Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for all of their work on this legislation.

I want to compliment the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a relatively new Member of the Congress, for his effort in shepherding this through our committee and bringing it to the floor on a timely basis. And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for working with us on many of the provisions in this bill to make sure that States and local entities are held to strong accountability while providing services to reduce the effects of poverty. And I rise in strong support of the Community Services Block Grant program.

The Community Services Block Grant is a relatively small, but an extremely important, program. The central purpose of this program is to minimize the effects of poverty and to maximize self-sufficiency. This program gives money to local entities who can create innovative programs and respond to community needs. It helps low-income individuals and families with services such as domestic violence prevention programs, job training and business development, senior services, homelessness, food pantries, adult literacy, and early education.

As we read that list of names, many of us will recognize our friends and families who volunteer in many of these efforts in our communities because the Community Services Block Grant has also been a catalyst to bring together other elements of the community help volunteers to address these problems that are present in our local community. I support the provisions of this legislation, and the substitute makes important steps to further strengthen the accountability of goals and performances.

However, I cannot support this bill because this bill contains a poison pill. I will not support government-sponsored religious discrimination. And we can dress it all up and we can talk all around the point, but the fact of the matter is that what this legislation does is allow faith-based organizations to make discriminatory hiring decisions with the funds from the Community Services Block Grant.

The majority claims that these types of repeals of civil rights laws are necessary for faith-based groups to participate is simply wrong. The faith-based organizations have been participating in this program from its inception. In many instances, the faith-based organizations were here prior to the creation of the Community Services Block Grant.

When we think back to the War on Poverty, when we think back to ending segregation in this country and to providing opportunity in this country, to poor and minority families in our communities, if it had not been for the faith-based organizations, many of those efforts would have never gotten off the ground in many regions of this country, in many of our cities, and many of our communities.

So the fact of the matter is from its inception faith-based organizations have been a key component, a necessary component, and a welcome component to the providing of services under the Community Services Block Grant and in many other governmental activities that we undertake to improve our communities.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that the suggestion that, but for this provision in the law, these organizations are not participating, according to a nonpartisan survey, over two-thirds of local Community Service Block Grant boards include faith-based organizations. Forty percent of the community action agencies contract with faith-based organizations to deliver services.

I expect, again, that Members of Congress will recognize that activity. I certainly do from the congressional district that I represent because I rely on, and our community relies on, and the families and recipients of these services rely on faith-based organizations to extend the efficiency of these programs, to extend the effectiveness of these programs. We do it when working with prison parolees and their families; we do it working with the victims of domestic violence and working with children who need additional mentoring and tutoring, all kinds of activities that take place in our community.

Nearly 100 percent of the community action agencies refer clients to faith-based providers because the services are there and they are effective and they are working. The majority's claim that Democrats and President Clinton have supported discriminatory language we are debating today is really not true. When the Community Services Block Grant was before us in 1998 the religious discrimination language was put into conference report and was voice voted at 2 a.m. Some on the other side of the aisle may recognize that because that has become a habit. Whenever there is something controversial, we do it after midnight in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, we simply should not as a matter of law give to religious organizations the right to discriminate when they are using Federal dollars, because that makes the government of the United States a partner in the discriminatory agent. And that is what the Constitution is all about, to make sure that the government does not do that.

We had a little tune-up here a little earlier on the floor between my chairman and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and I think it is clear that there is a distinction what faith-based and private organizations do with their own money. It is a distinction that has been brightly drawn in Federal law as to what they do with the taxpayers' dollars. Obviously these taxpayer dollars come from people of all faiths, and they should not be used to discriminate.

The underlying bill is a very good bill. It is a very important bill. It is an improved bill because of the work of the members of our committee. But it, in fact, contains this poison pill that specifically provides for discrimination with Federal funds. I will not support that effort. I would hope that most of the Members of Congress would not support that effort, and then we can get on to renewing the effort by the community action agencies, by our States and our cities and localities and agencies and so many of the faith-based organizations that are already providing so many of these services and helping so many of the agencies and helping so many in our community to battle the impacts of poverty on families and children in our communities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of the chairman how many additional speakers he has on general debate.

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I yield back our time. We can move right to the substitute. I think we were debating the substitute in any case.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point because I think the previous speaker in the well completely misstates history.

This is not about driving anybody away who wants to help our communities. One of the other speakers talked about rolling back time. We have 30 years of experience where faith-based organizations have stepped up to the plate to help our communities, to help our families, to help our children, to help our homeless; and they have been doing it all along. They were there before the government programs were there. They were there with the initial programs in the 1960s. It was the only way we could get services delivered.

Now, to suggest that somehow because we do not think that they should discriminate in the hiring that we are chasing them away, they were there before this was the law. I was building houses with Habitat for Humanity before 1998. This is not about that. This is about whether or not people in good faith who walked through the front door who need a job who have a talent are going to be chased away because of their religion. That is what this is about, whether or not a completely well- qualified individual who walks in and asks for a job to help out, and is told they cannot have that job because of their religion, that is who is being chased away, people of good faith and intentions who need help in our community who need a job and who are qualified to do the job.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. So would the Jewish and Muslim citizens of this country be amazed.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment authorizes an additional 6 months of urgently needed extended unemployment compensation benefits through the Community Services Block Grant program.

Last week, the shocking neglect of the unemployed by this administration became all too apparent. The tag-team termination of extended unemployment benefits by the Republican leadership and the Bush administration has left a staggering, record-breaking 375,000 unemployed individuals who have been out of work over a half a year and still cannot find work. By July, over 2 million unemployed workers will be left to fend for themselves, with no paycheck and no unemployment assistance. Two million Americans who were working before this recession, 2 million Americans who were working before the tech bubble burst, 2 million Americans who were working before the corporate scandals in this Nation, who were supporting their families and themselves, cannot find work and this government will not help them because this administration does not see it as a priority. In no other month on record and in no other 6-month period for which data is available have so many unemployed workers exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without being able to receive additional aid.

