Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I join with several colleagues to introduce the Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation would strengthen Medicare in the truest sense, by improving the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. The bill would make these improvements without forcing beneficiaries to leave the traditional Medicare program and join private insurance plans, and without restricting beneficiaries' choice of doctor, hospital, or other health care provider.

Medicare beneficiaries have significant chronic care needs. Nearly 90 percent of those aged 65 and older have one chronic condition and two thirds have two or more chronic conditions. Beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions comprise 20 percent of the Medicare population, but they account for an astonishing 66 percent of program spending. On average, Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions see eight different physicians regularly.

Unfortunately, Medicare--like the rest of our health care system--is designed around acute care needs. We generally do not adequately compensate providers for on-going care such as the time spent communicating with each other around complex patient needs, monitoring for harmful drug interactions, or teaching patients and caregivers how to better manage their conditions. As a result, these crucial care coordination services are rarely provided.

President Bush and some of my Republican colleagues would have us believe that we can solve this problem by forcing seniors into private insurance plans. Simply put, that claim is ridiculous. The need for chronic care improvements is just as pervasive among private insurers and the rest of the health care system as it is in Medicare. That is why the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) Study Panel on Medicare and Chronic Care in the 21st Century concluded earlier this year that, ``Medicare has the potential to refocus its Medicare program--as well as the nation's health care system--and should take a leading role in improving chronic care.''

The Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act would follow through on that expert recommendation. This bill provides the Medicare improvements that seniors and people with disabilities need by: Improving access to preventive and wellness services; expanding coverage for care coordination and assessment services for Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions; implementing a chronic care Quality Improvement Program; providing federal matching grants for clinical information technology systems that improve the coordination and quality of chronic care; ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries are not inappropriately denied coverage for services that are necessary to maintain health or functional status; commissioning an Institute of Medicine study and report on additional ways to ensure effective chronic care.

For more detail, I am entering a section-by-section bill summary into the Congressional Record following this statement.

The Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act is supported by a variety of health organizations representing consumers and providers, including the Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, the Medicare Rights Center, and the National Chronic Care Consortium.

The Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act enjoys wide support because it strengthens Medicare for all beneficiaries, whether they are in traditional Medicare or private plans that contract with Medicare. Unlike the President's Medicare ``reform'' plan or plans being developing by Congressional Republicans, the Medicare Chronic Care Improve Act would never force elderly and disabled Americans to give up traditional Medicare in order to get crucial benefits. They will never be forced to choose between the doctors they know and trust and the coverage they need. Those are not real choices and will not improve the quality of care beneficiaries receive.

I urge my colleagues to support real Medicare reform by cosponsoring the Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act.

Medicare Chronic Care Improvement Act of 2003

Representative Stark and Senator Rockefeller

title I--benefits to prevent, delay, and minimize the progression of

chronic conditions

Improve Access to Preventive Services: Eliminate all cost-

sharing (deductibles and co-insurance) for preventive

services that Medicare covers today; Direct the Secretary of

Health and Human Services (HHS) to contract with the

Institute of Medicine (IOM) to investigate and recommend new

Medicare preventive benefits every three years; Streamline

Medicare benefit improvements by granting the Secretary the

authority to expand Medicare coverage of preventive benefits

in accordance with IOM recommendations; Provide coverage for

a ``Welcome to Medicare'' initial preventive exam, in which

beneficiaries would receive initial preventive screening

tests, a physical exam, and discuss prevention and health

promotion with their doctors.

Expand Coverage for Care Coordination and Assessment

Services: Create a new care coordination benefit for Medicare

beneficiaries with chronic conditions; Examples of items and

services to be covered include: initial and periodic health

assessments; management and referral for medical and other

health services; medication management; patient and family

caregiver education and counseling; 24-hour access to care

coordinators; management of transitions across care settings;

information and referral to community-based services and

hospice care; other services and benefits specified by the

Secretary; Beneficiaries eligible for these benefits include

those with either a serious and disabling chronic condition

or four or more chronic conditions; Care coordinators

(including physicians, physician group practices, or other

health care professionals or entities) must be periodically

certified and must agree to participate in a quality

improvement program.

Implement Chronic Care Quality Improvement Program: Direct

the Secretary of HHS to establish a program to monitor and

improve clinical outcomes for beneficiaries with chronic

conditions. Under this program, the Secretary will establish

performance measures, collect data, and provide performance

reports to care coordinators and beneficiaries.

