Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. As cochair of the Biomedical Research Caucus, the House Cancer Caucus, the Heart and Stroke Caucus and as founder of the House Nursing Caucus, I can tell Members that this bill shortchanges the health of the American people. It is inadequate in so many ways, but I want to focus on just one.

We are missing a tremendous opportunity to support critical biomedical research that can save lives. Congress last year completed the doubling of the NIH budget after years of underfunding this national institution. This was a tremendous accomplishment supported by Members from all across the political spectrum, but now we are going to begin throwing away the benefits from responsibly funding NIH. It is terrible news for cancer patients, heart disease patients, and others suffering from chronic diseases.

I watched my daughter Lisa struggle with lung cancer, pinning her hopes on a clinical trial. For these people to have hope, we need to fund new research, not just to continue existing grants. They need cures and treatments that have not been discovered yet. This bill will not allow new research. Instead, it will severely curtail new research opportunities.

An optimistic assessment shows that under this bill, NIH will be only able to provide 21 new grants next year. The 2.5 percent increase in the bill does not match NIH's estimates of inflation in research costs. Cancer patients, heart disease patients, Alzheimer's patients, stroke survivors, Parkinson's patients, ALS, many others are just going to have to wait. This bill defers their hopes of new cures.

As many of my colleagues have stated, we are seeing the cost of these tax cuts. The majority will tell us we cannot afford spending for institutions like NIH above the 2.5 percent increase, we cannot afford the benefits of life-saving medical research. The irresponsible tax cuts the majority has rammed through are costing us lives. We should reject this bill and get our priorities straight.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to tell the cancer patients in my district that their research has been blocked. Do you?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us has many shortfalls that are being detailed today. Underlying many of them is the need for funding for nurse education programs. We are in the midst in this Nation of a growing nurse shortage. The nursing workforce is aging and approaching retirement. Fewer and fewer nurses are coming into the field. Today we are currently short 126,000 nurses. The demand for nurses will increase by more than 25 percent over the next 7 years; and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we will need 1 million more nurses by 2010 to meet the needs of this country. To make matters worse, these shortages will peak just as the baby boom generation begins to retire. The shortage is already complicating the deliver of everyday health care.

As health care professionals can tell us, dealing with the nursing shortage is about ensuring quality patient care. The joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations has studied the link between staffing shortages and increased medical errors and found that one quarter of all unexpected deaths and injuries caused by hospitals

can be linked to the lack of nurses. The nursing shortage is hampering our homeland security preparedness efforts. Who is going to administer smallpox vaccines or other bioterrorism treatments if we do not have enough nurses? Last year the Congress recognized this threat to health care and preparedness in our country. We have passed the new nurse reinvestment act to recruit and train nurses and keep current nurses on the job.

But the bill before us fails the commitment we made just last year to address the nursing shortage. It offers no increase for funding as this baby boom generation approaches retirement, no way to deal with shortages in this bill. The nursing funding is already so low compared to other health care priorities that it should not be cut at all. In fact, in 1974 during the last serious nursing shortage, funding for nurse education programs was $153 million. In today's dollars that would be worth $533 million, almost five times what we are spending now.

We can afford to make a modest increase in this underlying bill to address today's shortage. We must do this. If we miss this opportunity to make an investment in our health infrastructure and our homeland security efforts, we will be reaping the consequences of yet another reason we should not have voted for that huge tax cut. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let us start over again and address the nurse shortage.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Republican prescription bill because it provides elderly women with nothing more than a false sense of security.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the Medicare bill. The rule is unfair. The bill is unacceptable. It provides spotty coverage that will not help seniors with their expensive medications, and it reneges on a promise we have made to America's seniors and those with disabilities by ending Medicare as we have known it.

I want to speak about a provision in the bill that still cuts, even with yesterday's revisions, hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer care. A cut like this will be devastating to seniors with cancer.

If this bill is passed, cancer centers will close, especially satellite centers that are located close to where seniors live. Those that remain open will admit fewer patients and lay off oncology nurses.

Medicare beneficiaries do pay too much for their oncology medications. We all agree that we must fix this, but Medicare also pays way too little for essential oncology services. The overpayments for oncology drugs has been used to pay for treatments oncologists provide to cancer patients. So we must fix both parts of this problem.

