Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, violence against women and children and all of humanity should never be tolerated. Bold, effective steps should be taken to reduce violence against women, children, and men, and particularly pregnant women. But H.R. 1997 is not about women, and it is not about children. It is about politics. It is an attempt to drive a wedge between women and their constitutional rights.

For decades, the constitutional right to privacy, which protects women and their reproductive rights, has endured attack after attack. This bill is another deliberate strike at reproductive freedom and choice and is part of a nationwide strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade or to so undermine a woman's right to choose that it becomes meaningless in practice. The issue of violence against pregnant women is used to cloak the intent and the impact of this bill. Pregnant women are being used as pawns in an elaborate chess game to deny women self- determination and their constitutional rights.

The agenda is unmistakable. It has been clearly articulated by opponents of reproductive rights. A leader of an anti-choice legal group has said: ``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. The blastocele is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection. That would even trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.''

H.R. 1997 would set such a stage, pitting rights against one another, and the woman's rights are not paramount. In an opinion that was issued earlier this year, Christine Durham, Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, warned that ``declaring a fetus to be a person entitled to equal protection would require not only overturning Roe v. Wade but also making abortion a matter of constitutional law, illegal in all circumstances, even to save the life of the mother.''

During the Committee on the Judiciary's markup of this bill, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) offered an amendment that stated: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed as undermining a woman's right to choose an abortion, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, or limiting in any way the rights and freedoms of pregnant women.'' The amendment failed. If H.R. 1997 should not affect or interfere with a woman's right to choose, why then would the committee reject this simple statement reaffirming the rights as articulated in Roe and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey?

In fact, debate on the constitutional right to choose is unnecessary in legislation that seeks to safeguard pregnant women. If protecting women from violence is the goal, the straightforward and noncontroversial solution is clear: pass the Motherhood Protection Act. It accomplishes the same ends, providing additional punishments for anyone who injures a pregnant woman and injures a fetus or causes a miscarriage. The Motherhood Protection Act does so without necessarily raising controversial constitutional issues. The bill could be sent to the President for his signature quickly and easily.

Rita Smith, the executive director of the Denver-based National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said her group tried to work with lawmakers writing this legislation to make it more about protecting women. She said that they would not go down that road. This seems to be more about trying to undo abortion.

Disappointingly, the bill does little to protect women. In our Federal system, criminal law is generally reserved to the States. This bill does nothing to address the many State crimes perpetrated against pregnant women. This bill would only create a separate criminal count on Federal offenses like terror attacks, interstate stalking, and acts on military bases or Federal land. If my colleagues are serious about reducing violence against women, then fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, which expanded protections for all women against acts of violence.

In fiscal year 2003, the Violence Against Women's Act was appropriated at $100 million less than the fully authorized level. Programs for transitional housing and for Federal victims counselors and training for judges were not funded at all, which gives a lie to the fact this issue here is to protect women against violence. And rape prevention and education was funded at half its authorized level.

To protect women from violence without undermining reproductive freedom, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The underlying legislation is a challenge to women's constitutional rights. Women's safety and welfare safety should not be pawns in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Indeed, women are not being protected here. Women are being used.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the sad thing about this bill is that it is not violence against women, it is violence against pregnant women, and, while that is an abhorrent thing, it should be treated as violence against women. We all know and believe that.

What this bill does is reduce women to vessels, to wombs. It says that they are the ones that matter. If that were not the case, then this Congress would fund the Violence Against Women's Act.

Recently the majority leader of the House said in an interview that he thought all women should be in the home and that their husbands should give all the structure. Well, maybe we will get a bill on the floor pretty soon that says every woman in America of child-bearing age must be pregnant at all times and must not be allowed to leave the house. That, of course, then does say that older women who are past child-bearing age are fair victims for violence because we have not funded the Violence Against Women's Act. But if they are pregnant, then we will really look after them.

What a narrow-minded thing that is. I would like all the Members who think this is a great idea to go home and tell their mothers and daughters and their sisters and all the rest of their female relatives that only if they are pregnant do they matter to the Congress of the United States.

It is appalling that we have had over 200 votes whittling away at this since 1995. I honestly would not put anything past the Congress here, and I would expect if the majority leader comes up with his bill to force women to stay at home, it would be a good hearing and be right out here on this floor, even though people are without jobs, people are going hungry, health care is almost nonexistent in many places, and we are fighting a war that is causing us casualties on a daily basis. But what do we debate? This. This takes precedence over everything else.

So, I just say again to the women of the United States, look out, sisters. You just do not matter here anymore.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the achievements of Stephanie Cowart who recently receive the ``Civil Rights Achievement'' award chosen by the National Conference for Community and Justice. The award honors a member of the Niagara Falls community who exemplifies the works, beliefs and dreams that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared with the world.

Ms. Cowart, who serves as the executive director of the Niagara Falls Housing Authority, is one of the African American Women Community Builders of Western New York. She is indicative of the vibrant and caring Niagara Falls community that I am proud to represent in Congress. As a native of Niagara Falls, her decision to remain in the area not only to complete her education, but also to commit to improving the community through her work and by raising a family is impressive. Ms. Cowart is truly a Niagara Falls jewel.