At a time when we see that this administration is willing to lavish billions of dollars on special perks for the pharmaceutical companies and HMOs but nothing for an unemployed family, at a time when we see us borrowing money to rebuild Iraq and provide sole-source contracts that are now overcharging us millions of dollars for the care and feeding of our soldiers, no money for the unemployed. At a time when this administration comes to us and tells us we should borrow to go to Mars, nothing for the unemployed. We should borrow to rebuild Iraq, nothing for the unemployed. Time and again, we have made decisions in this Congress and in this administration that do not include the ordinary, hardworking American families who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Their jobs have been outsourced, their jobs have been sent overseas, their jobs have been eliminated. It is not because they are not struggling. These people want a job. They want a job. They would trade their unemployment check in a minute for a job. But the jobs are not available.

They were told at the beginning of this Congress by this administration with their economic program, with their budget priorities that they were going to create 1.8 million jobs. Well, here we are, folks, a year later, and they are 1.6 million jobs short. They just did not hit the target. But what they did hit was the misery and the trauma among the unemployed in this country.

In the past, we have recognized when jobs are not available, as the economy bottoms out, as it starts to turn up, we have extended the unemployment benefits to get those people to a job. These people have been looking for work for 6 months. But this administration will not do it. This administration will not do it.

This administration makes this part of the attack on middle-class America, middle-class working people who have lost their jobs. They take away their unemployment benefits. Middle-class America, that relies on overtime to meet their annual support for their families, to provide their cars, to buy their houses, they want to engineer the taking away of their overtime. Middle-class America that needs a pension, they want to take away their pension in the cash balance program.

What is it that middle-class America did that so angered the Republican Party, that so angered this President, that he cannot understand and have compassion over what these families are going through when they are unemployed? What is it that the middle class did that does not allow this President to understand what it means when they close down the factory in your hometown, when they out-source your job to India, to China, to Singapore? Your job just disappeared.

The answer from this administration and this Congress, this Republican Congress, is, tough; it is tough. These are hard-working people. They were working the day before they were unemployed. They have a work history. They have a history of supporting their families, of supporting themselves, of trying to hold on to a standard of living.

Mr. Chairman, we have a remedy today. You vote for this amendment, and we can tell the 61,000 people from North Carolina who are expected to lose their jobs over the next 6 months that we will help them and their families until they find a job. You can tell the 66,000 people in Florida that we will help them and their families and their children until they find a job; or the 51,000 people in Georgia or the 314,000 people in the State of California that this government will help them until they can find employment.

Compassionate conservatism? Sounds pretty good to me. Where is the compassion? These are breadwinners. These are providers for families. Where is it that we cannot help them?

There is $17 billion in the Unemployment Trust Fund that was put there by the work and the sweat and the toil of America's workers, and what we are asking you today is to authorize that those funds be released for the next 6 months so that these people can have an opportunity to hold on to their house, to hold on to their health care, to hold on to their children, because that is what happens when you lose all of your financial support: you start to lose your family, you start to see divorce is a possibility, you start to lose your mortgage, you start to lose your car, and you have got to start all over again and you are 50 years old.

That is an America of compassionate conservatism? That is the America of Bush compassionate conservatism? No, that is a very mean-spirited America. But you have an opportunity to turn that around today. You have an opportunity to turn it around immediately. Pass this amendment and ask for a supplemental to take those hard-earned worker funds that are in the trust fund, that are there for their benefit, for exactly this purpose in this economic emergency and help those 375,000 people that this administration pushed off the employment cliff and the economic cliff in this country last month.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

When would we have that debate? When is that bill coming to the floor? Why did it not come to the floor just before we went home for Christmas? Why did it not come to the floor before these people fell off the edge?

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

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

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

Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate. I appreciate that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do not like this bill being used for this purpose; but let me say to them, this is the only vehicle we have because they will bring us nothing to address the unemployment problem in this country and the loss of unemployment benefits. We are trying. We are trying on this side of the aisle to use any vehicle we have to try to get this Congress to respond to the needs of millions of Americans who are at risk of losing or have already lost their unemployment benefits, millions of middle-class Americans who are working hard, who are about to go in a downward financial spiral that leads to chaos in their families, that leads to bankruptcies, that leads to the loss of assets, millions of working Americans who play by the rules, had a job, worked hard at it, and then through no fault of their own they lost it.

This Congress stands by as 375,000 people lost their benefits in the month of January. We knew it was going to happen. We went home for Christmas. What kind of Christmas did these people have when they knew that their benefits were going to run out? What kind of Christmas did these hard-working families have?

We have heard a lot over the last couple of months about two Americas. This is the other America. This is the America without stock options. This is the America without vacations. This is the America without jobs.

Most of them have worked their whole lives, played by the rules, tried to do it the right way, tried to raise their families; and now all of that is at risk, and we sit with $17 billion in the trust fund, and they say go to the States. The State of Illinois is out of money. The State of Minnesota is out of money. The State of Missouri is out

of money. North Carolina is out of money. New York's out of money. Texas is out of money. California's about out of money, and Arkansas is heading in that direction.

My colleagues do not have a solution, go to the States. What a cynical approach. The gentleman from Texas takes the well and says go to the States, and his State with 300,000 people in it is out of money, is out of money. So his answer apparently is nothing for these families.

I do not get it. I just do not get how this happens to people who work all year long, year after year; and then they find out they are closing the factory, they are closing the mill, their job has disappeared. They run out and try to find another job. They cannot find the job. They run from place to place. They send out resumes; they go through retraining. They cannot find a job, and then they run out of unemployment benefits, and they get to go home to their spouse and to their children and say we are going to have to sell the house, we are going to have to sell the car, we have lost our health insurance. What is this Congress for? What is this Congress for if we are not here to try and bridge those people across these troubled waters from unemployment to employment.