The bill fixes overpayment of drugs, but still cuts some $300 million from cancer care to do it. The quality of cancer care will suffer.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I submitted amendments last night to fix both parts of this problem and protect the quality of cancer care for all Americans, but these amendments were not made in order; and now seniors will not only not get sufficient prescription drug coverage but those with cancer, seniors with cancer, will see their treatments jeopardized, thwarted, cut off. What will seniors with cancer do?

I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and we do share a very strong interest in this issue, and we both also know that oncology services involve more than the oncologist, and, yes, this bill does raise from the terrible low cut that was originally in it some 12 percent; but it still leaves a huge vacuum for the services that are provided by oncology nurses, the whole panoply of outpatient and clinic setting services that patients who are receiving chemotherapy, which is such a devastating treatment to go through, need in order to maintain.

It is really a life-and-death situation for people who receive a diagnosis of cancer and then find out that they have to go to the doctor and get their medication, and then they have to find some way to have the services delivered because Medicare will not cover this wide comprehensive care in a cancer center, and that is what we need to have a full debate upon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare bill before us is not a good bill. The coverage it provides is unreliable and insufficient. After a senior has used $2,000 in medications, they get no more help until they have spent another $2,900 out of pocket without help and while continuing to pay premiums. And that is only if a private plan chooses to come into their area. This bill turns Medicare into a voucher, handing it over to the insurance companies and forcing seniors to pay more. It reneges on a promise that we have made to America's seniors by ending Medicare as they know it.

In addition, the bill before us cuts cancer care by hundreds of millions of dollars, jeopardizing access to cancer care for seniors who face this dreaded diagnosis. If this bill passes, many cancer centers will close. Others will curtail their services, admit fewer patients, and lay off oncology nurses and critical support staff. This bill is supposed to make it easier for patients to get health care, but it will actually make it harder for cancer patients to get the care they need.

It is true that Medicare beneficiaries are paying too much for their oncology medications. We all agree we must fix this. But Medicare also pays way too little for essential oncology services, and so the overpayment for oncology drugs has been used to pay for treatments oncologists provide to cancer patients. We must fix both parts of this problem, but this bill still cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from cancer care. And it still risks the lives of cancer patients.

We will all go home after passing a Medicare bill, and we will face our constituents. I, for one, do not want to tell the cancer patients in my district that Congress has decided to curtail their treatment and endanger their care.

We can do better. We must. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing outrage at terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian extremists since the Aqaba Summit. The people of the United States continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Israel. But I regret this resolution is not as complete or constructive as it might be. We mourn the 22 innocent Israelis that have been killed since the summit, but over twice that number of innocent civilian Palestinians have also died as a result of military strikes from Israel. Their loss should also be explicitly recognized in such a resolution.

I sincerely wish the House had used this opportunity to offer its clear support for the President's road map to Middle East peace. This road map is not perfect, but it is currently the only legitimate way to stop terrorism and get the parties back to the path of peace. Under the road map the Palestinian Authority must crack down on terrorism, and Israel must dismantle illegal settlements and begin an end to occupation. Abandoning the road map in the wake of the recent terrorism would not help Israel. In contrast, it would reward the terrorists.

I object to the resolution's condemnation of the phrase ``cycle of violence'' because it is a fact for the past 2\1/2\ years we have witnessed a heartbreaking and endless cycle of terrorist attacks, assassinations, reprisals and retaliations. Since the peace process collapsed, 800 Israelis and 2,100 Palestinians have been killed. The Israeli economy has collapsed. The humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and in Gaza has intensified. Therefore, it is imperative that under the road map security cooperation would resume. This is critical because it is clear that neither prime minister, Abu Mazen nor Sharon, neither of these can stop terrorism without the other. This conflict will never end without a comprehensive political solution; and we, the United States, must lead both parties to that agreement. Otherwise Israelis and Palestinians may be doomed to a life of violence and suffering forever. It is not what these people deserve, and it is surely not what America can afford.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here this evening on the east coast. It is 10 o'clock, and our schedule is such that in the House of Representatives tomorrow we should be debating on this floor a bill to provide a more modernized Medicare delivery system which will focus on the needs of those receiving Medicare, mostly seniors, senior citizens, and also those with disabilities, their needs for medication. And as I am speaking, one of the last to speak this evening, remarking on the particular needs that women have, women my age because I am in that category who live longer and perhaps have worked out of the home less because of the needs of caring for both children and sometimes elders, and, therefore, pensions and other means of having security and retirement are not quite as readily available. So this burden weighs heavily on me. As I speak this moment, deliberations are under way for the rules for which we will debate this legislation tomorrow, and we will see what comes out of our time together on the floor of the House tomorrow.

