Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a hastily crafted minimally reviewed bill of doubtful value and most curious circumstance. We have had no hearings on the specific measure before us. The major changes in language in the bill were revealed late last night, I believe at 11 p.m. We have not received a single response to the questions we asked of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

We do not know whether the provisions in the energy bill passed less than 2 months ago to expedite refinery siting are working. We do not know what these new provisions on refinery sitings are going to do. We literally have before us a bill which is composed of scraps assembled from the waste baskets at the House Legislative Counsel, crafted together by my Republican colleagues to do something which they will have great difficulty in explaining today.

There can only be one explanation for this rush to the floor, and that is the desire of the Republican leadership of the House to use the hardship of the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to push various parts of their agenda. The former majority leader, as is custom, has tried to blame Democrats for all ills, saying, and I quote, ``[t]he Democrats made us drop many important issues out of the last energy bill that would have helped this situation that we have found ourselves in now, and it is time to go back and revisit those.''

I would remind the House that it was widely pointed out when that legislation was before us what a remarkable example of bipartisanship and legislative cooperation it was. Of course, the committee chairman has offered to negotiate, and I want to express my affection and respect for him.

But the predetermined schedules of the goal meant that all the Republicans wished to negotiate for was political cover for themselves and perhaps surrender by the Democratic members. Now we have before us a poorly thought out and poorly vetted effort to pass the Republican and energy wish list. This is not the way to respond to energy issues raised by hurricanes.

If we decide to act on an expedited basis, we should be focusing on immediate problems of rising gasoline prices and anticipated increases in natural gas and home heating oil prices which are coming upon us in the fall. Democrats will today offer a sensible substitute that provides tough consequences for price gouging whenever it occurs in the industry, not just by the little corner gas station.

Our substitute will tackle the problem of limited refinery capacity head-on by creating a national Strategic Refinery Reserve patterned after the successful Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We direct the Secretary of Energy to establish and operate refineries that will help protect our national security and protect consumers from supply disruptions. The public interest demands no less.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and that he be allowed to control the time for this side.

Mr. Speaker, I have a plane to catch in about 1 hour. Am I going to be able to make it?

Will my colleagues be able to make it? Will the vote be ended by that time?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Qualified Individual program, or QI. This program helps low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are almost, but not quite, eligible for Medicaid assistance, and are still struggling with living and healthcare costs. It pays the cost of the Medicare Part B premium for seniors with incomes of approximately $11,484 to $12,920 a year. This is a good program that helps thousands of low-income seniors each year.

The initial program was a block grant enacted in 1997 and set to expire in 2002. Congress has re-authorized this program a number of times since then. The uncertainty surrounding funding for this program, however, has had a dampening effect on enrollment. States are hesitant to reach out to eligible individuals, resulting in artificially low enrollment figures. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me in fixing this problem in the future--but for now, I am pleased that we are passing this stopgap measure.

In addition, I support the extension of the transitional Medicaid program, or TMA. This program is critical for families moving from welfare to the workforce and provides health insurance during this time. TMA provides peace of mind for millions of working Americans so that they can maintain health insurance coverage as they begin working again.

I would note that it is my strong preference to make these two programs permanent, rather than having Congress continually reauthorize them, sometimes multiple times in a year. I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their work in the Senate, and Chairman Barton for his work with me, and am pleased that the House is taking up this legislation to extend funding for these programs for the immediate future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my dear friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), not only for his friendship, but for all the good things he has done on the matter of endangered species and other matters on nature and conservation of natural resources.

I want to pay tribute to my friend, the chairman of the committee. He has behaved in all manners in this connection with this, as he always does, as a complete gentleman. I greatly regret that we were not able to conclude our negotiations in a way which enabled us to together support this legislation. But he has made an honest effort and I want him to know of my appreciation and respect.

Having said that, endangered species is a very important piece of legislation that has worked well. It has served the Nation splendidly well. Large numbers of species which would have been extinct are saved by the fact that this has been in place. And the government now has the tools and guidelines for its behavior.