Improve Medicare+Choice for Beneficiaries with Chronic

Conditions: Require Medicare+Choice plans to provide care

coordination services and implement chronic care quality

improvement programs.

Improve Chronic Care Coordination through Information

Technology: Establish federal matching grants to support

clinical information technology systems development,

implementation, and training among Medicare-participating

care coordinators.

Ensure Proper Medicare Coverage Standards: Direct the

Secretary of HHS to review all Medicare coverage policies.

The Secretary must ensure that Medicare contractors properly

apply the Medicare statute and not demand a showing of

improvement to find that items or services are reasonable and

necessary.

title II--institute of medicine study on effective chronic condition

care

Recommend Medicare Improvements to Ensure Effective Care

for Beneficiaries with Chronic Conditions: Direct the

Secretary to contract with the IOM to investigate and

identify barriers and facilitators to effective care for

Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions, including

inconsistent clinical, financial, or administrative

requirements across care settings. The IOM report must

include recommendations to improve the provision of effective

care, including seamless transitions across health care

settings.

Definitions: ``Chronic condition'' means an illness,

functional limitation, or cognitive impairment that is

expected to last at least one year, limits what a person can

do, and requires on-going medical care; ``Serious and

disabling chronic condition(s)'' means the individual has at

least one chronic condition and has been certified by a

licensed health care practitioner within the preceding 12

months as having a level of disability such that the

individual, for at least 90 days, is unable to perform at

least 2 ADLs or a number of IADLs or other measure indicating

an equivalent level of disability or requiring substantial

supervision due to severe cognitive impairment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a saddened heart at the passing on of Judy Marron, beloved wife of Owen Marron, and devoted mother of six children.

Judy began her career in the State of California Department of Transportation, and then worked for the Heavy Highway Association until 1975. In 1978 Judy returned to employment as a clerk with the State Department of Transportation, rising through various positions to become executive secretary to the director of the department. In 1984 she became the national recruiter of engineers for the Department of Transportation.

In 1987, Judy went to work for the State Department of Health, where she retired as building manager for the department headquarters in Berkeley. She worked tirelessly to integrate women into the building trades and increase employment access for disabled individuals at the Berkeley facility.

Upon her retirement, Judy continued her activism and was retained as a consultant for various special projects, including a new health facility under development in Richmond, California.

Judy held memberships in the National University Alumni Association, American Association of Professional Women, The Association of Executive Secretaries in State Service, ACLU, National Wildlife Federation, Soroptomists of the East Bay, and the California State Employees' Association, SEIU Local 1000.

As an ardent advocate for the rights of working people, women, and disabled individuals, Judy contributed much to the labor movement. She provided valuable assistance to her husband, Owen, during his long tenure as executive secretary-treasurer of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County. Judy could always be counted on to help with marches, rallies, electoral activities, Labor Day picnics, Unionist of the Year events and other important functions to support the community and further the goals of the labor movement.

Judy leaves a legacy of activism filled with caring, commitment and devotion. Her family and all who were privileged to know and work with her will miss her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 760, the so-called Partial-Birth Act.

I'd like to ask my colleagues, in what medical book can the procedure partial-birth abortion be found? Nowhere. This is a conjured up term used by opponents of abortions. ``Partial birth'' is a political term, not a medical one. At this very moment, Congress is legislating medical protocols that should be the determination of doctors and their patients. Most members have no medical training and are unequipped to make medical determinations of this nature.

The medically accepted, rarely-used procedure that is being targeted today, which is so graphically described by the supporters of this ban, is nearly always used in the third trimester when the life or health of the mother is in danger. But this bill put forward by proclaimed anti- choice proponents goes far further than that. Their ban would not just apply to procedures performed in the third trimester. It criminalizes numerous abortion procedures--including the safest and most commonly used methods of abortion that are performed in the second trimester.

If this legislation passes, it opens a Pandora's box of restrictions on the rights of women and on the ability of doctors to practice medicine. Just imagine the country we will live in. In communities across the nation, law enforcement officers will be conducting sting operations in doctors' offices to arrest pregnant women and their physicians. Is that what we want for America? I certainly don't.