It is a momentous occasion because in my time of being a Member of Congress, having come to this place out of the health care field, having been a public health nurse for quite a few years in my community on the central coast of California, I have listened to my constituents in this new role of being their representative in the House of Representatives, the people's House, which by its very definition connects us to the citizens for whom we have this great opportunity and responsibility of being their voice here in the Federal Government to make sure that their needs and their inspiration and their motivations are heard.

So I take seriously when many folks in my congressional district tell me that they are the ones who are buying these medications because their heart ailment or their arthritis or their different chronic conditions are requiring them to take medications, that they really cannot afford these if they are retired or living on a fixed income because of Social Security requirements and also maybe their pension.

These are not exorbitant amounts usually. They do not consider themselves poor. They have worked all their life, done well really, the Greatest Generation is what many have called them; and yet they find themselves struggling at a time when they had looked to their government with the promise of Medicare, which they had seen there for their parents, this program that was instituted in the 1960's, and they say why is it that I cannot pay for my medications? They are so expensive. I go one month and it is a particular cost, sometimes $100 or several hundred; go another month and it has been practically doubled in price. It is terrifying for seniors who face perhaps hospital stays if they do not take their medication. The blood pressure shooting up, consequences and side effects to conditions that they want to control so that they can live independent lives, not to be dependent on their children or on others or on society, God forbid, having lived independent lives.

So I carry this burden to Congress, and I am proud of being part of a country that had the wherewithal and the mindset, first of all, to start the Social Security system so that we recognize that we really do want to respect the security needs of our seniors; and then when we recognized that health care was beyond the reach of many of them in the 1960's, we devised a plan. I was not here then, of course; but I saw that it made such an impact on citizens that I was working with and dealing with living amongst my own family members to see that Medicare could be there because the private sector, the insurance companies found that this population was hard to insure. These are the years when people need their medical doctors and their sometimes hospital stays and often medications to stay alive and to stay healthy, and Medicare has been a blessing because people are living longer. I think there is a direct connection.

Now we face this crisis. I commend this administration and this Congress foreseeing that this is a time that we must do something about this. But we now must do it in the right way. We have seen that a public provision is what is needed for Medicare. We must also make sure that we do not go off that track and try to privatize this one aspect of it. We have had that option, and that itself was rather an experiment to offer Medicare+Choice. A few years ago that became very popular. That has not worked in my area on the central coast of California, and it is rural.

I will wrap this up by saying that the decisions that we will make tomorrow will have tremendous ramifications, and we need to learn from the people we represent and listen to them and do what they have asked us to do, which is to keep this plan a public plan as it has been, provide the prescription medication in the way that we know that will serve their needs best.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare bill that we will vote on this week is a bad bill. It undercuts this critical program that has been provided health care to millions of seniors. It provides spotty coverage that will not help these seniors with their expensive medications. And it reneges on a promise that we have made to America's seniors by ending Medicare as we have known it. But I want to talk about a particularly objectionable provision in this bill that has not gotten much attention. The part that cuts funding for cancer care.

The Medicare bill is supposed to make it easier for patients to get health care, but it will actually make it harder for cancer patients to get the care they need. Cancer is a scourge that has touched nearly every person and family in this country. Cancer patients and their loved ones have a very strong loyalty to the medical professionals, this whole team of oncology care givers who deliver what is so often brutal treatment. This is especially true of the often unsung heros of quality cancer care, oncology nurses.

As a nurse and someone who lost a daughter to cancer, I have seen firsthand essential contributions made by these amazing men and women who monitor and support, deftly guide the delicate treatment regimen. But the House Medicare bill has a provision that will cut half a billion dollars from cancer care in America.

