Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Dingell

Amendment No. 2: In title III, in the item relating to

``Environmental Protection Agency--environmental programs and

management'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by

$1,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. Chairman, I begin by expressing my great affection and respect for the authors of this amendment. They are fine men. On substance, they are right. I agree with them on what it is they had to say.

But they ignore one basic fact; and I want to speak to my colleagues on this side of the aisle particularly, and that is that the perfect good is the enemy of the good.

If we want to get some relief and we want to see to it that we do something to protect diversity of broadcasting, support the committee bill as it now is; and I will tell my colleagues why.

Very shortly, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and I will be making a major effort to bring to the floor of the House a piece of legislation which will address much more than the 35 percent, 45 percent limit. If my colleagues want to effectively address that matter, then I urge them to vote against the Hinchey amendment, not because it is bad, but because it is counterproductive in terms of achieving the purpose that it seeks to produce, and the result will be that we will lose the effect of the Obey amendment in delaying the going into place of the provisions of the order of the FCC with regard to television.

I have a long history, I would tell my colleagues, of having opposed the attempts of the FCC to constantly expand the ownership and the control by

certain broadcasters of the media, the spectrum, and the minds of the public. This is bad. It is dangerous. But I would also tell my colleagues that if we want to do it, then we must do this thing right. The Obey amendment enables us to begin to put a hold on the unwise actions of the FCC and to move us forward towards accomplishing the purpose which we really have of seeing to it that the interests of all of the people in the great national resource, the spectrum, is protected for the benefit of all.

The amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York, will have the practical effect of driving away most of the supporters of this legislation, particularly those who are active in the industry. There are better than 600 local broadcasting stations which support this, including Cox, Hearst Argyle, and Post-Newsweek, because they recognize that this amendment is in the interests of diversity in the use of the spectrum. It is supported by Consumers Union, Common Cause, the Christian Coalition, the American Family Association, Morality in Media, the National Education Association, the National PTA, the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, and Children Now.

I would remind my colleagues who are in such haste to address this to work with those of us who have dealt with these questions over the years; and I would remind them of the wonderful story that is told of the two bulls, the young bull and the old bull. The young bull said, there is a bunch of cows down at the bottom of the pasture; let us run down and get one. The old bull said, son, let us walk down and get them all.

My advice is, follow the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Let us proceed in an orderly fashion. We have better than 170 sponsors on legislation that will really do the job. I urge my colleagues to support us so that we can address this matter in that way. That is the way that the matter should be dealt with. Let us get them all. Let us not lose because we have blown an opportunity because we overreached, we reached beyond our grasp, and we defeated ourselves by the enthusiastic desire to do good in a way which was counterproductive.

I say with regret and with respect and affection for my friend from New York, defeat the amendment. Let us go forward to a better conclusion to the problem by the device of passing real legislation later on. The best that the House can do today is simply to hold up through a 1-year limitation on expenditure in this legislation. My prayer to my colleagues is let us leave ourselves in a situation where we have a chance of winning and getting this through not only conference with the Senate, through the House, but also to address the practical problem of seeing to it that we get the bill signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald of the Michigan Air National Guard. This heroic pilot has proven to possess incredible courage under exceptionally harrowing circumstances.

Major Ewald served with the Air Force for nine years, flying in support of contingency operations in Bosnia, Korea and Iraq. In 1998, he joined the 110th Fighter Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard. Since his transfer to the 110th, he has served as Flight Instructor and Squadron Weapons Officer. He recently returned from a four-month tour of duty in Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom where he flew over 30 combat sorties.

During a mission over Baghdad, Iraq on April 8, 2003, Major Ewald's A-10 warplane was struck by a surface-to-air missile. Major Ewald courageously continued to fly the damaged aircraft for about 12 minutes, during which time he made valiant decisions that enabled him to recover vital Iraqi intelligence information. He completed several battle damage checklists, identified critical aircraft system operations, made tentative plans for aircraft recovery and gathered important information about threats affecting future Close Air Support operations. Afterward he not only managed to perform an injury-free ejection, he also evaded potential capture by gathering his survival equipment and hiding in thick foliage a short distance from his parachute landing. He was rescued by friendly U.S. Army units within 15 minutes of the crash. Less than a week after the incident, Major Ewald admirably resumed his service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, the valor and sacrifice of our men and women in the Armed Forces cannot be praised enough. The heroism, hard work and patriotism of this courageous man should be applauded. I would like you and all of my colleagues join me in commending Major James ``Chocks'' Ewald for his limitless courage and leadership during his service to our country and in wishing both him and his family many more happy years of life. Major Ewald has truly shown the nation what it means to be a hero.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commemorate my dear friend Edsel Bryant Ford II, former president and chief operating officer of the Ford Motor Credit Company. Mr. Ford is also a noted philanthropist in the Detroit Metropolitan area.