In addition to her contribution to the community through running the Niagara Falls Housing Authority, she serves the area in her ``free time'' as an active member of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church, and numerous other organizations. This award is not the first that Ms. Cowart has received. She is the recipient of numerous citations, including the Niagara County Black Achiever's Candle in the Dark Award, the Niagara Improvement Association Civic Award, the Niagara University Fellowship Award, the Niagara Falls Housing Authority Award of Excellence, the Business First's prestigious Forty Under 40 award, the Niagara County's Woman of the Year Award, and the Heroes of Public Housing Award.

Stephanie is truly an example to the entire country, not just my district. I am proud to bring her achievements to the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, six months ago tomorrow, a man with a fake FBI vest and fake badge killed a man and wounded another. Today, I am introducing the Badge and Uniform Security Trustworthiness Act of 2003 in honor of the victims--Raymond L. Batzel and Joseph B. Doud.

On August 12, 2003, a man carrying a sawed-off shotgun, wearing a wig and bulletproof vest with the printed initials ``FBI'', and carrying what looked like a law enforcement badge walked into the Xerox employee credit union and killed one man and shot another. This man posing as a federal law enforcement officer turned a robbery into a murder. FBI officials believe that the vest and the badge were fakes. Six months later, the killer has still not been caught. Would this have happened if the murder did not have access to a fake badge and bulletproof vest?

Mr. Speaker, this bill will expand the current federal criminal ban on fake police badges to include police uniforms and other insignia. Right now it is legal for people to buy, sell, or own fake FBI insignia or badges used by Customs officials at our borders. As never before, Americans are facing the possibility of terrorism and violence within our borders. We are increasingly relying on our local, state, and federal law officials to keep the public safe. However, we must be able to depend on them without worrying that the ``officer'' is an impersonator. Law enforcement needs for us to trust them without hesitation, but the trust cannot be complete unless we take steps to stop the flow of fake public safety officer uniforms.

Unfortunately, the threat goes beyond the terrifying reality of this case in which a man in a fake FBI bulletproof vest tried to rob a bank. The threat reaches out to land border crossings, airports, and seaports. Officers with the Bureau of Customs and Border Security and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement work to keep terrorists from entering or staying in the country and to prevent the dangerous materials and weapons used by terrorists from entering the country. We cannot afford to have a man with fake credentials standing on the Peace Bridge at the US-Canadian border, allowing terrorists or their weapons to enter the United States. By prohibiting the buying, selling, and use of false safety officer badges and other insignia, we are not only increasing domestic security, but also honoring the lives of Raymond L. Batzel and Joseph B. Doud. We must learn from the terrible events of August 12, 2003, and keep law enforcement insignia out of the hands of other would-be criminals or terrorists. Otherwise we are vulnerable to potential menace from within our borders and outside of our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great man who will be sorely missed: Andy DiVincenzo of Buffalo, New York.

Some people seem to have a special talent for success, a kind of Midas touch. Andy DiVincenzo was one of those people. Whether in his business and culinary endeavors, his charitable work, or his family life, Andy imbued everything he did with a special charm, energy, and passion.

Andy was the founder, head chef, and owner of the famed restaurant Billy Ogden's, which opened in the Lovejoy area of Buffalo in 1989. Since opening, both Andy and Billy Ogden's have received numerous four- star reviews. For 10 years running, Andy was selected to represent the Buffalo Bills at the Super Bowl's famous Taste of the NFL, where the Nation's finest chefs, as well as NFL legends, volunteer their time in support of hunger relief efforts throughout the country. Though busy with his restaurant and catering business, Andy also dedicated himself to numerous charitable causes. He devoted time to the Kids Escaping Drugs program and served on the board of the famous Camp Good Days and Special Times, which serves children with cancer and other life- threatening illnesses.

Within the local community, Andy was adored, known for his big heart and willingness to help people. He believed everyone deserved a second chance and worked to help provide it. Buffalo, Western New York, and, indeed, the world are better places for having had Andy DiVincenzo among us.

Tragically, Andy has been taken from us too soon and too young. He passed away in his sleep on January 25 at the age of 52. He left behind a loving family, including his wife, Eleanor, daughters Tara and Adriana, and mother, Viola. These were the women in his life to whom he could never deny anything and for whom he would do anything to please. His siblings, Frank and Donna, as well as cousins, nieces, nephews, and others all join in mourning his death.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the remarkable life of Andy DiVincenzo and in extending our sincere condolences to his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act of 2004.

Today there are 129,000 United States troops serving in Iraq alone, including nearly 80,000 reservists and members of the National Guard. As the Congressional Representative for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, I recognize the enormous disruption of deployment on their families.

When soldiers are deployed, many arrangements must be made. Many men and women are leaving a job, a family, or even children behind.

We have long recognized the need to minimize the hardships to these men and women, as demonstrated in the comprehensive Servicemember's Civil Relief Act. Originally enacted in 1940, this law provides relief to military personnel from many of the economic and legal burdens they have incurred because of their deployments. This law never anticipated lengthy deployments by mothers and fathers who may not have any choice but to send their children to live with another parent, sister, or grandfather one or two towns away.

