Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise against the conference report. I urge my colleagues to vote it down. This might be called a Christmas Carol. The Republicans give tax cuts to every Ebeneezer Scrooge and his friends, and they raise the costs to the Cratchit family and take medical care away from Tiny Tim.

There is no way to hide the fact that these cuts hurt beneficiaries. Cuts in the Medicare program come directly from the families who depend on them, by raising their payments, making health care unaffordable, or by not paying for needed treatments when those families seek care. Millions of children will lose medically necessary benefits and face increases in the amount that their parents have to pay for them to go to the doctor.

Because this conference report allows, in fact it almost requires States to charge families four times more today than they do to see their doctor at this time, we know this size increase will force people to forgo needed care. Millions of families will seek cuts in important services in mental health, physical and rehabilitation therapies, dental and vision benefits.

What good can come from allowing States to deny eyeglasses to children who cannot see in school or hearing assistance to children who cannot hear. One in nine children with special health care needs are those who reside in military families and rely on Medicaid for supplemental health care jeopardized by this bill.

The conference report seeks to raise health care premiums on individuals who depend on Medicaid. A major portion of the savings of this provision will come from families, including children, losing health insurance coverage. There are more than 45 million uninsured now in this Nation. This bill will add significantly to that number. Nearly 40 children's groups, March of Dimes, Family Voices, oppose these cuts. AARP has written to urge the Congress not to harm those who rely on this program for long-term care. One hundred forty national groups, American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote in opposition to benefit cuts and increases in cost sharing.

There is another little thing here that my colleagues will want to know about, and that is very interesting. The conference report takes away from the moneys that we could give to first responders to adequately respond from the spectrum sales that will occur, and it gives those monies as it gives other monies to tax cuts for the well- to-do.

The end result, my dear friend, is that first responders, public health, public safety will be shortchanged. Our first responders risk their lives to leave no one behind, but the Republicans here leave the first responders behind, and they are going to have a nice little tax increase for those who are going to see their television sets go blank because of the change from the normal analog spectrum to the digital spectrum which is going to take place shortly.

You can expect to hear from all of your constituents that they have had to go out to spend $60 to get a converter box to go on top of their television. This, my friends, is a Christmas present of our Republican friends to the American people, tax cuts for the wealthy, cost increases on health for the small children and for the families on limited income and cuts in needed services to the first responders and spectrum and increases in the cost to ordinary citizens to continue watching television.

This is a bad program. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 575, expressing the sense of Congress that Hamas should not participate in elections held by the Palestinian Authority.

Now, many of my colleagues might suggest that my opposition to this non-binding resolution means that I stand with the terrorists. I would argue that it means exactly the opposite.

You see, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I want to see peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I want a free and democratic Palestinian state to stand side by side with the free and democratic Israeli state. And most importantly, I want both states and their peoples to be safe and secure.

For the first time, the Palestinians are engaging in a truly democratic process. I would defer to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian people on how to do this. Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with you, I do not want foreign leaders telling the United States how to conduct our elections and I think we owe President Abbas and the Palestinian people the same courtesy.

In fact, this is one of the rare occasions that I actually agree with the Bush Administration. On September 20th, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in response to a question regarding Hamas being a part of the election, ``. . . we understand that the Palestinian political system is in transition, that it is in transition toward a democratic system, and that has to be a Palestinian process.'' Secretary Rice went on to say, ``This is going to be a Palestinian process and I think we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political system.''

We need to vest Hamas in the democratic process.

I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, terrorism is wrong and it should not be tolerated.

However, if Hamas is brought into the process and given the opportunity to run for political office and become part of the political establishment, they will assume responsibility for governance--leading to moderation.

I would submit for the Record a statement by Debra DeLee, President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now. Ms. DeLee nicely lays out the position that Palestinian Authority President Abbas is in and why it is important for the elections to go forward in a way that is inclusive in order to moderate those who traditionally turned to terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the interesting position of voting against this resolution and agreeing with Secretary Rice: the United States must let the Palestinians find their way to a democratic state.

The Sharonization of Hamas

(By Debra DeLee)

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent statement that

he would withhold Israeli cooperation from Palestinian

legislative elections in January if Hamas candidates take

part flies in the face of his own experience with the

moderating influence that holding public responsibility can

have on extremist views. In explaining his 180 degree turn

from being a strong advocate of Israeli settlements in Gaza

to the driving force behind their evacuation, Sharon has

repeatedly observed that, ``what you see from here [in the

Prime Minister's Office], you don't see from there.'' In

other words, it was not until he obtained a position of

ultimate responsibility for Israel that Sharon began to

recognize the burden that the Gaza settlements imposed on the

state.

