Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and distinguished colleague who has done such a fine job on the Budget Committee.

We are talking about the Republican budget, and it does not address two pressing health care problems of peculiar and special importance to our people, amongst the other things that it does wrong.

First, thanks to this Republican Congress, new part D of the Medicare program is complicated, impossible to navigate, and the benefits confusing, indeed. And they vary from plan to plan. Plans can even change the drugs they cover after seniors have signed up, bait and switch, if you please. But seniors cannot change plans for a year, while the HMO can do so.

All too often this confusion has resulted in seniors leaving pharmacies without their medication or paying more than they should for their medications. Pharmacists are going broke because of nonpayment or late payment by Medicare. These problems and many of the others which infest part D are in no way corrected by this budget. They are not even giving seniors enough time to sign up; and as a result, these seniors will have to pay a 7 percent penalty for the rest of their lives for this Medicare part D.

Our Democratic substitute would allow seniors until the end of the year to identify and sign up for a plan that meets their needs. It also enables citizens to know that HMOs and private-plan bureaucrats are not going to be able to continue bait and switch, stopping coverage for drugs that a senior's doctor has prescribed and that were covered when the senior signed up.

Second, the Republican budget does not even try to protect the most vital relationship the senior has, that which they have with their doctor.

Even though doctors in Medicare are facing deep cuts in their payments, the Republican budget does nothing to stop this.

Not paying adequately for physician service is going to undermine our entire health care and Medicare program. The Democratic substitute would not permit that to happen. It is another reason for voting with us.

Republicans are content to permit traditional Medicare to erode, while steering unneeded billions of dollars to their HMO and insurance company cronies. Democrats want to protect Medicare as we know it and to spend the money to help seniors and those with disabilities, not to shower it unneeded upon greedy health maintenance organizations and others who deserve no assistance.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), my distinguished colleague and friend.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my dear friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield that back with great gratitude and appreciation to my distinguished friend from South Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to legislation on the floor, H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005. Many of my colleagues have renamed this bill ``the Missed College Opportunities Act'' for good reason.

Two months ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for a budget reconciliation bill that slashed funding for student aid programs by $12.7 billion--the single largest cut to the Federal student aid program in its 40-year history. This ``raid on student aid'' could not have come at a worse time for American families, as the cost of a college education today continues to rise while more and more working families fall into poverty. At a time when our government should be increasing access to higher education, this bill is taking away this opportunity for many young students.

The ultimate goal behind the Higher Education Act has always been to improve access to college education for those in greatest need. Today's students are increasingly taking on higher loan debts, working longer hours or, in some cases, forgoing college altogether. Increasing access to higher education is critical to the development of a highly skilled workforce, which will ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace. Today's economy demands that workers are better educated and this bill does little to make college more affordable. As it is now, the average student owes $17,500 when he or she graduates.

Not only is this legislation troublesome for our students, it is also troublesome for our colleges and universities. The bill in its current form includes provisions that undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities by creating intrusive new reporting requirements. In particular H.R. 609 imposes price controls on colleges through the new ``College Affordability Index'' which would compare tuition increases to the Consumer Price Index without taking into consideration what individual institutions have done to offset tuition increases. Cost increases can be attributed to a combination of different factors, all of which vary between different institutions, making the College Affordability Index a poor measure of the affordability of an individual college or university.

Furthermore, a proposed amendment to this legislation would create an unnecessary burden on our universities' admission policies by requiring institutions that receive any Federal funding, including grants and scholarships, to submit to the Department of Education an annual report stating whether race, color, or national origin is considered in the student admissions process.

This amendment is unnecessary and redundant because universities already publicly disclose their admission policies, as required by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The amendment will only burden university staff members with unnecessary and extensive paperwork. Additionally, the amendment jeopardizes individual applicants' privacy and confidentiality in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA, which generally prohibits educational institutions from disclosing personally identifiable information from students' education records without consent.

