Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act.

Today's bill has nothing to do with improving or ``reinvesting'' in our workforce--far from it. Instead, the Republicans are using it to weaken worker protections and open the door to hiring discrimination while dismantling the employment service program that helps people out of work find jobs. Apparently the Republicans haven't read the latest unemployment numbers. How else can you explain being so cruel and unfair as to pull the rug out on the nation's unemployed?

Let me remind my Republican colleagues that the number of jobs in this country is at the lowest point in 41 months. April was the third straight month the economy lost jobs as the nation's unemployment jumped to 6 percent. There are now 10 million workers in America out of work. Of those, two million have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. In fact, the average length of unemployment has risen to 20 weeks-- that's the highest since 1984.

You would think that with such staggering statistics, this Republican-led Congress would be doing everything it could to bolster workforce investment. Yet, this House Republican bill cuts employment and re-employment services at the time they are needed most. It underfunds the Employment Service, Adult, and Dislocated Worker programs by consolidating them into a single block grant. This puts the burden directly on the states, exacerbating their fiscal crises and triggering layoffs among the very state employees who administer these programs that help people find work. Yet, much worse, it forces unemployed workers and welfare recipients to fight it out for a share of these limited funds.

To add insult to injury, the Republicans give states the right to waive basic worker protections that allow employees to seek redress when they've been treated unfairly. They even allow religious organizations to engage in hiring discrimination in an unholy attempt to turn back a half-century of progress in preventing workplace discrimination.

Current law prohibits employers participating in federal job training programs from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief. The Republican bill would allow the taxpayer dollars that pay for these job-training programs to go to religious organizations that blatantly discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs. What next? Will the next Bush initiative include allowing discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or political affiliation?

The vital civil rights provision barring federally funded religious discrimination has never been controversial and has never been a partisan issue. In fact, the provision was first included in the federal job training legislation that Senator Dan Quayle sponsored. It passed through a committee chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch and was signed by President Ronald Reagan.

Throughout its 21-year history, this civil rights provision has not been an obstacle to the participation of religiously affiliated organizations in federal job training programs. Currently, many religious organizations participate in the federal programs and comply with the same civil rights protections that apply to other employers.

But suddenly, under the leadership of the White House, we are being asked to forget the principle of equal opportunity on which our country was founded.

I'm not surprised that an amendment to restore the anti- discrimination language was defeated in committee on a party-line vote. Yesterday, Republicans refused to allow Democrats the chance to offer the same amendment on the House floor today. It seems that Republicans are not only trampling on every American's civil rights, they're preventing a fair and open democratic process.

Now is not the time to be rolling back civil rights protections and it certainly isn't the time to be short-changing the unemployed. Congress ought to be creating solutions to make it easier for folks to find jobs, not more difficult. This Republican bill is clearly not a solution. It will only create more problems for those looking for work--problems they simply don't deserve.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1261.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350, the ``Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act.''

Once again, the Republican majority is failing to match their rhetoric with their actions. This time the victims are children with disabilities. This bill will not improve education for children with disabilities as its title claims. it fails to invest the funds necessary to make that improvement real and it contains damaging provisions that actually inhibit such improvements. These are steps backward, not improvements at all.

The parents of children with disabilities are likely wondering why Congress is allowing this to happen? Well, its because the Republicans are refusing to honor the commitment Congress made almost 30 years ago to significantly invest in educating children with disabilities. Back then, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the national average per pupil for providing this education. Today, we only pay about 18 percent. Nothing in this bill improves on that. Talk about passing the buck to local schools. Its no wonder many school districts are cutting back on education for every child--not to mention their failing for children with disabilities.

As if the under-funding weren't bad enough, this bill goes further. This bill ignores the fact that the learning process for any child can be very sensitive to changes in their home lives or their health conditions. This is more likely to be true for children with disabilities, many of whom confront very difficult physical and mental health conditions that create barriers to their successful learning. it is critical for schools to constantly monitor the situation of students with disabilities and ensure that their educational needs are addressed as quickly as possible. Instead of promoting this need, the bill eliminates the requirement that every school have short-term instructional objectives for each student. This greatly decreases the chance for students with disabilities to succeed because their individual educational needs may well go unaddressed for what could be years.