I learned firsthand how deployments can cause significant upheaval in a child's life when the brother of a deployed soldier recently contacted my office. He explained that his niece had moved to live with her mother while her father was away fighting in Iraq. As a result, she was prevented from attending her normal high school because she no longer resided within the school district.

According to the Department of Defense, there are currently 1.2 million children with military parents in the United States. This number is only slightly less than the total number of adults currently serving in the Armed Forces.

I am proud to introduce, along with my colleague Representative Brown-Waite, the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act. This bipartisan legislation would ensure some measure of continuity for children who change residence as a result of their parent's military service by allowing them to continue to receive an education at their schools, even if they are temporarily residing outside the school district.

As our men and women in uniform continue to be deployed in support of military operations around the world, it is vital that we do our best to minimize the disturbance to their lives and that of their families.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act. We owe this protection to the education of our children and to the peace of mind of our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, chronic unemployment still plagues the Nation; 3.3 million workers have lost their jobs since January 2001. The poverty rate in America has risen to 12 percent and the number of children living in poverty continues to climb.

The community services block grants were created to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that fight its causes. These grants enable over 1,000 organizations across the country to provide services to combat unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition and the lack of educational opportunities.

Because of community services block grants, the Orleans Community Action Committee in Orleans County, New York, is able to provide a broad array of services, including Head Start, teen programs, weatherization programs, transportation, emergency services, family development, help in putting together a budget, help in preparing tax returns, child care services and a community center. For 30 years, Action for a Better Community has been a leader in Rochester, providing programs increasing health, education, safety, employment and housing needs. Every dollar the Federal Government invested in these organizations through the community services block grant program is a dollar wisely spent. An investment in our citizens and our children is an investment in our Nation's future.

The value of these programs is not at issue. The problem with this reauthorization is the ability of provider organizations to use Federal funds to discriminate. H.R. 3030 allows these service organizations to discriminate against clients because of their religion. It allows religious organizations that receive these Federal grants to discriminate based on religion in their employment practices. This is un-American. Discrimination is happening. Employees of the Salvation Army of Greater New York have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and several lawsuits against the Salvation Army are in the works. Employees are being questioned about their church affiliations. One of the duties listed on new job applications is to, quote, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. The Salvation Army uses millions in public moneys to carry out its charitable missions, but it has recently begun to impose its religious mission upon its employees.

Right here in my hand I have an employment application for a social worker position with a religious organization, and that religious organization uses Federal funds. The applicant is asked his or her religion, length of church membership, the name of his or her church, the church's phone number and address, and the name of its minister. The United States should not permit religious discrimination with Federal funds. As Theodore Roosevelt said, ``To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding about what title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says and does not say. Religious organizations are exempted from the general prohibition against religious discrimination in hiring personnel for work connected to the organization's religious activities. However, religious organizations are not permitted to discriminate in hiring for secular activities. There should be an ability in this Congress to make a distinction between those two descriptions.

This country has spent decades and decades working to eradicate the insidious venom of discrimination. It is an anathema to fundamental American ideals that we would now permit Federal moneys to be used to discriminate against people because of their religion. Taxpayers do not want to subsidize discrimination.

Federally funded programs to attack the causes of poverty do not have a religious mission, regardless of the service provider. Helping someone fill out tax forms is a secular program. Someone's religion is irrelevant to this program. The Federal Government should not fund the religious activities of any religious organization. To do so is a violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution which we hold up our hands every 2 years and swear to uphold. As the United States Supreme Court said in Bowen v. Kendrick, ``Even when the Court has upheld aid to an institution performing both secular and sectarian functions, it has always made a searching inquiry to ensure that the institution kept the secular activities separate from its sectarian ones, with any direct aid flowing only to the former and never the latter.''

On its Web site, Action for a Better Community says that faith-based organizations, quote, should be held to the same high standard of outcome delivery as community action agencies without compromising the separation of church and State. We would be wise to listen to their admonition.

I urge my colleagues to support the Woolsey substitute amendment which would clarify that religious organizations are welcome as service providers to low-income Americans and that they are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion. And I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment which would extend unemployment benefits for the 2 million unemployed Americans whose benefits have run out. Almost daily, my office hears from those Americans who are afraid of losing their homes or having to take their children out of school and simply being unable to meet their obligations. We owe it to them to give them some help until a job can be found for them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

It is such a pleasure to hear a real debate. I am delighted. I continue to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for President Bush and his high-dollar friends, but for millions of American families, it looks like the Grinch will be stealing Christmas. The media has widely reported that the President won victory after victory in negotiations over the details of this omnibus appropriations bill. But any Presidential victory comes at a very high cost.

America's working families and those struggling to stay afloat in the swift currents of unemployment will be stuck with the tab. The unemployment rate was essentially unchanged from October to November and almost 9 million Americans still cannot find work, including 6.2 percent of the New Yorkers who were unemployed.

Across the Nation, the number of Americans filing for the first time for unemployment benefits is up. New claims for unemployment have risen in 47 States and territories. One economist described last Friday's unemployment report as ``getting just the Christmas present you want but two sizes too small.'' The President assured the country that his massive tax cuts would create 300,000 jobs a month. But unfortunately for the millions of men and women looking for work, only 57,000 new jobs were created in November. That is the ``two sizes too small.'' The real effects of the administration's tax giveaways were more money to the wealthiest and a staggering Federal deficit.