There is no equivalence between the horrific terrorist acts

that Hamas has inflicted on Israelis and Sharon's passion for

settlement expansion.

Yet it's clear that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is

trying to rein in his Islamist opposition through the process

of Sharonization (i.e., co-opting the militants by

encouraging them to run for public office and to assume

responsibility for governance, in the hope that this process

will lead to their moderation. )

In an ideal world, Abbas would decide to round up

Palestinian terrorists, place a call to his Interior

Minister, then sit back to watch the thugs put in prison

or die in attempting to evade arrest. But we do not live

in an ideal world. While Abbas deplores terrorism, he

wants to avoid a Palestinian civil war. And even if he was

willing to launch one, with Abbas already struggling to

control events on the ground, it's doubtful that the

troops at his disposal would win.

Further, if defeating Palestinian terrorists with force

alone was so easy, Israel would have done it long ago.

Israel's military might has been vigorously applied to the

occupied territories for nearly 40 years. It's chalked up

some impressive tactical victories. But it has not succeeded

in drying out the swamp of terror. Hamas and its fellow

travelers are still around, which is why Sharon is busy

encouraging Abbas to fight them.

Abbas deserves a chance to see if his way will work better,

with the caveat that he must be prepared after the

Palestinian legislative elections to forcefully confront

those individuals who continue to engage in terror. It is in

Israel's interest to see that Abbas is fortified with

development aid and encouraged to carry out internal reforms,

as well as to ensure that the Palestinian security forces

loyal to him are strengthened in order for him to be able to

carry out this task.

It is also in Israel's interest to ensure that these

upcoming elections go as smoothly as possible. With its

departure from Gaza, Israel will not be able to impede the

contests in that region. But it could decide--as Sharon has

said--to make it impossible for Palestinian voters in East

Jerusalem to cast ballots or for candidates, campaign

workers, and voters to move from town to town in the West

Bank. If such Israeli impediments are put in place, they

would delegitimize any victory that secular nationalist

candidates might achieve over Hamas candidates, thereby

strengthening the hand of the very terrorists that Israel

seeks to weaken. They would also shatter the calm that

allowed Israel to withdraw quietly from Gaza.

If the Bush Administration has been less than enthusiastic

about Sharon's views of the Palestinian elections, it's

because the White House has been pursuing the Sharonization

of militants operating in areas under American control.

Kurdish and Shiite militias have not been forced to disband

in Iraq, yet that hasn't stopped representatives of those

groups from running in elections and winning top positions in

the current government. If the U.S. demanded that the armed

supporters of these candidates lay down their weapons before

their leaders could assume power, it must have done so in a

whisper.

Hamas candidates did well in two earlier rounds of

municipal elections. Lo and behold, they have found it

necessary to work with Israelis at the local level in order

to deal with mundane issues like sewage and water. And their

Israeli counterparts have been willing to talk to them. This

kind of practical contact is a long way from having

terrorists beat their spears into pruning hooks, but perhaps

it points to a way forward.

The Bush Administration should encourage Sharon to let

Abbas see if he can duplicate this process at the national

level of Palestinian politics. If It succeeds, Israel will be

more secure, and Palestinian society will be more stable. If

it fails, Israel will still have ample military strength upon

which it can rely.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4568, the ``Proficiency Testing Improvement Act of 2005,'' which requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update the federal program to test the proficiency of individual laboratory professionals who read Pap tests. This bill delays implementation of the program first proposed in 1992 so that revisions, including those recommended by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, can be made. Importantly, these revisions are required to be made within one year, and must be made before proficiency testing can resume.

This is a commonsense measure that will assure that regulations implemented by the Federal Government reflect current science, technology, and medical practice. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is taking up H.R. 4519, a bill to reauthorize funds for State high risk health insurance pools, a program that was first passed in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. This bill also makes a number of improvements to the program.

High risk pools are by no means a solution for all of the more than 45 million uninsured in this nation. As long as we, however, continue to have a system of health care cobbled together as it is, high risk pools will fill part of the void.