In the biggest step backward, this bill provides schools with the right to unilaterally expel and child with a disability if they violate, even once, that school's code of conduct, regardless of the severity. Republicans eliminate the review process and the requirement for behavioral assessments and positive interventions in these discipline cases. Without these protections, there is no limit to the number of students with disabilities who can be kicked out of school with no questions asked. This provision is wrong and unfair and has no place in any legislation claiming to improve education for children with disabilities.

It is long overdue for Congress to make good on our promise to give children with disabilities a better chance to succeed. It is in that spirit that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the ``Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act'' because it flatly fails that promise. I hope the Senate will fix many of the damaging provisions in this bill and pass an IDEA reauthorization bill that really does improve education and opportunity for children with disabilities. Then, maybe after a conference, we can vote on a bill that truly achieves the goal of its title.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to re-introduce the National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act. A few years ago many of my constituents were placed into a special flood hazard area, indicated by FEMA's Flood Rate Maps, that requires them to purchase flood insurance that can cost over $1,000 per year.

These residents were not notified that they would be required to purchase flood insurance until 2 months or less before the maps became effective, even though the law is supposed to give them six months notice and ample time to purchase flood insurance. Needless to say, this took many of my constituents by surprise when they were required to purchase costly insurance at a moments notice, having not seen flooding in decades or even a lifetime.

Several residents who did not believe they were in the flood zone hired surveyors at their own expense, and many residents continue to hire surveyors. The private surveyors' data has resulted in removal of homes from the special flood hazard area, thus removing them from their obligation to purchase flood insurance. In the long run, while these residents are not required to purchase flood insurance, they have spent over $200 each for surveyor costs. Unfortunately, this cost burden is the responsibility of the property owner. They were told by FEMA that under current law property owners who challenge the presumed flood classification are responsible for the surveyor expense even though the incorrect classification is no fault of their own.

Clearly, the National Flood Insurance Program needs to be revised to give homeowners more notice, due process, and financial protection when they succeed in removing their property from the base flood elevation classification. That is why I am proposing the National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act

The National Flood Insurance Program Fairness Act does the following:

The bill improves the existing program by requiring the FEMA Director to notify by registered mail the Chief Executive Officer of each community affected by the changes in Flood Insurance Rate Maps, rather than by first class mail as is the case currently. The Director will be required to provide a copy of the revised map, along with a statement explaining the process of appeal. The Director will also provide the affected community sufficient information to identify which homes are affected.

It also requires the Director to notify by registered mail, rather than first class mail, the Chief Executive Officer of each community of FEMA's response to the community's appeal of the flood insurance rate maps. This change will ensure that the community receives the notice of changes and has ample time to comply with the map changes within the statutory effective date.

The bill improves upon current law by requiring the Director to notify by first class mail each owner of property affected by the changes in the flood insurance rate maps. Currently, the community is responsible for making sure that the residents are aware of the flood map changes. Requiring FEMA to notify residents expedites the process by eliminating the middleman.

Finally, it requires FEMA to reimburse a resident or property owner for reasonable costs incurred in connection with a surveyor or engineer for a successful request to be removed from the special flood hazard area to the Director. This does not include legal services incurred by the resident.

It is my hope that this legislation will allow communities to work more effectively with FEMA to ensure that residents are given sufficient, fair, and timely notice if they are required to purchase flood insurance and to ensure that homeowners are not held financially liable when a change in a community's flood insurance rate map does not affect their property. In the last Congress I had members from both sides of the aisle cosponsor the bill. I hope to receive even greater support for the bill in the current Congress and look forward to working with my colleagues to see enactment of the National Flood Insurance Program Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the Dean of the California Delegation and someone who was honored to serve in Congress with Phil Burton, I wanted to join with my colleagues in celebrating the life of this remarkable man.

