Floor Statements

Offered By: Ms. Slaughter

Amendment No. 10: Page 21, line 3, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.

Page 47, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $3,000,000)''.

Page 91, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.

Page 128, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased $10,000,000)''.

Page 128, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Miller, which will block the Department of Labor from pursuing its plan to overhaul our overtime pay laws--at the expense of 8 million workers. Under these draft regulations, millions of workers who receive time and a half for their overtime work today will be required to work longer hours for less money.

The implications of this measure on working families that have long depended upon overtime work to make ends meet would be devastating. In fact, according to 2000 Census figures, workers who receive overtime pay report that it accounts for a quarter of their total take-home pay. Try telling these workers that enactment of these regulations wouldn't result in a pay cut!

Under these regulations, mid-level office workers, lower-level supervisors, licensed practical nurses, EMTs, cooks, secretaries, dental hygienists, air traffic controllers, social workers, administrative support, engineering technicians, planners, and paralegals could all find themselves categorized as ``white collar'' employees. Now, does that sound right?

With unemployment at its highest level in almost a decade and far too many of my constituents telling me that they live in fear that their jobs may be next, why, on earth, is the Department of Labor launching this new attack on America's workers?

First proposed in March, the proposed regulations would reclassify millions of workers as ``managers,'' rendering them ineligible for overtime pay. During the comment period on the proposed rule change, one hundred Members of this body wrote to the Labor Department, urging that these proposed changes be dropped.

In as much as the Labor Department intends to move forward with these rules, despite the public outcry and the strong congressional objections, it looks like this body is going to have to use its ``power of the purse'' and put an end to this ill-conceived effort.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor seems intent on picking up where the House Leadership left off. These rules are--quite simply--an insult to the working people of America.

Mr. Chairman, after the de facto defeat of the so-called ``Family Flexibility Act'' last month, it appears that the Department of Labor now plans to strip our overtime rules, on its own, without congressional involvement.

We have the opportunity today to tell the Department of Labor that this body will not stand for backdoor attempts at fundamentally undermining key labor laws. The economic security of far too many American families hangs in the balance.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and vote in favor of the Obey-Miller amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, each week in the Committee on Rules, I see my colleagues using procedure to kill substance and stifle debate. And again last night, the Committee on Rules passed a closed rule on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This closed rule prohibits all amendments.

I am again concerned to see that our obligation to debate and deliberate is sacrificed in the name of efficiency. The legislative calendar for the month of July is very full. We have much work to do, but this does not diminish or negate our obligations as Members of this body.

The Committee on Rules rejected an amendment to transfer funds from the general administration account in order to carry out the Technology Assessments Act. The closed rule prevents offering that same amendment from the floor. We lose the opportunity to consider the amendment and to discuss the Office of Technology Assessment for the Congress and the office's mission to consider the impacts of technology.

The closed rule also bars an amendment that would apply the Buy American Act to procurement of manufactured goods by the House. Who could disagree that we should buy American-made products for our offices, especially when unemployment is at 6.4 percent, the highest it has been in 9 years, and the economy continues to limp along?

Should we have an opportunity to discuss whether or not the desks in our offices, paid for by the American taxpayers, should be made in America? Sure we should.

Other issues in this bill merit discussion. The funding level for the Capitol Police is lower than in the 2003 fiscal year, and the funding is almost $80 million less than the Capitol Police requested. The closed rule provides only 1 hour of debate but will not allow this to be discussed. With the continual terrorist threats to the U.S., we should at least discuss the funding needs of the Capitol Police. We ask them to put their lives at risk every day to protect our staff, our visitors, and us; yet we refuse to take the time to discuss their funding levels.

H.R. 2657 provides the Architect of the Capitol no additional funds for the Visitors Center. Today's Washington Post published an article on the delays and cost overruns on this project, which we are all concerned about. The Committee on Appropriations expressed serious concerns about the management of the project; and, indeed, there are certainly questions to be asked.

We still have to ask questions about the expatriate corporations benefiting from this massive construction project. All of these serious concerns warrant further deliberation on the funding levels for the Architect of the Capitol; but, unfortunately, the Committee on Rules continues to trample on the rights of the minority. This venerable institution warrants a fair, open, and deliberative process in considering legislation; and I regret this is another opportunity lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Linder

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 thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) 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.)

Priorities, Mr. Speaker. Again and again the majority has used legislation and procedural tactics to force its priorities through the body. The majority passed another massive tax cut for the wealthiest people that provided no relief for low-income families with children and allowed practically no debate on the bill. They passed a hollow plan to write a blank check to the pharmaceutical companies and called it a prescription drug plan, again allowing little debate.

Last night the Committee on Rules demonstrated that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are more important than education, the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, public health, the needs of older Americans, and help for those who are suffering due to the impotent economy. H.R. 2660 falls far short of the funding levels needed to sustain important programs that should be our priorities.

The bill increases education funding, but the increase falls $700 million short of the funding increase promised in the budget resolution for the 2004 fiscal year. These funding levels do leave children behind. H.R. 2660 provides an increase in Title I spending, but it is approximately $300 million less than the $1 billion promised in the budget. Because the programs designed to leave no child behind are again underfunded, school districts will lose money, and our children will lose educational opportunities.

My district in New York will lose more than $700,000. The Niagara Falls City School District will lose over $100,000, and Buffalo City schools will face a loss of almost $900,000.

Only $1 billion of the $2.2 billion budgeted for special education is appropriated. Pell grants allow 307,234 students to attend New York colleges and universities, yet the funding for Pell grants is frozen at current levels. And the current levels of funding cover less than 40 percent of the cost of a college education at a 4-year public university.