This bill isn't about banning one procedure. Let's be honest. It is an attempt to re-ignite an anti-abortion campaign to eviscerate Roe v. Wade.

Just 3 years ago, the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, struck down as unconstitutional a Nebraska law virtually identical to legislation before us today. Moreover, countless medical organizations disagree with this legislation--the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians, the American Nurses Association, and the California Medical Association to name a few.

H.R. 760 could ban what may be the safest choice to protect a woman's life and health. Once again, this difficult decision is one I believe wholeheartedly is best left in the hands of those who have the skills to make these medical determinations, and those patients and families the decision is affecting--not Congress.

Vote no on H.R. 760.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you the wisdom of a student in my district. At one of my recent town meetings while we were discussing people's concerns with the President's war with Iraq, teacher Karen Green rose to read a poem by ninth grader Dulce Murilla of San Leandro High School.

Sometimes we need to pause and listen to our children--who often have meaningful insights into even the world's largest problems. I commend this poem to your attention.

It's all 'bout the war in Iraq

what are these dumb fools on crack?!

Don't you see all the lives that have been taken

and how many souls have been taken

I hate these moments in history

Like they say life before your eyes

And that our government is full of lies

And ask myself why

why why Why

why all the pain

why all the tears

all these fears that haunt us behind each corner

this is all so complicated

Did you hear that missile

and did you hear that bomb

Imagine all the lives that have been taken

and all those children without their parents

can't we have some peace

and just stop the damn tease

Doesn't it break your heart

'cause i feel my heart falling apart

after each child that dies

and each woman that is burned

I wish the soldiers would've thought and turned

turned back to their homeland to the USA

But hey what's there for me to say

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th anniversary of Glad Tidings Church founded by Rev. and Mrs. J.W. Macklin in 1978 in Hayward, California. From its earliest inception, Glad Tidings reflected what many considered a new and refreshing direction in church ministry. With a strong commitment to communities and families, this young church began to position itself for a long-term commitment to the city of Hayward.

In 1981, Glad Tidings purchased their first edifice in South Hayward. Believing that Glad Tidings had a vision and a ministry to meet the growing needs of a changing neighborhood, the Hayward Covenant Church sold a 15,000 square foot facility, including a sanctuary with seating for 150 people, to a young, energetic congregation.

Within a few short years, the mortgage was liquidated and the existing facility was remodeled to include a new sanctuary seating approximately 300 people. The remaining facility was remodeled to accommodate executive offices, classrooms, and a fellowship hall.

In the midst of Glad Tidings' growth is the incredible story of a congregation, whose vision, fortitude and commitment has brought them face to face with a suburban community that had become very much urban within a few short years. As the church grew, the obvious need to build new facilities was more than evident. Glad Tidings Church was faced with a major dilemma; to relocate to a suburban community or to stay and build in a challenged community filled with drugs, crime, and rampant poverty.

In 1990, Glad Tidings Church adopted a strategic plan, which required the church to involve itself to an even greater degree in the surrounding neighborhoods in decline. A neighborhood revitalization program was set in motion. Glad Tidings established a strong proactive presence in city government, schools, community, and police affairs. This community outreach provided a base for support networks to thrive with other surrounding neighborhoods, agencies and businesses and gave voice to the South Hayward community.

Glad Tidings Church established a central neighborhood campus while networking with other community services to offer a creative and supportive environment of programs, housing, services and facilities which address many of the major needs and concerns of a community in need of revitalization.

I applaud Glad Tidings Church's focus on economic development, job and career training, youth and adult education, youth and adult support services and health services all provided within a spiritual setting which accents excellence at all levels of life for all people. I congratulate Glad Tidings Church on its 25th anniversary and wish the leadership and congregation many years of continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 4, a constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag. In doing so, I rise in support of protecting the right to free speech.

The First Amendment to the Constitution says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .'' Yet, this bill would overturn two Supreme Court decisions upholding flag burning as symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment. If ratified, this amendment would be the first time ever that the Bill of Rights has been altered and in a manner that limits the freedoms that belong to the American people.

Conveniently, we debate this bill just before Flag Day. Now Republicans can run back to their districts to flaunt what they believe is patriotism. But, we must ask ourselves: is it patriotic to trample upon the Constitutionally protected freedoms? The freedom of speech is vital to our democracy--it sets our nation apart from those oppressive regimes we have fought and deposed throughout our history.