Unfortunately, these high risk pools have included very high premiums and limited benefits. When Congress first provided funding for these pools, the majority of the States used the funding to lower assessments on insurance companies rather than improve benefits or reduce out-of- pocket costs for families. H.R. 4519 includes an important provision that would ensure some portion of this Federal funding goes to improving the pools by reducing premium costs or improving benefits for those who need health care.

And although we have taken a small step here to do good, the Congress is considering a budget reconciliation package that includes harsh cuts in the program that provides health insurance to more than 50 million Americans--Medicaid. These cuts would strip benefits and increase out- of-pocket costs for low-income families and individuals, including children, pregnant women, and those living with disabilities.

If Congress were really determined to help the uninsured, we would begin by rejecting the provisions in the reconciliation package that cut coverage and increase costs for our most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4579, legislation that would continue for a year the requirements that insurance companies provide mental health services on the same par as health services. Discrimination against those with mental illnesses or cognitive impairments is well documented. Treatment for these conditions can last a lifetime. Not surprisingly, insurance companies do not want to provide coverage for needed treatments.

The bill we are passing today would ensure that coverage for mental health care receives parity with coverage for physical conditions. The current requirement expires at the end of the year. While ideally we should make this a permanent feature for all health insurance policies, today we are only extending it for one year.

While this legislation will ensure some protections for Americans, the House-passed reconciliation bill includes provisions that would reduce coverage for mental health care under Medicaid. That bill would allow States to charge higher out-of-pocket costs to those needing these services and it would allow States to strip these benefits for beneficiaries, including from children. Medicaid accounts for 44 percent of the Nation's public mental health spending. It plays a critical role in protecting those who need mental and behavioral health services, and fills the gaps that private insurance does not cover.

While the bill today will offer some protections for individuals with mental health needs in private insurance, we also must ensure that the budget reconciliation bill does not erode protections in Medicaid, which provides coverage for those for whom private insurance coverage is not enough or those who have no private insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Iraqi people on their participation in a successful election. The successful vote was a major stride for many Iraqis. Guns, bombs and violence were largely set aside for the day as a large majority of Iraqis went to the polls and exercised their right to vote. It is my sincere hope that with the new government in order, the bloodshed in Iraq will be replaced by an open, democratic debate.

I cannot, however, support this flawed resolution. The resolution focuses more on affirming the President's strategy for a continued military presence in Iraq than actually congratulating the Iraqis. And, while I agree with this resolution that a timeline for a U.S. Armed Forces withdrawal is not the proper course of action at this time, I strongly believe our military effort needs to be exceeded by the diplomatic effort to come. Unfortunately though, this resolution does not express that sense. It is nothing more than another political tactic by the Republican leadership meant to squash a real debate on Iraq in favor of a one-sided avowal of faith in an administration that has proved unfaithful.

We have never had a real debate on Iraq here in the House and this resolution does not offer real deliberation either. I call on my friends in the leadership to allow this House, the greatest legislative body in the world, to have a candid discussion, a full and fair debate, for at least 2 days, on this critical matter.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the United States is not doing enough to ensure that diplomacy will win out over violence. Certainly that is our objective, I do not deny that, but without a clear plan from the administration to achieve this aim I fear that our presence in Iraq could be protracted for much longer than it could or should be. This war will not turn to peace by military means alone. Diplomacy, democracy, and dialogue are the only true ways that Iraq can be a success. After four major speeches on Iraq from the President, I still have not seen an honest appraisal from this administration on the progress that has been made, and more importantly, what we are doing to ensure future progress. This is the type of discussion that we should be having here in the House, not a bogus debate on a hollow political resolution veiled as a congratulatory message to the Iraqi people.

We need a change of course in Iraq. We should hasten the shift of control to the Iraqis and move away from military conflict. Peace in Iraq can only be achieved by the Iraqis themselves. Therefore, there must be more emphasis on finding diplomatic solutions to Iraqi problems; to bringing in more nations to work with the Iraqis to rebuild and restructure their country; and there must be support for Iraqi democracy in all its forms. The Iraqi constitution clearly needs to be revisited and the administration must put pressure on the ruling parties, no matter who emerges victorious from the election, to engage in an honest, open deliberation on the amendment process to ensure that all Iraqis feel that they have a legitimate stake in the future of their country.

We have lost more than 2,000 brave men and women in Iraq. In excess of 100,000 active and reserve soldiers continue to serve in Iraq. We must honor the sacrifices and achievements of our troops, the pain borne by their families, and we must celebrate what they have been able to accomplish in spite of the incompetence and arrogance of this administration. Yesterday's elections give hope to the success of a free Iraq. Let us build on this momentum and show Iraqis and the world that the U.S. is truly committed to a stable and free Iraq achieved through diplomacy, not through military might.

