Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2005.''

Let us be very clear about why we are here today. We are here to decide whether our Nation will move forward in the search for treatments and therapies that will cure a multitude of dreaded diseases that afflict an estimated 128 million Americans.

Today, millions of Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries or spinal dysfunction, and diabetes. And today, along with the tremendous number of Americans living with cancer, approximately 1.5 million new cases were diagnosed in the United States last year. Today, we can vote for H.R. 810, and in doing so, choose to save lives and help to end the suffering of so many Americans.

Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue, and cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a unique ability to develop into any type of cell. Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for treating a variety of diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autism, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and osteoporosis, as well as spinal cord injuries.

H.R. 810 would impose strict ethical guidelines for embryonic stem cell research and would lift the arbitrary restriction limiting funds to only some embryonic stem cell lines created before August 10, 2001. By removing this arbitrary restriction, H.R. 810 will ensure that researchers can not only continue their work to prolong or save lives, but also conduct such research using newer, less contaminated, more diverse, and more numerous embryonic stem cells.

H.R. 810 does not allow Federal funding for the creation or destruction of embryos. This bill only allows for research on embryonic stem cell lines retrieved from embryos created for reproductive purposes that would otherwise be discarded. This point is critical: If these embryos are not used for stem cell research, they will be destroyed.

Former first lady Nancy Reagan once said, ``Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this. We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more.''

Let us not turn our backs on this important research and the 128 million Americans who could benefit from it. Let us not lose any more time. Let us pass H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.''

Mr. Speaker, identity theft is fast reaching epidemic proportions. Today we

will address one aspect of the problem--spyware.

Spyware programs sneak into your computer, and allow a third party to harvest your personal information. It is the equivalent of putting a wiretap on your phone and listening to your conversations. Adware tracks your Web surfing or online shopping so that marketers can send you unwanted ads. Spyware can hijack your computer to pornographic or gambling sites, or steal your passwords and credit care information.

The rapid proliferation of spyware and adware threatens legitimate Internet commerce. The most common consumer complaints are: hijacked home pages, redirected Web searches, a flood of pop-up ads, and sluggish and crashed computers.

This bill is carefully balanced. It prohibits a number of unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to spyware, and provides for strong Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement and enhanced civil fines. It also recognizes that there are legitimate, applications of spyware and, thus, exempts law enforcement, national security, network security and maintenance, and fraud detection from the SPY Act. It contains narrowly prescribed exceptions for benign internal navigation tracking on Web sites, and the ordinary construction of Web pages that do not collect personal information. It preserves legitimate online commerce.

Most importantly, this legislation requires companies that distribute spyware and adware to obtain permission from consumers through an easily understood licensing agreement before installing spyware or adware on their computers. The programs, once downloaded, would have to provide a means to identify the spyware or adware and easily uninstall or disable it.

Without aggressive enforcement, the goals of this bill will not be met. We are asking the FTC to do a great deal in a very complex area and I trust that the appropriators will provide them with sufficient resources to fulfill these tasks. If not, this bill will be an empty promise, unless the state attorneys general step in forcefully.

This legislation is supported by a coalition that includes: the Business Software Alliance, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Dell, eBay Inc., Fidelity, Humana, Inc., Microsoft, 180 Solutions, Recording Industry Association of America, Time Warner/AOL, United States Telecom Association, Webroot Software, Inc., WhenU, and Yahoo!--all of whom have submitted letters of support. The coalition also includes DoubleClick, Inc., and ValueClick, Inc.--two of the leading companies in the rapidly growing online advertising industry.

The bill has improved at every stage of its consideration, and I want to commend the leadership and hard work of Chairman Barton, Representatives Stearns and Schakowsky, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Representatives Bono and Towns, the lead Republican and Democratic sponsors of the bill. I also commend the bipartisan staff team who worked very hard to get this bill to the House floor.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of H.R. 29. It is a good bill. It is good for consumers. And it is good for honest commerce on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, today my House colleagues and I are reintroducing the Patients' Bill of Rights. This bill will protect patients from the unscrupulous activities of HMOs and hold them accountable if their negligent actions harm their patients.

Although we have worked on this bill now for seven years, we have been thwarted at every turn by the Republican leadership, the Administration, and the insurance industry. We need to get this bill back on track.

President Bush promised his support for such a bill during his 2000 Presidential campaign. But in the end, it was his efforts that killed our bipartisan bill in 2001.

In spite of this setback, we remain undeterred. Working families have waited long enough for the rights they deserve that would be protected under this bill.

We were optimistic the Supreme Court would clarify the law on the side of patients, allowing state HMO accountability laws to stay in force. But the Supreme Court ruled against patients, leaving a situation where at best HMOs may or may not be held accountable in state court and at worst HMO attorneys will use this ruling to avoid accountability altogether. This court decision only further underscores the need for action.

Unfortunately, it appears now that some in Congress not only want to protect the HMO status quo, but go further, under the guise of ``medical liability reform,'' to make it more difficult for patients to get justice. Such reform would not only apply to cases of medical malpractice by physicians, but also severely limit accountability of HMOs and drug manufacturers.