The proposed amendment, by contrast, would require universities to submit to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR--and from OCR to the public--``all raw admissions data for applicants'' on each quantifiable factor considered in admissions except for the name of the applicant. Publication of raw data in this form--without any corresponding safeguards on use of the raw data--will almost certainly permit OCR and others to ascertain the identities of individual applicants. In so doing, it will be possible to determine individual applicants' test scores, high school grades, and so forth-- all in violation of FERPA.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree that more should be done so that all deserving students have the opportunity to receive a higher education, which is why I support the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-Grijalva alternative. The Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in half for the borrowers in most need--lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their families. It would also create a pilot program for year round Pell grants to allow students to accelerate their degree. We must never let a student's economic situation hinder his or her ability to obtain access to a college or postgraduate degree.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in reversing the Republican raid on student aid by opposing H.R. 609 and supporting the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to deny further awards of contracts to contractors that have been found by the Defense auditors to have billed the government for more than $100 million in unreasonable costs.

From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no- bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton in 2003, for activities in Iraq, we have tried to get the facts on the matter. And it has not been easy to get those facts.

In the course of our investigation, with the help of the Government Accountability Office, we have learned of some pretty terrible things. First, we found that Halliburton was importing oil into Iraq at extremely high prices. We were particularly concerned about the company's decision to import gasoline from Kuwait at a price far above market levels.

Eventually, Defense auditors agreed and found that there were $263 million in unsupported and questioned costs in these contracts. Yet last month, the Corps of Engineers ignored their auditors and reimbursed Halliburton for $254 million--all but $9 million of the questioned costs.

This follows a pattern with Halliburton. The Defense auditors had previously questioned $200 million in costs for meal services provided by the company, which again was overruled by the Army, which gave the company $145 million.

This amendment to deny new contracts to companies that have a history of billing the government for questionable costs is hardly novel. In January, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency itself recommended that the Corps not enter into new contracts with Halliburton, but 3 three days later the Army awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract.

The amendment before us will ensure that taxpayer money will go to support the troops and help rebuild infrastructure and not fatten the pockets of contractors that have a history of questionable billing practices. I emphasize this amendment will not take any funds away from troop support, but will help support the troops.

It is an embarrassment that there have been virtually no Congressional hearings on the matter. Instead, we must act legislatively.

The best course of action to ensure that our money is going where it is needed in support of the troops is to put an end to future contracts with companies that are serial overchargers. Vote for this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which moves funds appropriated to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, from Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal Year 2006. This legislation passed the Senate last week, so its passage in this Chamber will send the bill on to the President.

The legislation would move $1 billion in funding to this fiscal year. Half of the funds would be allocated to the States pursuant to the statutory formula. The other half, however, would be considered contingent funding, and subject to the discretion of the Administration.

It is important that all of these funds reach those in need. The recently passed Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized $5 billion for this fiscal year. But even if all of the funds in this bill are sent to those in need, the total funding for the program will only total a little over $3 billion. In other words, we are still going to be $2 billion below the program authorization.

People in the Midwest and Northeast are in desperate need of these funds. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, since the winter of 2001-2002, yearly natural gas bills have soared from $465 to $1000, while annual heating oil bills have gone from $465 to $1000.

In my home state of Michigan, these national trends have translated to an average energy cost increase of nearly 37 percent. As a result, the state has anticipated a 6 percent increase in LIHEAP applications. Without additional funding, our state could experience as much as a $60 million shortfall in LIHEAP money. This bill, while falling far short of providing the money necessary or authorized by EPACT, provide at least a few million dollars more to help my state address this projected shortfall.

Of course, much of the new funds will also go to warmer climates, where families will be facing unprecedented cooling bills this summer, so this is not just a regional bill.

It is unfortunate that funding for LIHEAP has remained constant over the years while heating costs have soared. Even with these new funds, many families will have a hard time paying their heating bills this winter.

Many of us would like to see LIHEAP funded at its authorized level of $5 billion, but certainly this bill will be of immediate assistance and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4167 is being considered today without benefit of hearings and with no Subcommittee markup. As a result, Members have not had a full opportunity to learn about and debate the provisions of this legislation. This is no minor bill--it would bar States from adopting food safety, labeling, and warning standards that are not identical to Federal standards.

State food and drug officials are very concerned about the impact this bill could have on public health. They have expressed their opinion that this legislation would harm homeland security. The State food and drug officials are certainly a credible group and their concerns are not new.