Anyone who thinks you can take this much money away from cancer care and not endanger the quality is fooling themselves. The bill does correct an overpayment for oncology drugs that goes on today. Medicare's system of paying for cancer drugs charges cancer payment and the government too much and doctors too much. There is no disagreement on that or on that it needs to be fixed. But while we have paid too much for cancer drugs, Medicare drastically underpays the oncology practice costs. The oncology community has been using this overpayment for medications as a way to make up for the underpayment in oncology services. And we should fix this overpayment for medications because the patients should not be overcharged for their medications. Of course, Medicare and taxpayers should not be overcharged either. But we also have to make sure oncologists are paid properly for their services.

Cancer care has changed a great deal since the creation of Medicare. In fact, most of cancer care has been developed since Medicare was created, moving out of the hospital and into doctors offices and clinics where having oncology nurses and support staff are even more important. They are the frontline providers of cancer care, managing therapies and side effects, helping to keep seniors out of the hospital, saving the Medicare program money, providing counseling to patients and their families and conducting clinical trials and research to improve and advance cancer treatment.

Yet, while patients value this high-quality hands-on loving care, Medicare dramatically undervalues and underpays the cancer care given by these nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and lab technicians who are part of the multidisciplinary cancer team.

Without adequate resources, the reality is that physicians will be unable to sustain the provisions of quality care and will reduce their practices or close them entirely. The first services to be let go will be oncology nurses. In addition to cutting funds from cancer care, the new payment system in this bill will make many cancer patients, 60 percent of the seniors on Medicare, go to the oncologists twice as often, frail, sick seniors doing this. It will actually cause cancer patients to pay more out of pocket costs and wait longer for treatment, increasing their health risks. It is so wrong.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I joined with the cancer community to craft legislation to resolve inequities in the cancer care system and address concerns about the overpayment for oncology drugs. And we work hard during the recent markup to try to correct the Medicare bills flawed cancer provision.

Our proposal offers a more accurate payment for oncology drugs and would direct Medicare to establish new payments amounts for physician services related to the treatment of cancer patients, including the added work performed before and after patient visits and consultations. It is so essential. It recognizes the true cost of providing cancer care.

We will all go home after we pass this Medicare bill, and we will have to face our constituents. I, for one, do not want to tell the cancer patients in my district that Congress has decided to curtail their treatment and endanger their care. I hope no one here will.

Just listen to what the cancer community is saying about the House and Senate bills. Ellen Stovall of the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship says, ``Instead of expanding access to life saving drugs, these bills limit access to cancer treatments for some of the most seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries.''

Susan Braun of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation says, ``The millions of cancer patients in this country who rely upon Medicare need to know that their access to care will be severely disrupted if these bills go through.''

They are going to hold us accountable, and they should.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all my colleagues will join me in fixing these unfair and shortsighted provisions of this Medicare bill.

Mr. Speaker, the news from Jerusalem today is horrifying. Another terrorist attack on a civilian bus. So many dead. Many more are injured and even more are bereaved. Today's atrocity follows and may have been in response to an attack yesterday on a Hamas leader in Gaza which injured its target but killed innocent victims. When will this cycle of violence end? Not even a week has passed since the President received the commitment of Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen to do everything in their power to stop the killing and pursue the path of negotiations. Instead, we have terrorist attacks, attempted assassinations, horrific retaliations and more

bloody reprisals. Last week's optimism has yielded to this week's despair.

I urge President Bush to make it clear to both sides that the United States will continue to insist on the terms agreed to at the Aqaba summit, an end to the violence, the dismantling of the illegal outposts and the resumption of security cooperation. Clearly, Abu Mazen must do much more to stop terrorism. But it is obvious that he cannot stop the murderous Palestinian extremists without help from Israel. And Israel will never succeed in vanquishing terrorism through military force and continued occupation. A political solution is the only answer.

The road map to peace has hit a tremendous obstacle. But we have no choice but to persevere. If this initiative is destroyed, Israelis and Palestinians may be doomed to a life of violence and suffering forever. Such a fate is not what these two peoples deserve, and it is surely not what America can afford.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the

House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized

for 5 minutes.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise deeply troubled that the House is again voting on this ill-conceived bill to ban a medical procedure. Let us be honest: The underlying issue is really about whether or not a woman should have the legal right to choose to end a seriously flawed pregnancy.

