has grown, the organization has expanded its development activities into six Northern California counties. From its small but ambitious beginning, Eden, and its two major affiliates, Eden Housing Management, Inc. and nonprofit Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. now employ a combined professional staff of 120 employees. The organization is guided by an eleven member volunteer board of directors from a wide spectrum of professional fields.

In addition to meeting the needs for affordable shelter, Eden Housing is committed to helping its residents improve their lives through free onsite supportive services and programs provided by Eden's nonprofit affiliate, Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. These services include children's summer and after-school programs, scholarships for deserving adults, senior health and fitness programs, onsite service coordination, and computer learning programs where children learn skills to help them succeed in school, and adults acquire skills to help them compete for better employment opportunities.

Throughout its history, Eden Housing has made it a priority to mentor and partner with smaller non-profit organizations to build their capacity while providing housing to serve special populations or geographic communities. Included in Eden's collaborations are a 100- unit senior apartment complex, developed with East Bay Issei, a coalition of Japanese American groups concerned with creating housing for their senior constituents; multiple partnerships with Community Resources for Independent Living and the Mentally Handicapped Children's Organization to create developments for persons with disabilities; and a collaboration with East Bay Habitat for Humanity to build homes in Fremont for first-time buyers.

In its thirty-fifth year, Eden Housing is celebrating the future, as well as the past. Eden Housing, Inc. is breaking ground on new developments and opening others. The organization is conducting feasibility studies for additional units and continues to search out new opportunities, all of which support Eden Housing's commitment to provide affordable housing in Northern California well into the future.

Congratulations Eden Housing, Inc. I applaud your dedication and exemplary contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Logan High School forensics team, and their coach Tommie Lindsey.

Recently, thirteen students from Logan High competed in the National Forensic League tournament in Atlanta, where five team members went twelve out of the thirteen rounds. One team member completed all thirteen rounds, winning the championship, and a $6,000 scholarship. Logan is one of only five schools that received the School of Excellence Award--and the only one from California--from a field that included 1,000 schools.

Coach Tommie Lindsey's successful coaching style was the subject of a PBS Documentary last year called ``Accidental Hero: Room 408.'' Students are back in Room 408 at Logan, where Lindsey is preparing them for the coming year in a summer-school program that includes 156 of the 240 students who make up the forensics team. Room 408 is filled with dozens of certificates of merit and stacked high to the ceiling with trophies.

Four Logan students have won national forensics championships in the past 15 years, and 20 other students have reached the semifinal round of the competition. But those aren't the statistics Lindsey is most proud of.

This year, 27 or the 28 graduating seniors on the forensic team are going to four-year colleges and the other one is going to junior college, according to Lindsey. In a school where, Lindsey said, about 40 percent of the graduates go on to college, the numbers of the forensics team speaks volumes.

Lindsey has been coaching forensics for 27 years, and at Logan since 1989. He is the director of forensics and a teacher, but to his students, he is much more. According to them, they benefit from his coaching and beyond. He advises students on how to perform, how to maintain their concentration during a performance, how to dress and how to treat competitors, He also encourages them to volunteer in the community, such as their recent work with elementary school students.

It is with pride and honor that I commend the Logan High School Forensics Team and Tommie Lindsey for their community involvement, their passion to succeed, and continued commitment to excellence.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard the President, Republican Members of Congress, Administration officials, and Republican Senators claim time and time again that their Medicare prescription drug plan will provide seniors with the same choices as Members of Congress get. They've said that if FEHBP is good enough for Federal employees and Members of Congress alike, it should be good enough for seniors.

That's a great message and I'm sure it sells well with seniors. Unfortunately, their rhetoric fails to match the reality. The drug benefit they are willing to provide to Medicare beneficiaries is far less than the drug benefit provided to Federal employees.

We've been trying to expose this hypocrisy for months. Today, the Republicans point out the truth themselves.

This bill, authored by Representative Tom Davis, requires that each health plan in FEHBP agree to provide the same drug benefits to Federal retirees as they do to active employees.

In other words, it protects Federal employees from ever having their retiree drug benefits reduced to the level that the bill's author just supported for the rest of our nation's retirees!

Representative Davis represents an awful lot of Federal employees and he knows that the Medicare drug benefit is inadequate. Therefore, he's here today--the very first legislative day we are back in session after having passed the Republican Medicare drug bill--to get a fix for his constituents and himself.

If the Republican drug bill was as good a benefit as Federal employees and Member of Congress receive, Representative Tom Davis and others would not be here today ensuring that Federal employees are never forced to give up their FEHBP coverage and find themselves with only the Medicare drug benefit his party has legislated.

But, the Medicare drug benefit isn't as good. That's why they're here.

Unfortunately, they are ignoring the problems that will be faced by the millions of seniors and people with disabilities who are not Federal employees or Members of Congress.