Almost two years ago, the Association of Food and Drug Officials told us that a bill virtually identical to the one before us today, ``threatens to eviscerate this system. The ramifications of this bill, intended or not, will dissolve our Nation's biodefense capabilities.''

They went on to say that this legislation ``undermines our Nation's whole biosurveillance system by preempting and invalidating many of the State and Local food safety laws and regulations that provide the necessary authority for State and Local agencies to operate food safety and security programs. The pre-9/11 concept embodied in this bill is very much out of line with current threats that confront our food safety and security system.''

They also said that preemption and invalidation of State and local food safety and security activities will ``severely hamper'' the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ability to detect and respond to acts of terrorism. They added, ``Our current food safety and security system will be significantly disrupted . . . and our inability to track suspected acts of intentional adulteration will be exploited by those who seek to do harm to our Nation.'' The Association of Food and Drug Officials has recently restated these concerns with respect to H.R. 4167.

On September 23, 2004, I wrote a letter to Secretary Thompson asking whether or not he agreed with these assertions. I never received a reply to my letter, so here we are today, voting on this bill and we do not know whether or not the Administration believes it poses a threat to homeland security. Indeed, we do not have the benefit of the Administration's views on any aspect of this bill. Does the Administration support this bill, or not? This bill affects public health and the American public deserves more than stony silence from this Administration.

What is wrong with having a hearing to explore what the language in this bill means? Why was the report on this bill filed less than 24 hours before amendments were due at the Rules Committee? Why did the Rules Committee deny important amendments such as an amendment by Representative DeGette to ensure that FDA has the necessary funds to implement the law, or an amendment by Representative Stupak to allow States to warn consumers when their meat has been injected with carbon monoxide?

This process will ultimately hurt the ability to get legislation to the President's desk. I am sympathetic to the need for national uniformity, however, I cannot support this bill without more careful consideration.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments. I am deeply concerned that such an important piece of legislation has been placed on the suspension calendar. We should take a deliberate and considered look at the Senate changes and not just be a rubber stamp.

Considering this bill was originally conceived with little to no debate in the House and Senate, we should take a second look at what these changes will mean for our Nation. Unfortunately, it appears these changes do little to address the serious concerns that I and many of my colleagues have had with the law since its inception. I will mention two such issues.

First, under this bill, the library record issue remains. While there have been some small cosmetic changes regarding the library provision, the government can still gain access to library, medical, financial, firearms sales, and other private records under Section 215. More importantly, the government can do so without any evidence that a person is a terrorist, conspiring with a terrorist organization, knows a terrorist, or has been seen in the vicinity of a terrorist. In fact, a person does not have to do anything illegal at all. We must ensure that proper civil liberties protections are in place.

Next, the gag order that was in the original PATRIOT Act remains in place. As we all know, the PATRIOT Act prohibits someone from talking about or challenging an order under Section 215. This legislation would supposedly allow the recipient to challenge a gag order after 1 year. Yet, this same bill would conclusively presume any government expression of national security concerns is valid, therefore letting the gag order stand. A conclusive presumption by one's accuser in a court of law offers no protection to the accused. As a former prosecutor, I understand this type of legal presumption can and will be used to the benefit of the government's case. The deck is stacked in the government's favor.

Madam Speaker, we must work to protect civil liberties and ensure that we protect our Nation from terrorism. This bill does not strike the right tone and may do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Robert Easterbrook for his contributions to wildlife conservation and protecting the freedom to hunt.

As a member of the Safari Club for over 20 years and as founding member of the Detroit Chapter of Safari Club International (SCI), Robert's passion for conservation education has been an invaluable resource to the state of Michigan. Mr. Easterbrook's nature study outdoor center and camp hosts over 4,200 underprivileged children every year. His work with troubled teenagers has been credited with changing many of their lives for the better. He also founded the ``Great Lakes Bowfishing Championship,'' a fundraising event benefiting the children's camp that has been recognized as one of the largest of its kind.

Robert is also well-known for his commitment and dedication to sportsmens' issues. He has been honored by both the Michigan House and Senate for his input on bipartisan legislation. His Sportsmen Against Hunger program encourages hunters to donate their meat to the hungry and has been adopted by 4 other states.