Again, I congratulate the Iraqi people on a successful election yesterday. They showed the world that freedom knows no bounds. And I believe we must give our brave men and women all the support they need to achieve victory. However, I urge my colleagues to vote against this cynical, and frankly, disgracefully political, resolution, and ask that my colleagues seek a debate beyond platitudes in this House and demand more honesty and action from this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Spratt motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4241, the Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act.

This motion wisely provides that the House would give up its harshest and most hateful cuts. Just 1 week after passing $100 billion in new tax cuts, benefiting mostly the wealthy in our country, our Republican colleagues are now seeking to cut spending on those who have the greatest need of assistance.

For example, one of the programs hardest hit by this legislation, Medicaid, provides health care to working families. Three-quarters of the cuts in the Medicaid program come directly from the families who depend on it, either by raising their payments, by making health care unaffordable or by not paying for needed treatments when they do seek care.

The House bill seeks to raise health care premiums for individuals who depend on Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, one-quarter of the savings from the premiums would be imposed on beneficiaries, including children, coming from families losing their health insurance coverage. There are more than 45 million uninsured in this Nation, and the House bill would add more to that number. The Senate Bill does not do that.

Five-and-a-half million children face increases in the amount their parents would pay for them to go to the doctor, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Eighty percent of the savings from higher cost-sharing will come from individuals, including children, foregoing services and not from the actual payment of the higher cost-sharing.

I want my colleagues to listen to this, because I think this is a real scandal: Five million Americans will find themselves unable to pay for certain kinds of treatments, such as for cancer, because such treatments will, under this legislation, no longer be covered. Under the House proposal, half of these will be children who will lose access to services such as dental care, vision coverage, mental health care and therapies. The Senate Bill does not do this.

Finally, the House should also recede to the Senate on matters concerning Medicare HMO payments and Medicare physician payments. HMO payments, already too high, are being increased by better than 4 percent this year. And in 2 weeks, physicians will see their payments cut 4.8 percent. This is going to hurt our seniors' access to needed health care, and it is going to assure that very shortly there will be no physicians participating in Medicare. I look forward to hearing the explanations of my colleagues when this event transpires.

I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt motion. It is fair, decent and humane. The proposal before us is not.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 4437. Like many of my colleagues, I believe we should enforce our immigration laws and ensure we stem the tide of illegal immigration. However, this bill goes too far.

It is a heavy handed approach to immigration. But you may say, ``Dingell, we have a problem, we must do something.'' I say to that: Read the fine print. This bill not only penalizes illegal immigrants, but families, asylum seekers, good Samaritans, and most importantly, law abiding, U.S. citizens. This bill goes too far.

First, this bill harshly penalizes families, in particular family unity. For instance, under Title VI of the bill, millions of immigrants would be barred from gaining lawful resident status, even those whose spouses or children are

U.S. citizens. Without lawful resident status, those immigrants would be sent to their country of origin, forced to leave their loved ones behind. This bill goes too far.

Next, good Samaritans would be harshly penalized. If a person finds an illegal immigrant injured, and takes that person to a hospital, the law would label the Samaritan a felon. This bill goes too far.

Mr. Speaker, asylum seekers would be unduly penalized. This bill redefines the status of many asylum seekers, making them felons under the law, and would disallow many from having a hearing before they are deported back to the country from which they are seeking asylum. This bill goes too far.

Most importantly, U.S. citizens would be penalized. This bill mandates that employers use the Employment Verification System. According to the GAO, building the type of database to verify employment envisioned by this bill will cost at least $11.7 billion per year. Furthermore, the GAO identified other problems within this flawed system that threaten to deny employment for many able bodied Americans. This bill goes too far.

I would note that a wide array of groups is opposed to this legislation from the United Auto Workers, to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the United States Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. During these very polarized times, when these vastly different groups are opposed, it raises a few eyebrows. And it does so for good reason. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let's craft a well rounded bill that enforces our immigrant laws, allows for avenues for citizenship, and that does not drive illegal immigration further underground.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report to H.R. 3199. We should go back into conference and work on a bipartisan, balanced conference report.

Instead of rushing to finalize a partisan conference report that dismisses concerns for Americans' civil liberties, we should pass a 3 month extension and try to find a bipartisan balance.

