Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill before us. This bill shortchanges critical education and health and human services programs, reverses the progress we have made in building up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in recent years and fails to fulfill promises this Congress made to disadvantaged children. There is a theme developing in the 108th Congress and it is one of unfulfilled promises and inaction--whether it's special education, college aid or biomedical research--the Republican leadership talks about access and accountability while failing to provide for it.

In the last five years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to double NIH funding, something we were all able to go home and be proud of. This doubling of funding signified an unprecedented federal commitment to research and resulted in the beginning of some remarkable projects--many of which have the potential to end great human suffering caused by disease and epidemics such as diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Federal researchers are even poised to make significant discoveries about what causes cancer. I am sorely disappointed to see that this year's proposed budget for NIH contains the smallest increase in 15 years--one that is less than the rate of inflation and cannot sustain the projects we worked together to begin in recent years and at the same time, provide for critical new initiatives. The proposed amount would provide just 21 new grants for all of NIH outside of bio- defense research. American citizens should not have to choose between life-saving research and bio-terrorism preparedness. Both should be priorities and both should be adequately funded.

The proposed budget for education also fails to recognize the rise in tuition costs, as it freezes the maximum Pell Grant--the primary federal grant for college and university studies for 5 million disadvantaged students--despite its declining buying power. As a result, these grants would finance only 38 percent of the cost of a public university. When Congress established the Pell Grant program, they covered 84 percent of the cost of study--clearly intended to play a significant role in increasing access to colleges and universities for lower- and middle-income individuals. The funding levels in H.R. 2660 would force students to take on increasingly large levels of debt to finance their college eduations--if they are able to pursue higher education at all.

Last year, we passed a landmark piece of legislation called the No Child Left Behind Act, which promised education reform to millions of American students. The time has come to fund that legislation--to fulfill the promise--and the money is not there. H.R. 2660 falls $334 million short of the $1 billion in Title I funds promised in the budget resolution to help school districts meet the challenge of new accountability requirements in No Child Left Behind. Just yesterday, we passed the Ready to Teach Act, which promised millions of dollars in teacher quality and preparation programs. Yet, the appropriations bill falls $350 million short of our earlier promise to fund teacher quality grants created in the No Child Left Behind Act. The result is that 54,000 fewer teachers will receive high quality, federally-supported professional development.

Earlier this year, Congress made it a priority to pass a $350 billion tax cut that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy--on top of the trillion dollar tax cut this same population benefited from in 2001. The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill--more than any other funding bill--sends a clear message to the children, the families and the working people of this country about our priorities. As Democrats, as Republicans, as Members of Congress--collectively, we know that education and health care are of the highest priority to the American people and that they want us to do more. Yet, the fact remains that the bill the Republican leadership presents us with does not reflect those priorities or provide the funding that they deserve. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2660.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act and the principles behind it. I am pleased to see the House working to align the Higher Education Act with the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, and I hope to see continued efforts to this end. By increasing the amount of student loans that may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics, science and special education that agree to teach in Title I schools for at least 5 years, we send a strong message of support to those teachers

who accept the challenges of teaching in some of our most disadvantaged schools--schools that do not have the resouces to attract and reward high quality teachers.

Supporting these teachers in every possible way is critical to the vision of No Child Left Behind. While H.R. 438 provides some relief to math, science and special education teachers in Title I school districts, more should and must be done. Ensuring that every child, regardless of his or her income or background, has highly qualified teachers--whether they are in elementary or secondary schools, head start or other pre-kindergarten programs--is essential to ensuring their achievement. I applaud the message and the meaning behind the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act and I hope we will continue to show support for teachers that take on the challenge of service in underprivileged areas as we take up appropriations, Head Start reauthorization and other related legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 438.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Charles C.J. Carpenter, who received the John E. Fogarty Recognition award for his lifelong achievements in global health on May 29. This prestigious honor, given by the National Institute of Health's John E. Fogarty International Center, recognizes Dr. Carpenter's career in research to combat major diseases in developing countries and his involvement in training future generations of researchers in international health. Dr. Carpenter is a Professor of Medicine at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, and formerly the Physician-in-Chief of Brown University's Miriam Hospital.