Over the past 30 years Robert Easterbrook has been awarded Special Conservationist of the Year Award by the Michigan United Conservation Club, the Ted Nugent World Bowhunters Lifetime Representative Award and the Outstanding SCI member, among other awards. He has also served on various committees dedicated to conservation efforts, including the World Wildlife Foundation, the American Archery Council and the Michigan Involvement Committee.

Mr. Easterbrook's many accomplishments serve as a lasting example of excellence in conservationism. Michigan has been well-served by Robert Easterbook. The residents of Michigan will appreciate Mr. Easterbrook's work to protect our great state for generations to come.

I would like to thank Robert for his dedicated service both to Safari Club International and to the State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend, George Weeks, on the occasion of his retirement from the Detroit News after 22 years of distinguished service.

A long-time Michigan resident, George graduated from Traverse City High School in 1950. He then earned a bachelor's degree from Michigan State University in 1954. In 1981, George returned to the academic world at the Harvard University Institute of Politics as a Kennedy Fellow.

George began his journalism career at United Press International in 1954. During his 15 years there his duties included Lansing staff correspondent, Detroit Bureau radio and news editor, Lansing Bureau Chief, diplomatic correspondent and Washington foreign editor. In 1969 George began his career in the staff of Governor William G. Milliken as press secretary and later became Milliken's chief of staff. After 14 years in public service, George resumed his journalism career, becoming a political columnist for The Detroit News.

Over the span of his career, George has covered the White House, State Department and Pentagon, was a panelist on ``Meet the Press,'' and was a member of the White House Correspondents Association, the State Department Correspondents Association and Overseas Writers. He is also a recipient of the Outstanding Alumni Award of MSU's College of Communications Arts and an inductee into the Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame. A noted author, George has published ``Stewards of the State: The Governors of Michigan,'' ``Sleeping Bear: Its Lore, Legends and First People,'' ``Sleeping Bear: Yesterday and Today,'' and co-authored ``Michigan: Visions of Our Past.''

His many accomplishments serve as a lasting example of excellence in journalism. Michigan has been well-served by George Weeks, his insight and knowledge of Michigan politics will be deeply missed.

I would like to thank George for his dedicated service both to the Detroit News and the Michigan community. As he enters his retirement years, I would ask that my colleagues join with Deborah and I to wish him and his wife, Mollie, a very happy, healthy and relaxing future.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to my dear friend, Richard (Dick) Ryan, on the occasion of his retirement from the Detroit News after 40 years of distinguished service.

A Michigan native, Dick graduated from Wayne State University in 1963 with a major in journalism. Prior to joining the Detroit News in 1966, he worked at the Muskegon Chronicle and the Toledo Blade.

Over the span of his career, Dick has been an eyewitness to four decades of national politics, covering the White House, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has covered seven presidents, reporting on such historical events as the Watergate scandal, Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel and President Reagan's famous ``tear down this wall'' speech in Berlin. Because of Dick's reporting skills, Detroiters were always well-informed on some of the most important events in the world.

Currently, Dick is president of the Gridiron Club, an organization of 65 Washington-based journalists. He was also the 2001 president of the National Press Club.

For all that Dick has done in Washington, he has never forgotten about where he is from

and who is reading his stories. While he has become a familiar face here in Washington, he has stayed committed to the people of Detroit and southeastern Michigan.

His many accomplishments serve as a lasting example of excellence in journalism. Michigan has been well-served by Dick Ryan, his insight and knowledge of Michigan politics will be deeply missed.

I would like to thank Dick for his dedicated service both to the Detroit News and the Michigan Community. As he enters his retirement years, I would ask that my colleagues join with Deborah and I to wish him and his wife, Dorothy, a very happy, healthy and relaxing future.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation--the Patients Before Profits Act of 2006--that will right some of the many wrongs in the budget reconciliation bill passed by Congress last week and signed by the President today. This legislation, which is also being introduced today in the Senate by Senator Clinton, will realign our priorities to protect the healthcare coverage of working families rather than the profiteering of HMOs and private insurance companies.