Unfortunately, the House leadership is unwilling to strike that balance and have put forth for consideration a conference report that no Democratic conferee signed. This is unconscionable.

Madam Speaker, many objectionable provisions remain in this conference report, but two issues in particular were ignored by the majority. First, the conference report fails to provide a standard to challenge national security letters. We recently learned that over 30,000 national security letters are issued every year to businesses of all types without court approval.

Yet, this conference report provides little to no mechanism to allow for a citizen to challenge these letters in court, and sets no deadline for destroying the private information that has been collected. Shame on us for not allowing a citizen to redress his grievances, and, shame on us for not ensuring that private information is destroyed once it is collected.

Second, this conference report fails to address the very real issue that has been of great concern to many Americans: Section 215 secret court orders for library, medical, and other personal records. It leaves the standard for obtaining ``any tangible thing'' at simply a ``relevance'' standard to an investigation, basically allowing the government to conduct a fishing expedition if it deems appropriate.

As I, along with several of my colleagues, said in a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Specter, there is nothing in this standard to stop the FBI from asking a library to turn over its circulation list of everyone who had checked out a book on Islam since the September 11th attacks. Shame on us for allowing this to remain in the final conference report.

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk during the last four years that we will not yield to the terrorists. That we will fight tyranny with freedom and democracy, and the power of our ideas will prevail. I agree with that sentiment.

Yet, today, we are considering limiting freedoms by allowing provisions such as the Section 215 secret court orders and national security letters that I mentioned earlier. As a former prosecutor, I understand the need for tools to prosecute those who would do us harm. I also know that those same tools can be used to curtail freedoms of innocent Americans.

We must provide common sense tools to prosecutors, but we must protect the liberty of all Americans. As I asked in June of this year, and as I ask again now, ``What will generations to come think when they have seen we have permanently lowered the bar in protecting their civil liberties?''

Madam Speaker, whenever we discuss the PATRIOT Act, I am reminded of a very wise saying by one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. He said, ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

I will vote against this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same. We should go back to conference and craft a conference report that protects all of our civil liberties.

Madam Speaker, I have a little poem.

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,

no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.

Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,

so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.

Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,

while visions of school and home danced in their heads.

In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,

and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.

Americans feared we were in a fast track to . . . well.

Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,

a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.

We will pretend Christmas is under attack,

hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.

Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,

Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.

This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,

From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.

What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy

when this is the season to unite us with joy.

At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.

We don't need a made-up reason to fight.

So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing

blogs.

You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.

'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.

With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?

So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,

a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy

holidays.

Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank my good friend and colleague from Michigan, John Conyers, my dear friend of long standing, for his gracious kindness in this Special Order tonight, and I thank all of my good friends and colleagues who have participated in that. I am deeply grateful, and I am very proud of the friendship that they show me and that I have for them and the kindness that they have shown me throughout these years I have had the privilege of serving in this body.

I want to say that I have been uniquely blessed. Not only have I had the privilege of serving wonderful people in the southeast corner of Michigan, people who are uniquely loyal, decent and good, hardworking and patriotic, who believe in their country and who work to make it better and who raise good kids and who are concerned not just about their well-being but about the country and its future, I have also been uniquely blessed in having an extraordinary staff which has stood loyally by me and which has provided me the basis of knowing how to be a good and effective Congressman.

I have had one unique and special blessing, and that is a beautiful woman who has stood by my side all of these years, the lovely Deborah, who has worked with me, worked for me, worked with and for the people that I have the honor to serve and who is much loved in Michigan and here in Washington, whose good works and whose talents are extraordinary and whose decency and loyalty are absolutely unique.

I want to say how proud I am to have served in the Congress. I am proud of my colleagues and grateful to them for their words, and I repeat my thanks to my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and to my other colleagues who have been so gracious to me today, to the Speaker and to the minority leader for their gracious remarks, for the resolution which this body passed and for the privilege of serving with all of my dear friends and colleagues.

I have only good memories of having served in this institution, and I think if there is one characteristic about the service that I have had here it is with what blinding speed those 50 years have gone by and how many wonderful human beings I have known and served with: Members of Congress, members of the staff, people who work in and around the Congress, lobbyists, the constituents that I have had the privilege of serving and the people in the executive branch. We are fortunate, indeed, that we have men and women who will do the things that my colleagues have done here in terms of coming to Washington to serve.