The Congressional Budget Office has told us that if the Republican Drug Bill becomes law, one-third of employers will drop their retiree drug coverage. That will cause millions of Americans to lose the coverage they have today only to be replaced with the inadequate benefit put forth by the Republicans. Yet, nothing in this bill will help them.

Put frankly, we can't buy a health plan in FEHBP with as poor drug coverage as is included in the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed last week.

Rather than protect us from having to suffer with inadequate coverage with the rest of America's seniors, we should be considering a bill that guarantees all America's seniors and people with disabilities with a drug benefit as good as Members of Congress get.

Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to go along with that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with an apology to all my Republican colleagues. For, oh, at least the 30 years or so I have been here, I have been accusing the Republicans of not being inclusive, just dealing with the rich and forgetting about the minorities and the working people in this country. With this bill they have become broadly inclusive. Later on tonight, they are going to take the first step in destroying health care for seniors, and then, because they are being so inclusive with this bill, they are going to screw everybody. They are going to destroy health care for the employees who get their health insurance from employers.

As the distinguished ranking member of our committee pointed out, $100 billion was added to this in the middle of the night, and the bill will be funded by borrowing, by increasing the national debt and worsening deficits. And all it really does, if you cut through all the Mickey Mouse that they have talked about, high-deductible insurance, is that it creates some new tax-exempt savings accounts. Tax shelters for the wealthy and the healthy. And it advances the objective of undercutting employer-provided health coverage.

It is no secret that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has expressed his desire to dismantle the employment- linked health insurance system, and he has noted that he believes it encourages overutilization of health care because individuals are shielded from knowing the true cost.

Now, the argument that the bill will assist the uninsured is not true. Most of the uninsured have incomes too low to be eligible for any tax benefits contained in H.R. 2596. And as was stated earlier, few, if any, have the $4,000 a year in additional savings required to utilize the benefits contained. There is nothing in this bill that requires the employers to give the employees any money to make up for that gap that will be created by the higher deductibles. It merely gives them the opportunity, if they have any money, to add to savings accounts.

Not surprisingly, the same 6 million families who were deliberately excluded by the Republicans from the recent tax bill for child tax credit are the same families that they are excluding from benefiting in this bill. So for families with insurance, it provides tax benefits only if the insurance requires them to pay the first thousand dollars; and employers will be encouraged by this nonsense to increase health insurance deductibles, which lowers their costs and lowers the benefits for most of their employees' health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands that with this $174 billion that we are wasting in this bill, we could help States maintain Medicaid coverage as they weather their fiscal crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who realizes that with this $176 billion we could insure every one of the 9 million uninsured children in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have a couple of letters, one from the AFL-CIO which suggests that this legislation would establish an enormous tax shelter for wealthy individuals and at the same time undermine employer-based health coverage and shift costs onto workers. I have a letter from Families USA which, among other things, says that this bill also threatens the employer-provided health insurance system particularly among smaller employers who will be able to take deductions in the top brackets and who will then no longer be interested in providing coverage for their employees.

Mr. Speaker, I include both letters for the Record.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2003.

Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO opposes H.R. 2351, the

Health Savings Account Availability Act. This legislation

would establish an enormous tax shelter for wealthy

individuals and at the same time undermine employer-based

health coverage and shift more cost onto workers. Despite

proponents' claims, this bill would fail to expand coverage

to the uninsured and would be especially harmful to those

low-income, older and sicker workers who now have

comprehensive coverage.

Under H.R. 2351, employers could offer Health Savings

Accounts as long as they are provided in conjunction with

high-deductible health insurance policies, defined as at

least $500 for an individual policy and $1,000 for a family

plan. This will encourage employers to abandon more generous

coverage and offer instead less comprehensive policies that

shift significant costs onto workers. The Joint Committee on

Taxation has estimated that 30 million such accounts would be

established by 2013 and the majority of employers would

modify their health plans to meet the high-deductible

guidelines of the legislation.

In addition, this shift in coverage would harm most those

workers who need health care. Low-income workers who are the

intended beneficiaries of these plans' preferred tax

treatment are not likely to get back enough in taxes to

offset the greater out-of-pocket costs they are likely to

incur with these high-deductible plans.

Furthermore, those workers and other insured individuals

who have traditional, more comprehensive coverage will see

their premiums rise. Younger, healthier workers will likely

choose the less-comprehensive coverage, leaving older and

sicker workers and those who earn too little to pay taxes in

traditional coverage. As a result, costs for this coverage

will rise, leaving workers with no choice but to enroll in

the high-deductible coverage this bill seeks to promote.

This legislation was slipped through the Ways and Means

committee last week, and made worst late last night in the

Rules Committee. Among the changes made in Rules, the income

threshold has been raised to $175,000 for joint filers. The

cost of the revised bill is estimated to be $174 over ten

years--more than twice the estimated cost of the bill that

passed Ways and Means last week--and makes clear that this

legislation is first and foremost another tax shelter, not a

bill to cover the uninsured.