Some of my colleagues--mainly on the other side of the aisle--will mention today that veterans across the nation support this amendment. I respect these brave Americans and what the flag means to them. But, the Republicans are using this issue to cover over their failure to fully compensate our veterans for their heroic service.

Republicans have no intention to provide for the real needs of these men and women, like improved veterans benefits, better health care for them and their families, access to affordable housing and affordable educational opportunities to name a few. Instead, Republicans are using this amendment for political gain without paying respect to those things that bring real dignity and honor to our veterans. And let us not forget, these veterans fought for our freedoms and everything our Constitution stands for.

Opening the door to limiting the freedoms of all Americans is a dangerous precedent. I fear what could be next if the Republican leadership of this House have their way. I ask my colleagues to stand up for our Constitution and vote no on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2185, the Unemployment Compensation Amendment of 2003, but I must also highlight that this bill is an inadequate response to the plight of those without jobs.

Although the economic policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have led to the loss of 2.7 million jobs, my Republican colleagues continue to do the absolute minimum to help those out-of-work Americans. H.R. 2185 reauthorizes 13 weeks of emergency benefits for individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, but it ignores many others who are unemployed.

This legislation does not help the 1.1 million Americans who have already exhausted their emergency unemployment benefits and still cannot find work. With three unemployed workers for every job opening in America, the prospect of these long term unemployed workers finding a job are gloomy at best. They need help, but they're left out in the cold under this bill.

Another inadequacy of H.R. 2185 is that it only provides 13 weeks of additional emergency unemployment benefits after beneficiaries have exhausted their 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. A 13-week emergency unemployment benefit extension is simply inadequate because the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months has more than tripled over the last three years--up from 596,000 in April 2000 to 1.9 million in April 2003.

Finally, the Republican legislation fails to modernize the Unemployment Insurance program and adjust the definition of a high unemployment State, so that beneficiaries in States marred in deep recessions can access an additional 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits. Those 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits would be in addition to the current 13 weeks those unemployed workers can receive under current law. Because of the Republican bill's failure to change this definition, only 5 to 6 States qualify as high unemployment States and some funds designated for emergency benefits to high unemployment States are currently sitting unused in a federal trust fund.

If the Republicans really wanted to help hard-working average Americans, they could have begun by passing the Democratic alternative plan. Our plan really helps those who are without jobs. The Democratic plan adds 26 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits for individuals who exhaust their regular unemployment benefits and provides an additional 13 weeks for those workers who have already exhausted their emergency unemployment benefits. In addition, the Democratic plan modernizes the Unemployment Insurance program by lowering the rate of unemployment a state must have before it is designated a high unemployment State. This change would allow unemployed workers in 15 States get the additional 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits.

I will support this legislation today because it does help many unemployed Americans. But, Congress needs to do more to help all unemployed Americans survive this recession.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to suggest that people talked about belief, and I guess if I were appointed President I would think I had a message from God. If I was not too bright, I might think I was God. But before I would ask you to pray to me, I would hope that you would think I knew your name.

Now, our Republican leaders and our President do know a few names related to this tax bill and they are called beneficiaries. I have here a list from Citizens for Tax Justice, who compiled estimates based on our most recent financial disclosures: the name Snow for an income of $6 million-plus; Rumsfeld, $14 million-plus; Evans, $4.4 million; Powell for $10.7 million; Whitman for $3.1 million; Zoellick for $900,000; Chaney for $4.5 million; Ashcroft for $3.1 million; and the list goes on.

There are 20 top administration officials with $52,391,000 estimated income. They are the beneficiaries of this bill.

In this Chamber there is a list: Northup, $3,168,000; Petri with $897,000; Taylor with $1,378,000; Boehner with $769,000; Portman with $883,000; Sensenbrenner with $419,000; Shaw with $843,000; Leach with $958,000; Dreier with $772,000. A total of 36 of us in here with $27.5 million in income.

Those are the beneficiaries and this Republican god knows your name; but unfortunately he does not know one name among the 12 million children who will not have health care because they cannot afford health insurance.