Only a few days before the Christmas holiday and the beginning of a new year, unemployment benefits for thousands and thousands of Americans will run out. After December 20, thousands more will no longer be eligible for an extension of benefits. Today is our last opportunity before that happens to extend the unemployment benefits, to throw a small life preserver to those still caught in the swift currents of steady unemployment flowing through our murky economy.

Just this morning in the Committee on Rules hearing, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations agreed that unemployment benefits should be extended. We are spending $87 billion on Iraq, $150 billion this year, and we should be able to extend the unemployment benefits, especially considering that there is a surplus of unemployment funds.

We need to fight with all our might to protect American jobs, particularly the manufacturing jobs. Since January 2001, the United States has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. We should be exporting American products, not our jobs. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, is a nationwide network of centers devoted to providing small and medium size manufacturers with assistance, information, and access to business experts. We should be promoting this program, but instead this bill slashes the budget by 63 percent. It is absurd that we are considering cutting this valuable program while thousands of manufacturing jobs are lost every day. MEP has proven its value in boosting productivity in sales and employment. Slashing this program will cost small manufacturers almost $2 billion in sales and cost 28,000 workers their employment.

Despite the strong opposition of both elected bodies of Congress, President Bush was successful in killing legislative protections against limitations on overtime pay. Relaxing the overtime pay rules makes it easier for companies to force workers to put in more than 40 hours a week without additional pay. And under the broad rules proposed by this administration, many nurses will be ineligible for overtime pay, and even manual laborers would be classified as executives, which would end their eligibility for overtime pay.

These new regulations could make at least 8 million workers ineligible for the overtime, the money with which many pay their bills and take care of their families. Millions of them rely on that just to scrape by each month. And protecting the worker's right to overtime pay is such an important issue that people from across my district are asking me to oppose this entire bill because it does not include overtime pay protection.

I need to add that the overtime pay protection passed handsomely both Houses of Congress, and we instructed our conferees to keep it in the bill; but mysteriously it disappeared. A man from Tonawanda said last week to us no worker should lose his overtime pay since it is essential to their lives.

This massive bill is yet another example of the disturbing disregard for

women's health. The President's authority to enforce his global gag rule remains unchallenged. Under the Mexico City Policy, the United States Government uses family-planning dollars to impose itself between women and their doctors. The U.S. muzzles health care workers. Clinics are prohibited from mentioning or counseling women about abortion. Doctors and nurses are forced to forfeit the right to provide complete, accurate medical information and advice to their patients.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in half a century, the Republican Party controls both Houses of Congress and the executive, despite an authoritarian leadership style, inefficiency, and squabbling have produced a job that is less than half complete. The current fiscal year began over 2 months ago, and only three of the 13 measures that pay for functioning of the Federal Government were law by October 1 of fiscal year 2004. And right now only 6 of the 13 bills are law.

With this special rule, we will end the first session of the 108th Congress in a single day of hurried legislative activity.

Rather than wisely investing the body's time in deliberating the details of each of the seven remaining bills, we will spend 1 hour debating the merits of this massive conglomerate report. When substantive debate among Members is silenced, the millions of Americans that we represent are silenced and disenfranchised. Particularly, that is what happens, when one party of the House is excluded from all deliberations. This is not an attribute of a deliberative democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the coming second session that comity and genuine bipartisan collaboration will replace arm-twisting and exclusion. I hope that character, decency, virtue, and respect are more than words on a page. I hope that we all will embrace the right of all Members elected here to fully participate in a truly deliberative process and of all the people to be fully represented in their national legislature. A natural result of the decline of deliberative democracy is the decline in the quality of our laws and the decline of public support for them and the decline of the standard of living in the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

We are about to adjourn sine die and close the first session of the 108th Congress with no more legislative business until January 20th of next year. And just like last year at this time, we are again callously turning our backs on millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal unemployment benefits are set to expire shortly after Christmas.

It is very interesting how the Republican leadership can find billions of dollars to make their rich friends even richer, but cannot find it in their hearts to help jobless workers through this rough time with money that is already there for them. They can find $87 billion to fund the war in Iraq, but nothing for those here without jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a ``no'' vote to defeat the previous question on this rule so we can try to do something to help the unemployed American workers. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment so we can immediately take up legislation to extend the expiring Federal unemployment benefits. And I want to state again: the money is there. It does not have to be borrowed. It has been paid in. It simply requires Federal action to allow the States to expend it.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will continue the extended unemployment benefits program for the first 6 months of next year. The bill would also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that program, which is up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted

their extended benefits and have yet to find work.

This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension, and also contains the text of H.R. 3554, authored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates from continuing to receive extra benefits.

There is so much talk today about our economy and claims that things are looking good. However, new jobs are not forthcoming at this time and do not appear to be coming anytime soon. Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached the highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Jobs are disappearing every day with no relief in sight. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately.

If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 jobless Americans will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year. More than 2 million more will lose the benefits in the first 6 months of next year. And, Mr. Speaker, the House will probably adjourn sine die today or later this week, so this is the only opportunity we have to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.