I cannot tell my colleagues how proud I am of them or how grateful I am to them and the appreciation which I feel for all of them, including not just my friend Mr. Conyers, but I look at my good friend Mr. Kildee and the gentlewoman from Texas who was so gracious earlier.

It has been a singular privilege for me to be here. This is a wonderful institution. It belongs to the people. They deserve the best we can give, and it is a wonderful institution. I salute my colleagues for what they do. I express to them my respect and admiration and affection and also my gratitude to them for what it is they do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again express my affection, my respect and my gratitude to those who have participated in this Special Order, including my very special friend Mr. Conyers.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my Republican colleagues do not want to get close to the facts. What are the facts? First of all, when this administration came into office, there was a $2 trillion surplus. Now we have increased the national debt by $3 trillion, and they have spent the $2 trillion besides. No wonder they do not want to talk about the facts.

They are cutting $11.4 billion out of Medicaid. Why are they doing so? To fund additional tax cuts. The richest 0.2 percent of the country has already gained an average of $103,000 from the Republican tax cuts, but the Republicans have a fine program: they are going to cut funds for women, poor children, individuals with cystic fibrosis and other chronic diseases, elderly widows in nursing homes, and others who rely on Medicaid.

If this bill passes, the following will happen: in 1 year alone, 110,000 Medicaid beneficiaries will lose coverage

due to the new burdensome health care premiums imposed by this bill; destitute elderly will be denied needed nursing home care right when they need it the most. These provisions will force many seniors out of homes that they may have lived in for decades, and those elderly persons who try to help their families to pay medical bills or go to school are going to be penalized.

Children will be hurt. According to CBO, half of those affected by higher cost-sharing and half of those affected by reduced benefits will be children. Those with disabilities will be particularly hurt by the newly allowed State benefit cuts and increased cost-sharing. They already pay a greater portion of their income for out-of-pocket medical expenses than privately insured individuals with higher income.

The simple fact of the matter is this bill is going to take from those who have the least and give to those who have the most and the smallest needs. This is an outrageous piece of legislation.

The simple fact of the matter is my Republican colleagues are entitled to their own opinion, but they cannot have their own facts; and the facts say this is a bad proposal. It is going to hurt the poor. It is going to benefit those who have no need.

This is an outrageous piece of legislation, and it should be rejected by this body. And I would point out that one of the reasons for these cuts in benefits is so that there can be a tax cut. I would remind my good friends on the Republican side that one of the interesting things about this piece of legislation is that when all is said and done, it is actually going to increase the deficit.

There is no question that the cuts proposed by the Republicans will harm beneficiaries. First, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)'s November 9th study on the bill as it left the Budget Committee, of the $11.9 billion in cuts to Medicaid, 75 percent--nearly $9 billion--is due to provisions that hurt beneficiaries. These cuts will have harsh effects, reducing needed care and causing millions to lose coverage and benefits. For example:

The vast majority (80 percent) of the savings from cost-sharing increases come from forcing beneficiaries to cut back on their use of healthcare services. Some six million children from families with incomes just above the poverty line would lose all current Federal cost-sharing protections if this bill is adopted. This bill would offer children who live just above the poverty line significantly less protection than in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The remaining savings from cost-sharing come from $300 million in payment cuts to providers over five years.

Half of those affected by the reductions in benefits--so called ``benefit flexibility''--will be children. By 2015, five million individuals, including 2.5 million kids, will face benefit cuts. Most of the services that beneficiaries will lose in the reduced benefit packages would be for mental health, certain therapies, dental, and vision. There will also be new restrictions on the amount, duration, and scope of services covered.

Benefit reductions result in $18 billion in Federal savings over 10 years. The actual magnitude of lost coverage, however, will be much higher over those 10 years, closer to $32 billion, when you count the State share, because CBO only considers Federal savings. Therefore, the total benefit-related reductions would be nearly twice as high.

New premium charges will force hundreds of thousands more who are covered today to drop their coverage. A full quarter of the savings associated with new higher premium charges come from individuals no longer being able to afford Medicaid. In 2015, for example, 110,000 enrollees will lose coverage because of premium increases. And, for those elderly citizens lucky enough to own the home they live in, the Republicans want to force them to sell it in order to get care.

Second, the numbers tell only part of the story. Examine, for example, the hurtful effect these changes will have on individuals with disabilities. Over the past number of years, individuals with disabilities have made significant gains in improving options for community living. Would we really want to enact legislation that would force people, who were previously able to live in their community, to live in institutions? Because that is exactly what this Reconciliation package will do.

