Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to opposition to H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. I am greatly troubled by this vote.

I support the AMBER Alert program as a vital means to prevent child abduction and track down those who prey upon our children. I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Network Act that would help all states implement this vital program. It would ensure that a strong nation-wide network exists to protect our children from these horrific crimes.

Yet, Republicans have never allowed a clean vote on this legislation. They have decided once again to include this legislation within a larger criminal justice bill that includes new, draconian sentencing guidelines and abuses to our basic Constitutional rights. I cannot in good conscience support these provisions. They will ultimately doom this bill when it comes before the Senate, just like last year.

Just as with the child abduction bill brought to the House floor last October, I object to allowing the government to abuse fundamental privacy rights as this bill does. The Republicans continue to push provisions giving the FBI unprecedented wiretap authority to engage in secret surveillance of our homes. This is unconstitutional and I will support it.

Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Republican Leadership again insisted on including a ``2 strikes and you're out'' sentencing provision. This type of mandatory minimum sentence is not only draconian, it is ineffective in deterring these types of crimes.

This bill again will expand the number of crimes punishable under the death penalty. This is done despite evidence that many Americans have been wrongly sentenced to death. This is wrong and I will not support it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting again against this legislation. Lets send a message to the House Republicans to stop putting their blind allegiance to right wing politics ahead of the safety of our kids. Let's get the national AMBER Alert network off the ground once and for all--for the sake of all America's families and their children.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Sandra Creque's outstanding career in the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office. On April 1, 2003, Sandy will retire as Division Chief, Registration and Outreach after 38 years of dedicated service.

Sandy's long tenure in the office of the County Registrar of Voters is legendary. She was committed to community involvement and service from the start of her career in 1965. She soon became involved in working with Students for Rockefeller at the University of California, Berkeley. Sandy was in the community five nights a week and on weekends, training students at UC Berkeley on how to register voters. Many of those students went into the South and conducted voter registration drives during the Civil Rights Movement, while others lead the nationwide anti-war movement during Vietnam, or worked locally to bring political change.

Sandy understands the importance of political involvement through the ballot box. She has been instrumental in providing professional guidance about the registration process and has kept to her mission to make sure every citizen is able to enjoy the franchise.

With her calm demeanor and wealth of knowledge, Sandy's invaluable contributions to elected officials and office seekers in Alameda County will be long remembered. Sandy helped make the process easier for them and their campaign workers. She made a difference, always behind the scenes, and always willing to go extra miles for everyone.

Highlights of her 38 year career that Sandy points to with pride include witnessing Barbara Jordan testify in Washington, DC, on the Voting Rights Act; the opportunity to help extend the vote to all segments of Alameda County's diverse population; and the opportunity to serve the diverse population in such a way as to enhance the electoral process.

These highlights are a testimony to the caring and professional manner in which Sandy Creque has conducted herself during her tenure in the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office. She has been an exemplary advisor and a friend. We join Alameda County in saluting this remarkable woman; we thank her for her dedicated service, and applaud her for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Kids Breakfast Club of Hayward, California on its 10th anniversary.

The Kids Breakfast Club was started by educator Marlena Uhrik as a program designed to provide a healthy breakfast and activities during school breaks for children who depend on school lunches for nutrition.

After serving 200 breakfasts to low-income children and their families at the Club's inaugural event in December, 1992, Marlena developed a more comprehensive program to include a free breakfast along with expanded opportunities for learning.

Today the program serves children during winter and spring breaks, and includes arts and crafts for children, a literacy program with story time and storytelling, free books, clothing, and health and dental screenings and referrals.

While the children are engaged in activities, the adults attend adult education classes on topics that interest them, including gang prevention, nutrition, drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, and receive training in first aid, CPR, and parenting skills. All of the presenters are bilingual to serve Spanish-speaking parents.

The Kids' Breakfast Club has grown from one location to five, and over 30,000 breakfasts have been served in the program's 10 years of existence. The program also includes a year-round, once-a-month Saturday program. It has formed partnerships with the Youth Enrichment Program to provide tutoring for the students, and the Hayward Adult School to provide presenters and leadership.

I am honored to commend the Kids' Breakfast Club and its founder Merlena Uhrik for its dedication to providing children and their families with a safe and healthy start when school is not in session. The Club has brought the community together to show true meaning of the African proverb ``it takes an entire village to raise a child.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pat Loomes, Executive Director of Girls Incorporated of Alameda County. Pat has selflessly dedicated her life to inspiring girls to be strong, smart and bold.