I know my colleague is going to say, these people want a job? You bet your buns they want a job. They just do not have one in the Bush economy. They just do not have the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. George Miller of California

Amendment No. 3: Strike all after the enacting clause and

insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. George Miller of California

Amendment No. 5: Page 5, strike lines 20 and 21, and insert

the following:

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking ``1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``2004

through 2009''; and

(B) by striking ``681'' and inserting ``675C(b)(3), 681,'';

Page 6, line 2, strike ``and'' at the end.

Page 6, line 8, strike the period at the end and insert ``;

and''.

Page 6, after line 8, insert the following:

(C) by adding at the end the following:

``(c) Assistance Relating to Unemployment.--There are

authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary

for fiscal year 2004 to carry out section 675C(b)(3).''.

Page 6, strike lines 9 through 14, and insert the

following:

(d) Uses of Funds.--Section 675C of the Community Services

Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9907) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(3)(A) by striking ``Beginning on

October 1, 2000, a'' and inserting ``A''; and

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraph (1)(F) by striking ``neighborhood-based''

and inserting ``community-based''; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

``(3) Assistance relating to unemployment.--With the amount

appropriated under section 674(c), the Secretary shall make

grants to States to provide financial and employment support

to individuals who cannot find employment, who have exhausted

their State unemployment benefits, and who, after the week of

December 20, 2003, can no longer receive Federal extended

temporary unemployment compensation. The eligibility criteria

and benefit amounts under this paragraph for such individuals

shall be the same as for such individuals prior to December

20, 2003, under the Federal extended temporary unemployment

compensation program.''; and

(3) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``paragraphs (1) and

(2) of'' after ``under''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the career of my long-time friend and constituent Mrs. Diana Mason.

Diana began her career in 1963 after graduating from Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, California. As a secretary in the engineering department of the United States Steel Corporation, Diana began what would be three decades of service to US Steel. Two years after her initial employment she transferred to the Industrial Engineering Department and finally in 1967 began working at the San Francisco corporate offices as secretary to the Director of Public Relations of Western States.

Diana continued her exemplary service and in 1979 was promoted to Executive Secretary to Plant Manager and returned to Pittsburg, CA. In 1986, US Steel merged with Pohang Steel Corporation of South Korea to become USS/POSCO Industries (UPI) and Diana began working as secretary to Mr. S.H. Yo, Executive Vice President of UPI.

In 1993, Diana became responsible for bringing UPI to the forefront of the community and began her new job as Manager of Community Relations. In this position she worked closely with the people and businesses of surrounding cities--Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood.

In addition to her work for UPI, Diana supports several outreach programs including Junior Achievement, Project Read, Choices, and the Pittsburg Seafood Festival. She is also a member of the Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary Club.

For three decades Diana has dedicated her career to working for US Steel and later UPI. In October 2003, Diana ended her long and successful career and I would like to take the time today to congratulate her on a job well done. I will continue to enjoy my friendship with her and I have tremendous respect and appreciation for the work she has done on behalf of her company, its employees, and our community.

I encourage my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in acknowledging the career and dedication of Diana Mason.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have done it again: a nefarious rider was slipped onto the fiscal year 2004 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill. The Republicans have, once again, shut

Democrats out of the legislative process and provided neither an opportunity to debate the amendment, nor the chance to show this amendment for what it really is: an unacceptable invasion of our Nation's public lands and an assault on our public process. I oppose this clandestine.

The King Cove Access Project rider is an affront to our nation's environmental laws. Section 115 of the Energy & Water Appropriations Bill directs the construction of a road from the village of King Cove, Alaska through the sensitive Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and right to the boundary of the fragile and internationally significant Izembek Wilderness Area. The provision waives all environmental laws governing construction of such a road in the process. The amendment was not included in either the House or Senate bills.

Other government agencies have raised concerns about this project as part of the mandated inter-governmental coordinate. Congress dealt with this issue five years ago when I was the ranking member of the Resources Committee in the 105th Congress. The King Cove Access Project was defeated then and should have been defeated now.

In 1998, proponents attempted to add the provision to an appropriations bill but were not successful. A compromise was later reached with the King Cove Health and Safety Act which was included as Section 353 of Public Law 105-277, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The measure appropriated $40 million to address the access needs of the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay; however, the Act did not approve a road through the Izembek refuge or the Izembek Wilderness. In fact, the legislation specifically required that expenditure of the funds allocated in the bill ``must be in accordance with all other applicable laws.''

It is outrageous that five years after a satisfactory compromise was agreed upon, we must return to this issue.

The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, on the Alaska Peninsula, is internationally recognized as one of the most important wetland reserves in the Northern Hemisphere. Home to threatened and endangered species, as well as millions of migratory birds, the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Izembek Wilderness are keys in the fight to conserve the natural diversity of wildlife populations and habitats.

The King Cove Access Project rider inappropriately short-circuits the public process. An administrative decision on a project to enhance marine-road access for the community of King Cove is proceeding in a timely manner and does not require intervention by Congress. However, the King Cove Access Project mandates one alternative in the EIS, thereby effectively ignoring the advice of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, other federal agencies and the American public.

The King Cove Access Project ignores environmental laws, threatens important wildlife habitat and sets a dangerous anti-wilderness precedent. It is shameful that it was part of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with 81 of my colleagues to introduce the Employee Free Choice Act-- legislation that will strengthen workers' rights in America.

Workers in America are demanding the same basic legal, labor and human rights by which we judge other nations around the world: the freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain.

These are the internationally-recognized standards our government says all workers deserve, whether in China or in Chattanooga, in Mexico or in Milwaukee, in South Africa or in South Carolina. We tell other nations that collective bargaining gives workers a voice in the workplace. It's time--in fact, it's way past time--for workers here in the United States to have the same rights and protections we demand of poorer, less developed and less democratic nations around the world.

Unfortunately, the basic labor law that Congress enacted in 1935 no longer works to protect the right of workers to form and join unions. Recent history is littered with the stories of companies that defeated their workers when they sought to exercise their legal right to organize for their mutual benefit.

Something is obviously very wrong with our nation's labor laws when one side in a dispute has so many weapons at its disposal to thwart the will of the majority.