The legislation also funds public health programs, which are truly some of the most important services that the Federal Government provides. However, H.R. 2660 provides few additional

resources for health services and public health. Quality health care is out of the reach of far too many Americans. Recent press accounts have highlighted severe problems with the oversight of the State Medicaid programs, and States face financial crises. Over 3 million people in New York depend on Medicaid, and, across the Nation, 4 million children rely on State Children's Health Insurance Programs, SCHIP, for health care. In New York, over a half a million children rely on SCHIP. There are no increases in funding for childhood immunization grants or for the program that provides the scholarships for nursing students, despite the serious shortage of nurses in this country.

Despite these tax cuts which were made, actually what we are doing is shifting the burden to the middle class, and then, obviously, the programs that we care about are being cut, and while we are doing that, issuing these tax cuts that were supposed to do such wonderful things, the economy slowly staggers along. And the result of the stagnant economy is that 6.4 percent of all Americans are unemployed. That is the highest number in almost a decade. We have the largest deficit we have ever had in our history, and more than 9 million Americans who want to work and support their families cannot find work.

Are we going to help these millions of Americans until they are able to find jobs? No. We either freeze the funding levels for programs to help low-income Americans at the same level as last year, or it reduces funding levels. And because of inflation, the bill would leave the victims of poor economic policy with fewer resources.

Natural gas prices are rising and will likely be 50 percent higher by this winter, but the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program was slashed by 10 percent. This bill will literally leave 635,000 New York households that rely on LIHEAP in the cold. And believe me, last year it was cold.

Before the July 4 recess, the older Americans were given a hollow promise of insurance coverage for the astronomically high cost of prescription drugs. Now, H.R. 2660 comes back again to take a swipe at elderly Americans. Almost 200 million older, home-bound Americans rely on Meals-on-Wheels. The allocated funding levels for the Meals-on- Wheels program would force serious cuts in the services, resulting in 4.6 million fewer meals delivered. Our priorities are not providing fewer meals to home-bound elderly Americans.

Last night the Committee on Rules passed an open rule for the consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations for the 2004 fiscal year. Also last night the committee rejected an amendment to add $5.5 billion to this appropriations bill. The additional funds could be added by reducing the tax cuts from $88,000 a year to $60,000 for those making more than $1 million. Because the majority refused to grant a waiver in the open rule, the amendment is out of order. The $5.5 billion in additional funds from the big tax cut would go to education, to public health, to services for low-income and elderly Americans, and more. Meals-on-Wheels would keep rolling. Education funds would go to the children and make sure that truly no child is left behind, and would provide the health care immunization shots for children, and it would keep houses warm during the icy winter.

Every day we as elected representatives make choices. The appropriations process requires us to make difficult choices sometimes. But the Federal Government, we know, has a finite amount of money, and we must choose wisely how to allocate the resources. The appropriations process for the 2004 fiscal year is incredibly more difficult because Federal funds have been severely depleted. The billions of dollars in tax cuts given to the wealthiest Americans have depleted it. This House has chosen to fund millionaires rather than fund programs for elderly Americans, the 9 million people unemployed, and children's minds and bodies. That is the wrong choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I am afraid my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, did not pay very much attention to what I was saying. I do not recall at any point saying that we would like to add more money. What we were talking about were the extraordinary cuts that have been taken to programs that people have learned to really rely on. It has always been the basic tenet of this government that we want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to rise equally, have an opportunity to have good education, have the opportunity to enjoy good health.

What we have done in this measure, and I continue to say that the reason the resources are not there are because of the tax cuts, is that we are taking away the rights of many children to go to Head Start, to get a good education that we want them to have; we are taking away their SCHIP program, which provides health insurance for them, and what is very disturbing, too, is that the elderly have already taken hits.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) better hope for that because otherwise America will be pretty disappointed to find that they have been left behind, not just the children but the elderly, the middle class, all the rest of them, and certainly the unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to insert tabular material.)

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a rather strange procedure going on here. We are going to be called in to vote on the previous question on one rule and on the rule for legislative branch. I do not know in what order, but I want to give a little talk about this.

First, I want to urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the HHS bill. If that previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey substitute to restore funding for the numerous programs which have been shortchanged in this bill. It will also make in order the Obey amendment to restore cuts to States for their child health care programs under Medicaid and SCHIP. Both of these amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the majority.

H.R. 2660 provides funding for some of our most vital services, services that touch the lives of every American family, from education to preschoolers, from low-income families to college tuition assistance, to Meals on Wheels for the elderly and medical research; and as critical as they are, we have drastically underfunded them in this bill. The Obey substitute will help restore some of the desperately needed funds.

The second Obey amendment will help financially strapped States provide child health care to the uninsured children. The cost of both of the amendments will be offset by reducing the 2004 tax cuts for those with incomes in excess of $1 million, cutting their tax break from $88,000 to $44,000. We believe the millionaires can spare a few dollars to help restore the funding.

Whether or not Members are Republicans or Democrats, they should be concerned about the lack of an adequate funding for the critical programs and services in this bill. Virtually every American is affected by this bill, whether it is health care, education, medical research for the elderly, LIHEAP, so on. The Obey amendments

would help fix the terrible funding deficiencies in the bill and help States provide health care to children who are not covered by health insurance. Again, they would do so with no additional cost to the deficit.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, but a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the important amendments. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I need to explain that we have another vote coming up on another appropriations bill. That is the rule for the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which we hope will come first. We are not certain. We are urging a ``yes'' vote on that rule so that Members can go on record of voting to self-execute out the language that was put into the bill by unknown persons or persons unknown which would expand dental and vision coverage for Members and employees of the House. Again, we urge a ``yes'' vote on that to go on record to self-execute that, and a ``no'' vote on the previous question, which we believe will be called first.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendments 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 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, this is a very sad day for most of us. A program that has served America well and has given peace of mind and good health care to seniors for over 40 years is under threat today; and actually, what we know is going to be before us is the death of Medicare.