As my colleagues stated, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' cannot be

found in any medical literature. Lawmakers have continued this misnomer, ``partial-birth abortion,'' and have succeeded in confusing the public's understanding of the issue.

Federal law already bans procedures performed after fetal viability unless the mother's health is at risk. But this bill directly defies the Supreme Court because it once again lacks an adequate health exception, and it could outlaw procedures used in the first or second trimester before viability that can safely protect the health of the mother.

By criminalizing these constitutionally protected procedures, physicians are left with limited options when treating a patient in a crisis. The ban would force a woman to undergo potentially more damaging, risky, and rarely performed procedures or otherwise continue a very unsafe pregnancy.

Sadly, there are times when it may be necessary for a woman to terminate a wanted pregnancy. It is often impossible to detect fetal abnormalities before the second trimester, and it is at this stage that certain preexisting medical conditions exacerbated by pregnancy may worsen for a woman. At these unfortunate times, a woman, in consultation with doctors and families, must freely be able to determine the best course to preserve her life, her health, her future fertility.

Congress is treading in dangerous waters with this legislation. In this Chamber we often insist that we should not be telling doctors how to practice medicine, we should not usurp the opinions of medical experts when considering patient safety, standards of care for diseases, and the administration of drugs.

But with this bill today, Congress, comprised predominantly of lawyers, is entering into a hospital room, acting as a gatekeeper, and dictating what doctors can and cannot do in medical practice.

For these reasons, I support the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. This substitute clearly and in medical terms bans all post-viability abortions except in cases where serious, adverse health consequences could result to the woman's health, or the woman's life is at stake.

This amendment would allow physicians to continue to make these critical medical decisions. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and to support the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I wish to engage the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) in colloquy to clarify his amendment which is included in the en bloc amendment.

This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to reach an agreement with another Federal entity naming the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control as preferred candidates to conduct an independent epidemiological study of the effects of perchlorate on humans. It is my understanding that this study would not be done by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy; am I correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

It is also my understanding that the gentleman's intention in requiring this independent Federal study of perchlorate is to add to the scientific database on this chemical. I understand that your amendment is not intended to delay the setting of a drinking water standard for perchlorate or to delay any cleanup at any site that may have perchlorate contamination. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for this clarification.

Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded for two votes last night and would like the record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 183--yes; No. 184--yes.

I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the Pitts amendment. Devoting significant resources to the biggest health threat in the world, the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, is an excellent use of taxpayer dollars, as long as we focus on prevention efforts that work.

For example, the people of Uganda have had great success controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS, and they did it with a comprehensive program that did

stress abstinence and fidelity, but also emphasized the importance of using condoms.

The Pitts amendment would move significant dollars away from that proven model by providing $5 billion to strictly abstinence-only programs. It will push aside proven comprehensive programs in favor of questionable models designed to appease a right-wing constituency.

Let us not miss the opportunity to do good by misspending precious resources on abstinence-only programs. We should not condemn more people to death by AIDS by tying hands with ideology. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pitts amendment and strongly support

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I understand that Chairman Pombo has agreed to accept this amendment. I want to express my gratitude for his support. I will be brief and submit my full statement for the Record, but I do want to explain the purpose of this amendment to the House. This amendment would strike the bill's language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory the oil and gas resources of the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including those areas now off-limits to new drilling. This would undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas. President George H.W. Bush initiated, and President Clinton extended, moratorium protections for these coastal waters. And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for 20 years.

This section of H.R. 6 pushes to open these fragile coastal waters to the possibility of new drilling. There is widespread bipartisan support both nationally and locally against new drilling in these areas. Those of us who represent vibrant coastal communities like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), cosponsors of my amendment, know that our coastlines are too economically viable to risk more drilling. I want to thank my colleagues from Florida who have worked for years in a bipartisan manner on this issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and other members of the Florida delegation have been extremely helpful with this amendment.

Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his support of this bipartisan amendment and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for helping get my amendment made in order.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment, with Mr. Miller and Mr. Davis of Florida, to strike Section 30220 from the bill.

This section contains provisions that would seriously undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas.

Section 30220 would circumvent the longstanding, bipartisan moratoria on new oil and gas drilling in particular areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive moratorium ending new drilling off the entire U.S. West Coast, East Coast, Southwestern Florida, and Alaska's Bristol Bay.