H.R. 2351 was raised just last week with little notice and

certainly without any hearings, despite the bill's far-

reaching implications and significant cost. And now the House

leadership has called for it to be joined with the Medicare

prescription drug legislation before the House. I urge you to

vote against H.R. 2351.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Department of Legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a

member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who understands that we could cover the parents of low-income children who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP with the same amount of money.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know where to begin to warn the seniors in this country about this sham of a bill and the beginning of the destruction of Medicare, as the Republicans have wanted to do for a number of years. There is no question that this is a major move toward privatizing Medicare. By the calculations that we have from the last feeble attempt to do this, of course Health and Human Services refuses to give us the most recent actuarial computations, but using the last ones, the Medicare premium for B in this drug benefit would rise to $142 a month if the premium could hold at $35.

By 2010, all Medicare will be privatized and immediately there will be a means test, the first time ever, an attempt to turn a government program into a welfare program, and the interesting thing is that every senior's income data will be turned over to any insurance company in the United States that requests it. So seniors, so much for their privacy. Every one of those people that calls on the phone to sell you some hokey insurance is going to have complete data on your income courtesy of the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, the sad part even further is that the Republicans would like

to turn this over to private companies to operate it, and it is very interesting that one of the largest and best known private companies, Medco, a subsidiary of Merck was just indicted, or as they say, essentially indicted, by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia for a series of crimes committed on our Federal employees' health insurance benefits. This company that the Republicans would turn the management of this drug benefit over to was indicted for canceling, deleting and destroying patients mail order prescriptions to avoid penalties for late filing and mailing; shortchanging patients on the number of pills paid for; making false statements to the insurance plan they were contracted with about compliance with mailing timelines; calling and inducing physicians to authorize switching to higher cost medications while representing that this would save money for the insurance company, which was untrue; fabricating records of calls by pharmacists to physicians, and the list goes on.

This is the type of company who supports the Republicans, and they in turn are paying back that favor by offering Medco and Merck and their ilk the opportunity to provide a so-called benefit to seniors. I say so-called benefit because the next cruel hoax in this bill is there is no benefit defined in the bill. Nowhere in the bill does it define a premium, nowhere in the bill does it define a copay, and nowhere in the bill does it define a benefit. Now, we can all do some math and the CBO actuaries tell us that the actuarial value of a suggested benefit might be $1,360. It is important to add that our actuarial benefit for our health employees' benefit plan is probably closer to $3,000, but there is nothing that states in this law that the U.S. Government shall create, provide, or require a benefit of any type. In other words, if the insurance companies cannot be induced or bribed into offering a benefit, there will not be any. This is a nothing bill. It does not provide a benefit.

Now, I guess perhaps Members may not want to just take my word for it, so I think it is important to note what many others might say about the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Arizona Daily Star says that ``the Democratic bill is better in every respect,'' and that the House drug bill is ``awful'' and ``repulsive.''

The Chicago Tribune says the Medicare debate ``has more to do with campaign 2004 than providing a prescription drug benefit.''

The Long Island Newsday said that ``the proposals racing through the House are a mess. Unless they improve dramatically en route to passage, doing nothing would be better than enacting such flawed laws.''

The Evansville Courier & Press says the ``ridiculously complex Medicare reform now being considered by Congress may be one of the more irresponsible measures in the long history of cradle-to-grave legislation.''

The Akron Beacon Journal says that while the Medicare reform bills would address the lack of drug coverage in Medicare, beneficiaries might be ``no better off with the benefit than they are at present'' because ``on the key issues of affordability, the structure of premiums, deductibles and copayments, both versions follow an elaborate path to disappointment.'' The list goes on.

In North Carolina, the Raleigh News Observer says the bill's actual benefit does not begin to outweigh the drawbacks of its so-called reforms.

The Roanoke Times and World News says even if the drug bill passes, seniors still will have to fear the possibility they will face crushing drug bills.

In Kansas, the Windfield Courier says the doughnut hole ``hurts many seniors when they need the help the most.'' ``The majority Republicans are at risk of passing a Medicare bill that looks, walks and talks like a political campaign creature.''

Washington State, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer says what Congress finally sends to the White House will surely be a disappointment.

The Oregonian says it is difficult to see the congressional proposals for Medicare drug coverage as much more than a big letdown. They are thin in coverage and convoluted in delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can sum this all up, people will say this is drug coverage for old folks. The truth is this bill is nothing but political coverage for the Republicans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). The gentleman from Maryland understands that with proponents like Thomas and Johnson, the seniors do not need any scaring from us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who understands that seniors are going to have to pay 4,000 bucks for the first $5,000 of drugs regardless.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, unlike the authors of this bill, did not spend his entire life in the public trough but actually worked in private enterprise; so he understands what privatization is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, because I do not intend to let unsubstantiated remarks go unchallenged either.