Named after his grandfather, Edsel Bryant Ford, the son of Ford Motor company founder Henry Ford, Mr. Ford retired from daily executive life in 1999 in order to be more involved with his family and community. Due to Edsel's stalwart leadership, Ford Motor Credit Company remains the world's largest automotive finance company. Edsel maintains ties to his family's business, sitting on the Ford board of directors and working as a consultant. Edsel participates in many dealer conferences and meetings, and remains, for many dealers, the face of the Ford Motor Company.

The Fords have been giving back to Detroit for more than 100 years, and Edsel Ford II is another example of continuing Ford philanthropy. The reach of the company and the family is felt throughout the Detroit metro area. Mr. Ford's dedication and commitment to the city of Detroit have led to many developments both for the city and the surrounding community. As president of the Detroit-based Henry Ford II Fund, Mr. Ford oversees a foundation that dispenses millions of dollars annually to charitable and educational organizations including Focus: HOPE, the Detroit Zoological Society, the United Negro College Fund, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and Caring Athletes Team for Children's and Henry Ford Hospitals (CATCH). Mr. Ford is also chairman of the Detroit 300 Committee, which raised $30 million, for the city's tricentennial celebration in 2001 and for the development of Campus Martius Park, which will become a gathering place for metro Detroit citizens. Additional community activities include the Skillman Foundation, Henry Ford Health System, and the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Commission. In 2001, Mr. Ford was honored by the Detroit News as one of its Michiganians of the year.

The hard work and goodwill of Mr. Ford should be applauded. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Mr. Edsel Ford II for his inexhaustible support, generosity, and leadership to his community and to give him our best wishes for a well deserved, relaxing and enjoyable future.

Mr. Speaker, today, it is with great pride and patriotism that I rise to welcome home one of our nation's great heroes, Corporal Tony Barr.

Corporal Barr served in the First Marine Division, 3rd Battalion, Fifth Marines, Weapons Company, CART Platoon. Cpl. Barr was originally scheduled to be discharged from the Marine Corps on February 28, 2003, but was given orders for Iraq the week before his discharge. Cpl. Barr could have chosen to avoid going to Iraq because he is the only male Barr currently living, but he instead, chose to stay with his fellow Marines and was deployed to Iraq.

Cpl. Barr's division suffered the first casualty of the war as they traveled from Kuwait to Baghdad. After Baghdad, Cpl. Barr's Division traveled to Tikrit which I am told is the furthest any Marine Division has ever traveled into the interior of an enemy country. Once his Division left Tikrit, they traveled south to Diwaniyeh, a Baath Party stronghold, to set up a compound to train local Iraqis to become police. Most of Cpl. Barr's unit still remains in Diwaniyeh today.

While we celebrate the safe return of Corporal Tony Barr to his home in Allen Park, Michigan, we continue to pray for the safety of all of our sons and daughters who are still proudly serving the United States in the newly liberated Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending the appreciation of the U.S. House of Representatives to Corporal Tony Barr, USMC, for his brave and outstanding service to the United States of America and join me in praying for the safe return of all of our troops who are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all other parts of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Project Bioshield Act of 2003. This legislation reflects bipartisan negotiations that have significantly improved the language submitted to us by the Administration. That is a credit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to other committees and colleagues. I commend the good work of all who participated in this endeavor.

Project Bioshield is unfortunately a necessary measure in view of the increased risk of harm to Americans in this era of heightened threats to our national security. There are no effective therapies for many of the ``select agents'' that have been identified as potential instrumentalities of terrorism. The basic purpose of Project Bioshield is to support research that will lead to the development and availability in the Strategic National Stockpile of ``countermeasures'' to combat public health emergencies that threaten our national security.