We need a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect Americans from crafty HMO attorneys who avoid accountability by keeping victims and their families tied up in court for years. Without this needed legislation, only foreign diplomats, the mentally insane, and HMOs will be exempt from the consequences of their decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent speech that my good friend and colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, gave at Georgetown University on April 19, 2005. Representative DeLauro plainly and passionately conveyed her opposition to privatizing Social Security. Moreover, Representative DeLauro clearly lays out how the values instilled in her by both her parents and the Catholic Church led to her opposition to privatizing this vitally important program that has kept millions of seniors out of poverty since it was signed into law in 1935. I applaud the Congresswoman's ability to connect her faith with her public service.

I would like to take this opportunity to insert Congresswoman DeLauro's speech into the Record and would encourage all my colleagues to take a few moments to read it.

It is always good to be here at Georgetown among friends--

so many good, young Democrats engaged in the process,

fighting for change, who understand the stakes of today's

political debates and want to take part in them. As the

future of the country, no one has more riding on them than

you. You know better than anyone that their outcomes will

determine the course of this country for decades to come.

And as College Democrats, you are committed to the values

of our Party. Not only are you working to elect Democratic

candidates, perhaps more importantly, you are encouraging

involvement and building excitement within the Party,

providing your peers with the skills and experiences

necessary to reinvigorate the Party from the grassroots. That

is something very precious--and so important right now.

Tonight, I wanted to discuss the values that not only unite

us Democrats but as Americans--particularly as to how they

have shaped and informed the Social Security program over the

years. Indeed, we hear so much about the importance of values

today--but oddly enough, little about what they are, where

they come from and what their implications are in government

and society. And so tonight, I would like to speak about that

nexus between values and public policy, a little about how my

values shaped my own views and led me into public life, and

how in the Social Security system we find a true reflection

of those values in the pursuit of the common good.

We can all agree that values encompass so much more than

the cultural flashpoints with which they are often associated

in the media today. Values should not be reduced to one or

two political issues. Rather, they are so much broader than

that--the guiding principles on which we conduct our lives.

Given to us by our parents and to them by their parents,

one's values are what give life meaning. They ground us and

provide the ethical framework within which we conduct our

lives and raise our families.

Mine were given to me by my parents, who came to this

country as Italian immigrants. In our household, I was

constantly reminded of the value of working hard to get ahead

and giving back to a country that had given so much to us. My

father, who dropped out of school in the seventh grade,

largely because students made fun of his broken English,

went on to become a proud veteran of this country--he

served his community. He sat on New Haven's City Council,

as did my mother, who served there for 35 years--well into

her 80's.

Working in a sweatshop sewing collars for pennies before

going on to a life of public service, my mother was a driving

force in my life and career. But to be sure, faith played a

large role in shaping my values as well, having attended

Catholic school from elementary school to college. It was

there that I learned to nourish my mind and my heart--to

reach out, to work hard, to fulfill my potential and be

whatever I wanted to be. But it also taught me about right

and wrong, personal responsibility and how to nourish my

community, my neighbors--to give something back to my world,

to the people of that world.

In a broader sense, it was the church that bound us

together as a community in my neighborhood--in our schools,

in our hospitals. My father received communion daily--and

lived his faith with commitment. Our local parish and our

kitchen table were our community center--where people

gathered to share their lives and help one another. Every

night around my family's kitchen table, I saw how faith could

serve as the nexus between family and community. There, I

would witness firsthand how my parents helped solve the

problems of people in our neighborhood.

With my parents' example and my Catholic upbringing, I

learned the vital connection between family, faith,

responsibility, community, and working for the common good--

that values learned at home and at church effected change at

the community level both profound and undeniable. It showed

me that government can and must play a critical role in

helping people make the most of their own abilities and how

to meet their responsibilities to each other and society as a

whole.

My own story is hardly unique. Many of these values have

helped shape America's public policy over the course of our

nation's history. Indeed, many of the economic and social

achievements of the past century have their roots in this

vision of opportunity and responsibility, community, a

recognition of our obligations to each other--including

Medicaid, Head Start, the child tax credit, and the GI Bill,

to name but a few.

Perhaps the ultimate legislative expression of our nation's

shared values and those I learned growing up is Social

Security, which for 7 decades now has tied generation to

generation, ensuring that those seniors have a secure

retirement after a lifetime of work. Social Security was born

in part out of

FDR's appreciation for Catholic Social Teaching and Monsignor

John Ryan's role in advocating programs based on the social

letters of Pope Pius the Eleventh and particularly Pope Leo

the Thirteenth's Rerum Novarum, which read, ``Among the

several purposes of a society, one should try to arrange for

. . . a fund out of which the members may be effectually

helped in their needs, not only in the cases of accident, but

also in sickness, old age, and distress.'' In that respect,

Social Security was the embodiment of those teachings--a

declaration that our human rights are realized in community.

Such sentiments were reflected in FDR's words to the

Congress in 1934, when he said, ``We are compelled to employ

the active interest of the Nation as a whole through

government in order to encourage a greater security for each

individual who composes it.''

For FDR, Social Security was one way we could promote and

maintain our shared values by rewarding work and ensuring a

decent retirement for those who have worked a lifetime. And

by depending on and encouraging younger generations to take

responsibility, too, Social Security reinforced the idea that

in America, we do not leave every man or woman to fend for

himself or herself--that we do not tolerate the

impoverishment of our senior population. Those are our

nation's values and they are perpetuated by the very

construct of our Social Security program.