This is not new legislation. It passed in 1973. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) all supported it. It passed by a heavy bipartisan vote in the House. It passed 92 to nothing in the Senate.

I would note that there are few real differences between the substitute which will be offered shortly and the legislation as it is before us. They are, however, noteworthy. I would note that the success of the Act I do not believe would be furthered by the adoption of the manager's amendment, but it would be by the substitute to be offered.

I would note that there is reason to constantly review the legislative pronouncements of the Congress and to see how it is working and what needs to be changed to make it work better and more fairly. I would note that it is working well and fairly. 56 percent of the top prescription drugs in the world contain natural compounds from plants found in the wild, many of which come from endangered plants. We have saved large numbers of animals who might otherwise have been extinct. I would note that there are also economic benefits. In a sense, we do good by doing well.

I would note that wildlife has created recreation for more than $108 billion in revenue and more than a million jobs in both the public and private sector at the local and national level.

There are problems with this. Science is the core of ESA and should remain so. H.R. 3824 regrettably changes it so that scientific data do not work in the same fashion they do and it creates new layers of bureaucracy. It also creates impacts which are supposedly related to national security, which may be important in terms of the recovery plan but not in terms of whether the animal should be listed or the species should be listed.

Economics are treated in the same way. They become a part of the decisionmaking rather than in the creation of the recovery plan. It is unfortunate that the legislation allows threatened species to dwindle until they become endangered, making the problem of recovery still more difficult.

We can and we should address the real needs of small farmers, landowners, ranchers and others; and we can do this, I believe, without allowing unlimited claims upon the Treasury. This would, I think, entail an intelligent review of this matter, something which the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and I tried to do.

I would note that the President has expressed concerns in his statement of the administrative policy on September 29 and he says, ``Requirements related to species recovery agreements, new statutory deadlines, new conservation and programs for private property owners provide little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact.''

So if you want fiscally and financially responsible legislation, legislation which, in fact, protects the species, which is fair to all, which makes progress and which is close to the area of the legislation but which has broad citizen support, conservation support, and does move the process forward, I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute which will be offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). This is the way to go.

We can continue our efforts to try in good faith as has been done by both the

distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to achieve good legislation which will again address the concerns of all while at the same time protecting and conserving species which we have no right to remove from this world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute. It is bipartisan. It is supported by Members of Congress from every part of the country. It is not only a unique and valuable bipartisan piece of legislation, but it is one that will work.

Like the underlying bill, the substitute would repeal the current requirement that the Secretary designate critical habitat for endangered fish, wildlife and plants, before formulating a plan for species recovery. In order, however, to maintain a strong ESA, the substitute gives a strong definition of what is meant to jeopardize continued existence of the species.

Science is the core principle of ESA and we direct the Secretary to issue, and regularly revise, guidance on the acceptable scientific measures. The substitute also creates a Science Advisory Board to peer- review controversial decisions and offer other assistance when necessary.

The substitute is going to provide a helping hand to landowners; dedicated funding for technical assistance to private property owners; a conservation grants program for landowners who help conserve the species on or near

their property; assurances that private citizens can get timely answers from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and reporting requirements so that we know how many applications are really going unanswered, and most importantly, why.

The substitute directs the Federal Government to work with the States on a far broader and more cooperative manner than either current law or the Committee on Resources bill.

The substitute directs the Secretary to first determine whether public lands are sufficient to protect and save the species; if we could protect the species, and save the species in our public lands, in our national forests, our national BLM lands, and in our parks and wildlife refuges, we should do so without placing the burden on private landowners.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a broad bipartisan and fiscally responsible effort to move this process forward in a manner that can not only get an overwhelming vote of support in the House, but which can move on to the President's desk for signature in the same manner as the original Act.