Born in Savannah, GA, Dr. Carpenter received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University and a medical degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He began his medical career at Johns Hopkins, where he later served as a faculty member. He started the Johns Hopkins Cholera Research Program, which was located in Calcutta, India, and researched the treatment of cholera in children and adults. He served for 12 years as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University before joining the medical faculty at Brown University in 1986. At Brown, he became involved with the clinical management of persons living with HIV/AIDS, and is currently the Principal Investigator of the Lifespan/Tufts/Brown Center for AIDS Research. Dr. Carpenter has also written many notable publications on his research from cholera to HIV/AIDS.

The John E. Fogarty International Center plays a vital role in the United States' response to global challenges in health. The late John Fogarty served as Representative from the 2nd District of Rhode Island and was a lifelong advocate of promoting the study of global health problems. Dr. Carpenter has consistently shown that same vision by taking on the challenge of disease prevention throughout the global community. He has shown himself to be a notable leader on seeking out ways to better the entire global community, and by doing so, has left his mark on international health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope our colleagues will join me in congratulating Dr. Carpenter on his lifetime of achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed rule providing for consideration of the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act.

This rule restricts the House to 3 hours of debate on the largest ever overhaul of a program that has been critical to the health of our Nation's seniors for 38 years. Furthermore, the rule blocked dozens of amendments, including one of my own, which could have resulted in tremendous savings for seniors by opening the door for the Health and Human Services Department to use the bulk purchasing power of America's 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate lower medication prices for them.

As a result, Members are denied the opportunity to address many disturbing provisions in this bill. To mention just a few, the failure to address the rapidly rising cost of prescription drugs that will soon render this benefit meaningless; the tremendous gaps in coverage that will result in less help for those who need it most; and the provisions that fundamentally alter the structure and entitlement of Medicare by requiring the program to compete with private plans beginning in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the list of Members' concerns with this bill goes on and on and on. The other Chamber has been debating this bill for 2 weeks, meanwhile the United States House of Representatives will have a mere 3 hours of debate on this bill that we are presented with. This is an affront to democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug & Modernization Act. Like many of my colleagues, I held sincere hope that the 108th Congress would overcome the inaction that has plagued this issue, at the expense of America's senior citizens, for many years. I am extremely disappointed that the bill before the House this week not only fails to offer a structurally sound prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, but also contains provisions that threatens the stability of the program that has provided health benefits for millions of elderly people and younger adults with disabilities for the past 38 years.

In particular, I want to call attention to the fact that this bill does nothing to address the rapidly rising costs of prescription drugs. It not only fails to address this crisis, it contains a ``noninterference'' clause prohibiting the agents of the Department of Health & Human Services from using the bulk purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate for lower prices for senior citizens. Without taking measures to curb the escalating prices of the medications our seniors need to stay alive, the benefit is rendered meaningless. Seniors will pay more out of pocket in 2007 with the prescription drug benefit than they are paying in 2003 without it.

I urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to the details of the Medicare Prescription Drug & Modernization Act and to think critically about the effect--or lack thereof--it will have on the seniors in their districts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in unwaivering support of House Resolution 294, to reaffirm strong relations between the United States and Israel and condemn the acts of terror against the Israel people.

The United States has a unique relationship with Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East. We must continue to support nations with similar ideological goals that share the same commitment to democratic principles. Our history of friendship spans many decades, and the United States has been the strongest advocate for efforts to craft a long-term peace settlement in the region.

If the United States is truly committed to establishing a lasting peace by pursuing the road map, then we must remain true to its principles and condemn violence and terrorist attacks. We must continue our efforts in Congress to promote peace in the Middle East and maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the resolution before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of H.R. 1416. The bill makes various technical corrections to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which we passed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks to better equip our Nation to prepare for and respond to future disasters, whether natural or man-made.