The healthy among us do not need extensive health services, but those with disabilities and chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, schizophrenia, and AIDs, do. The Reconciliation package allows States to cut critical benefits that these individuals need, with the burden placed on those who need the most care.

Together, these changes will only result in more individuals with disabilities being forced back into institutions, rather than enabling them to live in the community. Increased costs and decreased benefits for individuals with disabilities will leave them with no other option but to return to an institution where they can get needed medical care.

Those with disabilities who are under Medicaid already have higher out-of-pocket medical expenses than higher-income, privately insured people, even with the current protections the program offers. Out-of- pocket costs consumed an average of 5.6 percent of the incomes of these beneficiaries in 2002. On the other hand, privately-insured adults with incomes over $19,140 spent 0.7 percent of their incomes on out-of- pocket medical costs. Individuals with disabilities already have their incomes stretched to the limit. In 2004, a national average rent for a modest one-bedroom unit consumed more than the entire monthly payment (109.6 percent) for a person receiving SSI.

In addition to these increased out-of-pocket expenses, the working disabled may find they must sell their homes if they wish to continue receiving the needed long-term care services provided under Medicaid that enables them to work. And it is difficult to keep people in the community if they are forced to sell or mortgage the home they reside in.

According to CBO, Congress could achieve $20 billion in savings by simply not overpaying Medicare HMOs. Yet these provisions are nowhere to be found in the Republican legislation. Clearly the profits of health insurers are protected while the poor and working families are squeezed to fund Republican tax priorities.

The Republican solution to the hard economic times facing many families is to charge them more for their health care, take away needed benefits, and make it easier for States not to cover those in need. Rather than provide States with the tools to slash coverage and impoverish more families through higher medical expenses in order that their tax cuts for the wealthy may stay intact, Congress should seek ways to join with the States to shore up healthcare coverage for our most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Let me observe that, first of all, the gentleman is dead wrong. I said that that particular package of reforms was not something which was acceptable. I encouraged the Governors to reject it and I urge you to reject it. I have never supported it. But I have never said that reform of Medicaid would pass over my dead body.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle call budget reconciliation. Ironically, the hurricanes are being used to rationalize cutting the very programs the hurricane survivors rely on. In fact, this budget will do more harm to the poor and unfortunate than the storms.

Let us be clear about the purpose of the legislation before us today: all of these spending cuts are going towards financing tax cuts. In recent years, deficits have been the largest in history--indicate that we are spending far beyond our means. I find it ironic that Republicans are calling this bill the ``Deficit Reduction Act,'' because it will actually increase the deficit.

Republicans are asking working families to foot the bill for a massive tax giveback for the wealthy. Due to the President's previous tax policies, millionaires get an average tax cut of $103,000 a year and the new bill will continue this trend. Americans, the young, aged, sick, poor and the unfortunate will get a reduction in benefits.

I have been before this body on numerous occasions to discuss priorities, so it is not necessary to go into detail about how misguided this legislation is. I hear time and time again how the Republican fiscal policy has been working to stimulate the economy and create jobs. No one has yet seen the evidence of this so-called success. My people back in Michigan certainly are not celebrating any successes of the GOP Congress. And not just in Michigan--poll after poll shows two-thirds of the American people disapprove of the way the President is handling the economy.

I frequently hear from constituents who are struggling just to make ends meet. From veterans who are not getting medical treatment, students trying to pay for college, farmers and laborers alike--all of these people are working hard to scrape by and make a decent living in this country. At minimum wage, they would earn $10,700 per year, barely one-tenth of the average tax giveback for millionaires.

Meanwhile, my colleagues will ask these hard-working Americans to foot the bill for another massive tax giveback. Those with particularly low incomes will be hurt the most. The reconciliation package will cut food stamps, student aid and Medicaid--all are programs which largely benefit the most vulnerable members of our society.

The current conflict in Iraq has been entirely funded by the deficit. During times of war, past presidents have found ways to curb the deficit through increased revenue, closing tax loopholes and budgetary enforcement rules such as PAYGO. President Reagan realized that his tax act was causing large deficits and so in 1982 he supported a repeal of the parts of his tax bill that had not been enacted. President George H.W. Bush also realized that the deficit was getting too large and increased taxes in 1990. It may not have been politically popular, but it was the right thing to do. Shocking as it may seem to Republicans, President Bush's tax increase, along with President Clinton's balanced budget, led us into an unprecedented period of surplus and economic well-being.