Indeed, with the first Social Security check issued,

poverty among the elderly began to drop. In the 1950s, more

than 30 percent of elderly Americans lived out their last

years in poverty--today that figure is about 10 percent, with

2 out of 3 seniors today relying on Social Security as the

prime source of their monthly income, including three-

quarters of all elderly women.

And Social Security is not just for people like our parents

and grandparents--a third of the 47 million people who rely

on the program are the disabled, widows and children. All

told, that is 47 million people--parents, grandparents,

widows and children--who do not have to rely solely on their

families for financial support because they have the help of

Social Security.

For women who on average earn less and spend less time in

the workforce, Social Security is a blessing. Women comprise

nearly 60 percent of all seniors on Social Security--a

majority of whom would be living in poverty without it. More

than half of all women receiving benefits do so as the spouse

of a retired worker, but for 4 in 10 women living on their

own, the program accounts for 90 percent of their retirement

income.

So essentially, Social Security functions not only as a

safety net for older Americans, but in a way, for the rest of

us--a kind of family insurance guaranteeing that we can live

our own lives and raise our own children, confident that our

parents and loved ones have something to rely on and can live

independently of us. It is without a doubt the most

successful, efficient middle-class retirement program we

have--a ``national achievement'' that we can be proud of as

individuals and as members of a good and decent society.

Yet today, the commitment to opportunity and community out

of which Social Security was created has frayed. For sure, a

coarseness to our culture today in our politics and in the

media has deepened divisions in society. But I think it goes

deeper than that. Today, pleas for community and the common

good have taken a backseat to appeals to self-interest,

sometimes greed, and extreme individualism--policies that

make us more unequal and divided. And where government was

once seen as a vehicle for our shared values, today it is

often viewed with suspicion and mistrust.

Indeed, no debate is more symbolic of the forces at play in

today's society than the one surrounding the future of Social

Security. Despite the program's unqualified success, the

president wants to change it. The reason he gives is that in

2018, benefits being paid out begin to exceed what Social

Security is taking in in payroll taxes, even though Social

Security will be able to pay 100 percent of benefits until

2041. Even after 2041, the Social Security Trust Fund does

not go bankrupt, because the program will still be able to

pay between 70 and 80 percent of its benefits.

Congress must address the funding shortfall in the middle

of the century. Yet what President Bush is proposing is that

we radically change this successful program--privatizing

Social Security by diverting a third of payroll taxes that

pay benefits today into private, individual accounts that can

be invested in the stock market.

I think the Catholic Bishops had it right, when they wrote

extensively on this issue at the end of the 1990's as

Republicans were advocating for Social Security's

privatization. The Bishops said then that Social Security had

been established as an insurance program in which, quote,

``society as a whole buffers the individual and collective

risks that workers and their families face.'' They went on to

say that turning Social Security into an investment vehicle

for individuals, quote, ``does not guarantee an adequate or

assured retirement program'' for our senior population.

But that is precisely what President Bush wants to do. He

wants turn Social Security into an investment program--a tool

to create personal wealth. And I fail to see how a program

benefiting our national community, rooted in values that

promote the common good and reinforce the idea that we are

all in this together, is improved by private accounts. These

values go to the heart of what I believe as a Democrat and as

a Catholic.

Besides, privatization does nothing to address the expected

shortfall in the current Social Security system--the reason

President Bush brought up privatization in the first place.

In fact, by taking money out of the trust fund to create

private accounts, the president's proposal makes the problem

worse. Secondly, privatization will balloon our half-trillion

dollar deficit by as much as $5 trillion in the next 20 years

because we will still have to pay benefits to current

retirees at the same time we are taking money out of the

system to create private accounts. That means higher interest

rates for buying a house, a car or going back to school.

Third, we would be eliminating the program's guaranteed

benefit and requiring benefit cuts that the Administration

itself has estimated will be as steep as 40 percent--all for

a plan that does not even address the underlying problem. The

amount retirees get from Social Security is already modest--

about $955 per month, $11,500 per year, enough to pay for

most basic needs, but hardly enough to get by on alone.

And for women, for whom Social Security has been such a

success, the effects of privatization would be disastrous, as

confirmed by a recent report by the National Women's Law

Center. For 29 percent of women, Social Security is the only

retirement package available. Privatization would replace the

program's progressive benefit structure with private accounts

based only on a worker's contributions to the account--

cutting the average widow's benefit in my state of

Connecticut to a paltry $518 per month.

And privatization is not only a bad deal for our mothers

and grandmothers--but for young women as well. For all our

gains, women still earn less--77 cents for every dollar men

earn--even though we live longer. And the Social Security

Administration itself predicts that 65 years from now, 40

percent of married women will still receive benefits based on

their husband's higher earnings record.

You might be asking--but what about the increased benefits

from the stock market? Well, you do not get to keep the full

Social Security and the full private account. The

average private account would be taxed at 70 percent

through monthly deductions from your Social Security

check. This privatization tax would come on top of the

benefit cuts that will affect all Social Security

beneficiaries.

It is complicated, but when you retire, you essentially

have to pay the money you put into your private account back

to the government. So, at the same time that the private

accounts would be adding to your income, a large portion of

that additional income would be offset dollar for dollar

through reductions in your guaranteed Social Security check.

And that would be regardless of how well your private account

performed.