Pat grew up in Ireland and immigrated to the United States with education and activism as her primary goals. After earning a graduate degree she began working at the Berkeley Women's Center in the early 1970s. There she identified the immense need for preventive measures for women who had suffered life-long abuse and low self-esteem, and who possessed very few skills that could translate into employment or self- improvement.

It was at this time that Pat accepted the position as Executive Director at a small organization for girls with the passion and foresight that produced the thriving social service agency that Girls Inc. of Alameda County is today.

For the past 25 years, Pat has been instrumental in the financial growth of the organization. Under her direction, operations grew to over $3 million, and today the organization serves thousands of girls. Girls Inc. has expanded from a small tutoring and recreational club to offering girls more than 10 acclaimed programs ranging from science, math and technology enrichment to leadership and fitness as well as comprehensive mental health services.

During her tenure as Executive Director of Girls Inc., Pat has been ahead of her time in confronting girls' most sensitive needs with conviction and grace. In 1989, when funding cuts discontinued a local program for pregnant teens and teen parents, Girls Inc. began to support services for this population. Pat also oversaw the implementation of the award-winning national program, Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy. Since that time, Girls Inc.'s health and sexuality programming has expanded to include services to school-age mothers, pregnant and parenting girls involved in the juvenile justice system, as well as providing reproductive health education in schools from Berkeley to Union City.

Pat's hard work and devotion have not gone unrecognized. In 1986 and again in 2000, the United Way awarded Pat the Seaton Manning Outstanding Professional Award for her ``visionary leadership and tireless advocacy for girls.'' The Wells Fargo Foundation and the Management Center of San Francisco also honored her with the 2001 Navigator Award for Model Leadership.

Pat served as a member of the National Girls Incorporated Board of Directors for 13 years. In 1995 she delivered a seminar on math and science for girls at the International Women's Conference in Beijing, China. Her advocacy skills were well utilized in these arenas of national and international policymaking.

I am honored to join the colleagues of Pat Loomes in commending her 25 years of tireless commitment to empowering girls. Pat has made it a personal and professional mission to strike a balance between her ideology and direct service to her community. She has been not only the driving force behind the success of Girls Incorporated of Alameda County for 25 years, but a crucial advocate for girls around the globe as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of my colleagues an article written by my friend Princeton Economist Uwe Reinhardt. Dr. Reinhardt is well known to many of us in Congress because of his expertise in health care policy. He's an advisor I rely on for his keen insights, knowledge, and his wit--not a characteristic identified in many health economists.

What many of my colleagues may not know is that Dr. Reinhardt and his wife, May, have a son who is serving in the U.S. Marines on the front lines in Iraq.

Dr. Reinhardt grew up in Germany and saw the horrors of war as a young boy there. His words deserve our attention. He's right. Our thoughts and prayers should extend to all involved in war and against any loss of human life--civilian, military, American or Iraqi.

I commend Dr. Reinhardt's article for your attention. His sentiments are ones I share completely and I thank him for being able to so eloquently say what many of us feel. I hope others will take his words to heart.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 2003]

Innocents in Uniform

(By Uwe E. Reinhardt)

Princeton, NJ.--CNN recently showed a Marine chaplain

admonishing the platoon assembled before him: Pray not only

for yourself, he told them, but for your enemies as well.

After all, they are just soldiers, like you, doing what they

are ordered to do.

What a refreshing departure these words were from what I've

been hearing from the civilian sector, where the talk is

mainly of minimizing coalition casualties or, in more

generous moments, innocent Iraqi civilian casualties as well.

I wince every time I hear that kind of talk, especially the

reference to innocence. Should not the proper minimum in any

war be loss of human life, period--which in this case

includes Iraqi soldiers, too?

My earliest childhood memories were forged by war--real

war. My family lived near one of the most ferocious battle

grounds of the European war theater--the notorious Hurtgen

forest, where American and German soldiers fought one another

in hand-to-hand combat for more than four months in the fall

of 1944. A plaque at one of the military cemeteries in the

area notes that more American soldiers died there than in

Vietnam, and surely as many or more German soldiers were

killed there too.

My family lived opposite a convent that had been converted

into a field hospital for the nearby front. I was a small boy

then, and watching the ambulances come and go (sometimes

peeking curiously into them), I could not help but become

witness daily to the horrors of war. Millions of Europeans of

my generation, whom many Americans now disparage so

contemptuously as pacifists, had a similar experience.

Because we lived so near the Battle of the Bulge and the

advancing, allied forces, our village was strafed and bombed

routinely. One such attack came as my friends and I were

playing outside. We ran as the planes approached, taking

shelter in the cavernous basement of the convent. There we

spied a row of stretchers. On each was a body covered

entirely by a blanket. Possibly to overcome our own terror,

we dared one another to pull back a blanket on one of the

stretchers, to see what a dead man looked like. Someone did.