You cannot name any of the 8 million seniors who will be denied health care because you are wasting the money on the rich and not providing a prescription drug benefit for the seniors. You cannot name them. You cannot name one of the 8 million jobless in this country. You cannot. You know the rich. You know the beneficiaries. You know the contributors who last night paid you $18 million to give the rich this break; and you cannot name one of the poor people without health care or without a job in your district or in this country. Shame on you. That is immoral.

You ought not to vote for this bill. You ought to vote it down and do something to help the millions of people in this country who count. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Out- of-Pocket Spending Limit Act of 2003. This legislation protects Medicare beneficiaries from potentially ruinous medical bills by ensuring they will never have to pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket for Medicare services. It does so without limiting seniors' choice of physician and without forcing seniors to leave Medicare and join a private plan. In short, it is real Medicare reform, the kind of reform that seniors and people with disabilities want and need.

President Bush and many of my Republican colleagues portray Medicare as a disastrous program that is broken, bankrupt, and dumb. They think private insurers--the same ones who refused to cover seniors back in 1965 when Medicare was created--can do a better job than Medicare has done for the last 38 years.

More than 40 million seniors and individuals with disabilities know that President Bush and Congressional Republicans are wrong. They know that Medicare is a vitally important program that successfully protects some of the most vulnerable among us. They want us to strengthen Medicare, not undermine it. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit Act.

The bill I am introducing today provides an essential Medicare improvement for all Medicare beneficiaries. Today Medicare covers about 52% of seniors' health costs, leaving many to pay significant medical bills out of their own pockets. Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions or catastrophic illnesses face the greatest risk of potentially unlimited health costs. Most Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below $20,000 per year and cannot afford to spend a large share of their income on health care.

The Medicare Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit Act will offer seniors the security of knowing that they will never have to pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket on Medicare services per year. Current and future Medicare beneficiaries will have the option of enrolling in this new, voluntary benefit at an affordable premium. Beneficiaries with incomes below 175 percent of the federal poverty level would pay reduced or zero premiums.

The benefits provided by the Medicare Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit Act are long overdue. In testimony before the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee this month, the Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission identified the lack of a spending limit as a ``serious limitation of the Medicare benefit package.'' In January 2003, the National Academy of Social Insurance's Study Panel on Medicare and Chronic Care in the 21st Century recommended that Congress ``limit cost-sharing requirements by adding an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenditures for covered services.'' The Medicare Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit Act follows through on these expert recommendations.

Importantly, the Medicare Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit Act provides these improvements in traditional Medicare. Unlike the President's and the Congressional Republicans' plan to ``reform'' Medicare by ending it as a defined benefit for all beneficiaries, my bill will guarantee that elderly and disabled Americans will never be forced to give up traditional Medicare in order to get crucial benefits. Beneficiaries will be free to choose between the traditional Medicare program and private plans. But it will be a real choice, not coerced through the lure of more generous coverage. Seniors should never have to choose between the doctors they know and trust and the coverage they need.

This legislation is supported by beneficiary advocacy groups including: Families USA, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Alliance for Retired Americans, and the Medicare Rights Center. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of strengthening Medicare for all seniors and disabled Americans by cosponsoring the Medicare Out-of- Pocket Spending Limit Act.

Below is a more detailed summary of the legislation:

Medicare Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit Act of 2003--Summary

This bill would improve Medicare for all beneficiaries by

adding a new voluntary benefit to the traditional Medicare

program. Seniors and disabled Americans electing this

coverage would be protected from extraordinary out-of-pocket

costs when they need medical care. The additional benefit--

created under a new Medicare Part D--would have the following

features:

Out-of-pocket limit. Beneficiaries enrolled in the new

benefit would never pay more than $2,000 out-of-pocket per

year for services covered under the traditional Medicare

program. The out-of-pocket spending limit would be adjusted

each year by the growth in average per capita spending under

this new benefit.

Eligibility and enrollment. Beneficiaries entitled to

Medicare Part A and enrolled in Part B would be eligible for

the new benefit. Current Medicare beneficiaries would have a

one-time six-month open enrollment period to elect this

coverage. Otherwise, normal Medicare enrollment rules would

apply.

Premiums. Premiums for the new benefit would be calculated

in the same manner as Medicare Part B premiums (25 percent of

estimated program costs), with a late enrollment penalty for

beneficiaries who choose not to enroll during the open

enrollment period.