We are all aware of the egregious record of Wal-Mart, whose vigorous anti-union activities include threats and firings to unlawful surveillance. In the last few years, Wal-Mart has been charged with well over 100 unfair labor practices and has faced at least 50 formal complaints from the NLRB. None of this has apparently deterred Wal- Mart. Current law simply does not discourage lawbreakers.

In August 2000, Human Rights Watch, which usually reviews conditions in developing nations, documented ``a systemic failure to ensure the most basic right of workers [in the United States]: their freedom to choose to come together to negotiate the terms of their employment with their employers.'' No impartial observer of our law could reach any other conclusion.

Is this the image of democracy that we choose to show to the rest of the world?

It is no mystery why workers want unions. The wages of union workers are 26% higher than for nonunion workers. Union workers have better pensions, better health benefits, and better shortterm disability coverage. Union workers have contracts that prevent arbitrary firings.

So why do unions win only 50% of the elections? Because the deck is stacked against employees who want to form a union.

We propose a new deck. Not just a new deal.

The Employee Free Choice Act restores integrity to our labor law by ensuring that our own citizens have the same basic freedom we demand for others. The right to organize must mean more than the right to be fired for daring to propose a union, and the right to bargain collectively must mean more than the right to endlessly negotiate once a union has been selected.

Throughout my congressional career, I have fought to improve the rights of workers. With many of my colleagues I've fought for a larger minimum wage, protection for migrant workers, better education, and greater retirement security and health coverage. This fight is to enable workers to fight for themselves. It is an historic fight that I resolve to continue until the rights of working Americans are fully protected.

For the benefit of my colleagues, a short summary of the Employee Free Choice Act follows:

Summary of Employee Free Choice Act

1. Certification on the Basis of Signed Authorizations

Provides for certification of a union as the bargaining

representative if the National Labor Relations Board finds

that a majority of employees in an appropriate unit has

signed authorizations designating the union as its bargaining

representative. Requires the Board to develop model

authorization

language and procedures for establishing the authenticity of

signed authorizations.

2. First Contract Mediation and Arbitration

Provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in

bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach

agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute

to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for

mediation. If the FMCS has been unable to bring the parties

to agreement after 30 days of mediation the dispute will be

referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration

shall be binding on the parties for two years. Time limits

may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.

3. Stronger Penalties for Violations While Employees are Attempting to

Organize or Obtain a First Contract

Makes the following new provisions applicable to violations

of the National Labor Relations Act committed by employers

against employees during any period while employees are

attempting to organize a union or negotiate a first contract

with the employer:

a. Mandatory Applications for Injunctions: Provides that

just as the NLRB is required to seek a federal court

injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause

to believe that the union has violated the secondary boycott

prohibitions in the Act, the NLRB must seek a federal court

injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable

cause to believe that the employer has discharged or

discriminated against employees, threatened to discharge or

discriminate against employees, or engaged in conduct that

significantly interferes with employee rights during an

organizing or first contract drive. Authorizes the courts to

grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate

injunctive relief.

b. Treble Backpay: Increases the amount an employer is

required to pay when an employee is discharged or

discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first

contract drive to three times back pay.

c. Civil Penalties: Provides for civil fines of up to

$20,000 per violation against employers found to have

willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an

organizing campaign or first contract drive.

Mr. Speaker I would like to take this opportunity to call my colleagues' attention to a real success story in the City of Vacaville, California. As this article printed in the Fairfield Daily Republic explains, the Police Department in Vacaville is receiving a good deal of well-deserved recognition for the programs and services it provides. The Vacaville P.D.'s comprehensive and preventative approach to crime is a welcome one, and it is having an amazing effect. Despite statewide increases in crime this past year, major crime in Vacaville is significantly down. In a sense, by investing time and effort in the community, they are stopping crime even before it happens. This should be a lesson to all of us. I urge my colleagues to read the attached article, and I commend the City of Vacaville and its Police Department for all their hard work.

[From Fairfield Daily Republic, Nov. 27, 2003]

Combatting crime ``holistically''--Vaca Police Use New Approaches To

Make Community Safer

(By Nada Behziz)

Vacaville.--For decades, American doctors have prescribed

pills for pain--white ones, blue ones, big ones, new ones.

And for centuries, practitioners of traditional Chinese

medicine have eased aches, strains and spasms through herbal

remedies and preventive care.

Now, those two philosophies are merging in Vacaville in a

slightly different venue: public safety.

The Vacaville Police Department's transition from the ``war

on crime'' model to more of a preventive slant is what police

officials attribute to the city's decrease in crime.

``We're not at war with our community,'' said Vacaville

police Chief Bob Harrison. ``We're looking at crime more

holistically. We want to provide comprehensive care to really

get at the problem.''

Vacaville is one of the only cities in California that not

only provides preventive programs within elementary and grade

schools but has a department within the police department

that provides comprehensive, preventive resources to the

community.

Sarah Jacobs was torn between loving her husband and saving

her children. It wasn't until a rainy evening when her

husband threw her and her two sons out of the house with

bruises that she packed her bags and left.

``We had no where to go, but I knew we had to leave,''

Jacobs said. ``I heard from friends that the police

department could help, so that was the first place I went.''

Jacob found a warm place to sleep, an arrest warrant for

her husband who left bruises all over her body and parenting

resources to help her children recover, all in the same

place.

``The police department was able to take care of my every

need,'' Jacobs said. ``Now it's time to take care of myself

emotionally.''

Vacaville's Family Investigative Response and Services Team

office based within the police department staffs

investigators, counselors and volunteers that provide

resources for at-risk families.

Officials say their FIRST program helps stop crime before

it happens by nourishing families and showing them non-

violent ways of solving disagreements.

Many Vacaville residents in need of services, including

parenting classes and access to computers, don't know where

to find them. The center provides a ``one-stop-shopping

place'' for people to get the help they need.

Through FIRST, 28-year-old Jacobs was placed in

transitional housing, a furnished home of her own where the

agency could counsel and monitor her.