When I hear the name Phil Burton what comes to mind is the memory of an elemental force of nature. The fact that we reflect today on this man of the House twenty years after his death reaffirms this sense. It reminds me of black holes as astronomers describe them. While they can't be seen, they exert an awesome attractive force.

Phil once yelled at me, ``If I'm shouting at you, it means I love you!'' To be on the receiving end of such tough love was not always pleasant, but it was effective. And, it explains, in part, why Phil was a legislator's legislator.

One of his biographers describes him as ``one of the most effective and forceful congressmen ever to pass through [these congressional] halls.'' She adds that, ``His force would be missed by those who shared his views after he was gone.'' That is very true. But what is also true is that his force is still felt by those of us who were lucky enough to know and serve with him.

I learned much from Phil Burton and continue to use those lessons today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this blatantly flawed energy bill. This bill isn't sound policy. It isn't forward thinking. It is a flat-out giveaway to the big energy companies. It puts industry profits ahead of the interests of consumers and the environment.

It's no secret that the President and Republicans have held closed, backroom meetings with their friends in the big oil and gas industry. The result is no surprise. They've crafted an energy policy that promotes fossil fuel consumption above all else. Now, they say they want to free us from dependence on foreign oil. But, oil dependence is exactly what this bill promotes.

Consider the consequences. This bill grants tax cuts to the most polluting industries while providing a pittance for renewable resources, clean technologies and energy efficiency. Solar, wind and geothermal power take a back seat to oil drilling in pristine wilderness areas and off our coasts. This bill will turn the coastal plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oil field. It will lift the ban on drilling off California's Coast. I strongly oppose these efforts!

At the same time, Republicans won't raise fuel efficiency standards for gas guzzling SUVs. But, they will cut the royalties the big oil companies have to pay to the American people for drilling on our lands. Republicans will even allow these polluting industries to get out from under paying their share of taxes by moving into tax havens overseas.

Now, for those energy market profiteers, the Republicans leave the door wide open for unfair competition and price manipulation. Clearly, Republicans don't want consumers and small public utilities to pay a fair price for their power. They want to allow the Enrons of the world to skim huge profits while wreaking havoc on the electricity market. Well, we know how well that policy worked in California.

For their final act of irresponsibility, the Republicans want to exempt the cancer causing fuel additive MTBE from product liability protections. MTBE has caused wide spread groundwater contamination and remains a significant public health risk. Yet, if this bill passes, polluters will get off scot-free while the taxpayers get stuck with the high cost of clean up.

I urge my colleagues to take a stand for consumers and the environment and vote no on this bill. It is time Republicans put a long-term, sustainable energy policy ahead of pandering to their short sighted special interests.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this outrageously irresponsible legislation put forth by the Republican Majority. Giving gun makers, gun dealers, and gun sellers total immunity from product liability doesn't make our streets safer of our neighborhoods any more secure.

The manner in which this bill finds its way to the floor deserves some attention. It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee Majority developed this legislation in secret, bypassed the subcommittee and prevented the Minority in Full Committee to make any amendments to it--a trend all too familiar.

In the 107th Congress, similar gun liability legislation was introduced, made its way to the House calendar, but didn't get far. The media's focus of the sniper attacks in Washington, DC provoked an outcry of horror as the country watched the violence of guns first- hand. Ironically, that atrocious bill was put on the back burner. It would have illuminated the legislation for what it was, autonomy from product liability for the gun lobby.

So, here we are today to debate the issue in less traumatic times, but the fact remains that this legislation has not changed--it is reckless, pro gun political banter.

Proponents will tout fallacies that H.R. 1036 is considered necessary to weed out frivolous lawsuits, and that this legislation will not outlaw lawsuits brought by injured private citizens. Instead, they say, it would simply prevent the gun industry from being held legally responsible because a criminal misused a gun. In fact, these allegations couldn't be farther from the truth. This bill will immunize the gun industry from most lawsuits brought by anyone--including private citizens and government entities.