The Patients Before Profits Act eliminates Government overpayments to Medicare HMOs through removal of a ``slush fund'' provision and ensuring these HMOs are only paid what is appropriate for the consumers they serve. This bill would then use these savings to restore protections against excessive out-of-pocket costs for necessary medical visits, prescription drugs, and emergency room care. It will also restore the benefit protections that provide medically necessary treatments under Medicaid and ensure families have adequate benefit coverage, not bare-bone packages.

The Patients Before Profits Act is needed because of the recently passed so-called Deficit Reduction Act, which the Republicans designed and the President is signing into law today. In the dark of the night, the Republicans removed provisions that transferred $32 billion in taxpayer overpayments to Medicare HMOs and insurance plans.

The Senate bill had cut $36 billion in overpayments to the HMOs in Medicare. That included $26 billion in savings by more accurately calculating their payments. But the negotiators rewrote the provision to save just $4 billion, providing a $22 billion windfall to the HMOs. The Senate bill also eliminated a $10 billion slush fund designed to entice HMOs to participate in the prescription drug program. The Republican conferees dropped this provision, providing another $10 billion gift to the HMOs for a total of $32 billion.

This bill takes back the money given to Republican-favored companies and restores to our most vulnerable citizens the needed healthcare that was cut. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, of the $28 billion in savings from Medicaid over 10 years, about 75 percent of that amount is due to provisions that reduce the number of people who can afford to participate. It will increase the number of uninsured and under-insured by raising the copayments that people will have to pay to see their doctors, increasing premiums, cutting medically necessary treatments, and tightening access to long-term care.

By 2015, 4.5 million children will be affected by higher cost-sharing charges for healthcare services such as doctor visits. A total of 13 million people will face higher charges to access their healthcare services. Twenty million people will face higher charges to obtain needed prescription drugs. One-third of those individuals affected by the drug cost-sharing (6.6 million) will be children and half (10 million) will have incomes below the Federal poverty level (monthly incomes of less than $1,380 for a family of three). All this because of a Republican unwillingness to take back overpayments to HMOs.

Congressional Budget Office analysis also concludes that the Republican legislation assumes that the number of uninsured will increase. Twenty percent of the savings from new premium charges under this law will derive from families who are no longer able to maintain their Medicaid coverage due to increased costs. Sixty percent of those who will lose coverage due to new premium charges will be children. Again, all of this because of a Republican unwillingness to take back overpayments to HMOs.

The Patients Before Profits Act of 2006 is a good start to right some of the wrongs that the Republican-led Congress and the President have inflicted on working families, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant women, and children. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend Harry Lester on the occasion of his retirement from the United Steel Workers of America, USWA. Harry and I have fought and won many battles together over the past 50 years on behalf of working men and women. He is an honorable, decent, and hard-working man and I am proud to call him my friend.

As Director of District 2, representing steel workers in Michigan and Wisconsin since its establishment in 1995, Harry has shown commendable leadership and commitment to the community and to our nation's working families. Harry first became active in the Steel Workers at Local 2659 at McLouth Steel in Trenton, Michigan in 1954. In 1969, he was appointed to USWA staff where he later negotiated one of the first cooperative partnerships in the country between Dow Chemical, National Standard, Quanex, and the Detroit Steel Company. Harry was promoted to serve as the director of USWA District 29 from 1981 to 1995 before ascending to the position of Director of the newly formed District 2.

Harry has been very active in the local community throughout his career and currently serves on the board of several education, labor, political and civic organizations. His activities include participation in organizations such as the AFL-CIO, United Foundation, United Way of Michigan, National Kidney Foundation of Michigan, Economic Alliance of Michigan, Greater Detroit Area Health Council and the Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable. Harry has proven to be an effective leader in efforts to protect our environment and protecting the rights of working men and women across America.

As Harry enters his retirement years, I would like to extend my best wishes for a relaxing and enjoyable journey. I would like to thank him for all of his hard work and dedication to the United Steel Workers of America and to labor efforts over the years. His commitment to improving the quality of life for working families has been an inspiration to me and to everyone that he has touched in his many years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Harry Lester for his many years of dedicated public service on behalf of both the United Steel Workers of America and the community at large. His heartfelt dedication to the workers of this Nation will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, after the first month of implementation of the Medicare private drug plan, it is clear that a number of measures are needed to ensure that seniors and Americans with disabilities who need prescription drugs do not leave the pharmacy empty-handed or overcharged.

