Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I inadvertently misvoted on rollcall No. 663 on H. Con. Res. 206.

I support this legislation and it was my intention to vote in support of it. I did not realize until after the voting had closed that I had mistakenly voted otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for offering this motion, and I reject those who would call it political.

Yes, believe it or not, we are in a political body, and yes, believe it or not, we live in a democracy where we are Representatives of the people, and we represent those folks the best we can. The gentlewoman from Nevada is doing her job in highlighting the fact that the Republican conference report on the Medicare bill is a sham.

If this was about prescription drug coverage, we would have it all done. There is no disagreement from anyone about the fact that prescription drug coverage ought to be passed. We are talking about $400 of prescription drug coverage for seniors. It would be done tonight. We could have it on the President's desk. There would not be one person against it other than those who are dead set against any kind of Medicare improvement whatsoever.

The problem the gentlewoman has accurately identified is that this premium support plan that is essentially part of their reform is untenable. It is untenable because the nature of senior citizens, their high risk of needing health care, is such that, guess what, we needed the Medicare program because when we relied on the private sector, the private sector was not there.

That is why we have the Medicare program, for those who do not understand what we are talking about tonight. We have the Medicare program because when left to the private sector, they did not cover seniors because they were too high risk.

So what do the Republicans propose? They propose going back to the days before we passed Medicare, where we left the seniors' health care to private insurers. Now, what are private insurers going to do? Guess what, they are going to have to figure out a way to make a profit. How do you make a profit with risk insurance when you have someone as high risk as a senior citizen? Well, if you are smart about your insurance practices, you try to avoid the risk. That is the whole nature of insurance, to avoid risk.

I hope I am not telling anyone anything new, but that is the nature of insurance. So you avoid risk, and that means avoid the sickest seniors. Avoid the seniors who will cost the most. And there will be no argument from the other side on this because it flies in the face of the for-profit nature of the HMO companies that they are about to turn our Medicare system over to.

So you avoid all the seniors that are costing you, you take the seniors that do not require much health care and you want to sign them up. And then what do you do? What happens to all those seniors that are not signed up? Oh, you propose to leave them in the traditional Medicare program, but will increase the premiums of part B on the traditional Medicare program to cover the increased cost that the Medicare program will incur. And the Republicans put a provision in the Medicare program saying that if it should exceed certain cost guidelines, then we will have to come back to Congress to figure out what to do.

Well, guess what is going to happen then? At that point you will say, well, we are going to have to dismantle Medicare because, guess what, it just is not working. Well, you are setting it up not to work. You are underfunding it. And if my colleagues do not believe anything I am saying, just understand this. Who is in favor of this bill? The pharmaceutical industry. Why are they in favor of this bill? Because it does not do what needs to be done to take on the pharmaceutical industry and say you need to give in this matter.

Thirty percent profit rates for the pharmaceutical industries are too much when our seniors are barely able to make it buying the prescription drugs they need and affording them the health and other things they might need in terms of housing and food and the like. The pharmaceutical companies like the Republican bill.

Who else likes the Republican bill? Guess what, the insurance companies like the Republican bill. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said before, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the committee, and so we do not misunderstand their intentions, because they said it very clearly, and here is the chairman of the committee: ``To those who say that the House bill ends Medicare as we know it, our answer is: we certainly hope so.''

Well, my friends, if senior citizens are comfortable with the fact that the future of Medicare is in the hands of those who believe in the private sector, then so be it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, just a couple of seconds to respond to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

The fact of her being so passionate about seniors I do not question whatsoever, but if she was truly interested in helping those low-income people, then how come her votes and those of her colleagues repeatedly have cut the very programs on behalf of the people that she says she is trying to help? Instead, her party votes to cut taxes for the richest 1 percent of our population, those with incomes over $350,000, by nearly $2 trillion. And two-thirds of that goes to the wealthiest 1 percent.

And I might add that when they are done with this Medicare bill, they are going to give all the money they cut; they are going to add to special interest money for those with HMOs and those with pharmaceutical interests. And do not take my word for it; just look at the Wall Street Journal. The HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies are jumping up and down thanking the gentlewoman from New Mexico for giving them a gift.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

Today I rise to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees on the 2004 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill to insist on the highest level of funding possible for nutrition programs for seniors, programs such as Meals on Wheels and congregated meal sites.