We fell silent instantly as we beheld the serene, waxen face

of a very young soldier who could not have been older than 16

or 17.

More than 50 years later, I can still see his face clearly.

The shock of it recurs whenever I hear the chirpy anchors on

the morning programs (not to mention the hawkish talking

heads) prattle on about innocent civilians, as if the number

of fallen enemy soldiers did not count. What does

``innocent'' mean in the context of war?

I am almost certain that the young German soldier my

friends and I saw so many years ago in that convent basement

was as innocent as those of us who weren't in uniform. For

all we know, he had grown up on a farm somewhere and, while

fighting in the trenches, dreamed of his girlfriend and of

life as an adult in peaceful times. For all we know, he would

have happily quit fighting and joined the allies. (He didn't

have much of a choice: some German generals strung up on

trees the bodies of young soldiers who had deserted, a

powerful warning to their peers.)

Perhaps many of the Iraqi soldiers, too, find themselves

where they are because they have no other choice. After all,

is not Saddam Hussein a ruthless dictator, and are not some

of his generals likely to be as cruel as their Wehrmacht

counterparts?

My hope is that Americans can muster the proper decorum

that an enterprise as horrible as war demands. There is

nothing neat about maiming and killing people with precision

bombs from the air or gunfire on the ground--even if they're

wearing enemy uniforms. Young lives are snuffed out; parents,

siblings and lovers weep, and so should we. We want our

troops to win a quick victory, to be sure. As the father of a

young Marine officer on the front lines in Iraq, I certainly

do. But let us heed that Marine chaplain

who, like anyone who has ever witnessed war, knows whereof he

speaks. Let us hope and pray for a minimum loss of human

life--period.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Newdow v. the United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment and should be overturned.

The Court ruled on a case in which children were required to recite the pledge. Just as we should not bar anyone from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, we should not force anyone to recite words they do not believe.

As I have stated before, I believe the Ninth Circuit was right in ruling that the reference to ``God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It is a religious term that does not respect the diversity of faiths and opinion in America and the separation of Church and State as our Constitution requires.

This House has now been given three separate opportunities to vote on almost identical resolutions denouncing the Ninth Circuit for its rulings on this issue. Right or wrong, Congress has made its voice heard. But, it appears that many of my colleagues are not content to let the judicial branch do its job. They want to intervene, exerting as much political pressure as necessary to sway the Supreme Court to side with their far-right Christian ideology.

These same colleagues seem to forget that religious liberty, religious tolerance and freedom of thought and expression were foremost principles in the minds of the Constitution's framers. This resolution before us today states that ``religious belief was central to our nation's founding''--completely ignoring these other integral ideals. As written, the resolution flatly mischaracterizes the very foundation of our democracy.

I urge my colleagues to end this effort to derail the Supreme Court's impartial deliberation on this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, last night, President Bush started the war against Iraq, a war that offends the vast majority of moral and religious groups in the world. Most major religious organizations, the Vatican, Muslim, Buddhists, Jewish, Protestant religious groups, oppose his war on moral grounds. Over 80 percent of the nations in the world oppose the war on ethical and moral grounds.

But now that Bush has created this disaster to cover up his failed diplomatic, social, and economic agenda, it is up to Congress to find ways to support our troops overseas, and support them we must. For President Bush talks the talk of support for our troops while he and Republican leaders fail to walk the walk. In reality, they trash the future lives here at home for our brave servicemen and women today.

How do George Bush and his Republican henchmen mistreat our troops? Well, let me counts the ways. They are all outlined in the Republican budget before us today. Even though Bush may lie from time to time, the figures in his budget reveal his true intentions, and here they are.

First, there is no money for our troops to fight this war of his, no money, period. So much for Republican support for our troops.

Second, troops. Watch out if you come home as a veteran, because Bush and his Republican allies are cutting $15 billion from veterans' benefits, a fine thank you for your service. When you return from war, no health care at the VA hospital? Do not turn to Medicaid or Medicare for help. Bush and his Republican allies are cutting more than $160 billion from these vital health care programs as well. These cuts mean over 5 million children will lose their health coverage benefits. Benefits will be reduced by 30 percent for the children lucky enough to remain in Medicaid, which, by the way, may have to drop its prescription drug coverage altogether.

Now, Republicans talk about a Medicare drug benefit, but they do not budget funds to provide it, and a million elderly nursing home residents could be put out on the streets. So much for the parents of our military.