Representatives Brown of Ohio, Rangel, Stark, Waxman, Spratt, and I are introducing legislation today to make sure seniors are guaranteed the prescription drug relief they were promised in 2003 and deserve today.

This bill would do the following:

Ensure beneficiaries get at least 60 days of needed medicines, whether or not the pharmacist can verify the plan they are in or whether or not the drug they need is covered by their plan.

Eliminate red tape for pharmacists by allowing the pharmacy to bill Medicare directly. Medicare would then collect the payments from the drug plans.

Ensure beneficiaries can navigate the complex system, by providing a standard notice and appeals process and information on how

to locate a more suitable plan when a person's drug is not covered by the plan.

Protect beneficiaries from losing coverage of needed medicines during the year they are enrolled by not allowing plans to change what drugs they will pay for during that year.

Finally, for all those who actually paid more than they should have for their medications, this bill requires Medicare to reimburse them, as well as any others who have stepped in to pay the costs for seniors and those with disabilities when they were denied or overcharged for their medicines. Medicare should be cutting through the red tape, not the beneficiaries or their pharmacist.

Democrats have also introduced legislation that focuses on the major structural problems built into the program designed by the Republicans and their industry friends. But today we introduce this bill to alleviate some of the short-term and transition problems that have arisen with the current ill-conceived Medicare prescription drug benefit.

This Administration has failed in providing seniors and people with disabilities with a smooth transition to prescription drug coverage. Let us not fail them again by ignoring the immediate problems.

Mr. Speaker, the story of our Nation's healthcare system is one of great success but also one of great failure and missed opportunity. We have some of the finest medical institutions in the world: the best trained medical professionals, cutting-edge technology, and state-of-the-art facilities.

We also have, however, major gaps in our healthcare system. At last count nearly 46 million Americans were uninsured. Close to six million Americans lost their insurance between 2000 and 2004. More than 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they lack health insurance coverage. Despite the outstanding job by hospitals, community health centers, and others, our safety net is becoming threadbare. Federal spending on the healthcare safety net declined 8.9 percent between 2001 and 2004, while the need continues to grow even larger.

The time is ripe for action. Today several of my Democratic colleagues and I are introducing a bill to bring the tried, true, and trusted Medicare program to all. This bill will for the first time make Medicare available to those under age 65. Americans will also have the option of selecting any of the plans offered to members of Congress, the President, and Federal employees.

According to the Institute of Medicine, covering all Americans will actually save the country $380 billion a year. That is partly because we are already paying for the health care of the uninsured through emergency room services. By providing people the ability to obtain comprehensive healthcare coverage, they will be able to receive better prevention services and earlier treatments, lowering the cost of their care. All Americans will reap the economic benefits of a healthier Nation.

And this plan will save not only lives, but also American industries and jobs. We currently have an unlevel economic playing field. American companies are competing in the international marketplace against companies that do not directly bear the costs of providing their employees and retirees health care. American companies are doing the right thing, but being penalized for it.

I am pleased to introduce this ``Medicare for All'' bill today as a companion bill to the legislation Senator Kennedy introduced yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the Republican leadership to let us address the healthcare crisis faced by millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have recalled that there was no conference on this important legislation. Instead, my Republican colleagues met behind closed doors with a bevy of lobbyists for the health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical houses.

Democratic Members were entirely excluded from this. This is a product of special-interest lobbying, and the stench of special interest hangs over the Chamber as we consider it today.

The bill was brought to the floor in the dead of night; and a couple of hours later, the Members of this body voted on it without ever having seen it, or without a copy of it ever having been printed. The Congressional Budget Office now tells us what went on behind those closed doors in those secret meetings. Special interests and their lobbyists, who were well represented, won. Everybody else was excluded, and everybody else lost.

The conferees made important decisions on health care, because the House and the Senate took very different approaches to the issue. The Senate decided not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries, instead cutting overpayments to Medicare HMOs and reducing unjustified payments to drug companies.