Manufacturers for every other consumer product in this country must adhere to strict regulations on product liability. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the gun industry should be exempt from criminal and negligent acts.

Conveniently, this bill is being debated just weeks before the National Rifle Association holds its annual meeting. That assures that House Republicans can show up at their conference having passed a priority bill for a huge campaign supporter.

I have been a long time supporter of stricter laws regulating guns in our nation. I also oppose any individual or entity being granted blanket immunity from product liability. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill that both weakens our gun laws and removes gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used to kill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the wartime supplemental appropriations bill. Yet, I am greatly troubled by this vote.

The President's crusade to preemptively invade Iraq without regard to peace or diplomacy was wrong. I voted against the resolution giving him the authority to do so and remain opposed to this war. I continue to question the President's judgment as commander-in-chief. Yet, when our troops are in harms way, Congress has a duty to support them and support them we must.

This bill provides our men and women in uniform with the resources that 1 hope will bring a swift end to the war and minimize the loss of life. That is why I am voting in favor of it today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Representatives McDermott, Kleczka, DeLauro, Frank, Frost, Jackson-Lee, McNulty and Abercrombie to introduce legislation to expedite the timeframe for reducing to 20 percent the coinsurance amounts that Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay for hospital outpatient services. I'm honored that this bill has the support of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and Families USA.

For most Medicare services, beneficiaries are required to pay 20 percent of the allowed payment amount, and Medicare pays 80 percent. However, for hospital outpatient services, Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay much higher co-payments--up to 55 percent for some services.

This is an anomaly due to an error in legislative drafting many years ago. Based on earlier legislation I helped enact into law, Congress has already taken some partial steps to correct this wrong. Under current law, hospital outpatient co-payments will reduce to 40 percent by 2006, but they will not reduce to the typical 20 percent level until 2029. We didn't solve the full problem because Congress didn't want to spend the money.

The Medicare Outpatient Co-payment Reduction Act of 2003 will speed up this reduction process by decreasing beneficiary coinsurance rates in increments of 5 percent each year beginning in 2007 until the coinsurance rate for all hospital outpatient services is 20 percent by 2010. This expedited reduction is consistent with a recent recommendation made by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MedPAC--the expert body that advises Congress on Medicare.

While high coinsurance rates affect all Medicare beneficiaries, they are particularly devastating for the approximate 3.6 million beneficiaries who have no supplemental insurance. Most of these individuals are the ``near poor''--with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid or the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary or QMB program, but with incomes too low to be able to afford supplemental insurance. This group is made up of a disproportionate number of minorities and women.

Furthermore, coinsurance amounts are much higher for certain services than others. Those with the highest coinsurance are the ``high-tech'' services, such as radiology services and cancer chemotherapy services. Thus, high coinsurance greatly limits affordable access to these life saving services for many Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Outpatient Co-payment Reduction Act of 2003 is a simple bill. We've charged seniors outrageous amounts for too long already for hospital outpatient services. Seniors shouldn't have to wait another 26 years before they are fairly charged for outpatient services. This is an incremental approach that lowers the co-payment level to 20 percent by 2010. It's a small, but important step to improve health care access for seniors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mission San Jose Rotary Club, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary in our community. This club has distinguished itself among the elite service clubs in this country.

Mission San Jose Rotary has completed more than 60 projects benefiting many non-profit organizations and restoring buildings of historical significance in our community. The members of this club have assisted in making a college education a possibility for over 80 scholars; have provided over $400,000 for charities; and have made major contributions to the Rotary International Polio Plus campaign, with a goal to eradicate polio from the face of the earth by 2005.

The Rotary Club has provided water wells to Central America and built houses in Mexico. This club has received local acclaim for its chili cooking, and it prepares and serves many thousands of meals at the Centerville Free Dining Room. The generous and concerned individuals who are members of this club reach out and make a difference, ensuring promise and opportunity for this and future generations.

The spirit of community service is alive and thriving in Fremont, in some major part due to the efforts of the members of the Mission San Jose Rotary Club. I am honored to commend the Mission San Jose Rotary Club for its 20 years of generous service to the community.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the ``Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act'' with my colleague Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) who serves on the Committee for Education and the Workforce.