The bill has three basic features: enhanced countermeasure research; procurement of countermeasures; and emergency regulatory authority for approval and use of drugs, biologics, and devices that are qualified counter-measures. The Committees' work clarified, modified, and otherwise improved on the Administration's proposal in each of these areas.

Significantly, the bill before us contains an additional section that enhances accountability for actions taken pursuant to Project Bioshield. Congress will receive comprehensive information, not less than annually, on the major activities authorized by this act. In addition, the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences will provide reports on key economic and scientific elements of this program after it has been in effect for several years.

Finally, I commend Chairman Tauzin of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and my other colleagues for deciding to proceed with an authorization for funding, rather than with the mandatory appropriation sought by the Administration. Bioshield should not automatically be given a higher priority over other national security or public health matters.

This is a good bill, and is a worthy continuation of our important, and bipartisan work on bioterrorism preparedness. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

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

I rise in support of the motion to instruct the conferees. The motion is very simple. It says to my colleagues and to the conference, reject the motion to privatize Medicare which is included in the Republican plan. That is what it says. The Republicans have never liked Medicare. I sat in the chair and I watched them with the dirty looks they had on their faces when we passed the legislation the first time. They have not changed since. Mr. Armey and Mr. Gingrich and now the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, have pointed out that that is their purpose, to kill Medicare as we know it now. It is my hope that this motion to instruct will prevent that kind of unfortunate event from taking place.

The Democrats oppose very strongly leaving seniors naked to the magic of the marketplace. The magic my Republican colleagues would apply to the senior citizens is to see to it that their benefits under Medicare would magically disappear and to see the magical disappearance of huge sums of Federal money into the pockets of the insurance companies who would be the principal beneficiaries of this legislation as opposed to the senior citizens.

We already know that these private plans do not work. They cost more, some 13.2 percent according to a GAO study which was made. Four hundred thousand seniors got dumped last year from these plans, and it is interesting to note that only a small percentage of people in the rural areas have these kinds of plans available to them.

Now, what will happen if this takes place? Under this privatized Medicare, seniors and taxpayers are going to pay more out of their own pockets. The life of the Medicare trust fund is not going to be expended; the Republicans have already agreed to that. The privatization provisions of H.R. 1 that begin in 2010 would give the Medicare beneficiaries a fixed voucher which would magically shrink as time passes, and the insurance lobby and the HMOs would get massive influxes of government cash and unlimited subsidies which are nowhere defined in the legislation except to say that they shall be sufficient to ease people into these plans to cause them to do it.

Privatization of Medicare would take away serious and important rights from seniors today. Seniors today get access to their doctor, hospital, home health care agency, or nursing home facility guaranteed. That will not happen under this legislation. Under this privatized Medicare model, insurance plans would determine which doctors seniors could see and what drugs they would take. Insurance companies would determine which benefits and treatments would be covered and how much the seniors would pay. All of this would change year by year at the whim of people who are administering this legislation at this particular time, who not only support the legislation but who do not like Medicare and who want a change.

America's seniors are being visited with bait and switch. The bait is they say they are going to give some kind of prescription pharmaceutical benefits. That is mostly hooey, and there is not much in the way of pharmaceutical benefits here. But they would be called upon, or largely forced, to switch from Medicare as we now know it, and they would find themselves then in the cold-hearted hands of the same miserable HMOs that have been denying them the rights that they need and that they want and that triggered this House in responding a year ago to putting forward a Patients' Bill of Rights to try and afford them some rights to appeal, some rights to be protected and some rights to control their own treatment. That is what is at stake here.

So when my colleagues vote on this matter, remember, my colleagues are voting to protect the rights of senior citizens. They are voting to prevent privatization of Medicare, an outrage that should not be permitted by this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in support of this fine legislation, H. Con. Res. 215, and I join in the congratulations of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce on its 100th anniversary.

I want to first thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for making this event possible, and I also want to commend my good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for his leadership and for the fine work that he has done on this legislation. I also thank all of my Michigan colleagues who joined on as co-sponsors; and, indeed, this is good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the business community has been much enriched by the fine work of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce and by its work as a major economic engine for southeastern Michigan. It has played an enormously important role over Michigan's prosperity in the last 100 years.