We do not oppose this bill because of what is in it, because there is nothing in it. There are no benefits in it. There is nothing in the bill except to spend money to get private insurance companies, if they decide to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who recognizes that.

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

Mr. Speaker, how short memories are. It was just an hour ago that we threw away $174 billion on useless medical savings accounts and over the last year or two we gave $800 billion in inheritance tax relief to an average of 10,000 people a year so we could punish a hundred million people a year by destroying their Medicare. They just do not remember. But the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. Neal) remembers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands that the Republican bill does not extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund at all. In fact, it probably reduces it some.

Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman could explain the gap, but obviously he cannot. So I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time and will use it to sum up because that is about all the time it will take to explain what is in the Republican bill, which is nothing. It privatizes Medicare, and it promises a benefit as good as we Members of Congress get, and it does not get a third of the way there.

It is a hoax. It is phony. It is a fig leaf. It only gives coverage to the Republicans because there is nothing, absolutely nothing in this bill that requires anybody to provide a drug benefit to the seniors, and perhaps they will give the Republicans enough campaign money or promises and favors of other sorts to get them to change this in the future; but right now, sexual favors will not do it, nothing will do it. We are not giving the seniors anything but a hoax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know earlier I moved the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to talk about his poverty and I wanted to join him in that. I too was raised poor. I was raised so poor that I never slept alone until I was married. I want to go on and suggest that I am not going to let you have that field all to yourself.

We have introduced a substitute. Unlike your bill, ours has specific benefits. Your bill, I would remind the gentlewoman from Connecticut, has no benefit in it. It is all estimates. It is all examples. There is no benefit in your bill, and indeed in our substitute there is. You have heard it. It is simple. It is $25 a month, 20 percent coinsurance, no gaps; and we pay out of pocket after $2,000.

Yes, you will say it costs a lot of money. The gentlewoman from Connecticut forgets about the $5.6 trillion surplus that Bush had when he came into office and which he squandered on tax cuts in the meantime. But we do have an income transfer as we have been accused of. It is very simple. You can look at it this way. You have given $800 billion to 10,000 of the richest families each year when you did away with the inheritance tax. No question about it. That is what it costs. Those are the beneficiaries. We would take that money as an alternative and give it to what will be in a short 10 years 100 million seniors. What you have given away to the richest seniors in this country would more than pay for a drug benefit of the magnitude that we offer, a standard Medicare drug benefit, and I suggest that that is a transfer worth making and that that defines the difference between us.

You give $800 billion to 10,000 families a year, the richest in America. We would give that $800 billion to 100 million seniors who needed a drug benefit that they can define, depend on and understand, and that is why the Members should support the Democratic substitute. It is defined. It is real. It solves the problem for seniors, and it is, I think, one of the highest priorities that this House has.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have the same letter, and it says nothing about employers dropping coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who understands that spending money to provide a decent drug benefit for seniors is not wasting money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for a couple of housekeeping things.

In 13 years, the revenues start to decline, but it does not go insolvent for 24 years. And I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Nussle), if he has indeed the same letter that we are informed we have from CBO dated June 26, it says nothing in there about employers turning back Medicare, so he either misspoke or made it up, which, in my State, we call telling a lie. Unless he has a different letter, which I am assured by CBO he does not, then he made that up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just to straighten out some of the figures, the Republicans do indeed add $26.7 billion for rural providers. We add $39.1 billion for rural providers. That is $2.5 billion more, and I would hope that the Republicans are not lying to the seniors.

You can lie to us because we are used to it. The White House has set the tone for that. But do not lie to the seniors. There is nothing in your bill. I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), there is nothing in your bill that guarantees anything, and to say that to the seniors is lying to them.

There is nothing in your bill that guarantees a thing to the seniors and you know it. And if you do not know it, read it again. Otherwise, you are lying to the seniors.

Our bill provides a Medicare benefit which is definable. Yours does not. You do not require any benefits if no insurance company steps up to the plate and there is nothing that requires it. There is not one line in your bill that requires an insurance company to provide anything. So it is all a fantasy. At least we are requiring the government to provide a benefit to the seniors in the same manner they are now familiar, under Medicare with a determined premium, a determined deductible, determined benefits, the same across the country. None of that is available through the Republican bill. To tell the seniors otherwise is lying. You have lied to us tonight and stop lying to the seniors. So support our substitute and vote down the great Republican lie.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise concerns with House Resolution 294, Condemning The Terrorism Inflicted On Israel And Expressing Solidarity With The Israeli People.

I am greatly troubled by the violence between Palestinians and Israelis over the last two weeks. It poses a great threat to the road map toward peace before it has had a chance to progress. I am outraged by extremists on both sides who continue to frustrate and delay the peace process. For the sake of the Israeli and Palestinian people, this process must be allowed to succeed.

While I join my colleagues in denouncing all acts of terrorism, this resolution unfairly places blame on one side in the ongoing cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States should always act as a fair and impartial broker in the peace process. This resolution violates that responsibility.