I urge my colleagues to support the substitute, and I say that it will be not only a successful undertaking, but one which will be much more in the interests of the landowners and of the species that we are trying to protect and preserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Mr. Hassan Makled, who after over 30 years of helping ensure our Presidents' safety, is retiring from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Mr. Makled began his service in 1974, as an Airport Police Officer for Detroit Metro Airport. Mr. Makled was promoted to Airport Police Dispatcher in 1980; from this position he developed both policy and procedure for the department. From 1982 to 1986, Mr. Makled served as Operations Supervisor, escorting Presidential limousines on and off the airport grounds and performing the explosive ordinance device checks on the runways for Presidential visits.

From 1986 to 1987 Mr. Makled served as Department Manager II and was promoted to Department Manager V in 1987. He held this position until 1997, during which time he served as the administrative focal point for Presidential visits, assisting in all aspects of their safety and efficiency.

Finally, Mr. Makled served as Deputy Director of Airfield Operations until 2002, when he was promoted to Director. In this position Mr. Makled developed policy and procedures for Airfield Operations. Mr. Makled has had the distinction of helping ensure the safety of six different Presidents; I honor his service as it has been both dignified and meaningful to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Makled on his retirement and wishing him the best in this new chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend Morton ``Morty'' Bahr, on his retirement as President of the Communications Workers of America after over 50 years of service to the union and the nation.

Morty Bahr has been with CWA for longer than I have been in Congress, and together we have fought and won many battles on behalf of working men and women. After his service as a radio operator for the Merchant Marine during World War II, Morty joined CWA in 1951 as an in-plant organizer for Mackay Radio and Telegraph in New York. In 1957, he joined the staff of CWA and succeeded in his first assignment: organizing 24,000 plant workers at New York Telephone. He later served as vice president of District 1 covering New York, New Jersey and New England, and was elected CWA president in 1985.

When Morty assumed the top leadership role, CWA was still reeling from the breakup of the AT&T Bell System, a system that employed half a million union workers. After the split, both labor and management recognized that workers would need to develop new skills to remain competitive within AT&T and throughout the industry. Under Morty's leadership, the union formed the Alliance for Competitive Growth and Development, an innovative partnership dedicated to the career success of each individual union-represented

worker. I am happy to say that the Alliance has been a great success, with 170,000 participants, nearly 1 million course enrollments and over 12.5 million hours of training.

Morty Bahr is a pioneer of the Information Age. His effort to furnish workers with the tools they need to improve their lives not only created the telecommunications technicians who are integral to our economy, but it also made America the leader in all manner of communications. This effort is of particular importance today, as America faces the daunting task of maintaining its role as a global leader in the research and development of new science and technology.

The Alliance is only one of the many revolutionary partnerships and programs Morty has guided and nurtured throughout his career. Others include the National Coalition for Telecommunications Education and Learning (NACTEL), one of the first partnerships of major telecom companies working together with their unions to advance education. NACTEL is an online learning partnership with CWA, IBEW, Verizon, SBC, Qwest and Citizens/Frontier.

Morty and his wife Florence recently celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary and have two children, five grandchildren and two great- grandchildren. As Morty begins his retirement, I hope you will join me in wishing Florence and him a healthy and relaxing journey. His heartfelt dedication to the workers of this nation will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Ottawa Lake Quarry, in Monroe, Michigan. The Ottawa Lake Quarry, which is owned and operated by Stoneco, Inc., is being honored this year with the oldest occupational safety award in the nation, the National Mining Association's Sentinels of Safety trophy. Since its creation by then- Commerce Secretary and future President Herbert Hoover in 1925, this award has served to both recognize excellence in safety in mining and stimulate greater interest in developing safer mines. The Ottawa Lake Quarry is certainly deserving of this honor, as it has established a long record of safe mining.

The Ottawa Lake Quarry is receiving the award for the Small Metal and Nonmetal mills category. This trophy is an award of great distinction; I am proud that Ottawa Lake Quarry has attained this honor. The Ottawa Lake Quarry has earned this recognition for its tremendous commitment to safety and serves as an example for all of our industries.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respects to and celebrate the life of Simon

Wiesenthal, a hero to everyone who believes in truth and justice.