Now, for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, got kids? Do not look for help from Bush. His budget takes child care away from 30,000 children, kicks 570,000 kids out of after-school programs, eliminates Head Start for 28,000 children, and prevents a half a million poor children from getting free and reduced-price school meals. Even if your kids are lucky enough to get to school, they will be left shortchanged by Bush's $9.5 billion cut to education that was needed to assure his often-touted plan to leave no child behind. Clearly, that campaign is history.

Need help with housing when you get back? Too bad. The President cuts housing subsidies for 75,000 families.

Having trouble finding a job in the Bush recession? Sorry. Republicans do nothing in this budget to extend unemployment benefits for those who cannot find jobs. At least his daddy and Ronnie Reagan extended unemployment benefits for over 33 weeks.

Say your war takes a long time and you want to retire when you come home. Forget about Social Security and Medicare. Bush took the money to fund those programs and gave it away as $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the very richest Americans, 80 percent of those cuts going to people with incomes over 100 grand a year. The only servicemen and women I know who are making that much are working two night jobs.

So there you have it. The President starts a war to eliminate terror, knowing that it will only increase terrorist attacks at home. He tries to disarm a nation with no proven weapons of mass destruction, and he ignores a far worse threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons. He orders the assassination of an inhumane dictator to cover up the fact that he cannot find bin Laden, and then tells us in Congress to support the troops while he dishonors their very future by giving America's resources away to a small, rich cadre of Republican officeholders and campaign contributors.

Mr. Chairman, you do not praise a person for driving home drunk and avoiding an accident. You do not praise an A grade awarded to a child who cheats to get it. And thus, we should not support the war program of a President which defies every moral and ethical standard set by religious and government leaders around the world.

If you truly want to support and honor our servicemen and women, vote

against this antiveteran, antichild, anti-Christian, ``Bush-league'' Republican budget.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would note that there is $1.8 billion being cut from the Medicaid contributions to the State of Indiana, which I am sure the previous speaker supports.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who knows all too well what it is to fight in a war with real bullets, unlike the White House and the current Republican administration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who is fighting Republican efforts to cut $13 billion in Medicaid funds from the State of New York.

Mr. Chairman, I think the previous speaker was a little confused.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who has been to Baghdad recently and has also served in the military, but also recognizes that the State of Washington is going to lose $1.7 billion in Medicaid funds if this budget were to pass.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the distinguished gentleman how many speakers he has?

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who understands that Michigan is going to lose almost $3 billion in funds for SCHIP and Medicaid under the Republican budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I yield a final minute to the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, I would like to use part of my 30 seconds to just suggest to the Chair and thank him for his kind and considerate presiding this afternoon. I know that could only come from a gentleman with whom I served, John Duncan, Sr., for many years the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I always say that fruit does not fall very far from the tree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to leave it to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) with the remaining time to discuss again the tax cut. It is too bad we do not talk more about 42 million uninsured Americans and children without education and the things that are being buried by this recent war talk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 975. This bankruptcy bill is touted as reform. But, it is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing intended to allow credit card companies and other lenders to gouge consumers when they are most vulnerable.

Republicans are giving this gift to the big credit card companies in the midst of this difficult recession, making it harder for working families to seek shelter from the common financial emergency of a lost job or lack of health coverage. In fact, 90% of all bankruptcies are filed for these very reasons. It's hard to see the abuse in these real instances of need, especially when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

Yet, this Republican legislation makes it more difficult for those Americans forced into

bankruptcy--a disproportionate number whom are women and minorities--to seek this protection. In fact, the bill requires the debtor in some cases to have to take on big corporate lenders in court to prove they are worthy of bankruptcy, forcing them to bear legal expenses they can't afford. In addition, this bill also allows creditors to threaten debtors with costly litigation that will in turn force many families to needlessly give up their legal rights.

In their continuing compassion, the Republicans have crafted this so- called reform so that a parent seeking to collect child support from an estranged spouse that's declared bankruptcy will have to fight it out with creditors to receive payment. Meanwhile, this bill makes it easier for those seeking bankruptcy protection to lose their homes or be evicted by their landlords. Yet, those with million dollar mansions will be able to keep their homes even while seeking the same bankruptcy protection. Nothing like a fair shake for America's working families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with all of the perks they've awarded to the big credit card companies, Republicans have done nothing to ensure that they are held accountable. There is nothing in this bill that stops the abusive, predatory lending that lands too many Americans in bankruptcy in the first place.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this anti consumer bill. Now is not the time to turn the tables on America's working families. Vote no on

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a group of colleagues to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2003. Medicare's mental health coverage is woefully inadequate. Instead of the standard 20 percent coinsurance payment required by beneficiaries, mental health services require a 50 percent co-payment, limited community-based treatments are covered, and there is a cap on mental health hospitalization days. The bill we are introducing today eliminates this blatant mental health discrimination from Medicare and modernizes the Medicare mental health benefit to meet today's standards of care.