Low-income beneficiaries. Beneficiaries with incomes up to

150 percent of poverty would be eligible for the new benefit

with no additional premiums. Beneficiaries with incomes

between 150 percent and 175 percent of poverty would be

eligible for the new benefit with a sliding scale premium. No

assets test would be used in determining eligibility for

these additional low-income protections. These low-income

benefits would be administered by the States but 100 percent

federally funded.

Medicare+Choice. All Medicare+Choice plans would have to

provide the out of-pocket spending limit benefit. Plans would

be

paid a geographic- and risk-adjusted rate, based on projected

national per capita costs of the out-of-pocket spending limit

benefit in traditional Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Republicans' so-called Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

This bill is more about restoring healthy profits for the timber industry, than protecting healthy forests for the American people. Given the devastating impact this bill will have on pristine public lands, a better title would be Leave No Tree Behind. That is exactly what will happen as logging companies are given a backdoor into our national forests and wilderness areas.

Of course, Republicans argue that this bill is about protecting rural communities from dangerous wildfires. Yet, there is nothing in their bill providing any help to small towns or homeowners for fire prevention. The Republicans only increase subsidies to timber companies to log forests well outside the so-called wildland-urban interface-- even in wilderness and roadless areas--and not where fires pose the greatest threat.

You won't find many forestry experts who would tell you that timber companies are able to turn a profit harvesting diseased and insect prone trees. So Republicans have devised it so that the Forest Service will pay timber companies for their service by allowing them to cut down stands of healthy trees. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the harvested trees from being ancient old growth or redwoods for that matter.

The Republicans claim their bill is proenvironment. Yet, their bill cuts out the heart of the landmark National Environmental Protection Act. It exempts the Forest Service from doing a thorough analysis of alternatives to proposed logging projects. It even creates a new Federal program to assist private landowners in getting around the Endangered Species Act that protects fish and wildlife.

Now if after all of this, you thought you had recourse in the matter, think again. This Republican bill severely restricts the right of any citizen to appeal Forest Service decisions and even undermines the power of judges to overrule the agency's determinations. In fact, this

bill prohibits the Federal courts from halting any logging project until 45 days after it's begun.

In light of this dangerous assault on our environment and our democratic process, I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill and support the Democratic alternative. It protects our forests and wilderness areas from harmful logging. It upholds landmark environmental protections and the right of the American people, not just the timber industry, to have a say in the future of our public lands. And it puts money toward real and effective fire prevention around rural communities where it's needed most.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for our forests and vote ``no'' on the Republicans' sham Leave No Tree Behind bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, the ``Secondary Mortgage Market Fair Competition Act.'' The bill would allow states to tax Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on their pre-tax earnings by eliminating Fannie and Freddie's state and local tax-exempt status under their federal charter.

When Congress chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in 1968 and 1970 respectively) there was a need to provide a steady stream of revenue for home mortgage loans in order to increase homeownership in the U.S. Congress provided certain privileges to Fannie and Freddie in their charter that would allow that stream of revenue to continue to grow. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporations are now the leaders of the secondary mortgage market and have established a strong revenue source for the primary mortgage market. It is due to these successes that I believe it is time for Congress to amend the corporations' charter and repeal their local and state tax-exempt status. Due to the current state fiscal crises, Congress should not wait to enact this amendment.

A bank originates a loan to a home purchaser and turns around and sells that loan to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, thus allowing the bank to use the proceeds from that first loan to originate another loan. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac finance the purchase of these loans by issuing a tradable commodity in the form of mortgage-backed securities or MBS. When Congress chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it granted them special privileges--among these is the state and local tax exemption-- not available to other private-sector firms. This was done to attract investors to purchase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities. This in turn provided a steady stream of revenue available for home mortgage loans and thus, increased homeownership in the U.S. In 1992, Congress refined their charter and placed new requirements on the corporations to expand homeownership opportunities to underserved communities.

Fannie and Freddie are now thriving, successful private corporations. In 2001, Fannie and Freddie earned $10 billion in profits combined and made Fortune magazine's list of most profitable companies. Fannie ranked 13th while Freddie ranked 18th. Both have shown record profits every year during the past 10 years. Fannie and Freddie guarantee payments to bond investors for $2.7 trillion in mortgage debt or 44% of the U.S. total. Thirty-five years after Fannie Mae's charter, these two entities are strong and profitable enough to provide a steady stream of home loan revenue without the state tax-exempt privilege.

