Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, today was a historic day. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) mentioned earlier that President Bush signed into law the most sweeping improvements that our Medicare program has seen in almost 40 years. Soon, because of this legislation, millions of seniors will be able to afford the prescription medications which will dramatically change, improve, yes, and sometimes even save their lives. We should celebrate today that this bill has been signed into law and that finally after years of inaction and obstruction, the leadership of this Republican majority and the several thoughtful Democrats who joined us have kept our promise to our seniors.

But on this historic day, instead of high-minded debate and additional work to benefit our seniors and other Americans, what do we hear from some Members of this body? We hear complaining. We hear complaining because of an inconvenience. It would be an understatement to say that an elderly person who relies on their prescription medications struggles as they try to work through chemotherapy treatment for cancer. Similarly, one could say that it is a big inconvenience for a low-income senior who has to make decisions each month as to whether they will buy their prescription medication or buy their groceries. Indeed, I think each one of us would agree that it is inconvenient, really inconvenient for the 70-year-old woman who works not because she chooses to but because she cannot afford to retire and she continues to work because she needs to pay for her diabetes medication.

Yet the complaint today is not that rules were broken because, of course, we followed the rules of this House. But now what we hear is that it was inconvenient for us to be here working through the night, to be voting until almost 6 a.m. and to stay up all night. And, of course, it is inconvenient for us to do so. It is inconvenient to work all night. It is really inconvenient, of course, to lose a vote on a major piece of legislation. But I think it was worth some of the inconvenience on our part. I think it was worth some of the inconvenience to help some of the neediest and indeed some of the most vulnerable in our society, older Americans who have worked hard and who have sacrificed and who have paid their taxes and paid their dues and made sacrifices to create opportunities for every single one of us. Is it not worth a little bit of inconvenience for us to keep our promises to them? Inconvenient for us, yes. But is it worth it to keep our promises to our seniors? I say yes.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to expanding Medicare to include prescription drug coverage for 40 million seniors, this important conference report also represents significant benefits for my home State of New Jersey. For years, my State has offered one of the Nation's most generous prescription drug benefits. It is called PAAD. Under this historic agreement to strengthen Medicare, New Jersey wins big time. In addition to ensuring a seamless integration of the new Medicare drug benefit and PAAD, this conference report also provides New Jersey with billions of dollars to strengthen PAAD and expand the number of seniors who benefit.

By using the drug discount card before the PAAD coverage begins, the State government will save $73 million. Because PAAD's enrollees will receive their drug benefit from Medicare, the State will save $2.8 billion. New Jersey will receive a 28 percent tax free subsidy to offset the drug costs it provides for retired State employees, saving the State $222 million. PAAD will no longer be forced to pay drug costs for seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, saving the State $872 million.

How else does New Jersey benefit? In addition to $80 million for increasing the Medicaid reimbursement rate, an additional $756 million will be forwarded to New Jersey's hospitals. That is nearly $5 billion in Federal aid for New Jersey.

This bill has language to require coordination between Medicare and PAAD, no disruption for any senior currently enrolled in PAAD, and billions and billions for our State government to strengthen PAAD, offset low-income seniors' drug costs and expand the number of seniors who are served under PAAD.

My colleagues from New Jersey on the other side of the aisle can try to hide behind their partisanship, but they cannot ignore the fact that this conference report represents one of the biggest and most important victories New Jersey has ever, ever received in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the great work he has done in helping to shepherd this bill, and also to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and our friends on the other side of the aisle who have worked with us in great cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, many people are not aware that birth defects affect over 3 percent of all births in America, and that they are also the leading cause of infant death. Among the babies who survive, their birth defects often result in lifelong disabilities. Now, thankfully, families who are blessed with a special needs child find their hearts and minds grow immeasurably as they care for and work to meet the needs of their precious new addition. These families also face many challenges, however, and we have a responsibility to address those disabilities which are, in fact, preventable.

In 1998, we passed the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which created a Federal birth defects prevention and surveillance strategy. This bill passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House 405-2. That was followed by the Children's Health Act of 2000, which established the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Center for Disease Control. With these two important pieces of legislation, Congress recognized that birth defects and developmental disabilities are major threats to children's health.

The Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003 revises and extends the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1998. This bill is straightforward, and it has the support of the March of Dimes, the Spina Bifida Association of America, the Autism Society of America, among others. This legislation renews a Federal commitment to protecting children's health.

With the commitment of this Congress, we can help prevent birth defects and developmental disabilities in children, we can promote child development, and we can ensure the health and wellness among children and adults who are living with disabilities. I want to express my appreciation, once again, for the chairman's leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on the great work that they have done on this bill, not only for the energy needs of our country, but, indeed, for the economic needs. As our economy is coming out of recession and growing, a comprehensive energy policy is vital to continue the growth and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for a clarification regarding one technical issue of the energy bill conference report. That is an issue related to the definition of a small refiner as it appears in title XV, on Ethanol and Motor Fuels.

Under section 1501 of title XV of the conference report on the energy bill, small refineries are defined as, quote, ``a refinery for which average aggregate daily crude oil throughput,'' unquote, is 75,000 barrels a year or less. Mr. Speaker, is it intended that this definition include refineries which refine crude oil intermediates by cracking or distillation and that have a throughput of below this amount?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues on a great piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we spoke before about the reforms in H.R. 1 which are similar to some provisions of the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. I want to address that for a moment. The FEHBP-style reforms in H.R. 1 seek to place the traditional Medicare program on a level playing field with private plans. Only by creating this type of competition within Medicare can we hope to bend the growth curve and place Medicare on a sound financial footing for the future.

These reforms make no changes to the basic entitlement to Medicare. The traditional Medicare program will continue to be available to all seniors throughout the country. These reforms simply provide incentives for seniors to choose the most cost-efficient form of care in areas in which a vibrant private plan market exists.

This type of competition can only be triggered in areas in which two or more private plans are in operation, where they have a certain level of enrollment and meet certain market penetration requirements. In areas where these conditions are not met, nothing changes after 2010. In areas in which these conditions are met, the traditional Medicare program is compared directly to private plans in the market, and seniors will have incentives to choose the most cost-efficient form of care in their area.

Reforms must be made to ensure that Medicare continues to exist for future generations. As we add a $400 billion drug benefit to a program that already has a $13 trillion unfunded liability, we must also enact real reforms that will place the program on a sound financial footing for the future.

Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had some concerns. They have continued to claim that traditional Medicare is

more efficient than private plans. And, if that is the case, then they have nothing to fear from the FEHBP-style reforms that are in H.R. 1. If Medicare truly is more efficient than private plans, then beneficiaries in competitive areas who remain in traditional fee-for- service will see their premiums decrease.

In these reforms we want to provide incentives for beneficiaries to choose the most cost-efficient form of care. If traditional Medicare is the most efficient form of care in the area, then beneficiaries will be given incentives to remain in traditional Medicare through premium decreases. If, however, private plans can deliver Medicare services more efficiently than the traditional program, then we want beneficiaries to have the incentives to join private plans.

These reforms are necessary to bring Medicare costs under control and ensure the long-term viability of the program.

And, now, before I just close and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct because it is unnecessary, the sponsor of this motion, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), had asked some questions earlier. I just want to reassure him, because I know he is very concerned, and thus the reason he raised these questions.

The first question was, under H.R. 1 will the entitlement to Medicare continue? The answer to my friend from Ohio is yes. Traditional Medicare will continue to be available to all seniors in all parts of the country.

The second question the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) raised was, will government contributions keep pace with the cost of health care? The answer to my friend is yes. Government payments to providers in the traditional program will continue the same way that they do today.

The third question my friend from Ohio raised was, will private plans be required to provide reliable benefits and cost sharing? The answer again to my friend is yes. Plans must be reviewed and approved by CMS. CMS, the very agency that runs Medicare today, will also be running these programs in the future. If you can trust them now, you can trust them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little out of breath. I just got over here from my office. I was watching the debate and the conversation in my office, and I wanted to participate for a couple of different reasons. Number one, I wanted to pay tribute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who really is showing tremendous leadership and vision in helping to use this forum and use this opportunity to refocus our Nation's attention on an issue which is as fundamental to us and to our lives and to our society as any that we take up in this House and in these halls of Congress. I am proud to call him a friend, and I am so pleased and proud of his leadership on this issue.