I want to emphasize that voting against the previous question will not stop the omnibus appropriations conference report from coming to the floor today.

Voting ``no'' on the previous question will still allow that bill to be considered. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation that will help our Nation's unemployed workers.

However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question you will stop any opportunity for this House to extend desperately needed unemployment assistance to hundreds of thousands of our constituents and their families. Do you really want to go home and tell these people that you failed to do your job and failed to help them in their time of need?

Make no mistake, this vote will give the House the opportunity to vote today to extend Federal unemployment benefits and to give relief to those hardest hit by our Nation's grim employment situation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rules of this body require that before considering a conference report, a copy of the report and the joint explanatory statement must be available to Members for 3 business days. The Medicare drug conference report and accompanying explanatory statement were filed very early this morning, 1:17 a.m. But here we are, Mr. Speaker, debating a special rule waiving the House rule prohibiting the same-day consideration of the Medicare conference report that is more than 1,000 pages long. This defies common sense. This tramples on the rights of the Members of this body. How are we to make the best informed decisions for our constituents and the Nation about monumental legislation when we do not have the required opportunity to examine this report? What should be bipartisan conference committees are, in fact, clandestine meetings held behind closed doors. Democratic House Members were deliberately excluded from the conference committee. The only African Americans on the Committee on Ways and Means were banned from a place at the negotiating table speaking for our African American citizens. That included the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who was appointed to the conference by the Speaker of the House. Key policy bargains were made out of sight of Members and hidden from public inspection.

What is it that we and the American people are not supposed to see in the fine print? Does this plan hand billions of dollars to the wealthy drug companies and insurance industry? Does this plan hurt seniors more than it helps? Will seniors end up paying more and receiving less? What will the impact be on minority seniors? They were not represented at the table. Is this bill a Trojan horse of privatizing and dismantling Medicare? If this bill is the answer to seniors' cries for help combating the skyrocketing prices charged for medications, why are we not allowed to carefully review the hundreds of pages of this report? News reports and a quick glance at the bill indicate that nothing is done to freeze or control out-of-control drug prices.

Just this morning, Thomas Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a senior Member of the other body that he misunderstood this plan and needs to read the bill. That is a wonderful suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Too bad that we will not have that chance as the Senate has. Medicare is much too precious to kill because we will never, ever in our lifetimes and probably anybody else's in my voice's range be able to institute another program like this in America.

I remind my colleagues of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act which was passed without providing Members and seniors sufficient opportunity to read the pages and pages of fine print. The result was a momentous backlash. American seniors were outraged by the legislation, so outraged that Congress was forced to repeal the law the very next year.

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

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

I feel compelled to say that two-thirds of this bill could have been paid for by the money that the United States owes the Medicare Trust Fund today, $270 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member of Committee on Ways and Means, who stood at the door and knocked.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. There is no great list of dead Canadians from taking bad medicines.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the list that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) read off. I hope that they know what is in the bill, because we sure do not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, whether you support this bill or not, the Members should be very concerned that we are about to cast a vote on a major, major piece of legislation that only a small handful of House Members have actually read because it was not finalized and filed until 1:30 this morning.

They should be very concerned that this marshal law rule waives the House rule that requires the conference report layover for 3 days before coming to the floor for a vote. Of course, it was not supposed to be this way.

Just a few weeks ago, 44 members of the Republican Study Committee demanded that the Republican leadership allow Members 3 days to read the conference report after it was filed and before forcing them to vote on it. It was a reasonable demand since that is what the rules of the House say.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) agreed to it as has been publicly reported. Here is how the November 3, 2003, edition of Roll Call reported it: ``At a GOP conference meeting that was called exclusively to update Members on the Medicare talks, Hastert assured his troops that they would now get regular briefings on the Medicare bill and would have at leave 3 days to look over the conference report before having to vote on it, according to several Members who attended.

`` `The Speaker wants to make sure that Members are comfortable making this historic change' to Medicare, said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.''

The November 7, 2003, edition of Congress Daily quoted the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) ``referring to a promise made by House Speaker Hastert.''

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) said, ``The thing I'm happiest about is we get 3 days with the language.''

Now, we all know the Speaker of the House is an honorable man, but apparently the Republican leadership is willing to renege on his commitment and to ensure Members do not get 3 days with the language. Because while various summaries, press releases, and drafts may have been posted on Web sites of today, the final language of that conference report was not filed until early this morning. And 3 days from Friday morning is Monday morning, not Friday afternoon.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in opposing the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule so that it no longer waives the House's rule requiring a 3-day layover for all conference reports.

Voting no will not defeat the Republican Medicare bill, but it is the only way to uphold the commitment of the Speaker of the House and to allow Members and the public to examine this 700-page $400 billion Medicare bill before voting on it.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I said earlier today when I heard the long list of people who support this bill. We have to ask ourselves do they know what in the world is in it? Because we certainly do not.

Seniors, we do know, are drowning from the high cost of prescription drugs and the Republicans are telling them to swim towards an HMO. To paraphrase the old saying, ``Congress giveth and Congress taketh away,'' but in this case it mostly takes away. Congress takes away any hope for meaningful prescription drug coverage. It takes away the existing employer-provided benefits and low-income protections from retirees, and it takes away Medicare as we know it. It lures seniors with the promise of generosity and then gives them a pittance. But when this bill does give, it is wonderfully generous.