One of the saddest parts about this bill today is that the Democrats have no role in it. To all of my colleagues who showed up last night at the Committee on Rules, or this morning, actually, at the Committee on Rules with amendments that they thought that they could use to strengthen the bill, I apologize to you that there is no possibility in the world that you could do it. I hope that you did not hate yourself this morning for all the sleep that you lost for nothing.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process. The underlying bill will harm every single one of the 40 million Americans served by Medicare. At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page prescription drug legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half of the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration.

The other body, on the other hand, has spent over 2 weeks debating similar legislation. In stark contrast, we meet when nobody is around, up in the attic, as someone said today, and are permitted only 3 hours to discuss the largest overhaul of Medicare in its history. The people we represent would be disgusted if they understood how this issue is being handled.

We are not naming a post office here. We are considering, as I said, the most important change to Medicare since its creation. This decision will affect so many people. It is no simple undertaking, and it certainly deserves more debate than allowed by this rule.

To add even more confusion to the messy process, the Committee on Rules incorporated the so-called Health Savings Account bill into the rule for the Medicare overhaul legislation, so what we are doing here are two rules. So-called health savings accounts would create a new tax advantage, personal savings accounts, used to pay the out-of-pocket medical expenses. At first glance, perhaps it sounds innocuous. But when you look at the fine print, you see that it basically amounts to a $72 billion tax cut over the next 10 years while the Federal deficit continues to grow out of control. Even worse, it is a tax break with a destructive purpose: to threaten the traditional employer-based health care by actually encouraging companies to reduce their employees' health coverage.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most egregious problem with the legislation before us is it does nothing to address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. Oh, sure, they will tell us that we can import drugs from Canada, but the fact of the matter is that an amendment inserted into the Senate

bill by one of our Senators says that it cannot be done unless it is certified by the Secretary of HHS, who has stated already that he will not do it. Therefore, any debate today about being able to import drugs is absolutely a farce.

The consumer price index on which Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are based rose 98 percent, and the prescription drug costs that are crippling older Americans rose even higher. Seniors on Medicare are expected to spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next decade.

Today's Washington Post tells a story of Marie Urban of Cleveland. After her housing and Medicare payment, she has $459 a month for utilities, food, car insurance, taxes, and medication. She told The Post that some months she has 87 cents left over. This is wrong. She deserves better. A few years ago, as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at fractions of the prices charged in the American market. We had dozens more people interested than we could accommodate, but those who went saved anywhere from $100 to $650 on a 3-month supply of medication.

We are fortunate to live in an age when science provides the medications that cure illness and improve the quality of life and extend life. But the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot afford to buy it. The skyrocketing price of prescription drugs is the number one concern of American seniors and, indeed, most Americans. H.R. 1 does nothing to freeze or reduce the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs. In fact, again, the idea of going to Canada and handing it out with one hand and taking it away with the other is something that the drug companies will be very happy about, because they have fought in every possible venue to keep the reimportation of drugs.

At the same time, we hoped that we might do what the Veterans Administration has done with great success. By negotiating for the people that they represent with the drug companies, they have been able to save many of their veterans a great deal of money. Seniors fear this bill is a rush to privatize Medicare. We saw the flop of Medicare+Choice when many, many private insurance companies pulled out completely on senior citizens, leaving many of them in parts of the United States completely uncovered. Indeed, they have told us again, they do not want to cover a prescription drug program. One hundred percent of the people they cover will buy medicine. This is not what they consider a good business proposition.

Forty years ago, Congress created the Medicare program because private industry would not offer health insurance to older people. Companies saw the older people as a threat to their profits. We should have learned this lesson in the 1960s, because nothing has changed; and now we are today taking away what is probably the most important issue to senior citizens, will they be able to get health care.

Don Young, who is the President of the Health Insurance Association of Americans, quoted here often, has said, ``We caution Congress against relying on drug only insurance as a mechanism to deliver a benefit.''

Ira Loss, an analyst with Washington Analysis, said, ``The private sector that is supposed to be excited about this isn't. It creates a new benefit program built around insurance products that do not exist and are likely to never exist.''

Mr. Speaker, this proposal would replace Medicare's guaranteed coverage with what is essentially a voucher program to purchase private insurance, assuming that there is an insurer willing to sell it to you. But those who want the traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be forced to pay higher premiums. We have no idea, for example, what Part B would cost because it is not in the bill, which is intended to force the beneficiaries out of traditional Medicare and into private insurance.

Mr. Speaker, senior citizens do not want this legislation. We have all received call after call and letter after letter beseeching us to oppose this plan. They did not contact me because they need prescription drug coverage. They called and wrote me because they know this bill will not provide them with the help they desperately need.

According to the Consumers Union, the average Medicare user spends $2,318 for prescription medicine. Under this plan, the out-of-pocket drugs would rise to $2,954 for the average senior on Medicare. So this program is a placebo, not a cure, legislation crafted to provide political cover for the majority, not provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. Some may argue that this is something better than nothing, but it is only a start and, frankly, what we have in Medicare has not been that bad. But as many of our constituents say, a bad bill is worse than no bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that will raise premiums and reduce their choices and dismantle Medicare is a very bad bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have so little time to try to make any points here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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 such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we will pay attention to that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is pleased that the Democrats tried to make the gentleman's amendment in order last night.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

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

Today, the House votes on the biggest change in Medicare in its 40- year history, a change that will affect 40 million Americans; but the Republican leaders have rigged the rules to prevent the House from voting on serious alternatives offered by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Mr. Speaker, I will call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question in the hope that the House gets the chance to consider an additional alternative that the Republican leaders fear. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Dooley prescription drug alternative substitute. It makes all senior citizens enrolled in Medicare part B eligible for prescription drug assistance without increasing their premiums. Unlike the Republican bill, it has no sickness penalty or doughnut hole that seniors can fall through. Unlike the Republican bill, it does not encourage companies to drop seniors' existing drug plans.