Since passage of that bill last year, we have come a long way, but there is much work to be done. We now have a Department of Homeland Security, employing close to 200,000 people and assuming the responsibilities of dozens of former Federal agencies. We have sharpened the Nation's focus on the crucial issue of homeland security and given Federal, state, and local officials and first responders the tools to better meet our pressing security needs.

But as the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. Turner, has said, we must move faster, and we must be stronger. When it comes to protecting our citizens, making progress is simply not enough.

One of the most critical shortcomings facing us is the failure of the Department of Homeland Security's Intelligence Directorate to fulfill its role as the nerve center of the new agency. The intelligence unit was intended to be the very heart of DHS, and its effective operation is indispensable to the success of every other division of the department. This directorate is tasked with collecting and analyzing intelligence information from our nation's intelligence community, and then mapping the perceived threats against our vulnerabilities.

It is this process that should be creating the information on which all of our homeland security decisions are based. Instead, decisions are being made, resources are being allocated and priorities are being set without the benefit of this all-important analysis. Meanwhile, the Intelligence Directorate is woefully unprepared to undertake its responsibilities. We must correct this state of affairs immediately if DHS is ever to operate as intended.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I rise in support of this technical corrections bill, I also want to stress how many more significant issues remain to be addressed. I hope the administration and this Congress will turn their attention to them without delay.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the first annual appropriations measure for the Department of Homeland Security. This bill will help us equip our Nation to prepare for and respond to future disasters. But it is not enough. When it comes to protecting our citizens, we must move faster and we must be stronger.

One critical shortcoming facing us is the failure of the DHS Intelligence Director to fulfill its role as the agency's new nerve center. The effective operation of this unit is indispensable to

the success of the rest of the Department. Instead, resources are being allocated and priorities are being set without a reliable threat assessment that can be mapped against existing vulnerabilities.

We also continue to fall short of meeting our responsibility to first responders. Firefighters, police, health care workers and others on the front lines need our support to keep America safe. With dozens of States experiencing grave budget crises, first responders are more desperate than ever for Federal assistance.

In countless other areas, from port security to air cargo screening to computer interoperability, we are not moving fast enough and we have not become strong enough. We simply must make homeland security our top priority and devote the necessary resources to it.

Even at a time of mounting deficits, though, the administration and Republican leaders in Congress have found trillions of dollars for tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. I only wish the same determination were at evidence in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on the following measures: H. Res. 264 (rollcall vote 297); H. Res. 177 (rollcall vote 298); H. Con. Res. 209 (rollcall vote 299), and H.R. 2465 (rollcall vote 300).

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 297, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 298, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 299, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 300.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am pleased to be joined by many of my Democratic colleagues to discuss the lack of cost control provisions in the prescription drug bill before the United States House of Representatives, H.R. 2473. In particular, I feel that it is so essential that we call

attention to the fact that this bill does nothing to use the country's bulk purchasing power on behalf of our seniors to lower the high cost of prescription drugs, the purchasing power we should be using to ensure the lowest cost of medications for our senior citizens. Quite the contrary, this bill expressly forbids it.

Like many of my colleagues, I held a sincere hope that the 108th Congress would overcome the inaction that has plagued this issue at the expense of America's senior citizens for so many years. I am extremely disappointed that the bill before the House this week not only fails to offer a structured and sound prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, but also contains provisions that threaten the stability of the program that has provided health benefits for millions of elderly people and young adults with disabilities for the past 38 years.

While we all come to the floor with a range of grave concerns about this bill, my Democratic colleagues and I join together tonight with the united message that the House of Representatives must take action to address the rapidly rising costs of prescription drugs. H.R. 2473 not only fails to address this crisis, it actually contains a noninterference clause prohibiting the Secretary of Health and Human Services from using the bulk purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate for the lowest prices for senior citizens, a tactic that has proven effective in the State of Maine and is developing in Illinois and in other States.