In the past, the late Senator Paul Wellstone championed this effort in the U.S. Senate. This year, Senator Jon Corzine has stepped forward to introduce the companion legislation in the Senate. I want to thank Senator Corzine for his commendable efforts on behalf of this important legislation.

One in five members of our senior population display mental difficulties that are not part of the normal aging process. In primary care settings, over a third of senior citizens demonstrate symptoms of depression and impaired social functioning. Older adults also have the highest rate of suicide of any segment of our population. Furthermore, mental illness is the single largest diagnostic category for Medicare beneficiaries on disability. There is a critical need for effective and accessible mental health care for the Medicare population. Unfortunately, the current structure of Medicare mental health benefits is inadequate and presents multiple barriers to treatment access. This bill addresses these problems.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act is a straightforward bill that improves Medicare's mental health benefits as follows:

It reduces the discriminatory co-payment for outpatient mental health services from 50 to the 20 percent level charged for most other Part B medical services.

It eliminates the arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

It improves beneficiary access to mental health services by including within Medicare a number of community-based residential and intensive outpatient mental health services that characterize today's state-of- the-art clinical practices. The mental health field has undergone many advances over the past several decades. Effective, research-validated interventions have been developed for many of these mental conditions that affect stricken beneficiaries. Most mental conditions no longer require long-term hospitalizations, and can be effectively treated in less restrictive community settings. This bill recognizes these advances in clinical treatment practices and adjusts Medicare's mental health coverage to account for them.

It further improves access to needed mental health services by addressing the shortage of qualified mental health professionals serving older and disabled Americans in rural and other medically underserved areas by allowing state licensed marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors to provide Medicare-covered services. Similarly, it corrects a legislative oversight that will facilitate the provision of mental health services by clinical social workers within skilled nursing facilities.

It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study to examine whether the Medicare criteria to cover therapeutic services to beneficiaries with Alzheimer's and related cognitive disorders discriminates by being too restrictive.

The push for mental health parity is ongoing. We've made important strides forward for the under-65 population. Twenty-three states have already enacted full mental health parity and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan was improved in 2001 to assure that all federal employees are provided mental health parity. Last April, President Bush called for Congress to enact legislation to provide equivalence for private sector health insurance coverage of mental and physical conditions (though he has yet to endorse any legislation to achieve that goal). This year, legislation to enact real mental health parity for those with private health insurance already has the bipartisan support of 180 members in the House and 43 U.S. Senators. I fully support these efforts as well.

What has been too-often missing from this overall mental health parity debate is the fact that the Medicare program continues to fail to meet the mental health needs of America's seniors and those with disabilities. That's why we've introduced the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act. That's also why this bill has received support from numerous mental health advocacy and provider organizations including: the National Mental Health Association, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the American Counseling Association, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of County Mental Health Directors and the National Association of Social Workers.

When Medicare was created in 1965, mental health treatment was very different than it is today. Over the years, Congress has updated Medicare's benefits as the practice of medicine has changed. It is past time for us to take this action with regard to Medicare's currently inadequate mental health benefits. The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of

2003 removes discriminatory features from the Medicare mental health benefits and helps facilitate access to up-to-date and affordable mental health services for our elderly and disabled. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, legislation that would undermine the right of patients and their families to seek appropriate compensation and penalties when they, or a loved one, are harmed or even killed by an incompetent health care provider.

At best, this bill is a wrong-headed approach to the problem of rising malpractice health insurance costs. At worst, it is designed to protect bad doctors, HMOs, and other health care providers from being held accountable for their actions. Either way, this bill is harmful to consumers and should be defeated.

The Republican Leadership has once again brought forth a bill that favors their special interests at the expense of patients and quality health care. Doctors, hospitals, HMOs, health insurance companies, nursing homes, and other health care providers would all love to see their liability risk reduced. Unfortunately, this bill attempts to achieve that goal solely on the backs of American's patients. I said, ``attempts to achieve that goal'' intentionally.

Despite the rhetoric from the other side, there is absolutely nothing in H.R. 5 that guarantees a reduction in medical malpractice premiums. There is not one line to require that the medical malpractice insurance industry--in exchange for capping their liability--return those savings to doctors and other providers they insure through lower malpractice premiums. To quote one of many economists on this matter, Frank A. Sloan, an economics professor from Duke, recently said, ``If anyone thinks caps on pain and suffering are going to work miracles overnight, they're wrong.'' In fact, the outcome of this bill could have zero impact on lowering malpractice premiums and instead go into the pocketbooks of the for-profit medical malpractice industry. Of course, the bill's proponents avoid mentioning that very real possibility.