The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act is a boon for the pharmaceutical industry and for the insurance companies but does absolutely nothing to control the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. In fact, the bill forbids the government from doing anything about it.

Drug prices have risen dramatically in the last 20 years, increasing 256 percent since 1980. For years seniors have called our Congress to do something about these crushing drug prices, but this plan does nothing to freeze or reduce the out-of-control prices of medications. What it does do, as I said, is prevent the government from using its market power to bring the prices down. The Veterans Administration has had great success in reducing drug prices by bargaining with the drug companies. Why would we purposely tie our own hands? Our health system is crumbling under the burden of the prescription drug costs. Tossing billions of dollars at insurance companies to get them to do what they do not want to do and 70 billion to corporations to get them to do what they should do and a boon to pharmaceutical companies by not allowing reimportation to please them is not going to buttress this health care system. That money would have been far better spent on the prescription drug program. But saddling the elderly with even greater drug costs and our children with even greater deficits is no way to solve a public health crisis.

A few years ago, I organized a busload of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medicine at a fraction of the prices charged in the American market. We had dozens more people interested in the trip than we could accommodate, but the savings were anywhere from $100 to $650 on a 3-month supply of medication.

Would it not be wonderful if the seniors could save that much at their local drug store? Unfortunately, this bill will not let them go to Canada anymore. Despite having passed the House twice, money-saving drug reimportation would be banned. The out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs would continue to consume more and more of the seniors' fixed income.

Almost 40 years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress created the Medicare program and promised to help seniors with the burden of their health care costs. Private insurers did not want to offer the health insurance to older people any more than they do now. The premiums were raised to unaffordable levels, and seniors were dropped from health coverage altogether. Companies saw older people as a threat to the bottom line. So the Federal Government stepped in and filled the void in the marketplace.

And now we face a similar situation. If insurers thought they could make a dollar or two by offering prescription drug coverage to seniors, the plans would have already been in the marketplace. The bill creates a new benefits program unwisely relying on insurance products that do not exist. The Republicans are hoping that a $12 billion slush fund will entice the private insurers to develop prescription drug insurance. But the lucrative pharmaceutical industry with about a 30 percent profit yearly is the big winner in this game. A blank check is being written to the big drug companies, and in the first 8 years of this program, the companies stand to make a windfall of $139 billion over and above their current profits of 30 percent annually. The market recognizes this plan as a boon for drug companies because the stock prices of the major companies went up just over the news that this bill is nearing completion.

The proponents of privatizing Medicare also win. The scheme takes the first giant step to privatize Medicare. In six metropolitan areas, Medicare's guaranteed coverage would be replaced with what is essentially a voucher program to purchase private insurance with public money if they can find it. This ``demonstration'' could force up to 10 million seniors who want traditional fee-for-service Medicare to pay the higher premiums or turn to HMOs. Once Medicare is gone, there will never be another program ever like it in the United States paid for by payroll taxes. I am worried about the seniors that I represent, and it would be devastating for the seniors in western New York to lose those guaranteed benefits.

Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, and the insurance industry had far more access to the negotiations than the Democrats did, as the Members have heard that story before, and I will not belabor it. But I do want to say something about the AARP. President William Novelli's endorsement of this plan is no surprise. The support is waved around as if it is the seal of approval of every American senior. But 210 national, State, and local organizations oppose the plan, and seniors from coast to coast are ripping up their AARP cards. Interestingly, Mr. Novelli is the founder of the firm Porter Novelli, the group behind the television ads that brought down

the efforts to reform health care in the 1990's. Do any of the Members remember ``Harry and Louise''? Is Mr. Novelli hostile to meaningful health care reform, or can he just be paid to do anything, because $20 million in this bill goes to AARP?

This is not the first time that Congress has messed with Medicare. Congress passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 without even providing the Members sufficient opportunity to read its pages, much like tonight, and the fine print. The result was a momentous backlash. American seniors were outraged with the legislation, so outraged that Congress was forced to repeal the law the very next year.

Congress later created a Medicare+Choice program, which was also a failure. Within a few short years after its conception, private insurers dropped Medicare+Choice beneficiaries by the thousands, leaving them with no health benefits at all. My constituents are asking, does this face them again? I hope we remember our history and not repeat these mistakes and vote against this bill.

But the prescription drug proposal before us is a placebo, not a cure. It fails seniors, the out-of-control cost of prescription drugs will remain unchecked, and some will argue that this scheme is better than nothing. But believe me, a bad bill is worse than no bill. Medicare must be preserved. To dismantle this historic program is to break the sacred promise that Congress made to seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

(Mrs. Lowey asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

(Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

We would be happy to cooperate. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that we can rise for the unanimous consent request to say that we oppose the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is also a nurse, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader, for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the minority caucus chairman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), actually a pharmacist.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague, does she have anymore speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

I have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I am going to ask for a no vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule and restore the right of all Members under the House rules to consider the report for 3 days before they vote on it. Voting no on the previous question will not block consideration of the report. It will simply give all the Members who were not in the secret, closed meetings a chance to read it and a chance to look before we leap.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, this unusual move to allow for consideration of motions to suspend the rules provides this body with a great opportunity. Many pieces of legislation important to our constituents are awaiting consideration. With this rule we have a wonderful chance to address some of these significant issues. We should consider legislation to extend Federal unemployment benefits for an additional 6 months; I believe that would pass unanimously. Currently unemployment benefits are set to expire on December 31. We should not allow the millions of Americans still desperately looking for work to begin the next year in the lurch.