Simon Wiesenthal's dedication to the capture of the vicious Nazi murderers touched millions who wanted justice for their pain, suffering and loss. He was a survivor who spent years in Nazi death camps, until 1945 when he was liberated by American soldiers. Rather than live in fear or permit the perpetrators behind those terrible atrocities live free, he hunted down Nazis that murdered innocent Jewish men, women, and children during the Holocaust so that they could be prosecuted. According to some accounts, his hard work led to over 1100 criminals being brought to justice.

Simon Wiesenthal's fight to ensure justice brought to light many of the grave problems that remained after World War II that many did not want to acknowledge. At a time when some may have wished to sweep the past under the rug, Simon Wiesenthal would not allow it. He changed history, by forcing all of us to confront history. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, today, I ask my colleagues to rise and pay tribute to this great man and his efforts for justice and truth. We will never forget the 6 million Jews who died and we will never forget Simon Wiesenthal.

Mr. Speaker, we confront a hideous problem in this Nation. People are dying. People are dead. And people need help. The hospitals are full and nonfunctioning, and the suffering is tremendous all across the southern part of the United States.

The first task we have is to assure that we take care of the people, and we resolve the problems of seeing to it that their suffering is ended and that the rebuilding begins. But while we are doing that, we can commence looking at one thing, and that is the structure of the Federal Government to address problems of these kinds.

At the time we passed the Homeland Security legislation, it was very plain that inserting FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security was a prodigious mistake. Events in the southern United States associated with Hurricane Katrina have proved that to be so.

I am introducing at an early time legislation which sees to it that FEMA becomes an independent agency, with the head reporting directly to the President of the United States, whose responsibility will be set out in statute and whose qualifications and that of his two principal assistants, also subject to confirmation by the Senate, will have to meet certain tests, and that is the need to show ability and experience in areas of emergency management. Only by doing this can we assure that the kind of misfortune and the kind of open criticism that has occurred in the United States of FEMA and our efforts to help people in the southern United States will not occur on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, FEMA was an outstanding Federal agency directing its attentions to the cure of massive problems that followed catastrophes, things like hurricanes, fires and earthquakes. We need to see to it that that wonderful reputation is restored by proper structuring of the agency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this emergency supplemental for the millions of Americans affected by the devastation stemming from Hurricane Katrina.

It is important that the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Defense, and all other federal agencies involved have all monies necessary to do the recovery and reconstruction effort the right way.

This supplemental is a down payment to ensure that the recovery effort is not halted due to a lack of money. But, it is only a down payment. We must work in the coming months and years to make sure that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and all the other states dramatically affected by Hurricane Katrina are rebuilt and that the survivors are given the means necessary to begin their recovery.

I ask Americans all across this great country to open their hearts and donate to the effort to help their fellow citizens in their time of need. The recovery effort demands that private business, private charities, private citizens, and the government come together to help those in their time of crisis.

I applaud Leader Pelosi and Speaker Hastert for bringing the House back into session today to pass this supplemental. It is one small way we in the Congress can ensure that the money from the federal treasury remain flowing so our first responders can do the work that needs to be done to help the survivors of this terrible disaster.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time for all Americans to come together and help those in need. It is time to get the survivors to safety, provide them with food, water, and shelter, and to ensure that their basic needs for survival are taken care of.

I rise in strong support of this supplemental and ask for all Americans to help their fellow citizens in their time of need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my condolences to the victims and their families after last Saturday's depraved and savage terrorist attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh; Egypt. I

also rise to pledge my and the rest of the House of Representative's steadfast support of the people of Egypt as they stand resolute in the face of terror.

On July 23, 2005, a series of explosions throughout Sharm el-Sheikh; Egypt, resulted in the death of eighty four civilians and injured hundreds of others.

These murderers, whoever they are, have an absolute disregard for human life. They deliberately kill innocent people. These explosions were strategically placed in public areas, to kill the maximum number of people.