For twenty-five years the federal government has made hollow promises to fully fund the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act or IDEA. This legislation makes good on these promises. However, it does more than that. By linking funding to better outcomes, it also makes sure that the spirit of IDEA is truly realized for children with disabilities.

IDEA opened the school doors to children with disabilities. But, more needs to be done to make special education work for these students. National statistics suggest that there is still a sizable disparity in the outcomes of students with disabilities when compared to other students.

When compared to students without disabilities, between 19 and 42 percent fewer students with disabilities are able to pass state proficiency examinations.

The drop out rate for students with disabilities is double that of other students.

Only 55 percent of students with disabilities receive a regular high school diploma (compared to 75 percent of individuals within the general school population).

Individuals with disabilities are 50 percent less likely to attend college than are individuals who are not disabled.

Students with disabilities often avoid the painful experience of school and their attendance suffers.

The Census Bureau reports that 50 percent of individuals with disabilities are employed, compared with 84 percent of individuals without disabilities.

The under-funding of IDEA could help explain why students with disabilities fare so poorly on these critical outcomes. While Congress has doubled federal appropriations for IDEA over the last decade, federal funding for IDEA is still less than half of what Congress originally promised.

Unfortunately, recent increases in federal funding have translated into very modest improvement in the overall outcomes of children with disabilities. This would suggest that we not only need more federal funding for students with disabilities, but we need to use our resources more wisely.

Disappointingly, the Republican bill, the ``Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003 (HR 1350),'' provides no financial incentives for states and local school districts to close the glaring gaps in educational achievement for students with disabilities. The Republican bill requires that states and local school districts meet new performance standards, but guarantees no new funding if they achieve these goals.

Instead, the Republican legislation only authorizes appropriations to achieve full funding of IDEA over the next decade, but it leaves the fate of whether this will actually happen to the appropriations process. With Republicans recently voting to reduce spending on education in their budget, it is unlikely that schools will ever get full federal funding through the appropriations process. Just like the ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' the Republicans want better results from schools with less federal government funded resources.

In contrast, the ``Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act'' will dramatically increase the financial support for children with disabilities by making all funding mandatory. However, in order to receive increases, school districts must make sure special education students are not left behind. In return for mandatory increases in funding for IDEA, school districts must help these students: Increase their attendance, increase academic proficiency, lower the incidence of drop out, increase graduation rates, and improve rates of post- secondary employment and education.

The bill will also provide mandatory increases in funding for research and development as well as for programs that help infants and preschoolers with disabilities and their families.

Experts in the fields of special education, learning disabilities, child psychology and psychiatry and disability organizations agree that the ``Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act'' will improve the quality of education for students with disabilities. Attached, please find two letters of support for this legislation, one from academic experts and the other from advocates for people with disabilities.

Linking mandatory funding to accountability will profoundly change the way IDEA works by doing just that--making it work. The Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act is needed to move away from the status quo. Our children, regardless of their ability or disability, deserve more than a second-class education. Please join me in supporting the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act. It is about time we give meaning to the phrase, Leave No Child Behind.

Judge David L. Bazelon Center

for Mental Health Law,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2003.

Hon. Pete Stark,

Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Stark: The undersigned national mental

health advocacy organizations are pleased to offer our

support for the Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act, important

legislation you will soon be introducing in the House.

On behalf of our diverse constituency, representing

children with disabilities and their families, advocates,

providers and professionals, we are concerned about the

educational outcomes of students with disabilities who

require special education and related services under the

Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As you well know, students

with disabilities have lower rates of gruduation, attendance

and overall academic achievement than students without

disabilities. Improving these rates and closing the gaps in

academic performance between regular education and special

education students is of vital importance to our

constituencies and is a goal shared by your legislation.

The Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act would help children

with disabilities benefit from education by providing schools

with financial incentives to improve special education

students' school performance. The mandatory federal funding

provided under the legislation would be based on a school's

ability to demonstrate improved outcomes on important

measures, including attendance, graduation, drop out rates

and post secondary education and employment. Furthermore, the

legislation encourages schools to make use of available best

practice interventions in an effort to assist students with

special education needs to fully realize their academic

potential--and ultimately realize the true spirit of IDEA.

We look forward to working with you this year to enact the

Realizing the Spirit of IDEA Act. Thank you for your

continued leadership on behalf of students with disabilities

and their families.

Sincerely,

Laurel L. Stine,

Director of Federal Relations.

Submitted on behalf of:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

American Counseling Association.

American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychological Association.

Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder.

Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health.

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

National Association of School Psychologists.

National Association of Social Workers.

National Mental Health Association.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues' attention the following article on Representative Barbara Lee that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle Magazine on Sunday, March 23, 2003. Congresswoman Lee has been an eloquent advocate for peace and justice. Her tireless efforts to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq are vital to upholding our nation's moral leadership in the world. She is a credit to this institution and the values of democracy, freedom and human rights throughout the world. I'm honored to serve in Congress with her.

[From the San Francisco Chronicle Magazine, Mar. 23, 2003]

Giving Peace a Chance; Local Rep. Barbara Lee on Her National Following

(By Sam Whiting)

It isn't lonely as it used to be way out there on the far

left.

A year and a half after casting the lone vote opposing

President Bush's global campaign against terrorism,

Congresswoman Barbara Lee has become the name attached to the

anti-war movement.

When Lee came to the stage at last month's peace rally in

San Francisco, she heard the chant ``Barbara Lee for

president.'' She has heard it before, and seen it on signs,

from Oregon to Massachusetts.

That's a long ways from Mills College, where she graduated

30 years ago. Now a fourth-term Democrat representing Oakland

and Berkeley, Lee, 55, gets all the inspiration she needs

walking into her district office in the Ronald V. Dellums

Federal Building in Oakland.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Jerry Kleczka (who represents Milwaukee, WI and serves with me on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee) and I share a strong concern about the growth of so- called ``boutique'' or ``specialty'' hospitals. These entities are springing up across the country, including across California and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. They are licensed under state law as hospitals, but instead of providing the wide array of services that traditional hospitals provide, they focus on a particular procedure or medical specialty. The medical specialties that are being chosen aren't the vital day-to-day hospital services on which communities depend like emergency rooms and burn units. Instead, they are the highly profitable segments of care--cardiac care and orthopedic surgery being two of the most common types of specialty hospitals.

Today, we are reintroducing a bill we first authored in the 107th Congress, the Hospital Investment Act. This bill addresses our concern that these specialty hospitals are skirting the spirit of the physician self referral laws, often called the Stark laws. Those laws allow physicians to invest in ``whole hospitals'' because the services provided in such a facility

are so broad that concerns about self referral conflicts are greatly minimized. But that is not the case for specialty hospitals.

Most specialty hospitals are jointly owned by the hospitals and groups of physicians who are referring patients to that hospital. Typically, these joint ventures are marketed only to physicians in a position to refer patients to the facility. In these situations, there is great potential for conflicts-of-interest for physicians who refer patients to facilities in which they have an ownership interest. These joint ventures may induce investor physicians to base their treatment decisions on profits generated by the facility rather than on the clinical needs of their patients. This is exactly the type of behavior the Stark laws were written to prevent.

The development of specialty hospitals is of great concern to our health care system and to communities across our nation because they deprive full-scale hospitals of their most profitable business, leaving those existing hospitals much worse off financially. The investors in these joint ventures and specialty hospitals skim the profits off full- scale hospitals, leaving them to struggle financially. Then the hospitals must look to Medicare and to their local communities to help them financially.