Beginning in 1903 with 253 charter members, the Detroit Regional Chamber grew into what it is today, the largest chamber of commerce in the United States with more than 1,000 active members. During that time, the Detroit Regional Chamber has made many important contributions to the communities, not only in my district but throughout the entire part of southeastern Michigan. It began with its important participation in the Campaign for Good Roads in 1910 and 1911. As it has gone forward to do its splendid work in establishing mass transit systems, the SMART bus system, the Detroit Regional Chamber has indeed proven itself a reliable community leader in southeastern Michigan in all kinds of good causes.

With a new century coming on, new challenges face our region. Judging from the past 100 years, the Detroit Regional Chamber will continue to remain an important leader that southeastern Michigan has come to depend upon. I am sure that my colleagues and I stand ready to continue working with the Detroit Regional Chamber and other community leaders to meet the challenges that face our part of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the Detroit Regional Chamber on its 100th anniversary and wish it great success in the 21st century.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for moving this legislation so expeditiously to the House floor.

I rise in support of H. Res. 296, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company, a great institution, manufactured great motorcycles and motor vehicles and one which has contributed mightily to American culture, American industry, which has a splendid relationship with the United Auto Workers and with labor. Indeed, their relationship with labor is a role model for labor- management relations and product innovation, as well as manufacturing quality and efficiency.

My constituents enjoy their vehicles; and I commend Harley-Davidson on its 100th anniversary, wish it great success in the next 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, with great pride and pleasure, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), my distinguished friend, a great Member of Congress, with my thanks and commendation for introducing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to acknowledge and celebrate the Michigan Military Moms for their insatiable support and encouragement for all of the men and women from Michigan that serve their country both in times of war and peace. These women have proved to possess incredible strength under exceptionally harrowing circumstances.

Since Michigan lacks many of the organized support networks available near large military bases, the mothers of Michigan's men and women in uniform found themselves alone, lacking an outlet to express their pain, frustration, and fear.

On July 18, 2002, a small group of eight mothers, united by pride and dedicated to their sons and daughters serving in the Armed Services, joined together in a local Big Boy restaurant. Less than one year later that small group now consists of more than 175 members. The group, which celebrates the heroic effort of our men and women in uniform, offers support and encouragement for mothers and their children serving in all five branches of the Armed Services.

During its first year, Michigan Military Moms quickly implemented several successful programs. Notably, the group has formed partnerships with local schools, churches, businesses, and interested individuals to send monthly support packages to soldiers serving worldwide. Furthermore, the group organized ``Mentor a Mom,'' a program to couple experienced military moms with mothers whose children are going through basic military training. They also created a support group for local recruiters, and initiated a card campaign where mothers sent birthday greetings to service men and women.

The strength and patriotism of this amazing group of women should be applauded. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all my colleagues rise and join me in commending the Michigan Military Moms for their inexhaustible support, unity, and leadership to their community and their country and wishing them and their families continued strength as they go through this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, three things: One, this is a bad bill. Two, it is not the Senate bill. And, three, it destroys Medicare as we now know it.

And if you do not believe it, take the words of my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who says, ``To those who say this bill would end Medicare as we know it. Our answer is, we certainly hope so. Old-fashioned Medicare isn't very good.''

Well, it is a safety net that has preserved and protected the health and the well-being of Americans for 38 years. It has been a fabulous system for the protection of the health and the welfare of the people.

This thought echoes the words of Speaker Gingrich, who wanted Medicare to wither on the vine.

Well, it is a fraud upon the American people. It provides very little for most people who are looking for the benefit of receiving prescription pharmaceuticals. What it does is it subsidizes the insurance companies. It does not control prices. It does not stimulate competition. It affords to the senior citizens a situation where they wait 2 years. And after they wait 2 years, what do they get? An enormous donut hole into which they fall after they have spent $2,000, during which period, for a period of about $2,900, they get no additional help from their government, but during which time they have to pay more money, more money, to not draw any benefits.