And she was introduced to a new family.

``Anything I could possibly say I need, they're on top of

it. I've never had to call my counselor in the middle of the

night, but I know she's there,'' she said. ``I never had

family that I was close to and could trust, now I found

them.''

Today Jacobs plans to return to school next year to earn a

bachelor's degree in business administration. She has hopes

of one day becoming a lawyer.

The department first focused on domestic violence issues

six years ago, but it wasn't long before police officers

noticed that residents who visited were not in need of police

services as much as they were human services. The program

expanded to incorporate elder abuse, sexual assault and child

abuse situations more than four years ago when FIRST opened

its doors.

``People ask us often if we believe this is our job as a

police department,'' said Lt. Scott Paulin, who runs the

FIRST division of Vacaville Police. ``We have to look beyond

putting handcuffs on people and fill the gaps to prevent the

criminals in the first place.''

The gap between criminal activity and the department's

clearance rate is slowly closing. While crime increases at a

steady rate in California, this year alone, part one crimes--

which include homicides, rape, assault and theft--have

already dropped 6 percent from last year in Vacaville. The

department's clearance rate hit almost 30 percent, a goal

that Harrison says the department will surpass this year.

With one of the lowest percentages of overall crime in

California, Vacaville was chosen this year by the California

attorney general as one of two state police agencies for its

``Best Practice Program,'' which will be featured on the

attorney general's Web site as examples of excellence for

other cities. The decline in crime, Harrison says, is in part

due to the officers visibility in the area and their personal

investment since the vast majority live in the city.

``If it's in your back yard, you care if it's clean,''

Harrison said. ``Many of our officers live in town and it's a

place they use on a daily basis and want to take good care

of.''

But Officer Erwin Ramirez says the commute from the Bay

Area is worth not worrying about a parolee coming after his

wife and three children.

``When you have three kids and a wife, you want to keep

them away from danger,'' said Ramirez, who says he makes at

least five arrests each month. ``It's a great city but I

don't want to risk my family's danger by living here.''

Ramirez came to Vacaville three years ago after beginning

his career as a patrol officer with the Suisun City Police

Department and says the stark difference between the

community's reaction to police officers is what makes

Vacaville special.

Driving around in his patrol car, Ramirez is approached by

children on their scooters smiling and waving as he drives

by.

``The department has done a great job at dispelling the

stereotype that comes with the police,'' Ramirez said. ``We

go around the neighborhoods and talk with the people and hand

out stickers to the kids. Hopefully they will remember that

the next time we come by.''

Mr. Speaker, very often when we go out and hold town hall meetings, people stand up in the town hall and say: Congressman, why do you not run the government more like a business?

The answer is when we try to run the government like a business, business won't let us.

If one is a Wal-Mart, they negotiate their pharmaceutical prices. They negotiate the prices of goods sold in their store.

In one is a COSTCO, they negotiate pharmaceutical prices and people go to COSTCO to buy their pharmaceuticals.

But if the government wants to negotiate the prices as the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals in the world, we will not be allowed to because the Republican bill prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating a better price for America's seniors and American families.

We cannot run the Congress like a business when the businesses are all lobbying to keep a monopoly, to keep high prices, to keep people from going to Canada and getting FDA-approved drugs. That is what suppliers do. People go where there are lower prices. They can search the world over in the globalized economy for lower prices. But American seniors who need lifesaving drugs cannot search the world over for lower prices like the businesses can, because business will not let government run the government like a business.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I think he makes a very important point.

We thought we had an agreement. In fact, we had the word of the Speaker of the House there would be a 3-day layover period for this legislation so Members and interested parties could read this legislation to discover exactly what is in it.

The Republicans make a great deal out of the fact that this bill will provide for competition. We know it will not provide for price competition on pharmaceuticals, because it specifically prohibits price competition. It does not let the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate lower prices, lower costs, for senior citizens in the Medicare program.

But, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, and maybe every Member of Congress will want to read the bill very closely, the gentleman on the other side says what we do here is we promote competition. We are going to put in place private health plans that are going to compete with Medicare, and people are going to get better services, more services, at a lower cost.

Now, that is an interesting notion of competition. I don't know where the free market is, but they decided now in this bill that they are going to have to give these plans almost a 30 percent increase, more than they pay for Medicare, to try to make these plans run. But this competition is such a good idea, and it is pushed by the Republicans. The victims are going to be the

senior citizens, but the Republicans are saying this competition is a great idea.

Well, I want to tell my Republican friends in the House who have not read the bill, pick up the Wall Street Journal today. See what your Senators have done. This is a great bill for competition. It is so good, it is so good, that Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, Senator Kyl of Arizona, Senator Specter, and there is one other Senator whose name I cannot pick out of the story here, have decided it is so good, they have excluded their areas in their States from the competition.

They say, ``Oh, no, you are not going to do this in my area. You are not going to do this with my senior citizens.'' The Senators apparently are a little closer to the process here, and they have read the bill. They said, ``You know, we had one of these demonstrations a number of years ago, and it blew up in our face, both in terms of cost and in terms of services to the senior citizens.''

So, Senators, you know how they make their deals over there; we cannot do this over here because of the Committee on Rules, they got in there in the last minute and said, ``Exclude my area in Pennsylvania, exclude my area in Arizona, exclude my area in Oregon. I am not having any of this competition for my senior citizens. Just those lucky- duckies over there in the House that have one of these competition plans lands on their congressional district. Then we will see how it goes.''

That is why you want to read the bill. That is why you want to be able to have a 3-day layover period to protect the rights of every Member of this House and the constituents and the people that they represent in their congressional districts.

But the arrogance of this leadership, the arrogance of the Speaker, the arrogance of the Committee on Rules just constantly suggests that democracy means very little to them; the rights of each and every Member mean very little to them. They now have the power, the Republicans have the power, and, with that power, slowly has come arrogance. And they have decided that there is no reason for debate; there is no reason for us to be able to try to tell the American people what is in this bill before we vote on it so maybe they can participate.