I am particularly concerned about the loss of 44,000 manufacturing jobs in Upstate New York since 2002. In Rochester alone, manufacturing employment is down 20 percent. In these tough economic times, it is our duty to help; and since we are rushing to adjournment this week, this is our last opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to use this golden opportunity to pass the genetic nondiscrimination legislation. Since 1995 I have led the fight to pass this nonpartisan, noncontroversial, and widely supported legislation. The bill currently has 236 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, the support of over 200 outside organizations, and the support of the President of the United States. Last month the other body unanimously passed the legislation which prohibits genetic discrimination. This is critical to the health of the country, something we have talked about all week. If we do not pass this legislation to prohibit genetic discrimination, we are in danger of bringing much of the research that we are so proud of in the United States to a halt.

Discrimination is already taking place. We have lots of evidence of it both in employment and insurance. If we want to continue to be on the forefront of science and to be able to make our residents and citizens the healthiest in the world, this bill should be passed. I want to urge the Speaker of the House today to put this bill on the suspension calendar, let us pass it, let the President sign it, and let us all move toward better health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, had the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend, yielded to me, I simply wanted to ask him if he is aware that the administration has just given AARP a $20 million grant and ask if he wondered if that had anything to do with their decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 650. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 650.

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

Mr. Speaker, the health of the American public could be seriously threatened. All across the United States for the past 30 years, a cancer-causing chemical has contaminated our drinking water. In New York State alone, over 1,500 sites have been contaminated. This carcinogen, MTBE, has been added to gasoline as an octane enhancer since the 1970's, and over these past 30 years, the public has learned that MTBE can cause, among other things, lymphoma, liver, testicular and kidney tumors. Outrageously, the MTBE industry knew of the chemical's environmental dangers before putting it into widespread use, according to the United States Conference of Mayors.

Responding to the serious public health threat posed by MTBE, the New York legislature passed, and Governor Pataki signed, legislation to ban the use, sale, or importation of fuels containing MTBE. Upon signing the legislation, Governor Pataki said that ``the use of MTBE in gasoline has significant environmental impacts on groundwater'' and ``New Yorkers deserve clean air and water.''

Mr. Speaker all Americans deserve and expect clean water and clean air, but unfortunately while New York and other States like California and Connecticut are taking steps to protect our water, this energy bill conference report would take steps not to protect the public, but to protect the MTBE manufacturers at the expense of their health.

The 1,700-page conference report on the Energy Policy Act, finalized in the dark this morning, hands the MTBE manufacturers a lucrative gift of liability protection. Manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits for making a defective product, and they are handed a $2 billion check during a 10-year phase-out period. The legal immunity bestowed upon MTBE manufacturers protects these producers from any case filed in the future and all cases previously filed.

I could go ahead about this, but the fact is that there were about four champions here who have had MTBE made in their districts in Texas and Louisiana. I want to urge all New Yorkers who hear my voice to vote against this bill because there is a $29 billion unfunded mandate that goes to the people of the country to pay because we make sure the manufacturer does not.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I rise to express my opposition to this energy bill, which backfires on our responsibility to pass a balanced energy bill.

Let me be clear, you should support this bill only if you thought the Cheney Energy Task Force report was a balanced solution to our nation's energy problems, because this bill is more of the same. Since we got a copy of this bill at 3:30 a.m. this morning, I cannot be sure of all the special interest provisions in this 1,700 page bill. However, I do know that it is harmful for national security, harmful for consumers, and harmful for the environment. Here are just some of the highlights:

The bill seems to be a throw back to the nation's 1950s energy policy. It fails to include standards for providing clean, renewable energy sources that would save consumers money on their utility bills, create jobs, reduce air pollution, and global warming emissions. Instead, this energy bill relies on tax breaks and subsidies for big energy companies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill's price tag exceeds $50 billion over the next decade, adding $18 billion to the deficit. It would give away $3.7 billion to coal-based technology and $6 billion to new nuclear power companies to name a few.

We are missing an opportunity to craft an energy bill that relies on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. Unlike this bill on the floor today, a bill that supported renewable energy would create four times as many jobs without adding to the deficit, not to mention improving our air and water.

Unfortunately, instead of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this legislation would actually increase our dependence by creating more hurdles to raising the fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. On top of not addressing the biggest source of air pollution, the bill preserves the $100,000 tax write-off, which professionals can use to purchase Hummers. The Hummer H2 has the unbelievably low fuel efficiency of 10 miles per gallon. While this vehicle does comply with 1950s fuel standards, that is not good enough given the latest research with global warming and technological advances.