Sadly, we should not be surprised by the barbaric attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh. We have seen it before. We experienced our own tragedy from terrorism, losing 3,000 of our own citizens in one awful morning. Across the ocean that same fashion evil touched London, and fifty two people died with hundreds of others injured.

We are engaged in a global struggle against an apocalyptical radicalism that will take not only military power, but also the power of our ideology that values freedom and diversity. The latest attack in Egypt changes nothing. We still stand strong in the face of terror. We remain loyal to finding the terrorist wherever they may be, and capturing them from behind the rocks and shadows where they hide.

Egypt has been a strong and faithful ally throughout the war on terror. Her resolve is only strengthened by this latest attack. Our Egyptian friends will continue to fight terrorist with the same devotion they have already shown. Today we see the character Egyptians share. Many Egyptians returned to their public facilities the very next day, unafraid of the terrorists.

I have no doubt that our two nations will continue to face down terrorists and extremists. Our cause, which speaks to the noblest parts of the human soul, will win, just as it has throughout our shared times past.

May God bless America and Egypt.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to commemorate 40 years of Medicare. This birthday represents 40 years of dignity for the elderly and individuals with disabilities who depend on this program for their health care. No one in this great Nation should have to suffer because of lack of medical care or become impoverished due to the high costs of that care. On July 30, 1965, Medicare and Medicaid were enacted as part of the Social Security Act to take care of our most vulnerable and needy citizens. On that historic day, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a law that gave millions of Americans the ability to seek treatment from doctors and in hospitals without fear of destitution.

Today, Medicare provides health insurance security for nearly 42 million Americans, including more than 35 million senior citizens and 6 million individuals with disabilities under the age of 65. Over the past 40 years, 105 million Americans have enjoyed better health and received higher quality care as a result of Medicare.

Who depends on Medicare today? The men and women who served our Nation in time of war; widows and widowers; those Americans who have worked a lifetime to build this Nation and who now live in retirement; the former police officers and fire fighters, nurses, doctors, teachers, lawyers, and small business owners who were the backbone of our communities; our aging parents and grandparents, and in some instances, their disabled children. Medicare is a program that touches all of us.

Medicare is not just another health insurance program, but one of the leading insurers in our Nation. Private health plans have modeled their benefits after Medicare, from quality requirements to payments and reimbursements, to standards for certification. The Medicare program has not only greatly improved the quality and safety of health care for all Americans, but it has proven to be a remarkably efficient program, with administrative costs less than those in private plans.

Last year Congress added prescription drug coverage to round out the services provided by Medicare. Coverage of prescription medications was clearly a needed addition. I believe, however, that the design of the new program may keep beneficiaries from getting what they need. I have deep concerns over the unnecessary complexities of this law and whether it will truly provide affordable access to prescription drugs. I also appreciate that we must update Medicare to meet the changing landscape of health care, but not at the expense

of those who depend upon it. I plan to continue to work hard to ensure that the Medicare program continues to provide Americans with the health care they both need and deserve.

On a personal note, this 40th anniversary makes me think of my dad, John Dingell, Sr., who fought throughout his 22 years in Congress for health programs that helped those with the greatest needs. He fought long and hard to enact the Social Security program, which he sponsored and which made such a difference to Americans who are retired or disabled. He also helped plant the seeds of compassion in Congress that eventually led to the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. Were he here today, I know he would take up the battle to preserve and improve Medicare--a program that has served so many and improved the health of the Nation--as well as Medicaid, which serves those whose voices are rarely heard in the halls of power.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I begin by commending my colleagues, all of them, for the work they did. I want to pay particular tribute to the staff which worked long and hard and did a superb job, and that is the staff on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of this building: Senate, House, Republicans and Democrats. I want to pay particular tribute to my friends who served as conferees, all of them, whether they signed the conference report or not.

I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his outstanding leadership and for the fair and decent way in which he conducted the business of the conference. And I want to pay tribute to Senators Domenici and Bingaman who did such an outstanding job in making it possible for us to have the kind of negotiations which brought us here.