And it should be noted there is no requirement whatsoever, none in this legislation, that requires the insurance companies, who will begin getting subsidized enormously in just 2 years after the enactment, to do a single thing to provide for prescription pharmaceuticals for the benefit of their subscribers. Indeed, most insurance companies have said they do not want to participate in the pharmaceutical-only care benefit that would be offered by this legislation. So they have set up this wonderful situation where there will be enormous boundless subsidies to try to induce somebody to come in and set up HMOs which will serve the people in the area or provide prescription pharmaceuticals to them.

The Democrats have a simple, easy-to-understand piece of legislation, one which builds upon the practices which we have used in Medicare with such great success and so efficiently for so long to see to it that the people get the benefit on the payments of a modest sum and a modest deductible and then they get their benefits. No donut hole during which they do not gain benefits.

And I would note that, by an interesting circumstance, many people under this wonderful Republican bill will pay a lot more than they will get out of this legislation. It is a piece of legislation which can best and most kindly be defined as a fraud upon a group of people who have high hopes that their Congress is going to take care of them.

Well, this Congress is going to take care of them; it is going to give them a deceitful piece of legislation which benefits them very little, if at all.

Mr. Speaker, less than 2 weeks ago, the House Republicans divorced themselves from the Senate bipartisan legislation and unveiled their lengthy and complicated proposal to make sweeping changes in Medicare. After taking months to develop more than 300 pages of fine print in secret consultation with selected corporate allies, they rammed the bill through committees last week and are ramming it through the House today under a rule developed in the wee hours this morning. No hearings, no significant opportunity for public comment, no concessions--just the way the House Republican leadership wants things.

But the Republican leadership is playing with fire. Not content merely to privatize a watered-down drug benefit, this bill, H.R. 1 privatizes the entire program in 7 years. As Chairman Thomas said yesterday, ``[t]o those who say that [the bill] would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is: We certainly hope so. * * * Old fashioned Medicare isn't very good.'' And a Republican Senate leader was quoted last month as saying that ``I believe the standard benefit, the traditional Medicare program, has to be phased out,'' echoing Speaker Gingrich's 1995 prediction that traditional Medicare would ``wither on the vine.'' The list goes on. Former Majority Leader Dick Armey said, also in 1995, that Medicare was ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.'' Most recently, the Bush administration official in charge of Medicare, Tom Scully, 2 months ago called Medicare an ``unbelievable disaster'' and a ``dumb system.'' And, of course, I was here in 1965 to witness the overwhelming majority of Republicans vote for the motion to recommit the legislation that created Medicare.

How will seniors react when told they will be forced to pay more to see their family doctor, or accept whatever doctors and benefits a private plan chooses to give them? How will seniors react when traditional fee-for-service Medicare is no longer a trusted safety net? How will seniors react when given a voucher and told to fend for themselves in the insurance marketplace--the same marketplace that failed them before Medicare? They should, and will, be outraged.

Seniors will also be angry when they learn that the Republican drug benefit helps insurance companies more than them. Democrats propose a true benefit provided under Medicare, with set premiums and benefits. Republicans propose payments to insurers to offer uncertain benefits, with uncertain premiums. The only certainty in the Republican plan is a huge coverage gap, when seniors will continue to pay premiums after substantial out-of-pocket expenses, and yet receive no benefit. And drug costs will continue to rise, because the Republicans prevent bargaining by Medicare to make prescription drugs more affordable to seniors.

Other nasty surprises will hurt seniors as well. Cuts in payments to hospital, when many are closing down. Inadequate payments to doctors, when seniors' access already is jeopardized. Increasing seniors' costs by $8.3 billion for their Part B coverage. These are shortsighted acts of extraordinary callousness.

I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous Republican plan. Our senior citizens deserve better than to be guinea pigs for risky ideological experimentation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the very able and respected minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to accommodate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my dear friend, even when he is pushing an outrageous piece of legislation under an appallingly constrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I ask the chairman from the Committee on Energy and Commerce to listen closely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman from Louisiana at this time that I have one speaker remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

My dear friends and colleagues, I lay before you the Republican plan. I ask you to look at it with a straight face, because it is inexplicable, and I cannot explain it to you with a straight face. The amendment which was offered by my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), on behalf of him and me, does the following things: it gives and sets forth a very clear set of benefits. Senior citizens pay $25 a month; they get 80 percent of drug costs from government after a $100 deductible. This is what you get if you get the Republican plan. But that is not the worst you get. If you are a senior citizen, you fall into a doughnut hole. After you get $2,000 in drugs that you get under the plan, all of a sudden your payments by the government stop; you have to keep on paying premiums, but you get no benefit

until you have got $5,100. They are going to privatize your Medicare in the year 2010. That is pretty bad.