Like many other places in the country, my home State of Rhode Island uses bulk purchasing power for seniors eligible for Medicaid to negotiate discounts for this population. America's seniors have made it clear that they want the government to assist them in obtaining their prescription drugs at a fair price.

Now, it infuriates me that in a situation where we have over 40 million people with a common and basic need, instead of taking advantage of that purchasing power to negotiate the lowest prices for the most rapidly increasing component of health care, the Federal Government is considering outlawing that practice. Amazing. The Federal Government is considering outlawing that practice.

An analysis of H.R. 2473 by the Consumers Union shows that spending on prescription drugs continues to grow. In fact, if we do not take action to curb the costs now, seniors will pay more out of pocket in 2007 with the prescription drug benefit as is currently proposed than they are paying in 2003 without it. Yet, just last week, the Committee on Energy and Commerce defeated an amendment that would have repealed the noninterference provision and allowed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies in a similar manner to that of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Medicaid programs. I think that is something that is worth noting. It is already being done successfully with the Veterans Administration in providing a drug benefit to our veterans at very low cost, and the government is able to buy these at obviously a reduced cost, in making sure that our veterans get the benefit that they need, these vital medications that are so important in keeping them healthy. Yet we are going to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from doing the exact same thing for the rest of the seniors in this country who are struggling to get by in paying for their prescription medications. It is simply counterintuitive.

Studies show that seniors in other industrialized countries are paying significantly less for their prescriptions than America's seniors. And, in this case, the short answer really does sum it up. It is because their governments took action to protect their interests when it comes to pricing prescription drugs. In Canada where citizens pay, on average, 50 percent less than the seniors I represent in Rhode Island, for the five most commonly prescribed drugs, the government uses the bulk purchasing power of its people to help them, and that is the way it should be. My constituents are paying 292 percent more, for example, for Prilosec than they would be in Italy where again the government uses the bulk can purchasing power of people to help them. Prices in other countries are not the result of government contributions or subsidies to drug companies; they are the result of governments using purchasing power of significant blocks of people to negotiate better prices. It is very basic.

Let us also look at another area while we are on this subject of using mechanisms to reduce drug costs. Another place where we can take action to reduce the high cost of medications is generic drugs. Last week our colleagues in the Senate took substantive measures in their Medicare reform bill to address the rapidly escalating cost of prescription drugs by easing market entry of generic drugs. In fact, their vote to do so was nearly unanimous: 94 to 1. At the same time, the House leadership, though, in a quest to push through a mere pretense of a prescription drug benefit, has failed to acknowledge that without measures to control the cost of prescription drugs, any benefit will deteriorate in value over time. America's seniors deserve better than this.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The Republican leadership is so eager to subsidize the insurance companies and allow drug manufacturers to continue to exploit America's seniors in the name of the free market system, but is apparently unwilling to use that same free market system to allow the natural market force of 40 million individuals, our struggling senior citizens, to come into play.

The noninterference clause, a small section on page 250 of a 321-page bill, must be brought to light. We must draw attention to the fact that any prescription drug benefit is rendered meaningless unless action is taken to curb the out-of-control costs of drugs that people need to stay alive.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me on the floor tonight to highlight the fact that at this very moment America's seniors are making choices between taking their medications as prescribed and putting food on their tables. Just this morning I joined Dr. Sarah Fessler and the Rhode Island Academy of Family Physicians in releasing a survey showing that a third of seniors in Rhode Island are relying on physician samples for their necessary medications, and 20 percent are failing to take them as prescribed because of costs, skipping prescriptions to make them last longer, and failing to refill them. The survey reiterates what we already know: that cost is the greatest barrier to seniors taking their prescriptions.