This action was met with acclaim by the coastal communities it encompassed and, indeed, all of America.

In 1998, President Clinton extended President Bush's executive memorandum protections to 2012.

And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for twenty years. President George W. Bush endorsed the Congressional moratoria in his FY04 budget.

State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush, California Governor Gray Davis and former New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman-- have endorsed the moratoria.

The bill, however, lays the groundwork to reverse this broad bipartisan consensus by promoting activities--including exploratory drilling and seismic studies--in the OCS, including the areas that have been off limits to new oil and gas drilling for years.

Supporters of Section 30220 argue that it only calls for taking inventories and studying available resources on the OCS.

But I must ask . . . what is the purpose of this provision if not to open up the OCS areas to new oil and gas drilling in the future?

What is it we would do with this taxpayer funded ``information gathering,'' if not use it to pursue new drilling?

In fact, the bill requires the Secretary of Interior to make, and I quote, ``recommendations . . . that would lead to additional OCS leasing and development . . .''.

Mr. Chairman, we already know that large reserves of oil and gas are located in federal waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico, which are currently open to oil and gas leasing.

According to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service, this area contains between 60 and 80 percent of the nation's economically recoverable oil and gas available in the entire OCS off the United States.

So, the protection of sensitive coastal areas through the longstanding moratoria still leaves the vast majority of the nation's oil and gas located on the OCS available to industry.

Section 30220 would also examine how laws, regulations, or programs might ``restrict or impede'' development of resources identified in the study.

In addition to determining how the OCS moratoria protections constrain development, this bill would erode the legitimate rights of coastal states and local governments to have a say in offshore and onshore development as embodied in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

The CZMA is a critically important law that allows the state to weigh in on projects that may effect the state's coastal zone. Oil drilling is just such an activity.

The CZMA is the very law that the State of California recently used to halt the development of 36 undeveloped leases off my district in Central California.

California's right under CZMA to review the development plans was upheld in Federal court last year.

This affirmation of CZMA's importance led to the Bush Administration's recent decision to stop pursuing the development of the 36 leases and to instead pursue a negotiated termination of the leases.

Section 30220 would weaken a state's right under CZMA.

This section also disregards the adverse economic impacts proposed oil and gas activities would have on coastal states and local coastal communities and it fails to consider the effect of these activities on the environment and living marine resources.

Moratoria areas should not be compromised by controversial seismic surveys and other invasive technologies, like exploratory drilling.

These technologies are inappropriate within moratoria waters and would undermine the longstanding congressional oversight of these areas.

For example, high-decibel geophysical activities using sharp seismic pulses have been shown to damage fish stocks and to interfere with marine mammals.

Under the OCS Lands Act, existing uses of the sea and seabed and oil and gas development are required to be balanced. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not meet that goal.

Mr. Chairman, despite the overwhelming support of the moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the OCS, H.R. 6 pushes to open fragile coastal waters with the provisions in Section 30220.

Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly--in strong bipartisan voices--to protect their state's sensitive coastal resources and productive coastal economies.

These coastal areas are just too economically valuable to risk more oil drilling.

It only takes one accident or spill to devastate the local marine environment and economy.

Finally, the House of Representatives has voted twice in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida and California.

Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted for my amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to end new drilling off Central California.

The House spoke in a strong, clear voice against the developoment of those 36 leases.

In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities.

A vote for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment to HR 6 is a vote for the same principle--a vote to protect environmentally and economically valuable coastal areas from new drilling.

Mr. Chairman, we need to reject these attempts to weaken existing protections for our coastal waters and communities.

By adopting this amendment, we continue to preserve America's most treasured coastal areas and we honor and support the protections afforded to the Outer Continental Shelf and our coastal communities through the longstanding moratoria.

I urge support for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that those of us speaking for this amendment represent a bicoastal, bipartisan consensus on its behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from 67 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives with a strong statement opposing the language in the underlying bill and in support of this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.

Hon. William Frist,

U.S. Senate, Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thomas Daschle,

U.S. Senate, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

House of Representatives, Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington,

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

In closing, I thank again the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). I thank the chair of the Committee on Resources for the support.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill which the Congress should pass shortly was going to include a smallpox vaccination compensation program. Now it is being presented for unanimous consent.