One of the biggest chains of heart hospitals in this country is a company called the MedCath Corporation. One needs only look at their financial statement to see that they recognize the level of concern felt around the nation about their line of business. Their 2002 10-K report highlights nervousness that regulators and legislators are catching onto their scheme. As the report states:

``Many states in which we operate also have adopted, or are considering adopting physician self-referral laws which may prohibit certain physician referrals or require certain disclosures.'' They also highlight specific concerns about our bill from the last Congress and go on to say that, ``Possible amendments to the Stark law could require us to change the manner in which we establish relationships with physicians to develop a heart hospital.''

MedCath is right to be nervous. Their business model not only harms hospitals and communities, it violates the spirit of Medicare self referral laws intended to prohibit such conflicted behavior that drives up costs and may produce unnecessary care. Lawyers for MedCath and many others have found a loophole in the self-referral laws, and physicians are taking advantage of it.

The bill we are introducing today would close that loophole. Our bill would continue to permit physician ownership in these joint ventures and specialty hospitals. But, that allowance is contingent on a new requirement that the ownership or investment interest is purchased on terms that are generally available to the public at the time. This change would not prohibit physicians from purchasing shares of stock. However, it would make sure that such stock purchases are not the result of a sweetheart deal available only to physicians and set up in a way to skirt the law.

If this bill is enacted, it will make it harder for specialty hospitals and physicians to skim profits from full-scale hospitals leaving it up to Medicare and local communities to foot the bill to assure that access to needed patient care isn't jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to close this loophole in the Medicare physician self-referral laws, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act.

This Republican legislation has a lot more to do with public relations than protecting our first responders so that they can do their job to protect the rest of us. No one doubts that the possibility of a terrorist attack is very real. Yet, Republicans are asking Congress today to short change those Americans on the front lines here at home--our doctors, nurses, police officers, fire fighters and others willing to risk both serious physical harm and financial ruin.

Congress has a great responsibility to provide security to these brave and selfless Americans. The smallpox vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in current use. Thus, the decision to become inoculated is not one to be taken lightly. Those who are willing to step forward and receive inoculation to assure that they'll be there to protect others if the need arises, do so at a risk to their lives and, by secondary transmission, to the lives of loved ones. At a minimum, we need to assure these people that they and their families have affordable access to healthcare and won't confront financial hardship if they have an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

We are not talking about a small number of people at risk. Experts estimate that out of the 10 million healthcare and first responders who the Administration is requesting to volunteer for this smallpox inoculation program, approximately 10,000 will experience serious, though not life-threatening reactions, upwards of 520 will experience potentially life-threatening reactions and it is anticipated that 5 to 10 people will die. These estimates do not include those individuals who may be secondarily exposed to the live virus by being in contact with an inoculated individual. Furthermore, just in the last week we've discovered something previously unknown about the smallpox vaccine; it may cause heart attacks in people with particular cardiac conditions.

The Administration's Smallpox Vaccine Compensations bill is inadequate in numerous ways. Among its inadequacies, it:

Fails to provide adequate funding to ensure that state and local public health officials can implement needed pre-inoculation education and screening and post-inoculation surveillance programs;

Ignores the need for work place protection standards for individuals who refuse to volunteer for the vaccine program;

Provides no requirement that health insurance companies guarantee health insurance coverage for adverse medical events that occur from participating in this voluntary program;

Fails to guarantee immediate access to medical care for volunteers who have no insurance or who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare;

Provides a wholly inadequate death benefit and a benefit for permanent and total disability limited to $262,100. This in no way replaces

the lifetime income that will be lost to the families of the brave individuals who volunteer for this inoculation and are adversely affected;

Fails to compensate individuals who become sick and miss work for 5 or fewer days;

Doesn't guarantee that the compensation program is even funded. Rather than making it a mandatory appropriation which would assure that the program is fully funded, it is discretionary spending; subject to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process.

These many inadequacies have lead every major organization representing nurses, fire fighters, and other frontline personnel to oppose the legislation. These organizations include the American Nursing Association (ANA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Infectious Disease Society of America and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

My colleagues, Representatives Henry Waxman and Lois Capps, have introduced legislation (H.R. 865) to create a smallpox inoculation compensation program that would meet the needs of these brave volunteers. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has forbidden that bill to be considered by the full House. For that reason, we are forced to vote NO today and try to get the Republican Leadership to recognize that providing true protection to our emergency personnel who have volunteered to become inoculated against smallpox is a priority for this Congress. We need to do the job right!