Let me be clear. I condemn the recent bus bombings and other acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas just as I believe Israel must halt its policy of assassinations. The day after Israel attempted to kill a senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed seventeen innocent people aboard a bus in Jerusalem. The cycle of violence being perpetuated by both sides must end, but this resolution does nothing constructive to further that goal.

It is only right that Congress call upon the new government of Prime Minister Abbas to

take more effective measures in controlling Hamas and ending violence. But we should also ask the government of Prime Minister Sharon to do the same. We should sponsor impartial legislation supporting continued dialogue to end the violence in the Middle East--protecting the human rights of the innocent involved in the cross fire. We must balance our demands on both of these governments.

Both sides have crossed the line--it is time to get back to the negotiating table. We are not aiding this already volatile situation by giving our weighted support to one side in this conflict. For that reason, I must abstain on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 660, the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003.'' This bill is badly misnamed. Rather than make the cost of health insurance for small businesses more fair, this bill would have the perverse effect of increasing the cost of health insurance for many people and increase the number of people without health insurance altogether.

This bill would allow these new entities, called Association Health Plans (AHPs), to bypass State regulation and offer bare-bones health insurance policies. Small businesses that don't choose to offer these inadequate policies would see their premiums increase by 23 percent on average. This premium hike would occur because AHPs, which would offer only skeletal coverage, would attract the healthiest individuals, leaving traditional health insurance plans with the sickest and most expensive patients. This shift would penalize businesses with sicker employees, and make health insurance for those who need it the most even more unaffordable.

Further, this legislation would swell the ranks of the uninsured by over one million more individuals. As traditional health insurance becomes increasingly expensive, more and more businesses would have no choice but to drop health insurance for their employees, leaving these individuals with little or no opportunity to purchase health coverage.

Contrary to what proponents of this bill claim, AHPs would not truly help small businesses purchase health insurance for their employees. Although proponents claim that AHPs would give small-employers bargaining power to purchase affordable health insurance, most States already have laws in place that allow for group purchasing arrangements. This bill would only harm existing laws while usurping the traditional role of States to regulate insurance.

In fact, this bill would override key State laws and regulations that protect millions of Americans. For example, many States regulate insurance premiums to prevent insurers from discriminating against the ill. But under this bill those laws wouldn't apply. AHPs would be allowed to offer extremely-low ``teaser'' rates, and then rapidly increase the premium if the enrollee becomes sick. Furthermore, nearly all States have enacted external review laws which guarantee patients an independent doctor review if a health plan denies them coverage for a particular service. Patients who join AHPs would lose this vitally important consumer protection.

This bill also exempts AHPs from State laws that require health insurance to cover particular benefits. These laws have helped to ensure that millions of Americans get access to the healthcare that they need--such as mammography screenings, maternity care, well-child care, and prompt payment rules. In my State, California, employees who join AHPs could well lose access to these services as well as certain emergency services, direct access to OB/GYNs, mental health parity, and other important benefits. Moreover, this law would allow health plans to ``gag'' doctors, the currently illegal practice of health insurers preventing doctors from discussing treatment options that the plan does not cover, even if some of those options are in the patient's best medical interest.

The problems go on. AHPs are likely to create new fraud and abuse problems in health care as well. These plans are very similar to Multiple Employer Welfare Plans (MEWAs) which Congress created in the 1970s. MEWAs were also exempt from State insurance regulation. The Department of Labor found that many of these plans were frauds and left their enrollees holding the bag for more than $123 million in unpaid health expenses. Congress had to come back and clean up the law to end this blatant abuse. We should learn from that mistake--not repeat it!

This bill is bad for patients, bad for small business, and bad for States. It is opposed by over 500 organizations--including both the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations, local Chambers of Commerce, small business associations, physician organizations, labor unions, and healthcare coalitions. H.R. 660 would increase premiums, increase the number of uninsured, lead to massive fraud, and remove key State protections. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

I rise today to oppose this repeal of the estate tax. In the very same week that the Republicans are willing, as they did last night, to shortchange seniors on a Medicare prescription drug benefit, they are willing to go out and spend $60 billion a year on a tax cut for the richest 1 percent. Kind of a new form of shock and awe, along with the same kind of truth that they use in weapons of mass destruction.

This bill before us cost $163 billion. It occurs only in the last 3 years of the 10-year budget window, and it is on top of the $1.3 trillion tax cuts signed into law in 2001 and the recent $350 billion, or trillion bucks when we strip away all the accounting gimmicks.

The gentlewoman from Washington misspoke. Only 642 or 1.4 percent of taxable estates had farm assets making up half or more of the gross estate in the last reported statistics; 776 or 1.6 percent of taxable estates had business or partnership assets comprising half or more of their gross estate. One percent of small businesses and farms, one percent, of those estates would have been forced to liquidate any assets at all to pay the current level of estate tax.