As I rise this evening, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who are both leaders on the Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee and who both know how important these programs are. I want to thank them for their hard work year in and year out to protect these programs so vital to our senior citizens.

This week we are debating controversial legislation, as Members have just no doubt heard, on the floor about the future of the Medicare system and the importance of providing a drug benefit without forcing seniors into HMOs. But the importance of that debate will be left to another time. Tonight we are in agreement when it comes to the importance of senior nutrition programs, and this truly is a bipartisan issue.

I know that most Members of this Chamber have often visited their senior centers and know, having spoken to them, how important it is that they receive these congregated meals. Tonight, this is an opportunity to put our money where our mouth is, and it is an actual opportunity to encourage our conferees to spend the money on senior nutrition. Even in spite of the fact that we have tight budgets, we cannot give senior citizens short shrift.

As I said, Members know about these programs, but I do not know how many of them truly appreciate their magnitude and reach. I would encourage those colleagues of mine who have not been out on a Meals on Wheels visit to go out with a volunteer and visit the people for whom these programs help make a difference. Nearly 2 million people receive meals through the congregated meal site program and 1 million through the Meals on Wheels program. This adds up to a total of 250 million actual meals served. That is a compelling statistic that reflects the nature of these programs.

My father, Senator Edward Kennedy, was the author of the legislation that made the seniors' nutrition programs part of the Older Americans Act. I am proud that my father, Senator Edward Kennedy, was responsible for the founding of Meals on Wheels. What he and others of his colleagues have recognized over 30 years is that Meals on Wheels is an important program not only for the nutrition that it brings but also because of the companionship and the neighbor-to-neighbor relationship that it fosters. For many seniors, not only at the home is delivered a meal but a face with that meal, a person, someone who can offer companionship and friendship and know what is going on in the home when they arrive and deliver the meal. The value of these meals pays itself back in both the importance of good nutrition and also through the companionship and care that these meal volunteers provide.

We talk in Congress about how an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is nowhere more true than the Meals on Wheels and the congregated meal site programs. In the congregated meal site programs, seniors get together at the senior centers to join in lunch; but in the process of doing that, they are exposed to an array of social services that may also be of assistance to them. Unfortunately, as many of us know in our Nation, one in 10 seniors lives in poverty. At the same time, there is expected to be a 30 percent increase in the number of Americans eligible for the Older Americans Act now that the baby boom generation is becoming the senior boom generation. Already in my State of Rhode Island, 14.5 percent of our population is 65 or older. We need to be ready for this population as it retires. We need to be ready for them as we take care of the seniors of today.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I turn it over to my colleagues, let me say, I have met Edna Bateman in one of my tours on a senior meal site. Edna Bateman is from East Providence, Rhode Island, and she knows what a difference it has made to her in her life not only to get that hot meal but also to have that companionship, that visitor every day that she is looking forward to seeing, who she wakes up every morning looking forward to talking to, who she unlocks her door and leaves it open so that she looks forward to hearing that Meals on Wheels volunteer coming to her door.

That is why I rise tonight to make sure more people like Edna Bateman get the services like this Meals on Wheels program. I want to pay tribute to her and the many others who receive this program. Tonight I know we all rise in support of those folks.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) who represents Cape Cod and the islands.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) who is chairman of the Labor Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee of the Committee on appropriations on which I serve. I want to join him in saying that I think we need to do a lot more within the Older Americans Act, not only in the congregate meal site and the Meals on Wheels, but, as you pointed out, the support for family members, many of them I know that you understand are burning out because they do not have the support that they need to care for their loved ones.

As the chairman has said so well, often the greatest number of caregivers in this country are seniors themselves. And they are caring for their loved ones, and they need to have all the support they can get too. So I thank the chairman for acknowledging that. We need to look out for the caregivers, as well, if we care about those that they are caring for. I appreciate the fact that he made that observation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, let me just, once again, say that I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees, to see it to the highest possible level when it comes to nutrition programs, Meals on Wheels, and congregate meal site programs within the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

bill,

H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on the highest funding

levels possible for nutrition programs for our Nation's

seniors authorized by the Older Americans Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his long leadership on the issue of education and his offering his motion to us today on the floor.