But well beyond the financial implications of

privatization--and there are many--are its moral

implications. As The National Catholic Reporter editorialized

recently, what we risk losing with privatization is so much

more than money. We risk losing the agreement that we have

maintained for the past half-century that we are all in this

together. We risk losing faith with the understanding that

all workers--poorest to richest--contribute to something in

common and that everyone gets something in return. And we

abandon the sense that despite differences in political

outlook and social standing, we all believe that is good for

society to guarantee a minimum standard of economy security

for its oldest, disabled and widowed citizens. That is what

privatization risks.

As someone who has had the privilege of serving in the

Congress of the United States for over a decade-and-a-half,

representing more than a half-million people, I believe that

government has an obligation to play a role in making

opportunity real--a moral obligation. I do not believe in

every man or woman for himself or herself. I believe in

values like shared responsibility and personal

responsibility. I believe in what we can achieve together.

Those are the principles at the core of Social Security. They

are what drive me--they are what drive you. They are what

drive each of us as Democrats and Americans.

The fight to preserve Social Security and make it as

successful in the 21st Century as it was in the last is a

struggle that every American has a stake in--but no one more

than the younger generation. This is a defining challenge for

us--a statement about the kind of country we want America to

be. As Franklin Roosevelt told Congress, Social Security is a

``return to values lost in the course of our economic

development and expansion.''

That is our challenge today, as well--to bring change,

while affirming our values as Americans and as Democrats.

Indeed, in 1983, bankruptcy was only a year off--one year,

not 37. Back then, Congress and President Reagan worked

together on a bipartisan commission that ensured Social

Security would be solvent for generations. And they did it

not by changing the fundamental nature of the program but by

making minor adjustments to the benefits and financing

structures.

In my view, that is the example of bipartisanship we should

draw upon. With so much at stake for our communities and the

country, I believe we need that kind of bipartisanship in

this debate--one that achieves consensus, strengthens the

program's guaranteed benefit in retirement and reflects our

nation's shared values. Because this fight is

not only about stopping the bad idea that is privatization--

it is about promoting and maintaining the good idea that was

and is Social Security.

As students looking forward to lives of your own, raising

families and embarking on careers, you have been given a

remarkable opportunity--to put the values your parents

instilled in you to use in society, in whatever career you

choose.

My challenge to you today is: how are you going to seize

this opportunity--to give back and have a say in this debate

which is so important to our shared values? What role will

you play in ensuring future generations have the quality of

life you and your families have had? I do not pretend to have

all the answers. But if my own experiences have taught me

anything, it is that bringing our values to the public sphere

is not a matter of expediency but of moral and civic

obligation--a call I hope each of you choose to answer.

Thank you for this honor and this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be about how we provide for our brave men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is much in this bill to be proud of. Our military, despite the job of the civilian brass and this Congress, have been performing heroically. They have accomplished much more than we could have ever hoped for, and if any fault needs to be assigned it is to the policy makers, and not to those in uniform.

However, I am ashamed that this body has taken something as important as securing our troops, and attached a hastily considered immigration provision that will result in massive unfunded mandates being passed on to our states. I am ashamed that the conference committee removed language that would have created a Truman-style Commission to examine war profiteering, largely to ensure that this administration would not be embarrassed. Finally, I am ashamed that this Congress has turned its back on a promise made by our President to the Palestinian Authority to help improve the situation of the Palestinian people and further the cause of peace for all in the Middle East.

I am concerned that the immigration provisions will force our great nation to turn our back on the thousands of political and human rights asylum seekers who look toward America as their last and best hope. The Real ID Act will force the most vulnerable to have their torturers corroborate their tales of persecution.

I understand that we must protect our borders, and I understand that changes must be made to keep out those that seek to do us harm. But we should not hastily foreclose the dream and promise of America because of fear. We should not send back asylum seekers back to their torturers. Under these standards, Iraqis seeking to escape the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein would have been sent back to the Ba'athist prisons if they fled Iraq without the proper documentation.

I am also dismayed that rather than seeking to be responsible stewards of the public's trust, the Republican majority in charge of Congress once again decided to ignore its oversight responsibilities. It seems that rather than doing our oversight job as a separate and equal branch of government, the GOP leadership would rather save the Bush Administration and corporate CEOs some embarrassment.

I am old enough to remember the Truman Commission. I remember that Sen. Truman went against a Democratic administration, and saved our military and our tax payers billions of dollars in waste and fraud. I cannot understand why we do not do the same.

My friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of the fact that Mr. Waxman and I have probably done more on this front from the minority, than has anyone with a gavel. Reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan is too important not to get it right, but confronted yet again with evidence of massive fraud and egregious war profiteering, my Republican colleagues are again choosing to bury their heads in the sand, plug their ears, and turn out the lights on our duty.

Finally, this bill, by intention or not, has the potential of undoing all the progress that the Middle East Peace process has made since the death of Yasser Arafat. Mr. Speaker, the new president of the Palestinian Authority is in an almost untenable position. In order for Palestinian democracy to succeed over radical terrorism, President Abbas must be provided with the resources to open hospitals, create jobs, arm a police force, build jails, and take the fight to the terrorists.

President Bush recognized this. He made a statement asking for $200 million to support a nascent Middle Eastern democracy. Instead of allowing President Abbas to use American aid to build his security forces to take on terror, we instead set him up for failure. My friends, if you want to see Hamas win the upcoming municipal elections; if you want to see the peace process come to an abject halt; if you want to see more dead young Israelis and young Palestinians you should support this language.