This situation, Mr. Speaker, will not fix itself. I urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to the details of H.R. 2473 and to think critically about the effect, or the lack thereof, it will have on the seniors in their districts.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who in his first term has taken tremendous initiative by introducing the America Rx Act under which the Federal Government would act as a pharmacy benefits manager to negotiate low prescription prices for America's seniors, and it is very appropriate that he be the first speaker this evening, and I welcome him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Again, I share wholeheartedly in the statements that he has made, and I want to commend him for introducing H.R. 1694, the America Rx Act. Again, as the gentleman states, this bill establishes an America Rx program to establish fair pricing for prescription drugs for individuals without access to prescription drugs at discounted prices and, as the gentleman said, modeled after the Maine Rx program, by the Federal Government acting as a pharmacy benefits manager to negotiate the lowest prices. This approach uses the power of the free market to allow millions of American senior citizens, with no access to discount, to pool together and negotiate as one block. I cannot see what could be more basic than that. That is what certainly this Special Order is all about tonight.

I am now pleased Mr. Speaker, to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has shown tremendous leadership on this issue by introducing the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, which would require drug manufacturers to allow pharmacies to purchase drugs for resale to Medicare beneficiaries at the same price equivalent to the average foreign price based on the price consumers pay in six other industrialized nations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and for his leadership on this issue. He was very eloquent tonight, as he has been so many times in the past in addressing the prescription drug problem, in fighting for our seniors. I commend him for his service in this House and for his work on this issue.

I am now, Mr. Speaker, very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who has consistently worked to reduce prescription drug costs through targeted market reforms, a freshman Member of this House who has already shown his compassion for seniors and his leadership. I thank him for being here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his very powerful words on this debate. I could only wish that every taxpayer in America could have heard those words tonight, along with our seniors, because it really crystallizes the debate itself, and I know we are going to be working on this together, both tomorrow, the rest of the week and until we bring this issue home. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments.

That is an important aspect of this debate, the fact that taxpayer dollars have funded so much of this research, have developed these medications, and the only thanks that our taxpayers have received in return, our seniors have received in return, is high cost prescription medications that they cannot afford. That is outrageous and it is wrong.

We, as a compassionate Nation, as a determined people, have to do something about it. We have to change that and we have to make our prescription medications within reach for our seniors. No senior in America should have to make the choice between food and medication or paying their rent, not when it was their taxpayer dollars in the first place that helped develop those medications.

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in my remarks, and each of the speakers tonight have again reiterated the argument, that we should let the free market system determine the cost of these medications, and by that, as I have said before, it means allowing our seniors to join together, use their bulk purchasing power to negotiate the lowest cost price for these medications. No prescription drug benefit should be passed by this House without that being a major component of that bill. No other insurance company, no other private insurance plan would have a prescription drug benefit without that component contained within it, and neither should one pass by this House.

Who does it benefit to pass a prescription drug benefit that does not include a component that uses the bulk purchasing power of this Nation without it being present in the bill? Is it the taxpayer? Well, certainly not because they are not getting the lowest negotiated price. Is it the seniors who are struggling to afford their medications? Well, certainly not.

It is the insurance companies, though. It is the pharmaceutical companies who do benefit: Let us keep the prescription drug prices high, let us keep the profits outrageously high, let us not be able to use bulk purchasing power that would negotiate a lowest cost price for our seniors, no, because that means that the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, are out profits. That is simply wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize this argument for what it is and do the right thing by our seniors.

Let us do what is done in Canada, in Great Britain, in Italy, in Japan, nations that for their seniors use their bulk purchasing power to bring down the high cost of medications that allows their people, their seniors to get the medications that they so readily need to stay healthy, which in many ways are wonder drugs and have become a replacement for surgery, but again, what good are they if our seniors cannot afford them? They have recognized that in Canada, in Great Britain, Italy, G-7 nations. We need to recognize that here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Democratic colleagues for joining me tonight to bring attention to this critical component of an issue that we all continue to debate throughout this week. In particular, I want to express my gratitude to the Members who have been persistent in supporting stand-alone legislation on the topic of rising prescription drug costs in recent years.