Their income is currently taxed at the federal level. But, they do not pay state or local corporate income taxes. In addition to the state tax exemption, other advantages of their federal charter include exemptions from Securities and Exchange Commission registration fees. The implied federal guarantee on their mortgage-backed securities also gets them lower borrowing costs than their competitors. In fact, in 2001 the Congressional Budget Office found that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's government-chartered status translates into a subsidy of $13.6 billion per year for these private, self-sufficient corporations.

One might think that a subsidy of this nature is justified since the corporations are supposed to provide homeownership opportunities to underserved homebuyers. However, recent reports show that despite this worthy goal, Fannie and Freddie may not be fulfilling this promise. In April 2002, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found that, ``they continue to underperform the conventional conforming market in funding the affordable home purchase loans for borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the housing goals.'' The report also indicates that Fannie and Freddie ``account for a very small share of the market for important groups such as minority first-time homebuyers.''

Given all of these facts, I believe it is time to withdraw the exemption from state and local taxes for these companies. At a time when states are scrambling to find solutions to their budget shortfalls, passage of this legislation would provide a much-needed new revenue source for states that choose to tax Fannie and Freddie on their corporate income. My bill in no way requires the states to tax Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it merely allows them to do so. It will also help to level the playing field for Fannie and Freddie's competitors by eliminating this tax advantage provided to Fannie and Freddie. At a time when states are facing fiscal crises and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are facing healthy profits, states should be provided the opportunity to tax these corporations just as states tax their competitors.

The fact that these corporations are doing so well is a clear indicator that Congress' charter has served the public and the home loan mortgage industry well. But these successes should not lead Congress to shelter Fannie and Freddie from the rigors of the marketplace indefinitely. The need for Fannie and Freddie's state and local tax-exempt status has come and gone. Let's be true to states' rights and allow the states to determine the tax treatment of these corporations within their borders.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill to eliminate the state and local tax-exempt status no longer needed by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1000, the Pension Security Act of 2003. This bill does protect pensions--for CEOs and business owners. This bill doesn't do a thing to secure pensions for the rank and file worker. The bill actually hurts the average worker by weakening the non-discrimination rules that require employers to give the rank and file adequate pensions if they give lucrative pensions to those at the top. H.R. 1000 further hurts the average worker by eroding the conflicted advice rules which currently prohibits consultants from profiting from the investments they recommend to employees. It seems that my Republican colleagues have selective memory when it comes to the scandals of Enron and other corporations who led their employees into retirement pension devastation just last year. The bill before us today does nothing more than promote the behaviors of the greedy corporate executives at the peril of the average workers' retirement savings.

Current rules, enacted in 1986 to protect the average worker from getting left out of the tax-preferred retirement vehicles used by the top brass, require the pension plans to meet very specific tests for the balance between benefits for lower paid and higher paid workers. Today's bill seeks to delegate a significant amount of discretion to the Treasury Department concerning these so-called ``non- discrimination'' rules governing pension plans. Treasury would have the flexibility to permit pension plans to apply a ``facts and circumstances'' test to the benefits provided under the plan. This could result in disproportionately larger benefits going to the highly- paid employees compared to the benefits for the rank and file workers. At a time when 50 percent of the workforce doesn't even have a pension and the other 50 percent are trying to hold on to what they might have after last year's corporate debacles, Congress ought not to put retirement pensions into further jeopardy.

This bill goes a step further to hurt the rank and file workers' pension plans by allowing ``conflicted advice.'' Wall Street recently agreed to pay about $2 billion in penalties for the money it made off of investors by giving conflicted advice--advising investors to invest in the same companies from which they were receiving consulting and initial public offering fees. The SEC is currently trying to devise ways to keep investment advice separate from consulting dealings in order to protect investors. Now, the Republican party wants to take anything we learned from Enron about what not to do with pensions and turn it on its head. This is class warfare because the Republican party has made it class warfare. They aren't interested in helping the average worker who saves a lifetime in order to achieve an adequate secure retirement. The Republicans in Congress and in the White House would rather pass legislation to help their wealthy Wall Street campaign contributors.