So here they are responding, as the Republicans will, to the Mars family who spent $1 million lobbying already to get this through and the Connell Company and the Koch Industries, Incorporated, Hallmark Cards. So they have got a few very, very rich people who would like to get away without paying their fair share of what it keeps to make America great.

I suspect that what is really troubling the Republicans is they are worried about the efficacy and ability of their children to succeed. That is understandable. If one is raised and coddled by rich parents and never have to work, they probably need some protection. Most of the money that they are sucking out of our Federal revenues is money that we are taking out of programs like Head Start, Leave No Child Behind, Medicare, health insurance for children, things that will make healthy and strong families.

Warren Buffett who earned some money on his own, something that my Republicans do not seem to understand, most of the people opposing this bill worked at the public trough all their lives, never had a job in free enterprise or else they inherited their money. So if they listen to somebody like Warren Buffett who said we come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world, we have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, we in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth which means we pass down the ability to command the resources of the Nation based on heredity rather than merit. I suppose that is something the Republicans need to keep themselves in office.

He likened the tax repeal to choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest son of gold medal winners in the 2000 Olympics. We would regard that as absolute folly in athletic competition. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, having been seduced by, I guess, they had 1,200 folks last night raise 3 or $4 million for the President, but they are worried about every one of them, but not about the 40 million seniors who they denied decent Medicare prescription drug benefits last night because they felt they did not have the money.

The reason they do not have the money is they are giving it away to less than 10,000 people a year. So as they help 10,000 people, who I might add, make that the kids who are going to inherit this, that is, 40,000 a year, so they are going to give away $60 billion to 40,000 rich kids every year, and they are going to deny 40 million senior citizens the health care they deserve in their old age; and some of my colleagues may snicker about that, but those are mostly you do not have anything left to leave and so I say that it is the same old same old: Republicans pandering to the rich to entrench themselves here and people whose children cannot make it on their own trying to figure out how to support them in an era where they should be learning to make it on their own if they had the right kind of education, which again the Republicans are denying us.

So it is very clear, it is the same old message over and over. Billions of dollars to a few very rich people, turn your back on those who need the help they should be getting from society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, with his brother, understands that hard work and education can lead to a successful career without inheriting a lot of money.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) if he would be willing to engage with me for a moment. The two constituents mentioned, would they not have been covered under the Pomeroy amendment?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

The estate on which they paid $185,000 in tax, how much was the farm worth?

Reclaiming my time, so it would be covered by the Pomeroy amendment. I just suggest that many of these horror stories of people who are quite fortunate would be covered under the Pomeroy amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

(Mr. KLECZKA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until just before the gentlewoman closes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There are two issues with this bill. One is fairness. And the other is lost opportunity. Let me give the Members a hypothetical. Let us take a young man, young woman, who started out after school and never worked anyplace but for the Government, and suddenly early in their youth in their career as a Government worker, they are going to inherit $40 million. They never had a job outside of public service in their lives. And they might pay $20 million in tax, be left with $20 million, to which they contributed nothing but it is nice to get.

The question of fairness is why should my children, who went to school and worked hard to become lawyers and teachers and contribute to society, why should they have to pay the $20 million for this kid who is going to inherit the $40 million? That is not fair. They are not asking for a handout. They are probably grumping at their father for fighting against this bill, but they are content. They have got a leg up. They got to go to school, and now they are making their own way. And if, when I pass away, they have to pay some tax, they are going to be proud to do it, and they are proud of me for suggesting that they pay their fair share instead of asking me to give them a free ride. That is the fairness issue.

The lost opportunity is this: For those of us who are wealthy enough to pay the tax, my good friend from New York I think senses this. This bill is going to cost 60 billion bucks a year. We just got a release from the Institute of Medicine that shows that with the 41 million uninsured in this country, for about $69 billion a year we could provide them with health services. Do my colleagues know what? That would save us another $130 billion a year that we are paying in lost costs by having them go to hospitals without insurance. What is more important? To give a few thousand rich kids an exemption from paying their fair share and denying 40 million people health care in this country? That is the issue. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, we are talking about separating the rich and the poor. But I think those of us who are fortunate enough to be successful in this country ought to give something back and ought to help those who are less fortunate, and I just think it is crummy, it is anti-Christian, it is cheap, it is obscene to sit and say we have got ours, we are going to give tax breaks to our wealthiest contributors and to hell with the people who do not have health insurance. That is what the Republicans are saying with this bill, and I urge them late in life to come to do what is fair, to help 40 million Americans get health insurance rather than 4,000 get a tax break that will do none of us any good.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to oppose this misguided legislation. Don't be fooled by the title of this bill. It would lead some to believe that Congress is standing up for the average American--modifying certain inequities in our judicial system. Instead, it is a Republican sponsored hoax unfairly threatening the very people we are all elected to protect.