Our Republican colleagues heard the concerns of these special interests and instead chose to raise costs and to cut services to working families, to the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children covered by Medicaid.

Now, here are the specifics, and you can see them on this chart right here. The Senate cut $36 billion in overpayments to HMOs and Medicare. That included $26 billion in savings by more accurately calculating their payments.

The negotiators, without any help from anybody but the lobbyists, rewrote the provision to save just $4 billion, providing a $22 billion windfall to the HMOs.

The Senate also eliminated a $10 billion slush fund designed to induce HMOs to participate in the prescription drug program by overpayments. The Republican conferees dropped this provision, providing another $10 billion gift to HMOs, for a total of $32 billion.

Finally, the Senate included a provision designed to get the best prices for Medicaid by increasing rebates from drug companies for a nearly $10 billion saving. My good Republican colleagues dropped that provision too.

Instead, our colleagues on the Republican side went after the people who could not be represented in the room and who could not afford to have cuts. Through a combination of benefit reductions, increased copayments and premiums, along with rules making it harder for the elderly to gain access to nursing homes, they saved $25 billion. They sweated it out of the hides of the poor and the unfortunate.

According to the CBO, about 13 million Medicaid enrollees will pay more to see their doctor. CBO reports that 80 percent of the savings comes from the decreased use of services. Look at what they did. Vote against it. This is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should recall there was no open conference on this important legislation. Instead my Republican colleagues met behind closed doors to negotiate an agreement among themselves and, apparently, lobbyist friends. It was brought to the floor in the dead of night, and a couple of hours later Members voted on it sight unseen.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now confirms what went on behind those closed doors. Special interests and their lobbyists who were well represented won--everyone else was excluded and lost.

The conferees had very important decisions to make in health care because the House and Senate took very different approaches to the issue. The Senate elected not to harm Medicaid beneficiaries, instead cutting overpayments to Medicare HMOs and reducing payments to drug companies. Our House Republican colleagues instead chose to raise costs and cut services to working families, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children covered by Medicaid.

Here are the specifics: The Senate bill cut $36 billion in overpayments to the HMOs in Medicare. That included $26 billion in savings by more accurately calculating their payments. But the negotiators rewrote the provision to save just $4 billion, providing a $22 billion windfall to the HMOs.

The Senate bill also eliminated a $10 billion slush fund designed to entice HMOs to participate in the prescription drug program. The Republican conferees dropped this provision, providing another $10 billion gift to the HMOs for a total of $32 billion.

Finally, the Senate included a provision designed to get the best prices for Medicaid by increasing rebates from drug companies for a nearly $10 billion saving. That provision was dropped.

Instead our Republican colleagues went after the people who couldn't afford to be in that room--the Medicaid beneficiaries. Through a combination of benefit reductions, increased copayments and premiums, along with rules making it harder for the elderly to gain access to nursing homes, they saved $25 billion.

According to CBO, about 13 million Medicaid enrollees will pay more to see their doctor. CBO reports 80 percent of the savings from this provision will come from decreased use of services. So this bill will be adding to the rolls of the uninsured--contrary to the goal of expanding coverage touted by President Bush last night.

This bill is Exhibit A for special interests and lobbyists writing legislation behind closed doors at the expense of the ordinary citizen. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Corner Health Center on its 25th anniversary. Located in Ypsilanti, MI, The Corner Health Center offers medical care, health education, as well as support services for low income youth between the ages of 12 to 21. This vital assistance provides the necessary support to help these young people make healthy choices now and in the future.

As Michigan's first teen health center, The Corner Health Center educates at-risk teens

on the long-range implications of their health behaviors. In addition, The Corner Health Center also encourages these youths to develop responsible behaviors and take responsibility for their own health, using such innovative programs as: a theatre troupe, individualized baby booklets, as well as drug, alcohol and pregnancy prevention counseling.

Mr. Speaker, organizations such as The Corner Health Center serve our communities in invaluable ways. They provide key services supporting both the health of individuals as well as the health of their communities in which they live. I am proud to have The Corner Health Center in Michigan's 15th Congressional District and I would like to congratulate The Center on its 25th anniversary.