Proponents of this bill like to say that they are taking California's successful medical malpractice laws and putting them into effect for the nation. This is also hyperbole. California did not simply institute a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards. The much more important thing that California did was to institute unprecedented regulation of the medical malpractice insurance industry. This regulation limits annual increases in premiums and provides the Insurance Commissioner with the power and the tools to disapprove increases proposed by the insurance industry. It is this insurance regulation that has maintained lower medical malpractice premiums. Yet the bill before us does absolutely nothing to regulate the insurance industry at all.

Supporters of this bill would have you believe that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving health care costs through the roof. In fact, for every $100 spent on medical care in 2000, only 56 cents can be attributed to medical malpractice costs--that's one half of one percent. So, supporters are spreading false hope that capping medical malpractice awards will reduce the cost of health care in our country by any measurable amount. It won't.

What supporters of this bill really do not want you to understand is how bad this bill would be for consumers. The provisions of this bill would prohibit juries and courts from providing awards they believe reasonably compensate victims for the harm that has been done to them.

H.R. 5 caps non-economic damages. By setting an arbitrary $250,000 cap on this portion of an award, the table is titled against seniors, women, children, and people with disabilities. Medical malpractice awards break down into several categories. Economic damages are awarded based on how one's future income is impacted by the harm caused by medical malpractice. There are no caps on this part of the award. But, by capping non-economic damages, this bill would artificially and arbitrarily lower awards for those without tremendous earning potential. This means that a housewife or a senior would get less than a young, successful businessman for identical injuries. Is that fair? I don't think so.

The limits on punitive damages are severe. Punitive damages are seldom awarded in malpractice cases, but their threat is an important deterrent. And, in cases of reckless conduct that cause severe harm, it is irresponsible to forbid such awards.

Republicans claim to be advocates for states rights. Yet, this bill directly overrides the abilities of states to create and enforce medical malpractice laws that meet the needs of their residents.

This Congress has been unable to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect the rights of patients enrolled in managed care plans. Thankfully states have not been similarly immobile. They have moved ahead and enacted numerous laws to hold HMOs and other health plans accountable for the care they provide to patients--and any harm they may cause in that process. My home state of California has enacted strong legislation in this regard. If H.R. 5 becomes law, those laws will be overridden. It is not just consumer advocates who

are concerned about this. Steven Thompson, lobbyist for the California Medical Association, was recently quoted in the Sacramento Bee as saying, ``The California law we supported was intended to protect doctors and hospitals--people who deliver care, but the health plans would benefit from the way the House bill is laid out.'' In other words, this bill is anti-Patients' Bill of Rights. Despite years of fighting in Congress to hold health plans accountable for their abuses, this bill actually protects them! I will not support any bill that precludes states from moving ahead to protect consumers--especially when Congress has proved incapable of addressing their needs.

The issue of rising malpractice insurance costs is a real concern. I support efforts by Congress to address that problem. That's why I would have voted for the Democratic alternative legislation that Representatives Conyers and Dingell brought to the Rules Committee last night. Unlike H.R. 5, the Dingell-Conyers alternative would not benefit the malpractice insurance industry at the expense of America's patients. Instead, it addresses the need for medical malpractice insurance reform--learning from the experience of California--to rein in increasing medical malpractice premiums. Rather than enforcing an arbitrary $250,000 cap, the bill makes reasonable tort reforms that address the problems in the malpractice arena--penalties for frivolous lawsuits and enacting mandatory mediation to attempt to resolve cases before they go to court. It also requires the insurance industry to project the savings from these reforms and to dedicate these savings to reduced medical malpractice premiums for providers. The Dingell-Conyers bill (H.R. 1219) is a real medical malpractice reform bill that works for doctors and patients alike.

The Democratic alternative bill is such a good bill that the Republican leadership refused to let it be considered on the House floor today. They were afraid that if Members were given a choice between these two bills, they would have voted for the Democratic bill. Once again the House Republican leadership has used their power to control the rules to stymie democratic debate.

Medical malpractice costs are an easy target. My Republican colleagues like to simplify it as a fight between America's doctors and our nation's trial lawyers. That is a false portrayal. Our medical malpractice system provides vital patient protection.

The bill before us drastically weakens the effectiveness of our nation's medical malpractice laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this wrong-headed and harmful approach to reducing the cost of malpractice premiums. It's the wrong solution for America's patients and their families.

Mr. Speaker, today, House Democrats answer the public's call for a real Medicare prescription drug benefit.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Discount Act is an entitlement that will guarantee affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage to all senior citizens and individuals with disabilities who are on Medicare.