I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been fighting these battles for almost 25 years. He has brought passion and intelligence and commitment to an issue in trying to educate people around the country and around the world about the value of human life and this, unfortunately, very slippery slope which we have proceeded down in the years since Row v. Wade and even since before that.

Earlier today I was here on the floor and we were debating Medicare and talking about health care and talking about innovation and talking about trying to provide new health opportunities for our seniors, for people around this country. So much of the Medicare debate has been about medicines, it has been about medical devices, it has been about providing care to people who we care about.

One of the thoughts that I had as my friend the gentleman from New Jersey was talking about the millions and millions and millions of people who have been lost over the years to the terrible tragedy of abortion, I am thinking about that one out of three desks in the classroom. I used to be a teacher, and I was thinking back to those classrooms, one out of three desks where a child has been lost to abortion.

But it got me thinking about those who have been lost in another way. Think about the cures and the innovations, all the good that could have come from these millions and millions of human beings, these people who would be with us today, who would be participating. Researchers and scientists. They would be teachers, they would be moms, they would be dads. Thinking about the enormous good that would come from these individuals, these human beings who would be here to grow their hearts in love, to show love to other people, and compassion; the incredible insights they would be able to share with us. The philosophers, the theologians, the priests, the ministers, the rabbis, those who would seek to make our society better and stronger, more compassionate and loving. All that has been lost. So much of that has been lost. Of course, we are blessed with people today who are able to share these things with us.

But think of what has been lost by those who have not been able to be with us today and who we have lost over the years to the terrible tragedy of abortion. It is sad, but I think it also should instill in us a new commitment, a new understanding and perhaps a new perspective as to how important this issue is.

It is not just important in the ways that we know it is, the fundamental values that we all stand for as Americans, that we are fighting for around the world, but it is important, too, because we could be so much better, were it not for those who have been lost.

With that, I yield back to my friend the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

This motion would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to offer a government-run prescription drug plan. There is no need for this type of government-run fallback because the House legislation that we passed earlier this year guarantees that Medicare beneficiaries will have a choice in at least two Medicare prescription drug plans. We do that by offering incentives to private sector providers to offer that coverage; and they, in turn, assume some of that risk. The standard subsidy would be 73 percent to a private provider, but that private provider would assume the rest of that risk. This motion would have the government assume all of the risk; and, of course, what we know is when the government is assuming the risk, it is the American taxpayer who is the backstop; it is the American taxpayer who ends up really assuming the risk.

A second point. We have talked about the rural provider provisions of these bills. This motion to instruct would have the conferees accept every rural provider increase contained in both bills. What we have heard is that they say only the best provisions, only the best rural provisions of each bill. Well, we know that really means every rural provision of both bills. My friend, the gentleman from Texas, before said, well, this would not actually increase, it would not bust the budget, it would not increase the cost. Well, clearly, accepting every rural provision from both

of these bills would cost tens of billions of dollars more than is already provided.

What we have heard from the sponsor of this motion and the gentleman from Texas is, well, we are not talking about increased spending; we are just talking about reprioritizing; we are talking about moving the money around a little bit. Well, what that really means, put in English, that means we are going to increase the spending for the rural providers, we are going to increase that money, that package to rural providers; but we are not going to change the total amount of spending. We are going to stay at the same price tag. Where is the money going to come from?

It is going to come from the drug benefit to everybody else. So either you are going to bust the budget and bust the price tag on this and jack up government spending, or you are going to take money away from the prescription drug benefit which is at the heart of this legislation.

This motion is unnecessary. This House has already passed and already recognized the need to ensure that rural Medicare providers are paid fairly. The bill that this House passed earlier this year contains $24.9 billion, almost $25 billion more, an increase in payments to rural providers, which will help rural hospitals and physicians, among others, continue to provide care to rural Americans.

This motion would mean that we have to reallocate funds away from beneficiaries and toward providers. I do not support that. I think the House bill that we passed earlier this year strikes the right balance between providing a meaningful prescription drug benefit and helping to ensure that providers, especially those in rural areas, continue to serve Medicare beneficiaries.