Beyond the pollution created by vehicle emissions, my district in Upstate New York, like many communities, has been the unfortunate beneficiary of bad air quality that has been transported from other parts of the country. This bill will not help. In fact, it would greatly compromise the quality of air we breathe by loosening the ozone standards. The bill would allow communities not in compliance with the ozone standards to get more time to clean up without having to implement strong air pollution controls, placing a significant burden on states and communities downwind of these urban areas. However, this bill does not stop at creating loopholes for clean air.

As I discussed in an earlier floor statement today, I am particularly troubled that this bill lets producers off the hook for contaminating groundwater with the gasoline additive, MTBE, a probable human carcinogen. In addition to forcing taxpayers to assume an estimated $29 billion in cleanup costs, it also contains language preventing lawsuits against the industry. As if that was not enough of a break, the bill would also give the industry nearly $2 billion for transition costs, and allow the President or any state to opt out of the MTBE phase out. As a Member representing a state that has found drinking water contaminated with MTBE, this is unconscionable.

So from the details in the bill that I know, we are voting today on an expensive bill with $115 billion in industry givebacks, including $20 billion in direct tax incentives, with only 20 percent of that money going to renewable energy sources, and a bill that roll backs environmental protections. The bill does not save one drop of oil, or value public health and fiscal responsibility. For these reasons, I am forced to vote against H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions on why I was one of five Members to vote against the conference report on H.R. 2259, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, I prepared the following statement: I voted against yesterday's conference report because it fails to include a vital project important to our national security on the Northern Border at the Niagara Air Reserve Station in Niagara Falls, New York.

Shortly after being elected to represent part of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station in Niagara Falls, New York, I visited the base. I have become familiar with the service it provides not only to our community, but also to the nation. Most recently, I visited for the base for the happy occasion of the 914`b Airlift Wing's homecoming from deployment. The Air Force Reserve has even publicized the contributions of the base by showcasing the decision of 1 st Lieutenant Chris Pfeil, Jr. and Staff Sergeant Tim McNelis, both from the 914th Airlift Wing, to follow their fathers career's in the military. I ask unanimous consent that this article on their service be inserted in the Record. Other units stationed in Niagara Falls that are defending the home front and serving overseas are the 107th Air Refueling Wing and soldiers with the 865th Combat Support Hospital.

I have worked tirelessly with local officials, as well as my counterparts in the Senate, to secure the necessary funding to construct a facility at the base. Unfortunately, it appears that this project, rated the top priority by Niagara County officials, was not included in the final bill for the third year in a row. The fact that this funding was included in an earlier version of the bill, and then stripped out at the last minute during backroom maneuvers which sent the money to another part of New York State, is an insult to our democratic process. It seems that only bases represented by Members on the committee were funded. This is a disservice to the military facility in my district and bases throughout the country. It is a disservice to the men and women in uniform from the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station who have been deployed to serve their country in Iraq.

I could not, in good conscience, support this conference report. There is no doubt in my mind that the soldiers, not to mention the citizens in Niagara Falls, deserve better than what this bill provided. I want to assure the courageous servicepeople at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station that I am already preparing for the next opportunity to remedy this situation.

[From afreserve.com, June 17, 2003]

Like Father, Like Son in Southwest Asia

(By Staff Sgt. Pamela Smith)

Southwest Asia--The decision to follow their fathers into

the military wasn't a difficult one for 1st Lt. Chris Pfeil

Jr. and Staff Sgt. Tim McNelis, both from the 914th Airlift

Wing, Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, NY.

``I was introduced to it very young,'' said Chris Jr., a C-

130 pilot with the 772nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. ``So

joining the military was always something I kept in the back

of my mind.''

Pfeil said his father, Senior Master Sgt. Chris Pfeil Sr.,

a C-130 loadmaster also assigned to the 772nd EAS, never

pressured him but set an example for him to follow.

``It had to be his decision,'' said Chris Sr., ``and it was

important to support him in whatever he chose to do.''

``I've always wanted to fly, and this was the best

decision,'' Chris Jr. said, ``but he never pushed it.''

For Tim, a C-130 crew chief assigned to the 320th

Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron, it was his father's

advice against joining another branch of the service that

encouraged him to try the Air Force Reserve Command.

``He wanted to join the Marines at first and then he talked

about the Army,'' said Senior Master Sgt. Jerry McNelis, a C-

130 loadmaster with the 772nd EAS, ``but I talked him out of

it.''

Tim said he's happy with the decision he made to join the

Reserve because it allowed him to continue with school, and

two years ago he was hired as a full-time air reserve

technician.

He also is happy he's had the opportunity to deploy with

his father in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and

Iraqi Freedom.

``It's good to have a family member here,'' Tim said. ``You

always have someone to talk to.''

Knowing that his father will be flying on one of his

aircraft also makes him want to go that extra step.

``It gives me the incentive to work that much harder

knowing my dad is on my plane,'' he said.

For the Pfeils, being deployed here together has given both

of them peace of mind.

``Any parent or child is going to be concerned,'' said

Chris Sr., ``but when Chris goes on a mission, chances are I

was there the day before so I know the environment and what

he can expect and that helps.''

Having each other to lean on during this deployment has

been a benefit for both father/son teams, and for the fathers

it's an opportunity to see their children follow that much

closer in their footsteps.