They want to run the Congress like AARP runs their organization; one person at the top makes a decision, and 30 million people out there are put in jeopardy. That is not the democratic process. That is not the democratic process.

I cannot wait to see the Constitution you guys want to write in Iraq. If this is what you are doing to the People's House on the most important piece of social legislation in this country, you want to shut down debate, you do not want to give people time to read it.

If you cannot read the bill, my colleagues in the House, read the Wall Street Journal. Read the Wall Street Journal, because maybe you, too, can scramble up to the Committee on Rules in the next hour and get an exemption from competition like those wonderful, powerful Senators have done. Do not read the bill, read the Wall Street Journal.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to identify them if I do not identify them by name.

Mr. Speaker, the President stood in the well and said he wanted the senior citizens to have a drug benefit like Members of Congress have with this card. Under our prescription drug benefit, the government pays 80 percent, we pay 20 percent. Under this bill, of the first $5,000, the seniors pay 80 percent and the plan pays 20 percent.

You guys have reversed the figures on the senior citizens. Out of the first $5,000, the seniors pay $4,200. Out of our first $5,000, the government pays 80 percent. Somewhere between the President's speech there and this bill, you lost 80 percent of the benefits for seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join in this in thanking Members on both sides of the aisle for their participation and cooperation in this legislation. As the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) noted, we started some 2 years ago with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and others talking about what would be possible. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and we came up with what we thought was possible, we did not make it, went back this year and continued that process.

And we passed a bill out of the House, a bill that I did not agree with in its entirety by any means, but then the Senate was also able to pass legislation. And as a result of those negotiations, which I wish had been a little bit more open, but the fact of the matter is as a result of those negotiations, we now have this, we will have this bill before us later today. And I want to thank the Committee on Rules for providing us this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this one point. I wish the firefighter protections that had been offered and accepted in the Senate, they were offered by Senator Boxer of California, would have been kept in the bill. I think it is important now as we see these larger, more catastrophic fires, as we see fires that move through residential areas, to understand that the firefighters there are put in jeopardy from many other things besides just the fires themselves, but also the chemicals and building materials and the rest of it that are caught up in these huge winds created by the fires.

But let me say as to the bill, I think this is a bill that is a vast improvement over what left the House. In this compromise, in this conference report we will target half of the appropriated money into those areas most likely to have the most catastrophic fires. The rest of the money can be used in forest treatment and other areas of the national forest. That is important.

It is also important that we involve the communities, and communities can come up with those plans that they think serve their area best. Hopefully, they will use community resources, small businesses, and others to develop those plans. People are also entitled to have some review of those plans.

But what this bill does not allow you to do is to drag the process out forever, forever and ever. You have got to come in, make your case, you made it or you have not made it. But those rights are protected, and you can appeal that to court.

Some people do not like the fact that the bill extends the urban interface area out to a mile and a half. The fact of the matter is when you see the size of some of these fires, the treatment in the urban interface area is nothing more than a firebreak. And a little tiny area is not going to stop some of these fires that we have seen over the last decade in the West.

Finally, with respect to the treatment in the larger forest, the goods for services contracts are still allowed, but as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) pointed out, the important part of this bill, what Senator Feinstein was able to do was get an authorized amount of money in here, because if we just do it on goods for services, we will either have to cut down all the trees to save them in order to get enough money to carry out the project, or we will not be able to treat those areas, as we saw in southern California, of negligible timber value but high risk to the communities.

And so we need to have an appropriation to follow this authorization so we can treat those areas of high intensity, of great potential of catastrophic fires, the potential to engulf communities. We have got to go there with some Federal dollars and some goods for services. And I think that is a balance that makes sense.

I spend several weeks a year backpacking in the high country and the forests and parks of this country. You do not have to walk very long in the forest to see the need for treatment. If you love the big old trees, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) again pointed out, you have got to understand that we have allowed a ladder to build up in these forests. And the big ponderosas, the big sugar pines are at risk because of the understory, the undergrowth that is there that will take the flames right into the crowns. And, obviously, once in the crowns, with any wind they move so fast that we cannot deal with them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think that this is a product that the House should vote for. Members on both sides of the aisle should support this. It is very, very important to so many of our communities and very important to the stewardship of our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives accepted the conference report for H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I was appointed as a conferee, as was Representative Inslee of Washington and Representative Conyers of Michigan. Unfortunately, instead of using the conference process to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation, certain members of the conference committee were included in bicameral meetings to craft a compromise acceptable to the group of negotiators. In short, the negotiating group picked people from the conference committee who would agree with them and did not invite others to participate. Official members of the conference committee were invited to a conference meeting to consider the product negotiated outside the conference process. The conference consideration did not provide for a real debate of amendments and the Chair moved to close the conference 30 minutes after it began. This does not contain the elements of a democracy but the elements of arrogance of power.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and while I support this stopgap, short-term bill, I must say this legislation really does nothing to address the well-documented, serious and worsening pension crisis that threatens the retirement security of millions of Americans, and I provide my support for this legislation acknowledging the promise of my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), that we will, in fact, have detailed hearings and comprehensive hearings on this matter in the coming session of Congress.

Once again, this House is going to adjourn for the year without enacting much-needed comprehensive pension reform. As a result, the already precarious security of millions of seniors and working Americans is likely to worsen. The Congress and the Bush administration have been warned for 2 years about this deepening crisis. Yet as scandals, bankruptcies, and deficits have skyrocketed, there has been virtually no response. In fact, all we have seen from this administration is a plan to allow companies to convert cash balance plans that could cut some retirees pensions in half. Fortunately, it looks as if we may be able to prevent this from happening, no thanks to that administration.

Let no one be fooled, we are in a severe pension crisis in this country. Over the past 2 years, the underfunding of pensions has skyrocketed from $26 billion to $400 billion, the largest in history. The reserves of the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, which takes over pension responsibilities for failed corporations, has gone from a $7.7 billion surplus to a deficit of almost $9 billion, threatening its future financial stability. According to the PBGC, the $11 billion loss in fiscal year 2002 is more than five times larger than any previous 1- year loss in the Agency's 29-year history.