For many months I have worked closely with the community of first responders. Many of them are nurses. I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who have worked with many other Members of this body to make this program, this compensation program as good as possible. And when we beat a bad bill, which was on the suspension calendar a few days ago as we did, then it gives us an opportunity to improve the program as it was presented. That is what has been attempted to do. Great efforts have been expended and have resulted in marked improvements on the woefully inadequate proposal that the administration initially put forward.

I salute again my colleagues who have worked hard from within this body to represent the needs of our first responders as they anticipate and step forward to become a part of the shield against bioterrorist attack.

The administration, however, was difficult in this area. I am not convinced that this end product which is before us today really will inspire enough confidence in nurses to make the vaccine program work. However, again, I reiterate that there are improvements in the initial bill that were put forward.

But the process back and forth from the White House to the House of Representatives was very much in the arena of parsimonious, as the progress that was made came in bits and pieces. It felt to the community of first responders as if they were being nickeled and dimed. And now, with the product that we have, the nursing community, many of the people who will be the first responders, many of them tell me that the safety net provided in the bill before us today still has large holes in it. And it is told to us that the administration has refused to go any further than what is in this bill.

Now, time will tell us if this proposal succeeds, and the proof is actually not right here in this body but out in the community, in our homeland security efforts, in our communities where firefighters, police officers, EMTs, nurses will be asked to roll up their sleeves to become heroes on behalf of us all.

If they feel confidence that the government will stand behind them with a good compensation package, they will be more inspired to do this. I wish I could be more confident. However, again I remark that there has been progress made.

For example, I myself was recently asked by the Capitol physician to be a first responder here in the Congress. For that reason, I have been asked to get a smallpox vaccination myself; and I am presently consulting with my doctor, as I should do, and with other medical experts about the advisability of this.

But if I do take this vaccine and something goes wrong, I know that my family and my dependents will be taken care of because I am covered by the Federal Employees Compensation Act.

Under the bill that we will pass today under unanimous consent, a nurse in Santa Barbara, a firefighter in any community across this country who takes a vaccine to serve his or her country, may not have that same confidence. So this goes beyond the consideration of a particular vaccine; it really gets down to how we value our first responders and what we are asking them to do on behalf of their country.

Many have said that on 9/11 we crossed through a threshold in this country, and life has been different ever since. We now face the prospect lurking every single day, the possibility of a terrorist attack.

One of the real threats that we face as a nation to which we desire to protect ourselves is the threat of a bioterrorist attack. We saw that as the anthrax situation came upon us.

Who are the first responders who are called upon to answer the call in the event of such an attack? These are those who work and live among us, ordinary citizens asked now by their government, by their President, to take on extraordinary responsibility.

For many, life goes on as normal. They take the vaccine and nothing will happen. But for a few, and a very few, a drastic reaction could happen. There is a risk to this act of patriotism that we are asking our fellow citizens to take on.

I want us to be, with every measure within us, standing behind them; so that for that handful of people who have life permanently altered for themselves and are never able to be the breadwinner for their family, as they have been in the past, because they stepped forward on behalf of their country, I want them to have the full measure of protection such as I have as a Federal employee.

Reluctantly, I look at the package before us: parsimonious, in my regard. I will withdraw my reservation, but I will do so reluctantly, because I want this process to be better.

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my reservation of objection with the hope that our administration, our leaders, will continue to work to give the assurance that screening, that education be available for every first responder to avoid the risks, as many of them as we can.

We can work to make this package even better.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina that progress has been made since the original presentation that the administration put forth before the House of Representatives.

I would stand before the Members as a Member of Congress, but also as a first responder covered with the full protection of the Federal Government; and look forward to an opportunity, now it will be in the future, perhaps, when I can go among other first responders in our Nation with the full assurance that their protection and their compensation is as great as my own.

This compensation package is only as good as the confidence that it inspires within our first responder community, these folks we ask to be heroes. So I make the request to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and to my colleagues in Congress that we must monitor this program as this piece of legislation is unanimously passed here in this body.

We should keep track of it. If it does not work in its present form, we should make the commitment that we will revisit this.