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop the consideration of H.R. 1. It will simply allow the House to vote on the Dooley substitute. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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 yield back the balance of my time.

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 rise in strong support of S. 858, a bill to extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission.

History recognizes Abraham Lincoln as one of this Nation's greatest and most visionary Presidents. Born in rural Kentucky, Lincoln rose from humble roots to the highest office in the land. He was renowned as a masterful orator and legislator. He led our country through its greatest internal crisis, our Civil War, with a decisiveness balanced with humanity. In 1863, Lincoln issued the revolutionary Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the South. And he professed himself committed to rebuilding our Nation into a strong, united entity through a generous, practical reconstruction program in the South.

Tragically, Lincoln never had the opportunity to act upon his vision for Reconstruction. Just 5 days after Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln was shot at nearby Ford's Theater. He died of his wounds the next morning. An outpouring of grief swept across the Nation, with thousands meeting his funeral train at every stop.

Abraham Lincoln embodied the principles and qualities our Nation values most highly. He was scrupulously honest, forthright, and moral. In all matters of governance, he made decisions based on his desire to do the greatest good for the largest number of people. He was utterly committed to the fair treatment of all Americans and to healing the wounds of our internal divisions.

As a Member of Congress, I strive to emulate Lincoln's example. In doing so, I am deeply proud to say that I am deeply proud to say that I am carrying on a family heritage. I can trace my own ancestry back to Lincoln himself; our families lived in the same part of Kentucky. His portrait hangs in my office as a constant reminder of his noble spirit and eloquent example.

The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission was established in 2000 to inform the public about the impact Abraham Lincoln had on the development of our Nation and to identify the best possible ways to honor his accomplishments. The Commission has already done a great deal of excellent work and looks forward to doing much more. Under the original legislation, however, the Commission is scheduled to expire this year--3 years before the actual Lincoln Bicentennial in 2003. This legislation would extend the Commission's life through the bicentennial it was established to celebrate.

Just last month, I was deeply honored to be appointed to the Commission's advisory board. It will be my privilege to work with my fellow board members and the Commission to educate our Nation about my kinsman and role model.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 858 and honoring the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. Without his leadership, our Nation would not be the strong, unified United States we are today.

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 gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, priorities, what are our priorities? H.R. 1528 is a popular, noncontroversial measure that would likely pass under suspension of the rules. So why have we made such a bill more problematic and more difficult to pass? A controversial provision unrelated to restraints on the IRS or protections for American taxpayers was grafted onto this consensus legislation for the second time. If our priority is to enact additional protections for the Federal taxpayer, why was a provision waiving consumer protections for the health insurance tax credit, for workers who have been displaced by trade, implanted into this unrelated bill?

The problem that we now face as we consider H. Res. 282 is that the taxpayer protection bill eliminates the federally mandated requirements of affordability and nondiscrimination for state-based insurance policies for the American workers whose jobs were moved overseas. This controversial and problematic add-on allows the insurers to pick and choose the displaced workers that they wish to cover, insuring the young and healthy and refusing to cover the older workers and those with preexisting conditions. Such a provision would undo the promises Congress last year made to the displaced workers and to their families. Is our priority the health of working families, or is it increasing the bottom line for certain health plans?

Fortunately, the rule does make in order the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my fellow New Yorker, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which better reflects what our priorities should be. This amendment removes the waivers that would allow insurance plans to discriminate and includes the child tax credit that seems to have been abandoned in the bureaucratic forest.

The Nation was outraged to learn that in the recent tax-cutting package almost 12 million children were denied the benefit of the increased child tax credit. A way to correct this is simple and straightforward. The other body overwhelmingly by a vote of 94 to 2 passed a clean, simple, bipartisan bill to extend the child tax credit to the 7 million low-income working families. However, our priorities went in the wrong direction.

Instead of quickly passing the other body's bill so the President could sign it and these low-income working families could receive immediate tax credits, which they badly need, the Chamber chose to consider and pass another round of tax cuts totaling $82 billion without any offsets, following on the heels of the $350 billion worth of tax cuts. This indicated that the priority is to use the child tax credit legislation as another opportunity to add more and more tax cuts for those at the highest levels of wealth.

The Rangel substitute includes the language in the clean bill passed by the other body and contains language to extend the child tax credits to the 200,000-or-so families of the military personnel who serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or other combat zones and nonetheless are ineligible under the House-passed tax free-for-all. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: 200,000 families of military personnel who are on active duty were denied the protections or the benefits from this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that the provisions permitting the discrimination can be excised from an otherwise noncontroversial bill that would undoubtedly pass unanimously. Should H. Res. 282 pass, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute amendment for these children and families who deserve swift and deliberate action without political add-ons and political chicanery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back my time.

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 my colleague and neighbor from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that those of us who oppose this bill love the family farms and small businesses no less than anyone else in the Congress. The fact of the matter is that this tax is paid now by such a small percentage of people, less than 2 percent in the United States, that we believe almost every family farm and every small business is covered already by not having to pay estate tax, and indeed, the 2 percent who pay it, including the Warren Buffetts and the Bill Gateses and his father, all claim that this is a very bad direction for us to go in. They do not want to build large kingdoms of their own wealth. They are asking that we keep this because it has always been the American policy for taxation that it is based upon the ability to pay.