I don't think that the American public would be satisfied knowing that if H.R. 1115 passes, the accountability of such companies as Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Anderson and pharmaceutical giants like Eli Lilly, Aventis Pasteur and Abbott laboratories would be held less responsible in pending class action cases againt them. This bill will adversely affect low-income groups and consumers to effectively assert their rights against large corporations.

Why should corporations reap the benefits of our judicial system by avoiding civil penalties? They are the ones committing crimes. The intent of pursuing a class action suit in court allows redress for average Americans financially unable to launch a judicial battle on their own. Class action suits empower consumers to challenge wrongdoings by wealthy corporations who would otherwise ignore their appeal.

We know that truthful law-abiding citizens are the ones who will lose if this bill becomes law. Apparently, in America today, you must contribute a significant amount to the Republican Party's campaign pocketbook to be considered protected under the law. This bill certainly protects major Republican campaign contributors--too bad for all the average working people who are left behind.

I ask my colleagues to stand up for real people and vote against H.R. 1115.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1308, the House Republicans' phony attempt to fix the problem they created when they dumped low-income families from eligibility for the increased child tax credit passed as part of the President's latest tax cut package.

The Senate has already passed a bill to fix the problem with nearly unanimous support. But, House Republicans refuse to bring forth that bill. Instead, they've written an $82 billion bill with numerous tax breaks unrelated to the child tax credit for low income working families--and none of those $82 billion are paid for. It will increase our ballooning deficit even more.

This bill is nothing more than a way for the House Republicans' to look like they're trying to address the needs of working families. In fact, their goal is to sabotage this issue so they can hide the fact that they excluded low-income families from the child tax credit in the first place. They don't care at all if these families ever qualify for tax credit.

The House Republicans have brought this Trojan horse to the floor in order to pass further tax relief to upper-income families while betting that the Senate won't touch such an expensive bill with a ten-foot pole.

The House Republicans believe that they will then be able to blame defeat of the bill on the Senate, when in fact they are the ones to blame! The Senate bill has already overwhelmingly passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. The bill is paid for, unlike the House version. And most important, the President has already signed-off on the Senate- passed bill.

These families work hard and contribute their fair share through payroll taxes and sales taxes. There is no question that they also deserve their fair share of tax relief, especially when the child tax credit has been increased by $400 for parents just one rung higher on the income ladder. They can use this tax credit to help pay for their children's needs--like food, clothing, medical care, and childcare.

I applaud Senate Republicans for heeding the call of Democrats and reversing course to pass a bill reinstating the child tax credit for these low-income working families. While it doesn't go far enough, it is a step in the right direction. Now it is time for House Republicans to do the same. It is the right and fair thing to do for America's families.

I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1308 so that the conference will agree to the Senate child tax credit bill. That's the only way these low-income families are going to get the tax credit. These are the families that need those few extra dollars the most. Vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Child Protection Services Workforce Improvement Act. This bill is aimed at helping states improve their child protection services through grants and assistance that allow them to expand and enhance their child welfare workforce.

Many State child protection agencies are the last line of defense in caring for abused and neglected children. Today, these agencies are suffering from staffing problems that have been compounded by budget cuts and inadequate funding. The result in many cases is a failure to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children in our society.

I am sure that many of my colleagues have seen in their local newspapers or heard of a case where a child was severely abused or killed because a child protection agency ignored dangers posed to a child by their foster family or adoptive parents. Just look at the case of Indiana. A total of 70 kids died there from abuse and neglect in July 2001 to July 2002--this was a new State record. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service Children Family and Service Review found that the cause of this was in part due to the state child protection agencies failure to sufficiently reduce incidences of repeated mistreatment. It also warned that state budget cuts will further impact Indiana's limited ability to track such incidences.

In Colorado, State budget cuts have reduced the size of foster care review teams to the point that the State won't be able to meet federal requirements that foster children be checked on at least twice a year. In Arizona, budget cuts there have led to 32 percent of children in State custody being stuck in temporary placements for over 2 years. In South Carolina, some 500 positions in the State's social service agency--many involving child welfare--have been zeroed out. The same is true for many other States. There is no question that States need federal help to improve their ability to help and care for children in need.

These nationwide problems are why I am introducing the Child Protection Services Workforce Improvement Act. It provides States with $500 million in matching grants over 5 years to improve these services where it is needed most: Increasing the number of qualified child welfare workers. States can use these matching grants for their private and public child welfare agencies to: Reduce the turnover and vacancy rate of child welfare agencies, increase education and training of child welfare workers, attract and retain qualified candidates and coordinate services with other agencies, improve child welfare workers' wages, and increase the number of child welfare workers,

To retain qualified child welfare workers, my bill also allows student loan forgiveness for those who have been with an agency for at least two years. In order to improve the availability of quality services, this legislation provides a 75 percent federal match to pay for training of private child welfare workers, which is the same match rate provided to public child welfare agencies. My bill also allocates funding for child welfare agencies to provide short-term mental health training to caseworkers.