For the past 18 months, the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have repeatedly ignored our urgent requests to wake up to the serious problem of pension underfunding. As the administration dithered, the deficits continued to balloon and the Government Accounting Office put the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation on its list of high-risk Federal Government programs, meaning the pensions of millions of Americans are in grave jeopardy.

As of today, the administration has yet to submit to Congress its reform plan. In testimony before our committee last month, the GAO demonstrated the severity of this problem in our pension laws, and I hope that we will be able to address in the next session of Congress that comprehensive solution.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct here. Assuming the $35 premium, in fact, out of the first $5,000 of benefit, they have to pay $4,020 out of pocket.

Mr. Speaker, I guess maybe some people in America think that is a drug benefit, but that is not going to provide. Out of the first $5,000, they pay $4,020 out of their pocket and they get $1,000 in benefit.

That is assuming it is $35, but nothing in the law requires it to be $35.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this motion and for yielding me this time.

I just want to say, following up what my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said, and that is that unfortunately, we now see people who are offering themselves as so-called honest brokers who set up thresholds and tests as to whether this would be a good bill for senior citizens; whether or not this would provide the kind of drug benefit that senior citizens should have and that they need to match the cost of the drugs that they now have to pay the prices that they have to pay, we now see that that organization, AARP, was in the bag all of the time. They were not there representing their members, they were not there representing senior citizens; they were there representing themselves as an insurance company. Now, we see that under the provisions of the bill, they stand to do billions of dollars in business. They do about $100 million in business now, selling Medigap insurance policies, but now they want to get into the pharmaceutical business.

So they were not an objective observer of this process. They were not there as guardians; they were there as special interests with a special seat at the table. So special that the Republican administration gave them a number of contracts over the last couple of years from the Department of Labor and other agencies in this Federal Government, and now all of a sudden we find out they took a dive on the bill. They did not talk to their Members and say, what should we do. The beltway lobbyists, speaking from their own interests, made a decision to support this bill to the extent now that all day long we have been watching on the news as people have been turning in their membership in AARP, people have been resigning from the organization. I have a letter here from their legislative chairman in Raleigh, North Carolina who says that he is resigning because they were never asked about this. And the fact that they would support a bill as they understand it with the level of benefits, with the privatization of Medicare, they want out. They are resigning. That was supposedly the honest broker that was going between the sides and discussing the merits of this program.

This bill is one thing and one thing only: it is to provide protection to the big pharmaceutical industry. This bill does nothing about price. You can have your discount cards, but it is discounted off an inflated price, and it specifically prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating price. When asked about why this is in the provision in a meeting today, one of the authors of the bill said because that is the way big PhRMA wanted it. Well, big PhRMA got their way and Mr. Middle America, they got hosed in this operation.

We cannot negotiate like Wal-Mart. We cannot negotiate like Costo. We cannot negotiate like the Veterans' Administration. No. They get to set the price and then somehow we are going to give you a discount off an inflated price. So they did not do anything about price there; all they did was protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry, and if the seniors get a benefit, they will be lucky. Out of the first $5,000, they will pay $4,000. That is not the benefit that the AARP should be fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for bringing this motion and giving us an opportunity not only to speak on this issue but also to hopefully persuade the conferees to do as we suggest in his motion, and that is to seek an overall funding level of at least 14.3 million for student aid and the highest possible level for the Pell grant program.

Today we are faced with the critical need to expand opportunities for low- and middle-income students to access college education. Too many students are forced to take on high loan debt, work long hours, and forgo college all together. Typical middle-income students face a $3,000-a-year unmet need after all grants, loans, and work study, while the typical low-income student faces an unmet need of some $3,800. For millions of laid-off American workers, additional education training is the key to successfully reentering the workforce. Without additional student aid, these workers will remain jobless for a longer period of time than necessary, or they may remain jobless for a very, very long time because of failure to adapt their skills to the changing marketplace.

In California, alone, more than half a million students workers who were retained rely on the Pell grants to attend college. Today the average Pell grant of $2,415 is worth approximately $50 less in real terms than it was almost 30 years ago. And that is the reason we are asking to hopefully honor these higher levels of the House-passed legislation.

Pell grants now represent just 11 percent of all student aid compared to Federal loans, which represent 45 percent of all student aid. Thirty years ago, the two major grant programs, Pell and the supplemental education opportunity grants, accounted for more than 40 percent of all student aid. Today, they account for less than 20 percent.

Just as a higher education and student aid has become more important to

our national security and economic prosperity, President Bush called on them to cut the maximum Pell grant, and the Republican 2004 Labor-HHS freezes the maximum Pell grant at $4,050.

In addition, the Republican 2004 Labor-HHS bill slashes the Bush administration's overall Pell budget request by $465 million.

We should support, and not oppose, efforts to meet our critical national, economic, and security needs. Yet the Republican 2004 Labor- HHS bill not only fails to meet those needs but also fails to meet the needs of current and future college students.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Kildee motion to support these higher levels of funding, and I would say to my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, that we would like to share a little credit for those increases in Pells since we had a Democratic President a number of those years. We had a Democratic Senate, and we would like to think we participated in that effort.

What troubles us is the right-hand edge of that chart where it is topping out. It is sort of hitting a plateau and kind of running along there without those increases. The gentleman has been a champion of education. I could not feel anymore comfortable than making the plea to him because I spent many hours with him on elementary and secondary education and higher education, and all of the issues that confront these institutions; and we have tried, I think, in our best wisdom to try and improve those institutions.

Clearly, we are now seeing part of it is the turmoil in the economy, part of it is the turmoil in State budgets; but students are not able to put together the financial wherewithal, and especially low-income students are starting not to apply to colleges and universities, and we know that we need them to do this.