It surprises me that the only thing that this Congress is capable of bucking and embarrassing this Administration on is the prospect of peace. I hope, for the sake of peace, we can correct this colossal error in judgment and that the President and the State Department speak out against Congress' ill-advised policy making on this most tragic conflict.

Mr. Speaker, in our great land of opportunity and wealth, there are many Americans who have no access to one of the most basic needs: health care. In our Nation today, nearly 45 million Americans are uninsured. Today I offer a way to begin addressing this problem by introducing the FamilyCare Act of 2005. In conjunction with the Medicare Early Access Act and the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act that my colleagues are also introducing today, the enactment of these bills could cut the number of uninsured in half.

The FamilyCare Act of 2005 is a family-centered bill that aims to provide coverage for the 7.5 million working families with incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. This act builds upon two programs, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, that have successfully covered many low-income persons, individuals with disabilities, and children. It would ensure families who move from welfare to work do not lose coverage and makes it easier for low-income working families to obtain health insurance.

Improving our Nation's healthcare system continues to be a complex challenge that must be a matter of national priority. By taking these first steps, it is our hope that in the future all Americans will be able to meet their healthcare needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against this budget resolution. This budget provides $105.7 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, above the $1.9 trillion already bestowed upon them since 2001. This additional fiscal irresponsibility in the face of huge deficits is ample reason to oppose the resolution.

But this resolution goes further--it takes from the poor to give to the rich by shredding our healthcare safety net. This resolution will result in $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and possibly more because the instruction to the Committee on Energy and Commerce is for $14.7 billion, and the Committee might cut even more.

I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to consider every dollar we spend in these times of high deficits. This is exactly why our scarce resources should go to the most vulnerable among us. Medicaid provides healthcare to more than 52 million of the sickest and poorest Americans, including 25 million children, 14 million low-income adults (the majority of whom work), five million low-income seniors, and eight million individuals with disabilities.

A bipartisan majority of both the House and Senate have called for no cuts to Medicaid. The National Governors Association opposes the cuts. And nearly 1,000 state organizations

and more than 800 national organizations have voiced opposition to these cuts.

Medicaid is not the problem. It has done a better job at holding down costs than private insurance by almost half. And Medicaid is absorbing the costs of care not covered by Medicare.

These reconciliation instructions will increase the number of uninsured, create job losses in the healthcare sector, and result in payment reductions to doctors and other healthcare providers who care for Medicaid patients. Such cuts will also undermine community health centers that depend so much on Medicaid to survive.

We must get our priorities straight. This budget resolution fails to do that. Two days ago, 348 Members said ``no'' to Medicaid cuts in a non-binding motion to instruct. I urge my colleagues to stick to their guns, and vote ``no'' on this budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a tangled web of legal intricacies, which I found to be a muddled attempt to impose specific laws of individual States. After a careful reading of the bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the legislation.

H.R. 748 is a two-part bill. The first part makes it a crime for anybody other than a parent to accompany a minor across State lines for an abortion if the minor's State of residence has parental notification laws. We have seen this language, known as the Child Custody Protection Act, in past Congresses and I have hesitantly voted in favor of it. I say hesitantly because I have always been concerned that: the bill violates the constitutional principles of federalism; there are no exceptions for another responsible adult family member to accompany the minor; and the language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus driver to be prosecuted.

You are probably wondering, Mr. Chairman, why I voted for the bill even with these concerns. Well, as a parent, I feel strongly that parents should be involved in major decisions concerning the health and well-being of their children. The most knowledgeable resource regarding the minor's medical history is often their parent. Moreover, as is the case with any medical procedure, it is important that someone in the household be aware of the situation should there be side effects. Thus, I voted to move the process forward with the hope that my concerns would be addressed before the final legislation was sent to the President for signature. This did not happen because the Senate has never acted on the legislation.

The second part of the bill is new and would hold a doctor criminally liable for performing an abortion on a minor from another State. This, Mr. Speaker, is where the web gets really tangled. You see, in some cases, the minor would have to comply with the laws of two States, and in all cases, the doctor would have to get consent from the parent in person and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted.

Probably the most striking scenario would be a minor who traveled between States with no parental consent law. In this case, the doctor would have to obtain consent in person from the parent, the mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted, and in this specific case there would be no judicial bypass option.

This creates quite a burden on doctors, who would be required to have a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, their specific requirements and their judicial procedures.

Some States have strict parental consent laws, some have parental consent laws with reasonable bypass mechanisms, and some States have no consent laws at all. If this bill passes, we are saying to some States, ``your law is good.'' To others we are saying, ``your law is OK, but it is not quite good enough.'' And to still other States we are saying, ``your law, or lack thereof, is wholly inadequate.'' This is no way to legislate in our federalist system.

While reading over the bill, Mr. Chairman, I tried to think of what precedent there is for this kind of law. It took awhile, but the only law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws like this, Mr. Chairman, is not something this Congress should even consider.

Mr. Chairman, I often wonder why we do not focus more of our effort on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and strive for. As such, I would ask that all of my colleagues to come to the table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Scott and Jackson-Lee amendments and no on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct, and I observe that this motion instructs the conferees to recede to the Senate position. Instead of Medicaid cuts, a nonpartisan, independently appointed commission would be instructed to come up with improvements in the program. That is exactly what the gentleman from Iowa suggests.