A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that child welfare workers are leaving the child welfare profession because of low wages, risk of on the job violence, staff shortages, high caseloads, administrative burdens, lack of support from supervisors, and lack of proper training for child welfare workers and their supervisors.

The high turnover rate and high caseloads of child welfare workers limits the ability and efficiency of agencies to investigate and solve problems of child abuse and neglect. For instance, the study found that the above staff problems: Provides insufficient time for remaining staff to establish critical trusting relationships with the families and children which are important to make the necessary decisions to ensure safe and stable permanent placements; delays the timeliness of child abuse and neglect investigation; limits the frequency of worker visits with children who are the victims or alleged victims of child abuse or neglect; and hampers agencies' attainment of some key federal goals of ensuring the safety of children and placing them in permanent homes either through adoption, kinship care or reuniting them with their families.

The Child Welfare League of America, the Alliance for Children and Families, the National Association of Social Workers, the Lutheran Services in America and the Catholic Charities of America have endorsed this bill. These organizations understand the needed support this legislation will provide State efforts to help abused and neglected children.

Please join with us in supporting the Child Protection Services Workforce Improvement Act and provide much needed financial resources to our child welfare workforce to protect the most vulnerable children in our society. Congress has a responsibility to respond to this urgent need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues gathered here today to honor and memorialize Ways and Means Democratic Staff Economist Al Davis who life was tragically cut short.

Al dedicated many years of his life to helping Democrats in the House of Representatives promote policies to improve the lives of America's working families. He did this first when working for the House Budget Committee Democratic staff and more recently with the Ways and Means Committee Democrats as our chief economist.

Those of us lucky enough to serve in Congress know how important the role of staff really is. A good staffer is not someone who will just agree with you--though it takes many of us a very long time to discover that reality. The best staffer is someone who understands the facts and helps you use those facts to promote policy that you support or oppose, but will tell you when the facts aren't on your side.

Al excelled in this role. He knew the tax code and budgetary impact of any change in law better--and more quickly--than almost anyone. If you needed the facts to support your argument, he was there with a memo to assist you. But, only if your argument was correct and could be substantiated! And, that was why Al will be missed so greatly. He'd tell you if the facts didn't support you--and you couldn't convince him to do otherwise.

There are two words that I think best describe Al Davis. The first is ``integrity''. As I've said above, he always held true to the facts and helped us do so as well. The second word is ``commitment''. Al was truly committed to the work he was doing here on Capitol Hill. He was here helping us whenever the Ways and Means Committee was meeting or the full House was considering Ways and Means bills--no matter how late at night it was. When the House wasn't in session late, he was usually still here long after we'd gone home analyzing bills, making charts and getting his memos out to us to make sure that we had the facts necessary to promote or combat various policies.

Al Davis will be sorely missed. He was the consummate Congressional staffer. We need more Al Davis' on both sides of the aisle. It is very sad that, instead, we have one less in our presence today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you the well- articulated environmental message of a fourth grader, Alfredo Montes, winner of the Friends of San Leandro Creek's 11th annual poetry contest. This contest was held in conjunction with the annual Watershed Festival Event, held in my district and cosponsored by the city of San Leandro, the Friends of San Leandro Creek (FSLC), and the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Protection program.

Organized in 1991 and officially incorporated as a nonprofit organization in 1995, the FSLC is a wonderful organization that brings the Bay Area community together around the San Leandro Creek in order to raise awareness of environmental issues. In addition to the Watershed Festival, the FSLC frequently organizes educational programs such as field trips and conservation projects for students in kindergarten through 12th grade; and regular cleanup and revegetation projects. I also regularly participate with other legislators in the FSLC's annual environmental forum. The FSLC's latest project--hopefully to be completed within the next two years--is building a new environmental education center at a new site.

Alfredo is a student at Monarch Academy, an Aspire Public School in Oakland, CA. His teacher, Andrea Main, thanked the FSLC for substantially helping to ``complement my curriculum'' with activities like field trips and water quality testing that ``totally inspired my kids.''

Ms. Main described Alfredo as a ``diligent, hardworking'' student who hopes to become an elected official when he grows up. His work was selected from about 20 poetry entries, by a panel of judges from the FSLC's board of directors and active members. FSLC Watershed Awareness Coordinator Susan Criswell added, ``I am in awe of the energy, talent and determination of this young man. It gives me hope for the future of our environment to see such dedication.''

Alfredo attended an FSLC-organized field trip with his class and said, ``I always go to places like the creek that have shallow water, because they have pollution in them, and that's what inspired me to write this poem.''

The Creek

(By Alfredo Montes)

The creek grows weak,

the frog no longer speaks,

the water almost falls asleep,

the trees continue to seek,

the creek feels like it has a leak,

like every time growing weak,

it gets lower and shallower as we speak,

so I will have to speak no more and hit the

poem's core,

we have to clean up the pollution so we keep on the

revolution.