The gentleman and I have sat through numerous conferences where they have now made clearly the determination in the employer community that what the student needs for entry level jobs, if that job is in any way going to lead to a career, they need the same set of skills, talent, and education one would receive in an AA degree, as they would just for entry level, but for many students, especially those from low-income communities, that means that they have got to have some financial assistance for those 2 years of college as they try to acquire those skills. Should they desire to go on, obviously the burden gets greater.

So I guess we do not feel that this is falling on deaf ears with the chairman because he has been a champion. We are hoping, and I think he started in the omnibus appropriations bill this evening the negotiation and maybe the Labor-HHS bill ends up in that appropriations. We are hoping that as all of those figures are moved around and those decisions are made that this is sort of our last plea to try and meet these numbers so that we can attend to the problems of low-income students who have worked hard in high school, become eligible to go on to community college, to 4-year colleges, to universities and that the financial support system is what really stands in their way.

We would hope that when we vote on the Kildee motion, I guess we will vote tomorrow, we would hope that it would be overwhelmingly in support of that motion and that message would be carried into the appropriations deliberations over the next couple of days and over the weekend, if necessary, in order to hammer out a budget that we could all support for Pell grants and for student aid.

I want to thank the gentleman who has been involved so many years in higher education, on the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for offering this motion; and we look forward to everyone's support for this motion.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, more importantly, I thank him for offering this motion that will be our only opportunity to provide a statement by the Members of Congress as to the real issue of importation, since that opportunity will now be denied us in the prescription drug bill that we are anticipating coming to this floor.

As many of our constituents know, millions of Americans have waited for the opportunity to be able to take advantage of the lower prices of pharmaceuticals that are available in Canada and in other countries, but specifically with respect to Canada, as we tried to address in the bill. We now see that that door is going to be slammed shut. The reimportation is going to be granted on one hand, but the certification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will effectively close, as it has in the past, the opportunity for American citizens who are ill, who need these drugs, who are financially troubled and financially incapable of paying for some of these drugs; as a result of that, they take the prescription that their doctor has given them, they reduce the amount of pills they take per day, they reduce the dosage that they take in trying to get through the month in order to pay for, in many instances, lifesaving drugs that they need by order of their physician. Many of our constituents, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, have now taken to forming buying clubs, of taking trips by bus, riding long hours on buses, to go to Mexico, to go to Canada to buy these drugs in Canadian pharmacies where the prices are much, much lower than what they are having to pay through their health care plan if they have one or, if they do not have one at all, what they would pay on the market.

It has been suggested that this is forced upon Americans because this is the only way that they can recapture the research and development dollars that continue to flow these pharmaceutical drugs to the marketplace. Some of that is true. But the question millions of American citizens are asking is why is it that only the American ill, the American sick, the American infirm are the ones who have to pay for this? They say, well, the other countries have price controls, the other countries negotiate. We asked for the authority to have the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate the prices of drugs for Medicare recipients as we do in the Veterans Administration, as Wal-Mart does, as Costco does, as all big purchasers do with pharmaceuticals, and we were denied that opportunity in the House.

So the only outlet, the only outlet for these citizens where their financial situation does not meet their medical situation is to go to Canada, and now that opportunity is being slammed in terms of this reimportation provision within the Medicare prescription drug benefit that will be coming to the floor.

As a result of that, without the negotiation power of the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the cost of drugs, without the reimportation provision, America's senior citizens, and I must say all American families, are put at the mercy of the pharmaceutical industry that will now have no incentive to lower the cost of drugs.

The prescription drug bill coming to the floor does some wonderful things for hospitals, wonderful things for doctors, some wonderful things for the

pharmaceutical companies, but it does nothing for the people who have to consume those pharmaceuticals. It makes no effort at trying to control the price of those pharmaceuticals, the cost of those to individuals.

And when we say that, we are saying simply have us negotiate as a large purchaser. That is what the business world does. People come to us and ask why do we not run the government more like a business. We try to run it like a business, and the businesses shut us down.

So now the question of reimportation will be shifted from a vote in this Congress to provide for reimportation, in the new bill it will now all go to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the entire political and financial clout of the pharmaceutical industry will be focused on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to never certify for the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to the United States, thereby depriving millions of Americans the opportunity to lower the cost of the drugs that are necessary to them on a monthly basis as prescribed by their doctors.

We are going to decide that those senior citizens, those people who are desperately in need of these pharmaceuticals are going to be the sole individuals that are somehow going to pay for the research and development of these drugs if, in fact, that argument is even accurate.

The fact of the matter is, the reason the prices are really high in the United States, as opposed to the other countries, is the power of the pharmaceutical industry to do just as they have done in the Medicare prescription drug bill and that is to take out all of the provisions that would have given a break to the sick and the elderly in this country, that would have given them an opportunity to lower the cost of the drugs that they have to buy every week and every month. That is why the prices are so high in the United States. It is not about research and development. It is about lobbying, it is about political contributions, it is about the force of this industry on this Congress and the House and the Senate and the Republican leadership to strip this bill of those provisions that were put in on a bipartisan basis, on a bipartisan basis in the House, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, to strip them and remove them to the administration which has opposed these provisions from the very beginning.

So the fate of our senior citizens, the fate of the elderly in this country, the fate of the ill, the sick in this country, is now placed back into hands of the pharmaceutical companies, exactly where it was when we began this process. So the pharmaceutical companies, as this bill comes to the floor, get a great big victory and the consumers and the sick people in this country get nothing. They get a continuation of exorbitant costs of pharmaceuticals that are absolutely essential to their well-being and sustaining their health, maybe, in fact, in sustaining their life.

So this motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the most important vote in terms of our ability to express the desire to have reimportation as part of our medical policy in this country and also to tell the conferees that they are bringing to us an imperfect product, and they should to back to the conference committee and make sure that America's elderly and America's sick are protected and have the opportunity to take advantage of the reimportation of those pharmaceuticals that they need.

We should recognize that the bill as reported by the conferees is not a bill that protects the senior citizens of this country, it is not a bill that provides for those who are ill in this country; it protects the pharmaceutical companies and they should have to go back to conference.