The Democratic alternative is a sound bill that would truly protect all workers' pensions, not just those of the CEOs. The Democratic bill would require employers to provide conflict-free investment advice to employees. Our bill would also provide for worker representation on 401(k) boards of trustees. Who better to protect workers' pensions than a worker representative? Finally, the Democratic substitute bill would close the loopholes that permit companies to protect millions of dollars in pension benefits for a few top executives while the retirement savings of rank and file workers are lost.

The Democratic bill brings parity to the pensions of the rank and file worker by requiring executive pensions to be subject to the same pension rules that apply to rank-and-file workers. It would close loopholes that allow special executive pension plans (such as deferred compensation plans, trusts and split dollar plans) to escape taxation, to receive special protection against creditors, and to end-run pension laws that require wide employee participation (of both high and low wage workers) at the company. It would also apply to executives the same uniform and fair vesting and contribution limits that apply to rank and file employees. This bill fulfills President Bush's promise to provide equitable treatment to the captain and the sailor.

I urge my colleagues to put a stop to raids on retirement pensions by voting ``no'' on H.R. 1000 and ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dorothy Fortier for receiving the 2003 Unionist of the Year award from the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL-CIO. Ms. Fortier will be honored at the Council's Unionist of the Year Dinner on May 15.

Ms. Fortier will be honored for her life-long dedication to the labor movement and her community. She currently serves as President and on the Executive Board of the Central Labor Council.

In addition to her responsibilities on the Central Labor Council, she serves as Secretary-Treasurer of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Minority Caucus, and on the National Executive Board of the Coalition of Labor Union Women.

Ms. Fortier began her involvement in the labor movement in 1975 as a member of IBEW Local Union 1245. She has served as the union's Assistant Business Manager since 1987.

Ms. Fortier has gone beyond what is required as President of the Central Labor Council to successfully complete numerous labor studies courses. She participates as an instructor and moderator in a wide range of union programs on the local, State, national and international levels.

Ms. Fortier has also been active in raising a new generation of labor activists at home. Her three children, Rhonda R. Fortier-Bourne, Alfred W. Fortier II and Richelle B. Fortier-Phillips are union activists in OPEIU, IBEW and CWA respectively.

I am honored to commend Dorothy Fortier for her commitment to improving the labor movement and her community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Prola for receiving the COPE Award from the Central Labor Council of Alameda

County, AFL-CIO. Mr. Prola will be honored at the Council's Unionist of the Year Dinner on May 15.

Mr. Prola, a member of the Central Labor Council's Executive Board, will receive the award to honor his dedication to the labor movement and to his community. Before being elected to the Executive Board, Mr. Prola served as a delegate for over 20 years to the Labor Council representing the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local Union 2019.

He began his labor career as a member of AFSCME Local Union 444, where he started the Health and Safety Committee and served as the local union's Vice-President. As a member of AFSCME Local 2019, Mr. Prola worked with his local union to build a Labor and Environmental Coalition which now involves the majority of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District Board of Directors.

In addition to his work with the Central Labor Council, Mr. Prola currently serves as Political Action Chair for AFSCME District Council 57, Region 3 of the San Francisco Bay Area, and as representative to the AFSCME Statewide Steering Committee.

Mr. Prola has been instrumental in engaging AFSCME participation in the political process and in helping labor to build political power to win social and economic justice. He has contributed to the COPE Program of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County AFL-CIO through his consistent participation and volunteer work to further labor's political programs.

In addition to his outstanding efforts in the labor movement, Mr. Prola serves his community as a volunteer coach for youth basketball in Oakland schools, as a volunteer coach for youth soccer in San Leandro, and as a volunteer coach for the Babe Ruth Baseball League.

I am honored to commend Jim Prola for his commitment to community service and his diligent work to further political involvement by unions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2, which benefits only the wealthy among us. It is interesting as this bill becomes law my 2003 tax cut will be equal to my daughter's entire annual income as a fifth grade teacher in California, while she will receive less than $8 a week as a tax cut, and that is wrong.

Republicans are throwing $550 billion down the drain to the richest 5 percent among us. Let us take a moment to see who loses. Nearly 9 million unemployed workers are going to lose out, because they will get no unemployment benefits. Our children will lose out, because they will be left behind and they will get no education benefits. America's seniors will see Medicare and Social Security weakened. Low income mothers and children who depend on Medicaid and CHIP for their health care will lose out because these programs are being slashed.

Why are Republicans pursuing this tax cut? They hate poor people.