I would observe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) ran the conference the way it used to be run, in an open, decent, and fair fashion; and I express to him my thanks for the way in which he conducted himself and the honorable and fine way in which he conducted the business of the conference in the House.

My colleagues will remember I voted against the measure in April. It was my view at that time that it hurt consumers, taxpayers, and the environment. Consumer protections in electricity and natural gas markets now, however, will be strengthened, and taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for MTBE cleanups, and the environmental risk has been reduced. Environmental laws have been protected, and it is a much better piece of legislation.

I repeat, the conference was kept as open as it could be because of the leadership of my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee. Again, I repeat thanks for the outstanding work of the conferees and the staff.

What does this bill do? First of all, it is a much more balanced and collective piece of legislation than that before. It may even be better than either the Senate or the House bill in almost all of the particulars. It begins to set forth a comprehensive and balanced approach to the development and the use of energy resources. And rather than important industries being encumbered with costly mandates, carrying unfortunate economic effects, it lets things work in the way that will achieve the purposes of this Congress.

It is major progress in establishing reliability of the electric grid, incremental progress in efficiency standards on developing renewable energy sources, and potentially very significant progress for clean coal technologies and significant progress for energy research and development programs, including research in very deep water, something about which there has been some unjustified criticism raised lately.

Some of my colleagues will be calling this a missed opportunity. My auto-worker constituents will be glad that we missed an opportunity to impose harsh fuel efficiency requirements on home-grown auto manufacturers. They already make many models that are very fuel efficient that American consumers can buy right now.

Others of my colleagues will cite subsidies for traditional energy industries, and sometimes on this matter they are right. I tried, but failed, to reduce many of these. But we need to encourage development of multiple domestic sources of energy, and many of the subsidies in this bill will help us develop those sources; and I would remind my colleagues that Congress has not infrequently, indeed, many times in our history, provided economic incentives for the economic development of this country. We are a richer, better, stronger, and happier country for that reason.

Are we overpaying some particulars? Probably. Would this be the bill I would have drawn had I begun with it? No. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a solid and a good beginning to developing an energy strategy for the 21st century. It is the best that can be constructed at this time. It has been done by honorable leadership of our chairman and members of the conference who worked so hard. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5. The Republican leaders of this House have denied us our right to offer an alternative to the over-broad and ill-conceived legislation that is before us today and have bypassed both committees of jurisdiction. Why are they so afraid?

Are they afraid we will demonstrate that their bill will create excessive litigation as opposed to reducing it? H.R. 5 is ambiguously drafted, leaving its readers to surmise what its provisions could possibly mean. Federal and State courts would take years trying to sort it all out.

Are they afraid we will discuss how their legislation shields HMOs, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers from all sorts of skullduggery? The proponents of this legislation offer no evidence that these privileged industries need additional protections, yet H.R. 5 grants them a special status under the law that is unprecedented.

Are they afraid we will show how this unprecedented immunity bath for their favorite industries will hurt the rights of injured patients? There is a human cost to this legislation that we must not forget.

Are they afraid we will tell how H.R. 5 would hurt women, seniors, and low-income families by limiting non-economic damages to $250,000? Because a large part of economic damages is an individual's income, such a system would place a higher value on the lives of CEO's. My friends, every human life is worth more than $250,000.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are quite determined to move quickly and harshly. Their legislation reaches well beyond malpractice and offers no guarantees of assistance to providers and communities. Physicians and patients are asked to cross their fingers and hope that some of the benefits given to large corporations will trickle down to them. And women, seniors, and low-income families are left to pay the human cost of these corporate benefits. It is wrong.

But the rising cost of malpractice insurance is a real problem-- requiring careful, balanced, and targeted legislation. Regrettably my colleagues will not have the opportunity to vote for the balanced package that my friend from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, and I have crafted. Perhaps their greatest fear is that you would prefer a bill that truly helps physicians, hospitals and nurses, while protecting the rights of patients and doctors over HMOs. I urge you to support the motion to recommit and oppose final passage of H.R. 5.