While it has yet to be brought to the floor, there is significant support in this Chamber for several pieces of legislation that would control prescription drug costs. We have heard about some of them. Tonight, we heard of the gentleman from Maine's (Mr. Allen) bill, H.R. 1400, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, which would significantly reduce prescription drug prices for all Medicare beneficiaries by requiring drug manufacturers to allow pharmacies to purchase medications for resale to Medicare beneficiaries at a price equivalent to the average foreign price based on the prices consumers pay in six other industrialized Nations. This legislation would provide up to a 40 percent savings on prescription drugs.

There is also bipartisan support for the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act, which would speed the market entry of generic drugs by closing loopholes that are being used to lower priced competitors in the marketplace. We have heard about this this evening as well.

It is the right thing to do, to look at all of these options for controlling the high cost of prescription medications. We owe it to our seniors to look at this and do the right thing by them. We owe it to our seniors to fight for these cost controls.

Again, I ask the Republicans in this House to champion an issue that they have always championed and that is using the free market system, allowing the free market system to operate, to come to an equilibrium price. If we do that for our seniors, then everybody wins and we will have bipartisan support on that effort. It is the right thing to do. It is my sincere hope that the Republican leadership will see the light

and allow Members to offer these bills and other amendments to the Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

I will continue to work with my Democratic colleagues to promote legislation that will provide substantial medication savings for our seniors rather than the high profit margins for drug and insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have joined with us tonight in speaking on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, and in support of the substitute.

As health care costs soar and small business owners struggle to offer health benefits, it is critical to increase incentives for them to cover their workers. However, it is equally important that the health plans available to these workers be high quality and not jeopardize the stability of the health insurance marketplace.

This legislation, as it is written, encourages the formation of federally certified Association Health Plans by exempting these plans from State laws that govern health insurance sold to small employers today.

For years, patients have been denied necessary care as a result of HMOs' exemption from State regulation. As long as I have been in Congress, we have struggled to pass a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights to assert the rights of individuals to a more basic minimum of health care.

Creating more exemptions is contrary to our efforts to preserve and enhance the existing regulatory system. We must think creatively about how to make health insurance affordable for small business owners and employees without threatening the progress we have made in ensuring patients' protection.

In Rhode Island, we have experimented with the successful program called RIte Share, which has made it possible for workers eligible for the State's Medicaid program who have access to employer-sponsored insurance to participate in the employer's programs. This month, I will reintroduce the Making Health Care Available for Low Income Workers Act, which would support demonstration projects such as RIte Share.

As we look for innovative ways to provide health care to all, we must not sell small business owners and employees short. The National Small Business United opposes this legislation, as they recognize that it would ultimately have a detrimental impact on small employer premiums and would cause a significant number of small employers to drop coverage, thereby increasing the Nation's uninsured population and undermine the quality of available coverage.

To that end, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 660 and for the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pomeroy substitute to H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill. As the son of a small business owner, I know firsthand the tax burden placed on entrepreneurs and working families, and I support efforts to responsibly protect small business owners.

The Pomeroy substitute provides needed relief by eliminating estate taxes for assets totaling $3 million per individual or $6 million per married couple. Increasing the exemption to this level means that 99.65 percent of all estates will not pay a single penny of the estate tax beginning in 2004. The substitute provides relief sooner than the Republican bill, which does not take full effect until 2011 and has an exemption of only $1.5 million for 2004. Small businesses and farm owners should not be penalized for their success, nor should they need to worry about their ability to pass the family business on to future generations, and the substitute addresses these concerns.

H.R. 8 goes far beyond providing fair tax relief to small businesses and family farms that are in greatest need of assistance. Besides benefiting just a few thousand American families per year, H.R. 8 would also have a devastating impact on charities, foundations, universities and other philanthropic organizations because the estate tax provides a powerful tax incentive to donate money to these groups. The Department of Treasury estimates a decrease of up to 12 percent per year in charitable giving, or more than $1 billion annually, should full repeal occur.