Now, let us look. There is money here to make a better use of public funds. The MEDPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, observed that we overpay the HMOs by $20 billion. That happens to be just about exactly the amount of the cut that we are talking about here.

Every Governor in the United States is in favor of this motion. Medicaid is critically important to more than 50 million Americans. It provides health care for 1 in 4 children. It is a lifeline for the elderly and for individuals with disabilities. It pays for long-term care, and it helps those who have had the misfortune of becoming ill and needing help in their basic activities of daily living.

The proposed cuts in the program would cause undue harm to millions of our most vulnerable Americans. If a $10 billion cut were enacted, my home State alone stands to lose more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the next 5 years. I would tell the gentleman from Iowa, he better look to see what happens to his State. A bipartisan majority of both the House and Senate oppose cuts in this program. Nearly 1,000 State organizations and more than 800 national organizations have voiced strong opposition to this.

The problem is not Medicaid. It has done a better job in holding down costs than has private insurance. Medicaid is absorbing the costs of care not covered under Medicare. An independent look at Medicaid may show that there is a better solution, but the better solution does not involve blindly cutting monies now so desperately important to people of this kind and so urgent for the States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lisa Zagaroli, a correspondent with the Detroit News Washington bureau, for winning the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for excellence in journalism. Ms. Zagaroli is being recognized for her work on ``Military Menace: Deadly Vehicles,'' a series of stories on the hazards of military vehicles.

Ms. Zagaroli's work exposing insufficient training and safety for Army drivers is another fine example of her investigative journalism talents. Her stories in this series uncovered shortcomings in the Army that might have otherwise gone unnoticed in the public, and her efforts deserve recognition.

Ms. Zagaroli has been recognized for her excellent work before; this is Lisa's second award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Last year, she was recognized for a series of stories, ``Unsafe Saviors,'' co-written with April Taylor, revealing poor ambulance design and regulation.

Ms. Zagaroli, originally from Michigan and known to be a dedicated Spartan fan, has been with the Detroit News for ten years and has covered the Michigan Congressional Delegation extensively. The daughter of first generation Italian immigrants, Lisa frequently travels to Rome and is currently on assignment covering the election of the new pope. She is a talented journalist and deserves this honor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending Lisa Zagaroli for her superb series ``Military Menace: Deadly Vehicles'' and recognizing her for the award she is to receive.

Mr. Chairman, my good Republican colleagues and friends are seeing something that they made possible today. Years ago, in 1995, they passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. They should recognize this. They said how this was going to stop the imposition of unfunded mandates upon communities and States.

That is exactly what the amendment does. If they had been fair and given this a decent rule, then we would have been able to debate these in a proper fashion and they would not be complaining about surprise.

But having said this, there are some 80 lawsuits that are going to be able to go forward. The judge had this to say

about these kinds of lawsuits, and, by the way, they are in New York and New Hampshire: ``Innocent water providers and, ultimately, innocent water users should not be denied relief from the contamination of their water supply if the defendants breached a duty to avoid an unreasonable risk from their products.''

This bill is an immunity bath for MBTE manufacturers and for the refineries. That is wrong.

It should be possible for there to be responsibility where the polluters pay, and that is exactly what this amendment allows. It leaves ethyl alcohol and other renewables okay, but it removes MBTE from the liability waiver.

April 5, 2005.

Oppose the MTBE Liability Waiver

Dear Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

the undersigned organizations--representing thousands of

mayors, city council members, county officials, towns and

townships, drinking water systems and public works

departments--reiterate our strong opposition to providing

product liability immunity to the producers of MTBE.

The liability waiver amounts to a massive unfunded mandate

on local governments and citizens.

MTBE producers, according to documents in recent

litigation, put this contaminant into commerce knowing it

could contaminate drinking water supplies. Under the MTBE

product liability waiver, these producers would be rendered

unaccountable.

Thousands of water sources have been contaminated, and as

MTBE spreads, more and more communities will be forced to

shut down wells or undertake a costly cleanup program.

Here are some important facts to remember.

1. MTBE was never mandated, and Congress is not obligated

to provide the producers ``safe harbor.'' And, regardless,

the producers put MTBE into gasoline well before the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 and with knowledge of its

environmental dangers.

2. One estimate by experts puts the cleanup cost in excess

of $29 billion.

3. The liability waiver would retroactively block hundreds

of communities' legitimate suits that have been filed already

and could preempt hundreds more, leaving communities with a

multi-billion dollar unfunded mandate from Congress.

4. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund was not

intended to address the overwhelming amount of contamination

communities are experiencing. Moreover, taxpayers should not

pay for MTBE cleanup.

Please oppose the MTBE liability waiver.

Sincerely,

Tom Cochran, Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of

Mayors; Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National

League of Cities; Larry Naake, Executive Director,

National Association of Counties; Allen R. Frischkorn

Jr., Executive Director, National Association of Towns

and Townships; Diane VanDe Hei, Executive Director,

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; Jack

Hoffbuhr, Executive Director, American Water Works

Association; Steve Hall, Executive Director,

Association of California Water Agencies; Peter B.

King, Executive Director, American Public Works

Association; Larry Libeu, President, Western Coalition

of Arid States; Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive VP,

National Water Resources Association.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Murphy resolution. I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Murphy and Doyle, for offering this resolution today, commemorating the development and the field trials of the Salk polio vaccine 50 years ago.