We would be wise, I think, to remember our American history. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, a hero of mine, who led the charge to create an inheritance tax, believed that the wealthy had a special obligation to the government. He said: ``The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.''

It would also be wise to remember the virtues of responsibility and accountability, especially now that the deficit has gone from the $5.6 trillion surplus to a $400 billion deficit in a little more than 2 years. The underlying legislation before us today would drain $80 billion more a year from the already empty Federal Treasury. In other words, the money would have to be borrowed.

Now, what does this say to the American people when we prioritize the checkbooks of the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans before paying for the health care for our veterans and fully funding education? I know that the President pledged to repeal estate tax during his campaign, and I am sure that he knows some people in the top 2 percent who will benefit from the complete and permanent elimination of the inheritance tax.

In fact, he probably mingled with a few of them just last night during the event that kicked off the largest political fund-raising drive in our history. But I meet those whose Social Security benefits are threatened by the drain on the resources of the government, some of the 9 million unemployed and 12 million children that are still without the help of the child tax credit. Teddy Roosevelt admonished, and this is so important because it is so wise, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

I hope that in the short time allocated for discussion of this legislation that we do not frighten the family farmers and small business owners. As I said, all of them, unless they are among the wealthiest 2 percent in the United States, are covered already by not paying this tax. They have worked hard to keep their farms from falling into bankruptcy, and far too many family farms are going under already. They fight hard to keep their small businesses going, and we support them in every way that we can, especially during this continued economic decline. They are not subject to the estate tax as it currently exists. I cannot stress that enough.

Indeed, one of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules last night talked about an event in his home State where the convention hall was full and the President said he wanted to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax

and got a humongous response to that. My colleague on the Committee on Rules said that he was sure that not more than 40 people in that room, if that many, would have benefitted from that repeal.

Special estate tax rules for family farms value their farm land at less than other land, at between 45 percent and 75 percent of its fair market value, and already allows farm couples to exempt up to $2.6 million from taxes. Family businesses pay less than 1 percent of all estate taxes. Family business couples can also exempt up to $2.6 million from taxes. The Pomeroy substitute provides even more protections for them. It excludes from the inheritance tax any estate owned by a couple worth $6 million.

Almost a decade ago, the gentleman from California, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, said on the floor that ``all,'' and in parentheses the minority members at that time, ``are asking for fair treatment on both sides of the aisle here.'' And I agree with my colleague, I want fairness on both sides of the aisle. I would also like fairness and a little old-fashioned common sense.

Under H. Res. 281, only one amendment has been made in order, a substitute amendment offered by my friend from, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). However, instead of choosing his substitute amendment that paid for itself, in other words, took money from probably from the tax cut from the very wealthy and paid for what he is recommending here, where we would have no further drain on the Treasury because it would not have added a single penny to the Federal deficit, but instead of making that amendment in order, the Committee on Rules made a second amendment in order which only partially offsets the cost of the elimination of taxes on estates larger than $3 million.

Even though H.R. 8 falls short, and fails to offset any of the $80 billion annual losses it creates and adds to our increasing deficit, it is very important to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the differences between H.R. 8 and the Pomeroy substitute amendment is .35 percent. That's all. H.R. 8 would permanently remove the estate tax on any estate, even those as large as $3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion or larger, and cost the Federal Government more than $800 billion over 10 years. The Pomeroy amendment would exempt every estate in America, except for the wealthiest of the wealthy. Only one-third of 1 percent of estates would be so large that they surpassed the generous exclusion in the Pomeroy substitute.

This bill does a great deal for a very few. It really does, again, add to the deficit. And the most important thing about it are that the people who benefit from it the most are the people who most loudly say not to do this; that we do not need it. We would much prefer a stronger economy in America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds. Saying that it will preserve family farms from taxation does not make it true. They are preserved already from taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague from New York that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) would really hate to be put in that category of a lefty.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. And if it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will make in order the portion of the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) request that made his amendment budget neutral and was paid for. The amendment was offered, but was rejected on a party-line vote. At least that part was taken out.

The Pomeroy substitute will provide substantial tax relief from estate taxes. In fact, it grants more generous relief to most estates than the Republican bill and grants it immediately. The Pomeroy substitute completely exempts all but the largest estates from taxation and significantly simplifies tax planning for estates of all sizes. It also exempts virtually all family farms and small businesses from estate taxes. Furthermore, the Pomeroy substitute will not add one single penny to the deficit. Unlike the Republican bill, it will be completely paid for.

Republicans in the House have continued for weeks to block any and every bill that provides tax relief to the people who need it most in this Nation. Even on the issue of estate tax, they favor the rich over the middle- and lower-income working Americans. They continue to take care of their wealthy friends again today with yet another deficit- busting bill. Let us take this opportunity to make in order a substitute that will immediately eliminate estate taxes for all estates of less than $6 million. That is 99.65 percent of all estates, 99.65; and it will also do that without costing any additional dollars to the deficit.

Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on the Pomeroy substitute which is fully paid for. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent us from voting on a fiscally responsible and revenue-neutral tax bill. 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 yield back the balance of my time.

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that it will take years, if not decades, for Iraq to be restored and rebuilt in the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our nation's desire to restore and rebuild Iraq--for the Iraqi people--is to be commended. It reflects the most dearly held values in American society.

As Americans, we want to make the world a better place. We want people to live full, healthy lives without fear of violence and hunger. We want children to have full stomachs, clear heads and the educational resources to realize their potential. We believe that healthcare should not be available to only the rich.

Certainly, as a nation, we want to elevate the quality of life for the Iraqi people, who bear the scars of years of hunger, violence and fear. At the same time, we must ask, what is being done to end the hunger, violence and fear that dominates the lives of far too many Americans?