The Republicans' call for repealing the estate tax comes at a time when our Government is already in fiscal crisis. The 2001 estate tax provision will reduce revenues by more than $192 billion over ten years, and over the second decade, the costs will be a whopping $820 billion. With a $400 billion deficit for fiscal year 2003, now is not the time to add $1 trillion in debt to the tab that future generations must pay. These added costs also come as Congress prepares to pass a prescription drug program and baby boomers near retirement. We must work to meet our obligation to our Nation's seniors rather than cutting taxes for the wealthiest families in America.

Based on Internal Revenue Service data for 2002, out of approximately 10,000 deaths in my home State, only 426 Rhode Island decedents filed estate tax returns. This number would be much lower with the $3 million exemption under the Pomeroy substitute. Under our Democratic alternative, those eligible middle-income families, small business owners and family farmers truly in need would receive estate tax relief.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent reform of the estate tax, but not irresponsibly repealing it. Our small business owners are in need of relief, and we must provide it without leaving future generations to pay the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 8, the joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to raising awareness and encouraging prevention of sexual assault in the United States.

The statistics on the widespread nature of sexual assault are alarming. It is estimated that one in six women in the United States have been victims of rape or attempted rape. One in five children will be a victim of sexual abuse before reaching the age of 18. However, recent educational efforts have proved successful--therate of sexual assaults has decreased by half in the last decade. It is critical to the safety of all Americans that we build on these efforts.

Sexual assault is perpetuated by silence. One of the most startling aspects of sex crimes is how many go unreported. The joint resolution we are voting on today is a step in acknowledging the all too prevalent reality of sexual assault. Further, we must support the existing programs and resources for victims of sexual assault and their families, such as the National Sexual Assault Hotline and more than 1,000 rape crisis centers across the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a show of commitment to the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to echo the concerns of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his desire and his belief that we need to have an alternative mechanism for appointing Members to the House in the event of a major catastrophe.

I would also like to thank and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their outstanding leadership on this issue. It is a very difficult and in many ways unpleasant subject to be dealing with but one that is very necessary and could mean the survivability of this Republic in the event of a catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cox-Frost working group in the 107th Congress, I urged my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 190 so Congress may continue to operate in the aftermath of a catastrophe that kills or incapacitates a large number of its Members. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for their leadership on this very important issue.

The Constitution declares that Members of the House must be popularly elected. However, the specter of terrorism, notably reports that the Capitol was an intended target on September 11, as well as the subsequent anthrax attacks, remind us that mass casualties in Washington or elsewhere are a real possibility and could have a detrimental effect on the House's ability to fulfill its duties.

While the Cox-Frost group made some significant progress in resolving these complicated problems in the last Congress, many questions still remain. For example, I have been working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to address the communications needs of Members in emergency conditions. Yesterday, the Continuity of Government Commission issued its first report with recommendations for preserving Congress' ability to function in the wake of a terrorist attack. It is Congress' responsibility to consider those recommendations and develop a strategy to ensure that the people's business will not be interrupted. Today's resolution will help us reach that goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the Internet is a powerful tool. It makes distance and location irrelevant. It evens the playing field between small and large businesses and increases worker productivity.

The next revolution is broadband. We will be able to do so much and do it more efficiently. But we can only do it if we have the infrastructure to do it with. The FCC ruled in February that DSL, telephone company-provided broadband connections, should not be subject to certain rules imposed on local voice telephone networks. This is a good beginning and it should start some companies on the road to more broadband deployment. Verizon, the largest phone company in my State, plans to make broadband available to 10 million more residences and small businesses nationwide in 2003 alone.

The problem is that the FCC has not issued its February order. That order will detail the new rules that companies know how broadband will be regulated and guides investment decisions. Until it is released, however, these companies cannot move forward. I urge the FCC to issue its order as quickly as possible so that millions of Americans can begin to experience the new opportunities that broadband will provide.