Finally, let me just say that, again, as I know some of my colleagues have mentioned, the House and the Senate conferees have reached agreement on a number of issues in a bipartisan, bicameral way on a number of issues that would be reopened under this motion. We are running out of time. Our session, this session, is running out of time. We want to finish this bill. We want to finish it this year. Do we really want to go back and tell our conferees to start over from scratch? I do not want to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we should allow the conferees to work out the differences between these bills since both Chambers have made a significant commitment to helping rural providers, and I have every confidence that, in the end, they are going to develop a sound policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rita Riccardo of South Plainfield, New Jersey.

On September 1, 2003, Mrs. Rita F. Riccardo passed away at the age of 77. 1 had the privilege of knowing this loving, compassionate and remarkable woman. As a mother of three children she had an unyielding dedication to the sanctity of life. She was loving and compassionate to anyone who knew her.

Mrs. Riccardo was a member of the New Jersey Right to Life for 30 years. She worked diligently for her cause by organizing local groups for marches and parades. She was a selfless woman who put her community first. She was a member of several community organizations and the president of the Rosary Altar Society of Sacred Heart Church.

I believe that her family and community will always remember her service and most importantly, her great spirit. It is in her honor today that I stand before you.

Mr. Speaker, after the attacks on our Nation on September 11 when thousands of Americans died, many from my congressional district, what was our collective response in this House? What did we do? Did we decide to eliminate the safety and security laws of our Nation to make ourselves more vulnerable to those who would seek to do us harm? Of course not. We did the opposite. We strengthened our laws.

We strengthened our laws. We took steps to protect our citizens and we made America a safer place.

Then why, I ask, at a time when we are at an increased danger of counterfeit and altered drugs, when we are having a tough time keeping up with attempts by criminals who want to smuggle dangerous, counterfeit drugs into this country, why would we then pass a law which would gut the current law of this Nation? Why would we pass a law that would eliminate 16 different health and safety regulations which are specifically designed to protect our citizens against these dangers?

Unfortunately, that is exactly what this bill would do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member and members of the committee who have worked so hard on this bill.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1. It includes an amendment that I offered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce which will assist our most vulnerable seniors by allowing State drug spending to count towards a senior's catastrophic limit. Especially in States like New Jersey, this provision is going to dramatically reduce seniors' out-of- pocket spending while saving our States $5 billion.

About a year ago I stood in the well of this House when we debated the drug bill last year and I told the Members about my mom who has been battling cancer and who is only alive today by the grace of God and because she has had access to great medical care and the prescription drugs which have quite literally saved her life. I am proud that my State of New Jersey is home to thousands of researchers and scientists and companies which have spent their entire lives and billions of dollars on research to find the cures of tomorrow. This very day, today, they are working on finding the cures to cancers and diabetes and AIDS and Alzheimer's.

What are we here to do tonight? We are here to make these great products more affordable and more available to more people.

As much as I love my mom, her situation is not unique. She is like millions of other Americans who depends on prescription drugs for their quality of life. Our responsibility today is to pass this generous and responsible bill, to make the miracle cures of tomorrow available to people like my mom. Just as importantly, though, we have to do so in a way which values and encourages the incredible research and innovation which will create the cures of tomorrow because I do not only love my mom, but my wife and I love and treasure our three young children and it is they who will benefit as well because the lives of our children and our children's children will be better and stronger and more fulfilling because of the new cures that will be found and the fact that they will be affordable because of this plan. That is our charge. That is our responsibility. Let us pass this plan tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here. I certainly appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for their work on this, and the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee and certainly my friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), for their great work in sponsoring this legislation in this Congress.

I rise in support of this important legislation. It is common-sense legislation. It has garnered overwhelming support from financial institutions, from technology companies, from various trade associations, and from the Federal Reserve.

The way in which banks currently handle check transfers is totally outdated. Currently, banks are required to physically present and return original paper checks. It is a tedious process that is inefficient. It is expensive, and it is rife with potential for fraud. As a result, millions of paper checks are physically transported between banks every day. The system relies solely on uninterrupted air and ground traffic in order to ensure that checks are presented to paying banks in a timely manner.