This Administration and this Congress have chosen to ignore the obvious, opting instead to keep the blinders on and march forward with their reckless tax policies. Republicans complain incessantly about ``tax and spend'' liberals, but all I see in Congress and the White House are ``spend and spend'' Republicans who cut programs which benefit ordinary Americans.

I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have doubts about this legislation and I urge them to oppose it. This is not sound policy. We can do far better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to and celebrate the career of Andrew A. Mazzara. He has announced his retirement from the presidency of Henry Ford Community College, HFCC, after 34 years of service.

Mr. Mazzara's leadership and experience advanced HFCC's reputation through innovation and development. A lifelong resident of Dearborn and 1963 graduate of HFCC, Mr. Mazzara's earned respect and success through his hard work and determination. He can truly be called an educational pioneer and through his devotion to students, faculty and the community he served has had a lasting positive impact on Dearborn and the State of Michigan.

In 1966 he started his career at HFCC teaching engineering, apprentice training and drafting: Taking a short respite in 1972 as a technical consultant and administrator for the Michigan Department of Education, he returned in 1977 to become Dean of Career Education. As dean, he helped his areas of oversight, Business and Economics, Health Careers, Nursing, Industrial Technology, Apprentice Training, Management Development, and Customized Training Divisions, expand and develop into educationally rich and nationally respected programs. In 1982 he took a 1 year work leave to be the Interim Director of the UAW- Ford Motor Company National Education and Development Training Center, which was the nation's first joint labor-management hourly worker training program.

In 1987, Mr. Marazza was named the vice president/dean of career education at HFCC. Following the trend and recognizing his dedication and skill, in 1990, the HFCC Board named him president. Charged with running the fifth largest community college in Michigan, Mr. Mazzara immersed himself in the community creating bonds with businesses, organized labor, and government. During his tenure as president, eleven buildings were renovated and another six were built, all a part of a $67 million campus improvement plan he has spearheaded. Under his leadership the school balanced its finances, improved its programs, and gained national respect. The UAW and Ford Motor Company recognized his achievements and awarded him the Distinguished Service Award in 1998. His other awards include the Dearborn Chamber of Commerce President of the Year, Detroit College of Business Citizen of the Year Award, and the Italian American Cultural Society Heritage Award.

Andrew A. Mazzara's continued commitment to Henry Ford Community College and Dearborn at large has helped to create a vibrant, outreaching educational community. Long after Mr. Mazzara's departure, the gateway he created to quality higher education will continue to benefit thousands. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the death of a distinguished former Member of this body, a colleague of ours and a friend of many of us here, the Honorable John Lesinski, Jr., who passed away on Friday, October 21, 2005. He served in this Congress with great distinction, and he served his Nation in time of war in the Navy with great distinction. He received the Purple Heart and the Navy and the Marine Corps medal, in addition to serving from 1950 to 1964.

We will pray for the repose of his soul and ask that the good Lord give comfort and strength and peace to his family.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the death of the Honorable John Leskinski, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the House and Senate have finally worked out their differences to extend two programs that provide important health care assistance for low-income elderly and working families.

The Qualified Individual, QI, program provides assistance with the cost of Medicare premiums for certain low-income individuals. The Transitional Medicaid Program, TMA, provides temporary Medicaid coverage to families moving off of welfare to the workforce.

This legislation considered today merely provides a short-term extension. I continue to believe, however, that these programs should be made permanent. First, they are good programs that provide much needed assistance. Second, we should avoid the situation we find ourselves in now, particularly with respect to the QI program, where States and CMS were unsure whether or how to continue the program as funding expired on September 30.

We must also consider making program improvements to both programs that would simplify enrollment and retention of eligible individuals. I recently reintroduced legislation, H.R. 3980, the Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act, to address this matter in the QI program. And I have also included such provisions for the TMA program in H.R. 2071, the Family Care Act of 2005, which I reintroduced earlier this year.

Finally, I have concerns about the provision we are using to pay for these extensions. This provision strikes Medicare and Medicaid coverage of particular drugs that had been previously covered. The provision, in the out years, raises more revenue than is needed for these short-term program extensions. We should have saved the remainder to use for another day. But despite these reservations, there is great urgency in extending the QI and TMA programs, so I am supporting the package.