The benefit in this legislation is simple. It has no gaps, and no gimmicks. Beneficiaries will pay a $25 monthly premium, have a $100 per year deductible, and pay 20 percent co-insurance up to a $2000 out-of- pocket limit. After a beneficiary spends $2000, Medicare pays for all other needed prescription drugs. Under this legislation, a beneficiary will never pay more than $2000 for prescription drugs in a year, and most beneficiaries will pay far less.

This legislation provides additional assistance to those with lower incomes. Beneficiaries whose incomes are under 150 percent of poverty will pay no premiums and no cost-sharing. Those with incomes between 150-175 percent of poverty will receive premium subsidies on a sliding scale basis and pay no cost-sharing. Unlike the House-passed Republican bill from last year, there is no hidden hatchet to deny benefits to low-income seniors who have modest assets.

These Medicare benefits will be guaranteed for everyone on Medicare, regardless of where they live and regardless of whether they are in the traditional Medicare program or a private plan. No senior will be forced to leave Medicare for a private plan in order to receive meaningful prescription drug coverage.

This legislation also tackles one of the biggest problems facing seniors, the uninsured, and all Americans: astronomical prescription drug prices. This bill will reduce Medicare prescription drug costs by using the market clout of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate lower prices. It will also reduce prescription drug costs for all Americans by closing loopholes in current law that allow pharmaceutical companies to game the patent system and prevent competition from equally effective, but lower cost, generic drugs.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Discount Act will guarantee the choices that matter. Under our plan, Medicare will pay toward the cost of every prescription drug, not just those for which a private insurance company cut a special deal with a drug maker. Seniors will be covered for any drug their doctor prescribes. And, under our plan, every pharmacy that is willing to play by the rules will be welcome to participate. Seniors will be able to go to the pharmacy of their choice.

And, importantly, unlike the President's plan and the Congressional Republicans' plan, our plan will never force elderly or disabled Americans to give up traditional Medicare in order to get a prescription drug benefit. 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 a more generous prescription drug benefit.

The prescription drug coverage in the Democratic bill will seem just like any other Medicare benefit, because it is a Medicare benefit.

Don't be fooled by Republican rhetoric. They like to talk about choices, but in the end their proposals all boll down to one choice for seniors--choose either the doctor you know and trust or the medicines you know you need. This is not a choice that anyone should have to make.

The Administration claims to offer seniors the same choices that Members of Congress and federal employees get through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Again, this is nothing more than hyperbole. Almost all Members of Congress, and most federal employees, are in the Blue Cross Standard Option plan in FEHBP. That plan offers a drug benefit with no deductible, a 25 percent copayment, and a $4000 cap on all medical spending per year. No Republican has come forth with a comparable Medicare prescription drug benefit. Our bill does just that.

The Republicans' goal is simple: they are using the promise of a prescription drug benefit to attempt to privatize Medicare. No matter how you measure it, beneficiaries will pay more and get less under the Republican plan. At the same time, they are doling out hundreds of billions of dollars in federal tax dollar giveaways to their friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Our legislation will not be cheap. But none of us question the cost of covering doctor visits and hospital stays under Medicare today. I would argue that prescription drug coverage is as essential to good health care in the 21st century as physician and hospital care was in the 20th century when Medicare was created.

The President has committed $400 billion to a Medicare drug benefit and so-called Medicare reform. On top of that, he's committed $726 billion to an economic stimulus plan that includes dividend cuts and speeding up tax breaks for the very richest among us. No one believes that this tax cut will provide real economic stimulus. If he would simply reduce its size, we could rededicate those funds to improving Medicare. That is a much more important priority for our nation than more tax cuts for those who need them least.

Unfortunately, it is not the goal of Republicans to create an affordable, meaningful prescription drug benefit in Medicare that works for all our Medicare beneficiaries of today and tomorrow. Instead, their prescription drug proposals are designed simply to provide political cover for the President and Republican Members of Congress-- and to allow them to privatize Medicare so that the federal government's expenses are protected rather than protecting the expenses of seniors and people with disabilities.

Our bill meets the needs of the 40 million Americans who depend on Medicare. That's why the leading beneficiary organizations support this legislation. This is the drug benefit America's seniors and people with disabilities need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of a real Medicare drug benefit by pushing for passage of the Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to reintroduce the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 2003. This legislation creates a commemorative Congressional medal of honor for organ donors and their families for performing such a brave and self-less act. Recognition of these gifts of life also publicizes our critical national need to increase organ donation. I want to thank Senator Frist a heart and lung transplant surgeon himself, for introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

There is a serious shortage of available and suitable organs for donation. Over 80,000 people are currently waiting for an organ transplant; 2,200 are children under age 18. Every 13 minutes a new name is added to the list. Because of low donor rates, in 2001 alone over 6,000 people died for lack of suitable organ. Physicians can now successfully transplant kidneys, lungs, pancreases, livers, and hearts with considerable success. But, without expanded efforts to increase organ donation, the supply of suitable organs will continue to lag behind the need. Incentive programs and public education are critical to maintaining and increasing the number of organs donated each year.