When the horrific events of September 11 grounded all air traffic in the United States, hundreds of millions of checks did not move and the U.S. payment system was stalled, creating a situation that severely threatened our economic security. That is why the Federal Reserve, after consulting with the banking industry, technology companies, and consumer groups, submitted a proposal to Congress that would reduce the need for physical transportation of checks through increased electronic truncation.

Last Congress, I sponsored Check 21, a bill which builds on the Federal Reserves proposal and modernizes the Nation's check payments system by allowing banks to exchange checks electronically. This Congress, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania's (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Ford) legislation.

Check 21 strengthens our economic security by capitalizing on existing technology to make the collection process faster and more efficient while improving customer service, access to funds, and any fraud protections. Check 21 is simply a better, more efficient way of transferring checks that takes advantage of the technology that we have at hand.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were poised to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on a bill to ban partial-birth abortion, called that because the baby is mostly delivered before being killed. Finally, after many years of debate and two vetos by our former President, this bill is going to become law.

In a Nation where we have laws to protect turtles' eggs and the developing offspring of other endangered species, finally we will extend some modest measure of protection to our own developing young humans. Finally, the deception of those who defend this procedure has been exposed. Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader in the abortion industry, admitted that they ``lied through their teeth'' when they claimed this procedure was rare.

In my State of New Jersey, there are at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions done each year at one clinic alone. They admit that most of these are done on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies. Is this the best our culture has to offer? Is this the best our society can offer to those who are in need? Is this brutal and barbaric procedure something we as a society are willing to accept and condone? What does it say about us as a civilized society, as a culture, if we cannot condemn and outlaw this kind of brutality?

Let us say today that we will not accept this, that we are better than this. Let us support this rule, and let us pass this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we stand at the dawn of a new era, one that holds the promise to revolutionize life as we know it by developing new cures for diseases as debilitating as cancer and creating powerful new computers the size of a wristwatch. It is critically important for this country to seize this opportunity and harness this potential. That is why our efforts here today, while only the first step, are so important to ensure our country serves as the world's proving ground for this revolutionary advance in science.

H.R. 766 serves as a bridge to this bright future. This legislation meets the promise of broadening our economic future. The President's commitment to nanotechnology mirrors the commitment President Kennedy made to the space program, and I believe the research we support today will reap benefits to mankind beyond any of our wildest dreams.

Nanotechnology is the next scientific frontier, the future of computer science and medicine and yet, nanotechnology is rooted in today--the here and now.

In Murray Hill, New Jersey, in my district, Lucent Technologies, Bell Laboratories serves as the hub for the New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium, which will manage the New Jersey Nanotechnology Laboratory. Our State, like many others, is ready to partner with the Federal Government to make these research initiatives a reality.

Here in the Congress we have a responsibility and obligation to support ways to stimulate economic growth. The promise of nanotechnology is also about job creation and the National Science Foundation has predicted that the worldwide nanotechnology market could reach $1 trillion in approximately 12 years, which could translate into as many as 7 million new jobs.

What we do today and in the future in this House, in regards to nanotechnology, may stand as the legacy to the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today to remember a horrific atrocity in history--the Armenian Genocide. April 24 is recognized as the anniversary date of the genocide, when Armenian intellectuals and professionals in Constantinople were rounded up and deported or killed.

From 1915 to 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were killed and countless others suffered as a result of the systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire. Half a million Armenians, who escaped death, were deported to the Middle East. Some were fortunate enough to escape to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that more than a million Armenians managed to escape the genocide and establish a new life here in the United States. In my Seventh District of New Jersey, I am proud to represent a number of Armenian Americans. They have enriched every aspect of New Jersey life, from science to commerce and the arts.

Our statements today are intended to preserve the memory of the Armenian loss and to honor those descendants who have overcome the atrocities that took their grandparents, children and friends. We mark this anniversary each year to remind our nation and teach future generations about the horrors of genocide and oppression endured by the Armenian people. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that America remains a beacon of tolerance, openness and diversity.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the commitment of Armenian Americans who continue to strive for world recognition of one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century.