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1463 today and insist that a compensation bill that truly protects the interests of these volunteers for the smallpox inoculation program be returned to this Chamber for a vote and passage.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues' attention the following letter sent to President George W. Bush by members of the California Legislature stating their opposition to war against Iraq. I am proud of these 52 lawmakers who represent a diversity of California's citizens. They understand first-hand the cost of this capricious act. Financing this war will mean less federal investment in schools and nursing homes and the loss of basic services for the working poor, the disabled and mentally-ill. They are rightly concerned about the impact this war will have on those young Americans who have been called to fight. They are disappointed about the diminished respect and influence America will have in the world given the President's use of military power, not the interests of peace and democracy, in his approach to foreign affairs. I commend my fellow Californians for their eloquence and outspokenness on an issue of such great importance to the American people.

California Legislature,

March 4, 2003.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President, United States of America, The White House,

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: As Members of the California State

Legislature, we respectfully write in opposition to a war on

Iraq without a formal resolution by the United Nations

Security Council and a declaration of war by Congress.

As elected representatives of the largest population and

economy in America, we have many concerns over the policies

your administration is pursuing. These include:

A lack of credible evidence that meets the standard of

``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that shows the imminent danger

Iraq poses to America's essential interests. Neither Colin

Powell nor Hans Blix presented a case sufficient to warrant

an attack by American forces.

A failure to persuade other nations to support our

intentions. Unlike the aftermath of the Attack on America,

you have not been able to enlist the support of other key

nations, who presumably have been given even more

intelligence data than has the American public. This lack of

geo-political solidarity substantially weakens America's case

in the court of world opinion. Further, it enhances the

prospects of fighting a war with few allies.

Lack of clarity about the possible instability in the

Middle East during the war and subsequent foreign occupation

of Iraq. It seems unlikely that the Muslim world will for

long passively accept America's incursion--whatever our

provocation.

Respectfully,

Don Perata, Byron Sher, Jack Scott, Mike Machado, Tom

Torlakson, Gloria Romero, Wesley Chesbro, Debra Bowen,

Deborah Ortiz, John Burton, Liz Figueroa, Gil Cedillo,

Sheila Kuehl, John Vasconcellos, Edward Vincent,

Richard Alarcon, Jackie Speier, Dede Alpert.

Paul Koretz, John Longville, Mervyn Dymally, Christine

Kehoe, Jackie Goldberg, Fabian Nunez, Sally J. Lieber,

Ronald Calderon, John Laird, Loni Hancock, Judy Chu,

Patricia Wiggins, Alan Lowenthal, Hannah-Beth Jackson,

Gene Mullin, Cindy Montanez, Marco Firebaugh, Patty

Berg, Wilma Chan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should designate a national day of prayer and fasting for all Americans; and calling on all people of the United States to ``seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings.''

I'm sure God may have something to say about the President's failure to preserve peace in the effort to disarm Iraq. But, we do know what the Bible says, Mr. Speaker: ``blessed are the peacemakers.''

Most major religious organizations in the world--the Vatican, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and Protestant religious groups--oppose war in Iraq on moral grounds. Yet, this resolution seeks to deflect moral criticism from the President's immoral act of war, and despite his refusal to listen to the leaders of his own faith. Regardless, religion is not an area for Congressional debate.

I respect the right of everyone to reflect on these difficult events as they see fit. I understand the value of people of various religions or moral convictions finding resolve in their beliefs or faiths during this trying time. That is everyone's right. However, this resolution today has Congress encouraging all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, to engage in specific religious acts that are Christian in nature.

Our country was founded on the principles of free expression and religious liberty. The Constitution requires that Congress must not legislate religion, but instead honor the diversity of convictions and beliefs in our nation. This resolution fails to respect the separation of church and state and to uphold our commitment to honor religious diversity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''