But it is followed by other things: massive subsidies to the insurance companies which commence in 2 years, in 2006. But that is not all. No guarantee as to what it costs you in terms of what you have to pay in the way of premiums, no assurance that you will get any particular level of benefits. The only person who is going to cut a fat hog out of this deal are those goodhearted, flinty-hearted, cold- hearted folk in the insurance business who are going to all of a sudden get a key to the United States Treasury, the right to collect any amount of money they want and to sucker the Secretary of HHS any old way they are minded and to walk home and to pay the money perhaps to the senior citizens but possibly to their shareholders or in dividends or perhaps to pay it in salaries or in bonuses to their corporate officers. That is what you get under the Republican plan. And privatization of Social Security as you know it today.

The Republicans have said that they intend to do away with Social Security. Well, this is what is happening here. The Democratic plan compels the drug houses to negotiate with the Federal Government and the Secretary. The Republicans preclude him by absolutely prohibiting him from negotiating. We do not tolerate under the Democratic plan the Republican opportunity to privatize Medicare. And just wait till your senior citizens find out what you are doing to them with privatization and doing away with fee-for-service and substituting in lieu of this the kind of plan that you talk about where there is no assurance of protection for the senior citizens.

The Republicans say the bill costs too much. Well, it pays some $800 billion to 40 million senior citizens. Just last week, without a gasp of shame, my Republican friends set it up so that 200,000 families got the same amount of money. I think it is time we looked after the senior citizens and not the fat cats that my Republican colleagues and friends look after.

Vote for the Democratic plan. Vote down the Republican plan. Let us take care of the senior citizens. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I hope my colleagues look at that chart because it has the same factual value as Alice in Wonderland. There is no requirement that any of those drugs be made available. There is no requirement that they be made available at any particular price or that they have to be made available under the plan at any particular cost because of cost sharing with the insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry as to time first before I yield the balance of my time. I believe the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) did not get the full 2\1/4\ minutes that I yielded to her. I would like to know how much time I have left and how much I can properly yield the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I want to yield it to our leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to violence, killing and to the senseless murders which have been taking place in the Middle East. I also rise in support of peace. I also rise in support of the road map for Middle East peace in the hope that it will be implemented and that the United States will provide the leadership that is needed. I also rise with still some hope in my heart that we could achieve the purposes which we thought were beginning with the summit at the Gulf of Aqaba and to express the hope that we will be able to see a time coming when Israeli, Muslim, Jew, Christian and the Palestinian people can know that there is peace in the Mideast. I also look forward to the leadership of the United States in moving towards achieving the real goal of this Nation, which is peace in the Middle East so that all persons, Israelis, Palestinians and everyone else who is concerned with that area can know that there will be peace there and so that the threat to the United States and the rest of the world of terrorism will suffer a real setback of the kind all of us here hope will be achieved.

George Santayana said something that I thought was very important. He said, ``He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.'' I see that the hope that we had is being diminished both by the killings and by the fact that we are now moving away from what I had hoped would be the role of the United States in the Middle East, and that is the role of an honest broker, of a nation who could appeal to both sides to bring the killing to an end and to achieve a lasting peace negotiated by and between the parties. The Oslo process has collapsed. Eight hundred Israelis have died; 2,000 Palestinians have been killed. Twenty-two Israelis have been killed since the Aqaba summit, but about double that number of Palestinians. This is hardly the basis upon which peace can be achieved. It is also hardly the basis upon which we can say that the United States is providing the strong, the determined and the forceful leadership which is necessary to assure that both

parties do the things that are needed to achieve a real and a lasting peace to the area.