In response to my colleague from Mississippi who said all we need to do is look at the numbers, I think that would be interesting. I think if this Republican administration ran on us just looking at the numbers, they would be thrown out of office quicker than we can look at the door. We have gone from nearly a $5 trillion surplus to a $5 trillion deficit. The very children they claim to support are children that are going to be saddled with nearly a $600 billion deficit, deficit, this year because this President has chosen to cut the taxes of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population.

Two-thirds of the tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in the form of capital gains dividends and estate taxes. Who is going to pay for these taxes? It is going to be the children of today's generation and our children's children that are going to be saddled with this debt. So I do not want to hear from Members of the other side of the aisle about how Democrats underfunded education. At least we left the children of this country a $5 trillion surplus on which to build a future.

When it comes to Leave No Child Behind, the fact is the numbers do tell the truth. The numbers tell us that when it comes to the President's commitment to making sure we leave no child behind, the commitment is nothing but words. Mr. President, we want action, not rhetoric. We want you to put your money where your mouth is. You have not done it. By refusing to provide the promised funding, the Leave No Child Behind Act has become an albatross around the necks of school committees around our country. The people who are watching this who can listen to the gentleman from Mississippi say that all of this is worthless debate, I will just tell you this. Go talk to your local school committee. Go talk to your local city council person and have them tell you how much property taxes are going up in order to make up the difference in the requirements that the Leave No Child Behind Act have put forward. Requirements for new systems of assessment for children, not funded in the bill. Requirements for new enrollment status and graduation records so that we can track these students and thereby be able to measure their progress, no funding under the bill. Funding for massive databases and new standards, inadequate funding under the bill.

The fact is if you look at the bill itself and you look at what this Congress is doing, it is sending the bill for this Leave No Child Behind Act to our property taxes. Make no mistake about it, it is cutting Bill Gates's taxes, but it is sending the taxes back to our local property taxes in order to fund the deficit in this Leave No Child Behind Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta who will be beatified by Pope John Paul II in Rome, on October 19 of this year. Mother Teresa was a heroic woman who was exceptional in her time on earth. We are all truly blessed in having been able to bear witness to the life and works of such an extraordinary woman. At 18 years of age Mother Teresa entered the convent, and from that point until her passing on September 5, 1997, she lived a selfless life. She is known mostly for her efforts with the destitute population of Calcutta, however, the hand of Mother Teresa extends much farther than the borders of India. Around the globe this remarkable woman served as a beacon for all that is good and pure in this world. She was the recipient of a host of awards; most notably, but not exclusive to, the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1979.

In the first week of September, six years ago, the world suffered an enormous blow. The woman who once said ``there is joy in transcending self to serve others'' was taken from us. In less than one month's time, this woman, who was the cornerstone for benevolence for the vast majority of the 20th century, will receive her immortality in the eyes of the Catholic Church. In light of her impending beatification for her life's work I would like to recognize and honor the memory of Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Mr. Speaker, on September 5, 2003 I missed rollcall vote No. 476 and No. 477. Had I been here I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall No. 476, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 477.

Mr. Chairman, Head Start works. Despite the warnings from the National Academy of Sciences that, under this bill, the poorly designed tests of young children can have a negative impact on their education, under this legislation the Head Start Bureau is plowing forward with plans to give a significantly flawed test to these children starting in the fall. The use of this test will jeopardize the integrity of Head Start, as teachers skew the test to focus on the few skills that those children will be tested upon.

We risk labeling these children as failures before they even get on track to advance in other equally important developmental domains. We are negligent in our responsibilities under this legislation when it comes to putting politics, not science, ahead of our discussions. Under this bill, we put politics ahead of what the National Academy of Sciences says is what is right when it comes to educating our young people.