As USAID makes the first down-payment of $1.7 billion that the United States has dedicated to the housing, education, health care, and the infrastructure of rebuilding Iraq, we must ask--what is the Administration's plan to ``Rebuild America ``?

Here at home, our schools are closing, summer school activities are being shut down, hospitals are not able to provide the health care, and state and local first responder budgets are being stretched thin.

Over the past two years, 3.1 million Americans have lost their jobs, nearly 5 million Americans have lost their health care coverage, and 2 million families that were living the American Dream have dropped out of the middle class into poverty.

This is not progress. We need a plan to ``Rebuild America.''

Enacting more tax cuts, as the Administration favors, is illogical. How can a $550 billion tax cut that primarily changes the tax treatment of corporate dividends stimulate the economy? How will this tax cut help state and local authorities address the shortfalls in our nation's critical infrastructure? Twenty billion dollars, as provided in the tax package, is wholly inadequate. Moreover, it is a drop in the bucket as compared to our $1.7 trillion commitment to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, while I believe that rebuilding Iraq will be important to secure lasting peace in the region, it must not come at the expense of rebuilding America.

My colleague, Rahm Emanuel, has introduced legislation to require that for every dollar spent rebuilding Iraq, at least one dollar is spent addressing the health care crisis in America, urgent school construction, funding for first responders, and other domestic priorities.

In looking over USAID's plans for Iraq, I cannot understand how the Administration can justify building 12,500 new schools in Baghdad, without doing anything for children in America. Today, far too many America children are forced to study in trailers because their school districts simply do not have the funds to build a new school.

How can the Administration justify providing health care services to 13 million Iraqis while 42 million Americans struggle to live without health care? It's indefensible. Why, just today, Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator of Iraq, announced plans to invest $100 million to create jobs in Iraq.

in iraq?

Mr. Speaker, how can the Administration justify launching this ambitious initiative in Iraq when there are thousands of workers in Western New York that have been unemployed for over two years?

Mr. Speaker, the Administration must not sit idly by and let America fall apart, just as unprecedented resources are being dedicated to reconstructing Iraq. I strongly believe that enactment of H.R. 1738 will help us make significant strides in the effort to restore this nation.

We must rebuild America. We owe it to the men and women who fought in Iraq, risking their lives to protect our homeland. We owe it to our children. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to all Americans.

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

I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 110, a resolution that I was pleased to author with my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),

the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member.

This resolution recognizes a set of milestones in the history of human scientific endeavors. In April of 1953, two young scientists by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick published an article in the journal ``Nature'' describing the structure of a molecule known as deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In doing so, they opened the doors to an entirely new field of research that explained the information carrying the genetic code and the way it is duplicated, translated, and activated.

This field of research culminated 2 months ago with the announcement that the next generation of scientists had completed a full map of the human genome. Every one of the 3 billion base pairs in a strand of human DNA has been identified. This singular achievement is the result of more than a decade of concerted planning, international cooperation, and single-minded dedication to the cause. It is a scientific accomplishment of the highest order, emblematic of the advances in human knowledge of which we are capable when we work together across all divisions.

When the human genome project was initiated, the technology to carry it through did not exist. It was invented as the research sped along. Congress, to its credit, considered this endeavor worthy of funding and had faith in our scientists' ability to achieve it. It was, therefore, also a stunning example of the vision and good of which our government is capable.

H. Con. Res. 110 expresses the sense of the U.S. Congress that we recognize these achievements for the historical landmarks that they are. The resolution also lends its support to the designation of April as Human Genome Month and April 25 as DNA Day. Furthermore, it encourages schools, museums, cultural organizations, and other educational organizations to recognize the dates with appropriate programs and activities.

Even though the resolution does not specifically do so, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to commend the individual who has directed the human genome projects since 1993, my good friend, Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins began his career as a brilliant scientist, a pioneer in the field of genetics and discoverer of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He has continue his career, however, as a brilliant administrator, a truly remarkable progression.

Under his leadership, the human genome project has been completed under budget and ahead of schedule. Dr. Collins guided and shaped the initiative for a full decade, bringing it to fruition. Our Nation, and indeed, our world, owe him a debt of gratitude.

I am pleased the leadership has agreed to consider this resolution today, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I would also, however, like to urge the body to take up a far more urgent piece of legislation on the subject of genetics, which is the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act.

The resolution before us today recognizes the immense benefit which the mapping of the human genome may have for us. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act would forestall the darker consequences that could arise through this new technology. We must not allow the potential advances in human health to be stifled because Americans fear that their genetic information may be used against them.

I urge the leadership to take up and pass the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employee Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 110, a resolution that I was pleased to author with my colleagues, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell.

This resolution recognizes a set of milestones in the history of human scientific endeavors. In April 1953, two young scientists by the name of James Watson and Francis Crick published an article in the journal Nature describing the structure of a molecule known as deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In doing so, they opened the doors to an entirely new field of research--that exploring the information carried in the genetic code and the way it is duplicated, translated, and activated.

This field of research culminated two months ago with the announcement that the next generation of scientists had completed a full map of the human genome. Every one of the three billion base pairs in a string of human DNA has been identified. This singular achievement is the result of more than a decade of concerted planning, international cooperation, and single-minded dedication to the cause. It is a scientific accomplishment of the highest order, emblematic of the advances in human knowledge of which we were capable when we work together across all divisions.

When the Human Genome Project was initiated, the technology to carry it through did not exist. It was invented as the research sped along. Congress, to its credit, considered this endeavor worthy of funding and had faith in our scientists' ability to achieve it. It was, therefore, also a stunning example of the vision and good of which our government is capable.

H. Con. Res. 110 expresses the sense of the U.S. Congress that we recognize these achievements for the historical landmarks they are. The resolution also lends its support to the designation of April as Human Genome Month and April 25 as DNA Day. Furthermore, it encourages schools, museums, cultural organizations, and other educational institutions to recognize these dates with appropriate programs and activities.