Fifty years ago, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr. announced from the University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium words that people around the globe were waiting to hear: the Salk polio vaccine works. With those simple words, eradication efforts began in earnest to rid the world of this terrible disease.

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1950s, Dr. Jonas Salk, a postdoctoral student of Dr. Francis' at the University of Michigan, developed a promising vaccine against poliomyelitis in his laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. In what has been called the largest cooperative effort undertaken in peacetime, the Salk vaccine was tested in the most comprehensive field trials ever conducted. Overseeing those trials was Dr. Francis, Director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center and founding chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Mr. Speaker, the polio field trials were unprecedented in scope and magnitude. Dr. Francis and his team of more than 100 statisticians and epidemiologists tabulated data received from hundreds of public health officials and doctors who participated in the study. The trials involved. 1,830,000 children in 217 areas of the United States, Canada and Finland. No field trial of this scale has been conducted since.

This historic event is a source of pride for the University of Michigan and the state of Michigan as a whole. Since that day 50 years ago, polio has been nearly eradicated. In August 2002, there were no confirmed cases reported in the United States, and only 483 confirmed cases of acute poliomyelitis reported to authorities worldwide.

I would like to thank Representatives Murphy and Doyle for their work on this resolution and congratulate the University of Michigan and the University of Pittsburgh on the 50th anniversary of the Salk polio vaccine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time. This is a bad bill. It is a bad rule, unfair; and the procedure is unfair and bad.

The rule does not allow an amendment that I submitted with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), which related to the outrageous hydroelectric relicensing provisions in the bill; nor does it allow an amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) to strike the unjustified and unjustifiable gifts to the producers of MTBE.

And last of all, it denies the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) the right to offer an amendment to stop natural gas and oil companies from drilling in the Great Lakes. I tried to fix the hydroelectric section of this bill, which creates new rights and procedures for the licensing of dams that generate electricity from our rivers.

It gives these rights only to one group of people, the electrical utilities. Others who have legitimate concerns, the cities, the sportsmen, the States, the Indian tribes, the conservationists, the irrigators, farmers or ranchers are not afforded that same right, a grotesquely unfair procedure.

The bill also allows utilities alone to propose alternatives to the resource provisions recommended by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture Or Commerce, that must, must be accepted if they meet certain criteria. Again, none of the legitimate other parties to the procedures are given this right.

This is grotesquely unfair. The rivers produce power. They are public resources, not the playthings of private utilities. The amendment we submitted would have corrected a number of the most egregious abuses unless in this section we apply the new rights to all parties in equal fashion. But by not allowing this amendment, that is foreclosed.

The bill also forecloses a vote on the billions of dollars bestowed in this bill to producers of MTBE. Again, a grotesquely and unfair and unwise proposal.

Finally, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) sought to offer a simple, straightforward amendment prohibiting any State or Federal permit to lease for new oil and gas drilling in or under the Great Lakes, one of the great treasures, 20 percent of the water in the world, the free fresh water which is so important to us. Are we being allowed to debate and vote on this amendment which would inconvenience powerful oil and gas producers? The answer to that is no.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to see to it that we teach the Rules Committee that their function is to facilitate debate, not to deny Members the opportunity to discuss matters of importance on this floor. This is the people's House, not the residents of a group of special interests, but it gives every appearance of that. It rather smells that way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have a bad bill. It is represented as being something which is going to save money and increase energy supplies. The Energy Information agency says neither of these cases is true. It is not going to reduce energy prices, but rather will increase the cost of gasoline.

Let us look at what our country needs. It needs Congress to pass a real energy bill, not a flawed bill that will hurt the environment, hurt consumers, and cost taxpayers a bundle of money. Democrats have been trying to work with our Republican colleagues to get balanced, sensible legislation, starting with a clean slate in a bipartisan fashion.

We have been denied that opportunity. The Republican leadership chose, instead, to push an outdated energy bill which had its origins in the secret Cheney Energy Task Force and was negotiated in secret conference meetings which excluded the Democrats.

The administration's own Energy Information Administration analyzed the old bill saying changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible. It even found, as I noted, that gasoline prices under the bill would increase more than if the bill were not enacted.

While the bill will little help our energy independence, it is far from benign. Despite our efforts to overturn the antienvironmental provisions of the bill, it weakens laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program that protect the environment and public health.

The bill also changes hydroelectric power policies by undercutting safeguards for dam relicensing. It gives power producers more and better rights than States, tribes, and other public entities. It jeopardizes not only fish, but the overall health of our river systems and the recreational activities that they sustain; and it confers, unfairly, rights on people, while not taking the same care of the concern of the citizenry generally.

The bill eliminates requirements for public participation and deference to the States in decisions about the siting of electric transmission lines and natural gas facilities.

As far as consumers are concerned, it is hard to imagine a better case for increasing consumer protections than the debacle which took place in the West Coast electricity markets in 2000 and 2001. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has determined widespread fraud existed, and there are tapes to prove it; yet this bill gives only cosmetic reforms in law and, in point of fact, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which protects consumers and investors.

And it does nothing to assure refunds of unjust and unreasonable overcharges. While blackouts cost the consumers $80 billion, this bill holds a sensible reliability provision hostage to its more controversial provision and caps the necessary expenditure to set the job right.