Again, this is a program that is only as good as it will be resulting in the goals that the administration has set before the Nation in terms of its bioterrorist protection.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The bill has many problems. For example, it rejects the sensible, bipartisan compromise on hydro dam relicensing offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Instead, the provisions in H.R. 6 would lead to a stunted review process that will weaken protection for wildlife and the environment.

The electricity deregulation provisions do nothing to address most of the problems we saw in California, such as returning California's money that was stolen by pricing-gouging energy companies. The electricity provisions weaken important consumer and investor protections, possibly bringing on more Enron-type shenanigans in the future.

The bill would also weaken States' abilities to protect their coasts and weigh in on proposals for liquid natural gas facilities.

I am very disappointed that I was not allowed to offer my amendment to strike this harmful provision which weakens the important Coastal Zone Management Act.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight problems in the motor fuels section. This part of H.R. 6 originally arose for two purposes: one, to get rid of gas additive and groundwater contaminant MTBE; and, second, to end an outdated clean air regulation on reformulated gas.

The clean air issue was solved by the bill, and that is good. But we still do not ban MTBE, and it is still contaminating our groundwater. Incredibly, the bill gives the industry immunity from the damage it knowingly caused to our water and $750 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies. The bill also has a huge and unnecessary ethanol mandate and liability protection for ethanol producers as well.

Achieving our original goal could have been done without all these industry goodies that will cost consumers millions. I am deeply disappointed that the amendment banning MTBE, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and me, was not made in order, despite a very close vote on this issue in committee and an obvious need for action.

Mr. Chairman, we should ban MTBE to protect our Nation's drinking water and not let the industry off the hook. For these reasons and for so many others, this is a bad bill; and we should vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns with the Republican budget. It is critically important that we raise these issues and we raise them now, because the conference on the budget is meeting right now to determine the shape of the budget for the Federal Government for the coming year.

Despite the adoption of our Democratic motion to instruct last week, which called on ignoring the cuts in the Republican bill, I am not particularly heartened by the progress we have seen so far. For example, much is being made of the Senate's action to cut back the President's tax cut to a

mere $350 billion. That is certainly a better result than what we got in the House, but it is far from fiscally responsible or appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the Federal budget is on record deficits. Every nonpartisan look at the budget numbers comes up with the same result, budget deficits of $300-400 billion for as far as the eye can see.

We must not forget that in this budget process, we are a country at war. As I speak today, men and women in uniform are risking their very lives on the front lines in Iraq. This war has already cost us young lives, and we can only hope and pray it will not cost us more. We know that our commitment in Iraq will not end soon, and we know that without a doubt the war in Iraq and its aftermath will continue to cost our Treasury. Just last week we passed legislation to provide nearly $70 billion in emergency funding, which was not part of the budget, and that will grow this year and the next.

My point is that we have enormous commitments facing our country and we cannot ignore them. These tax cuts are crowding our ability to deal with issues on the table.

The Republican budget resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible tax cut package at the expense of our Nation's health care needs. Our health care security is part of our national security. Despite the protests of many Members of this Chamber, the majority's resolution still requires Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans programs to be cut. Medicaid is to be cut by $93 billion, the appropriate committees are charged to either cut Medicare by $200 billion or to shortchange an already weak prescription drug coverage benefit.

The Committee on Veterans Affairs is supposed to cut $15 billion from their programs, the vast majority of these are health- and benefit- related. These types of cuts would endanger health care for the most vulnerable millions of Americans, those who have worn the uniform, those who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It is unconscionable, and it does not reflect American values.

And I think of the sidewalk office hours I held in Santa Maria, California this past Saturday. Veterans came to me and implored me not to cut their benefits. Senior citizens came showing me their prescription medication costs, and telling me they are on fixed incomes and they cannot pay for these. But this is inevitable if we follow the Republican plan for huge tax cuts. Cuts to these vital programs are inevitable even if the tax cut is set at the Senate number.

I hope as the conference moves forward this week, some sanity will reign. The choice seems very obvious: tax cuts or prescription drug coverage; tax cuts or health care for the low income; tax cuts or veterans benefits. It does not seem to be much of a choice.

We cannot afford these cuts, $700 billion or $350 billion; they will endanger our ability to meet our commitments to seniors and veterans.

We should honor these commitments and keep our promises.