Even though the resolution does not specifically do so, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to commend the individual who has directed the Human Genome Project since 1993: my good friend, Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins began his career as a brilliant scientist, a pioneer in the field of genetics, and discoverer of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He has continued his career, however, as a brilliant administrator--a truly remarkable progression. Under his leadership, the Human Genome Project has been completed under budget and ahead of schedule. Dr. Collins guided and shaped the initiative for a full decade, bringing it to fruition. Our nation, and indeed our world, owe him a debt of gratitude.

I am pleased that the leadership has agreed to consider this resolution today, and I urge

my colleagues to support it. I would also, however, like to urge this body to take up a far more urgent piece of legislation on the subject of genetics: the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act. The resolution before us today recognizes the immense benefit which the mapping of the human genome may have for us. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act would forestall the darker consequences that could arise from this new technology. We must not allow the potential advances in human health to be stifled because Americans fear that their genetic information will be used against them. I urge the leadership to take up and pass the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Village of Lyndonville, New York. This congressional recognition will be presented later this month when village officials and citizens gather together to celebrate this historic event.

The Village of Lyndonville is a small town that has evolved with the times, but whose residents have never lost touch with their roots. Its history resembles that of many of the small towns on which our nation was built. In the 1820s, the area began to grow after the construction of a corduroy road, which was built of logs laid side by side transversely. This road is now Route 63--Lyndonville's Main Street. The locale began to prosper after several merchants built businesses on Main Street in 1836. Settlers also found the area attractive due to the possibilities offered by Johnson's Creek, which runs through the village. Named for the British Indian agent, Sir William Johnson, Johnson's Creek was harnessed by early settlers as a power source. Early settlers built the first flouring mills using the creek, including S. W. Mudgett, Samuel Tappan, and Richard Barry, among others.

The village was originally called Lyndon--in honor of Lyndon, Vermont, the home of many of its original settlers. Lyndon's name was eventually changed to Lyndonville in order to distinguish the village from nearby Linden, New York. One hundred years ago, the Village of Lyndonville was officially incorporated in Orleans County, on the shore of Lake Ontario.

The village sits on one square mile of beautiful, fertile Western New York land. The surrounding area is home to many of New York's famous apple orchards, as well as the lush, rolling vistas created by the retreating glaciers ages ago. Nestled against Lake Ontario, Lyndonville is blessed with the rich soil and pastoral serenity that Americans consider the ideal of our countryside, evocative of Mayberry and Grover's Corners.

With a population of 950, Lyndonville is a close-knit community where everyone is a neighbor. Most people know each other, and even if you are not well acquainted, faces smile with recognition and greetings are exchanged with warmth. Friendly inquiries are made when there has been an experience with pain--or joy. Anytime a neighbor is suffering from ill health or some loss, the community is there to help, to lighten the burden, and to express its loving concern. Beyond the village's long and distinguished history, Lyndonville is simply a place residents are proud to raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Village of Lyndonville's 100th birthday, I unite with its residents to celebrate their accomplishments and contributions to Orleans County, our state, and our nation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, considering the rule for the same unconstitutional bill. I must voice my grave concern with H.R. 760, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Today The New York Times says in an editorial, ``Partial Birth Mendacity,'' which means lie, that although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first trimester, but well before fetal viability.

My constituents are facing unemployment. They are losing out on child tax credit. They need more funding for our first responders, they need the promised health care for our veterans; but here we are debating a rule on legislation that violates fundamental constitutional rights and threatens women's health.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court struck down similar legislation that banned safe and effective abortion procedures. They confirmed again a woman's reproductive rights as recognized in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

H.R. 760 suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska statute thrown out by the Court. The ban on medical procedures is vague and overbroad, and it does not contain an exception from the procedure ban when a woman's health is threatened. And it goes so far as to give the father of the fetus the right to sue the woman or the doctor for money even if he has beaten his wife or rapes her or had threatened her life or has deserted her. How crazy is that?

Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is purely a political creation. The definition of the procedure that H.R. 760 seeks to ban is written in nonmedical language that could cover at least two different procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion procedure. This vague and overbroad definition, which is probably not by accident, would create so much confusion in the medical community that doctors would not know which medical procedures might land them in jail with a huge fine. We should not make our doctors into criminals.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors who perform these procedures, say that the procedure the bill seeks to proscribe may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or to preserve the health of the woman and only the physician in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances can make this decision. The Congress of the United States has never, ever outlawed a medical procedure. What are we doing here, and what in the name of God is next?

Medical professionals and every Federal court in the country that has heard this issue, except for one, have agreed that these are safe procedures and may be the safest procedures in some circumstances; but we are going to take that away. And who will suffer for that? The American women.

Physicians and not politicians and pundits should provide women and their families with medical advice. I want a doctor to treat my daughters and granddaughters. Women and their families, not the government, should make these difficult, private, medical decisions; and if that is not the case, then every time a procedure is done, there should be a Member of Congress standing at the door okaying it.

The bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their patients by outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, something we have never done. We assume that once they have gone through medical school, done their internship and their residencies, they ought to know what they are doing. Congress would subject women to even more dangerous medical procedures and put their health and lives in jeopardy. Everybody deserves the best medical care based on the circumstances of their particular situation.

Instead of making abortion more difficult and dangerous for women, we should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. That is the most important thing that we could do; and by increasing funding for title X, to require the insurance coverage of contraception, which we will not do, making emergency contraception more available, which we are afraid of, and increasing research for other contraceptive methods. Indeed, I am not at all sure that after this bill is passed and signed by the President that the sale of contraceptives will not be in danger.