I would point out that if we do not listen to George Santayana, we have the possibility of repeating the mistakes of the past. What is it that we should be directing our attention to? Forceful, forcible, vigorous, strong efforts to achieve peace, to bring the parties together, to see to it that they talk, and to achieve the reputation amongst them of an honest, impartial broker, of a nation that is interested in seeing to it that both parties not only work together but achieve the best result of their negotiation that is possible to achieve. I do not see that in this resolution and that is the vice of this resolution. This resolution takes sides.

I am not prepared to quarrel with any of my colleagues as to who is at fault over in the Mideast. That is not the function of an honest broker. I am prepared to say that our efforts today and that our efforts as a Nation should be directed at one thing, and that is achieving peace on the basis of a reputation of honesty, decency and fairness and upon the basis of the trust of the parties in the area. I do not see this document as stimulating that kind of response. This document is one-sided. It condemns violence on one side. I hear nothing about the need for the United States to, in fact, lead toward peace or that the United States wants a termination of violence by all parties. That is clearly lacking here, but it is desperately needed. Our problem if we seek to be seekers of and builders of peace is to assure that we make possible the trust of all parties, Israelis and of Palestinians, so that we can get them to the table, a difficult task, to talk about peace, about building a peace which will last, which will give justice, equality, comfort and solace to all, men, women, children and also Israelis and Palestinians. That is absent in this resolution. It is something which must not only be in the resolutions of the Congress but it must be in the policies of the United States.

I say that I took great comfort and pleasure and pride when I saw that President Bush was getting the parties together and that he was really going to lead in this undertaking. I urge him to continue that undertaking, because in that is not only the interest of the Palestinians and of the Israelis but also of the United States. And a failure for this country to take a position which achieves the trust, the respect and the support of both parties for the negotiation is assurance that we will not have the success that we want and that we need. It also is assurance that we will not have the kind of security against terrorism which finds its seeds and which finds its roots in the kind of injustice that the people of the Mideast on both sides feel exists.

I urge us, then, to be honest brokers. I urge us, then, to strive for peace and for the trust of all persons over there who seek that peace. And I urge us to take the steps that are necessary. This resolution is not one of those steps. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to the President of Monroe County Community College (MCCC), Ms. Audrey M. Warrick. She began her career at MCCC as a counselor in 1967 and, as the college has grown, Ms. Warrick has grown with it. In 1977 Ms. Warrick was promoted to Assistant Director of Continuing Education and Community Services. After several promotions, she was eventually appointed, in 1988, Dean of Student Services, a cabinet level position. Ms. Warrick was again promoted in 1991 to Dean of Instruction and, finally, in May 2000 Ms. Warrick was appointed President.

In her 36 years at MCCC, Ms. Warrick has served on various committees, including Chair of the Management Negotiating Team, and member of the Faculty and Management Negotiating Team. However, it was during her presidential leadership that Ms. Warrick was able to make significant changes and improvements. She was instrumental in expanding the college curriculum and services to meet the changing needs of students, business and industry, and community partners. A comprehensive computer lab was added to help facilitate additional open access for students and to provide instructional support for nine new computer science programs. In 2002, she helped secure $6 million dollars in matching funds from the State of Michigan to build the Instructional Center for Business Training and the Performing Arts, for which ground will be broken within the week.

Ms. Warrick has also been actively involved in community leadership. She is a member on the Monroe County Industrial Development Corporation Board of Directors, the Monroe County Superintendents Association, the Monroe County Education Personnel Committee, the Education Advisory Group of the Southeast Michigan Community Alliance, and the Monroe County Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, she is a member of Soroptimist International of Monroe, where she has served as the scholarship chair for the past nine years.

Ms. Warrick's leadership contributions to various professional associations during the course of her tenure have also been appreciated. Currently, she is serving on the Executive Board of Michigan American Council in Education (ACE), Network for Women Leaders in Higher Education, the M-TEC Advisory Board for Henry Ford Community College, Michigan Community College Association (MCCA) Executive Committee and Presidents Committee. In addition, she has served as a Consultant Evaluator for the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools since 1986.

Throughout her tenure at MCCC, Ms. Warrick has helped the College grow and prosper. Her commitment to the college and the students has contributed to the success of MCCC. Ms. Warrick is to be commended for her tremendous dedication to Monroe County Community College, and the Monroe Community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Ms. Warrick on her retirement from Monroe County Community College.