Health and Human Services' (HHS) Secretary Thompson has been a strong advocate for organ donation throughout his years in public service. Under his leadership, HHS has already implemented initiatives to raise the public awareness of this vital act of giving life. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act is a great opportunity for us to work with Secretary Thompson to draw attention to this life-saving issue. It sends a clear message that donating one's organs is an act that should receive the profound respect of our nation.

The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act establishes a nonprofit fund to be used to design, produce, and distribute a Congressional medal of honor to organ donors or to a surviving family member. Enactment of this legislation would have no cost to the Federal Government. The Treasury Department would provide a small initial loan for start-up purposes, which would be fully repaid. Subsequently, the program would be self-sufficient through charitable donations.

This is non-controversial, non-partisan legislation to increase the rate of organ donation. I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous faith and courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors

these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation. I urge swift passage of the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Organ Donation Improvement Act of 2003, H.R. 399. The commendable purpose of this bill is to increase public awareness of the need for organ donation and institute procedures to increase the frequency of this brave and noble act.

There is a serious shortage of available organs for donation. There are currently over 80,000 people waiting for an organ transplant and a new name is added to the waiting list every 13 minutes. As a result of the low rate of organ donation in this country, more than 6,000 people died in 2001 for lack of an available suitable organ. The passage of this bill and the implementation of its provisions will help to markedly reduce the number of such deaths in the future.

I commend Representative Michael Bilirakis for introducing this bill and taking interest in this vital area. I encourage my colleagues to support this life saving legislation.

Mr. Speaker, reducing medical errors is an important goal, and this legislation takes a small step in that direction. But don't be fooled by the rhetoric.

While the legislation offers a glimmer of hope that action will be taken, it does nothing to actually prevent any future medical errors or improve patient safety.

Unfortunately, the timing of the consideration of this bill is driven by crass political motives to provide cover for the anti-patient legislation that will be considered tomorrow.

I personally think one of our goals should be to first do no harm, and I believe this bill accomplishes that. But it doesn't do much good either.

Federal agencies, states, and the private sector are making strides in this area. But there are certain things that only Congress can do. The legislation before us is not the best example of what that role should be.

This legislation reflects a tenuously and delicately crafted compromise that assures that information which is discoverable today will remain discoverable if this bill becomes law. While the bill creates a new federal privilege for the data created for this new voluntary reporting system, it does not erode a patient's right to access information that is currently available and would be available but for this new system. I am satisfied that--as currently written--it seems to accomplish that goal. But I am concerned about how it will be used and intend to keep an eye on it.

The bill establishes a voluntary system under which patient safety organizations may be created, providers may report their mistakes and the Secretary may act to improve patient safety practices.

But let's talk about what this bill does not do.

It does not reflect the Institute of Medicine's recommendations from the landmark 1999 report.

It does not ensure that providers change their practices to prevent medical errors, based on the insight that might be gained from the system created under this bill.

It does not require a rigorous evaluation of this new voluntary system, which may be ineffective.

The IOM report estimated that as many as 98,000 hospital deaths each year may be attributable to preventable medical errors, yet this legislation fails to assure any reduction in this tragic statistic. It certainly doesn't address the recent organ transplant tragedies.

There are a number of steps that can be taken today to reduce errors and improve patient safety, but too few providers have implemented these policies.

For example, only one percent of hospitals require use of computerized order-entry systems to reduce pharmaceutical prescribing, dispensing and administration errors.

Similarly, last year the American Nurses Association testified that a significant portion of hospital errors are the result of fatigued and overworked staff. Around the country, nurses are regularly forced to work more hours than are believed to be safe to provide quality care. I introduced legislation (H.R. 745) to prohibit this unsafe practice.

Without assurances that the system will use this newly protected data to improve practice, this lop-sided exercise benefits the providers at the expense of patients, and the trade-off may not be worth it.

Finally, let's not forget that the timing of this legislation is not accidental. This legislation is being brought up today in an effort to distract from the anti-patient legislation that Congress will take up tomorrow. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric.

I intend to vote for this bill because it does no harm and lays the groundwork for future action. But we have missed an opportunity to do more.