Taxpayers will also be hit hard by this bill. We do not know the total cost, but last time it cost over $30 billion, four times the amount requested by the administration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Madam Chairman, it is regrettable indeed that we function under such a constrained rule, but the amendment which I have been permitted to offer here contains real benefits for electricity consumers and includes many of the reforms that I and other of my colleagues have proposed in committee markups, on the House floor, and in conference during consideration of various energy bills.

First, the amendment would prevent future Enron-like debacles by providing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with broad authority to deter and punish fraudulent behavior that distorts electricity and natural gas markets.

Enron's ingenuity demonstrates how difficult it is for regulators to foresee, punish, prevent, and correct every type of misconduct. A recent FERC report concluded, ``Currently, the Commission has few remedies to address misconduct by market participants.''

Second, my amendment addresses an important real electricity concern, the need to ensure that the FERC has the authority to issue orders requiring refunds for all electricity overcharges. Regrettably, that is not now the case. The skill and arts of Enron and Enron-like rascals will enable them to escape much of the refunds which they should

make after the most active kind of wrong doing, as we saw in the western part of the United States.

Third, the amendment does not repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 without which Enron would certainly have purchased more utilities than it did, sunk its tentacles even more deeply into the electric industry, and skinned more consumers and innocent buyers of electricity.

The amendment requires the SEC to review a company's existing exemptions under the act to make sure they do not assert false claim, as the commission belatedly determined Enron had done.

With due respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), I believe my amendment provides a far better alternative for consumers than the wholly inadequate provisions of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 includes only limited cosmetic changes to current Federal electricity law. It outlaws ``roundtrip trading'' and filing of false information, but offers no protection against schemes liken Enron's Death Star, Get Shorty, or Richochet.

Moreover, H.R. 6 does not authorize FERC to grant full refunds to consumers who were skinned by inflated electricity prices, but rather allows refunds only from the date when the complaint is filed.

Finally, H.R. 6 repeals PUHCA, leaving consumers and investors even more vulnerable to deception by Enron-type players who concoct ``special purpose entities'' to move money around while hiding behind complex, opaque corporate structures. I would note a recent Standard & Poor report states: ``Utility investment in non-core businesses has been responsible for most of the credit deterioration in the utility industry.'' I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

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

Madam Chairman, if my colleagues want a replication of Enron and the abuses, the stealing, the dishonesty that hurt pensioners, retirees, shareholders, others in the industry, hundreds and hundreds of ratepayers and hurt the structure of the States in the western United States, then vote against this amendment.

This amendment stops self-dealing. This amendment requires that there be repayment of money wrongfully taken. It allows FERC and the SEC to provide the necessary steps that will stop Enrons and others like Enron from doing what Enron did, which caused such desperate hurt to millions of Americans in the western United States.

My amendment does go further than anything else being considered. Enron's abuses went further than anyone expected, far beyond, and they shook the entire electric industry. But it also hurt consumers, States, and also retirees and pensioners and shareholders.

This amendment will stop that abuse. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and that he be permitted to yield as he might see appropriate amongst his colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know the amendment is offered with the best of good will. It is nonetheless a bad amendment which is going to cost this country jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

The amendment appears to say that it would only require CAFE to be fixed at 33. In point of fact, it would be required, because of the language in the amendment, to properly go to 36 miles per gallon. If you like driving around in small cars, this will assure that that will be all that you will have.

I will point out who opposes it: AFL-CIO, Farm Bureau, United Auto Workers, National Automobile Dealers, and hundreds of consumers who buy comfortable cars which are big enough so that they can take their family around.

The amendment would purport to have the agency which would fix fuel economy standards to in fact consider both jobs, safety and other questions like that. In point of fact, there is no requirement. So those requirements, in fact, are not requirements but, rather, an illusion.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. It is opposed by people who want jobs, who are concerned about the economic welfare and well being of the country, and the auto workers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am entitled to close the debate?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) to close the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Under the unanimous consent request, I assume, then, that I have offered it; and I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and continuing my comments, I rejoice that the gentleman has accepted it. I commend him for having done so.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bedford High School girls' volleyball team in honor of its 2005 Class A State Championship.

This remarkable group of Kicking Mules culminated a year of fantastic play by toppling top-ranked Grand Rapids Forrest Hills Northern in the first ever five-game final to capture the championship. These young ladies have persevered beyond injury and daunting adversaries to become the best in the State of Michigan. This is Bedford's third title in eight years, and it continues their amazing streak of 16 straight trips to the state's Final Four.

Coach Jodi Manore, a graduate of Bedford High School, has been at the helm of Bedford's girls' volleyball team for 21 years. Her sage leadership has built one of the most rigorous and successful programs in the state. The success of the Bedford volleyball program is a true credit to her vision and ability as a coach.

The intangible synergy necessary to win the State Championship cannot easily be replicated. These young ladies have reached the pinnacle of their sport through outstanding athleticism and teamwork. Team members Kali Kuhl, Petra Whitcraft, Veronica Rood, Emily Fahrer, Tara Breske, Lexi Leonhard, Amy Zuccarell, Kelsey Cousino, Stephanie Champine, Jamie Swick, Michelle Obert, Hanna O'Connor, Jackie Blaida and Courtney Riehle all deserve recognition for their phenomenal achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in commending the Bedford High School girls' volleyball team on its exceptional season and 2005 Class A State Championship.