H.R. 760 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme Court

has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an exception when the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of congressional findings do not change or fulfill constitutional demands or protect women's health.

The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most especially the United States Supreme Court, will defer to these congressional findings and waive this constitutional requirement, but the Court has unequivocally said that the power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the judiciary, and the Court has said that simply because Congress makes a conclusion does not, in the Court's opinion, make it true.

Just because the findings in the bill assert that there is no medical reason for a health exception does not make that true and it does not change the demand of the Constitution. As Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, noted today, ``Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a different context that if Congress could make a statute unconstitutional simply by finding that black is white or freedom is slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' Think about that for a moment. That if Congress could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is white and we were to determine that, or that freedom and slavery are not different, then why would we have judicial review?

So why are we today considering a rule for this unconstitutional bill? Richard Posner, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the answer. He wrote that proponents of similar legislation ``are concerned with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, though an incidental effect of that opinion may be to discourage late-term abortions. The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.''

Judge Posner went on to say that if a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, then the burden is undue. Those are very important words, Mr. Speaker. Those are words from jurists and people who know whereof they speak.

Again Ruth Marcus' article points out that the political agenda is clear. Ken Connor, who is the president of the conservative Family Research Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted on a measure similar to this last March. ``With this bill,'' he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade.

As the mother of three daughters, a grandmother and a longtime advocate for women's health, I strongly believe that this bill is a threat to women's health and an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to choose.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 760.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 myself 15 seconds just to say to the previous speaker that we know what the agenda is. It was pointed out today. Kent Connor, the president of the Conservative Family Research Council spelled it out. He said, ``With this bill we will dismantle, brick by brick, Roe v. Wade.''

I hope that all of my colleagues are listening in the House, because this may be the last vote we will have on choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am always dismayed by the fact that these fetuses are described as ``viable.'' That is one of the saddest things in the world.

I have talked to parents who had this procedure, babies who were in utero with their brains on the outside, with no lungs, no possibility of living. Always the notion is given if they were just allowed not to go through that procedure, they would get down and almost run around the room.

It is not true. It is not true. The parents who have to go through this are heartbroken over it, but it is the way they can have further children. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who perform these procedures say it may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance.

What if your wife or your daughter is in a particular circumstance, and you had voted to outlaw the procedure that would be the best for her future and her life and maybe even save her life? We have no right to do that, Mr. Speaker, no right at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything contradictory to my friends on the other side who want to make sure these children are born; but if they are poor, they are not going to get the benefit of the tax rebate.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, how happy I am that she had that experience. I am even more happy that that experience showed that that fetus was in good shape and would be able to be born and to be healthy.

We are talking today about women who are faced with the fact that the fetus will not be. I think we are getting astray from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the statistics on the clinic in Pennsylvania were really quite shocking. I thought these were all done in hospital situations. I have never heard those kinds of figures for anything.

That aside, let me read about a woman who terminated a pregnancy that, they are very rare, I still believe that.

The decision to terminate a pregnant late in term is an agonizing decision for the women and their families. Listen to the story of Viki Wilson and her family as she told it in her own words:

``In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting Abigail, my third child. My husband, Bill, an emergency room physician had delivered our other children and would do it again this time. At 36 weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and happy expectations came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that detected that all of my previous prenatal testing had failed to detect. Approximately two-thirds of my daughter's brains had formed outside her skull. What I had thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements were, in fact, seizures.

``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a perinatologist, a pediatric radiologist, and a geneticist, in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her; but everyone agreed she would not survive outside my body. They also feared that as the pregnancy progressed and before I went into labor, she would probably die from the increased compression in her brain.

``Our doctors explained our options, which included labor and delivery, c-section, or termination of pregnancy. Because of the size of her anomaly, the doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in the birthing process probably rendering me sterile. The doctors also recommended against a c-section because they could not justify the risks to my health when there was not any hope of saving Abigail.

``We agonized over our options. Both Bill and I are medical professionals. I am a registered nurse and Bill is a physician, so we understood the medical risks inherent in each of our options. And after discussing our situation extensively and reflecting on our options, we made the difficult decision to undergo an intact D&E.

Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that has ever happened to us in our lives, but I am grateful that Bill and I were able to make this difficult decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy. Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do not complicate the tragedies that we already face. Oppose H.R. 760.''

Mr. Speaker, for Viki and her family and for other Vikis yet to come, I hope that my colleagues will oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 760. And I urge them to remember that once this bill passes the House, if it does, then it will be substituted for the Senate bill. The Senate bill at least

had the protection in it that was passed by Senator Dorgan on his request that says that Roe v. Wade would be preserved. Obviously, by substituting this bill for that bill, Roe v. Wade will not be preserved.

[From the New York Times, June 4, 2003]

``Partial Birth'' Mendacity, Again

If the so-called partial-birth abortion ban now careering

toward almost certain approval by the full House this week

has a decidedly familiar ring, it is not your imagination

playing tricks. The trickery here belongs to the measure's

sponsors.

Although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term

abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a

sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v.

Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after

the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. Indeed,

the measure replicates the key defects that led the Supreme

Court to reject a strikingly similar state law a mere three

years ago. In addition to its deceptively broad sweep, the

bill unconstitutionally omits an exception to protect the

health of the woman.

Plainly, the measure's backers are counting on the public

not to read the fine print. Their strategy is to curtail

access to abortion further as the inevitable legal challenge

wends its way back to the Supreme Court for another showdown.

They obviously hope that by that time, there will have been a

personnel change that will shift the outcome their way.

House members who vote for this bill will be participating

in a cynical exercise that disrespects the rule of law and

women's health while threatening the fundamental right of

women to make their own childbearing decisions.

Representatives who care about such things will not go along.

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.