I support the Miller substitute and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 422, I mistakenly thought I had already voted. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), in her statement today in saying I think this rule protects an ill-advised provision that ironically makes our country less safe at a time when we are worried about terrorism and countering terrorism. The fact of the matter is, terrorism exists all over this country for those who live in the inner cities and are subjected to the random gun violence that plagues many of our neighborhoods.

When people talk about homeland security in America, they are not talking about al Qaeda; they are talking about the gun dealers who knowingly sell guns in untold numbers, knowing full well that those guns can easily be resold in the back of a trunk of a car in downtown Washington, D.C. And what does this provision in this rule allow? This provision in this rule allows us to roll back those few safeguards that we already give law enforcement, to ensure that those guns that are sold are sold in a legal and proper manner.

We often hear from the NRA, well, we are for law-abiding people being able to purchase law-abiding permits and guns. Well, apparently not, under this language, because what essentially they will do is make this language a criminal's delight, because they will not have to cover their tracks, because there will not be any tracks for them to cover under this legislation, which eliminates any inventory provision for gun dealers to be able to ensure that the guns that they sell are guns that are sold legally and lawfully.

The fact of the matter is that this legislation is protected under a rule that is supposed to be about appropriation bills, but, in this case, is about protecting an authorization for a loophole that puts our public at risk, puts our law enforcement at risk, and contradicts everything that we are standing for on this floor when it comes to protecting the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the BioShield legislation, and commend the committees for their diligence in meeting the challenge of bioterrorism.

While this bill is an important step in ensuring our nation's preparedness for bioterrorism, I am concerned that it does not fully meet our needs. This act does well in raising our defenses against the ``bio,'' but does nothing to defend against the ``terror.''

Mr. Speaker, the point of all terrorism, including bioterrorism, is not primarily to inflict physical damage, but to undermine our social, political, and economic vibrancy. Whether terrorists succeed depends not only on our ability to prevent or mitigate the physical impact of their acts, but whether we can prevent or mitigate the paralysis, panic, and demoralization they seek to create.

Tom Kean, Rudolph Giuliani, the National Academy of Sciences, first responders, and others have talked about the need to build resilience in our communities. Our preparedness efforts must include plans to ensure that officials' communications calm instead of panic. We need to make sure that the public, first responders, teachers, and others have the proper information delivered in an appropriate way about threats, safety measures, and emergency plans. If we do not specifically address the social and behavioral impacts of terrorism and the threat of terrorism, the measure we debate today and our other preparations will not be as effective as they could be.

I support this bill as component of our defense against biological terrorism, and hope that we can take the important next step as well.

Mr. Chairman, during debate on H.R. 2660, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, I strongly supported the Obey/Miller Amendment regarding overtime regulations at the Department of Labor (DOL).

The amendment would block a proposal by the Bush Administration that will eliminate overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for millions of hard-working Americans who rely on overtime pay to make ends meet.

The DOL proposal would strip overtime rights from more than 8 million workers by allowing easier classification of workers as ``white collar'' employees ineligible for overtime.

Workers such as mid-level office workers in the offices of downtown Providence or the licensed practical nurses in Northern Rhode Island, or the EMTs, paramedics, and physical therapists on Aquidneck Island will lose under this proposal.

It is just another attempt by the Bush Administration to roll back the clock on years of important wage and hour laws.

This Congress should support the Obey/Miller Amendment and oppose the DOL overtime proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the city of Pawtucket, RI, for being selected by the U.S. Conference of Mayors as one of 28 best small business practice cities in the country. This honor acknowledges the outstanding work that the residents and city officials of Pawtucket have done in recent years to create a booming business characterized by the making, showing, and selling of artwork.

The business of Pawtucket can be traced back to the father of the Industrial Revolution, Samuel Slater, when he founded America's cotton industry on the Blackstone River in 1783. Since that time an abundance of artists have made Pawtucket their home and place of work.

Since 1999, a strong resurgence in the Pawtucket art scene can be detected in the 122 artists that now occupy eight mill properties and over 117,000 square feet of vacant space. This is not to mention the five mill properties that have been purchased for commercial and live- work lofts in the past few years.

In just over 4 years Pawtucket has gained local and national recognition for its newly thriving art scene. In addition Pawtucket boasts 307 acres for its arts and entertainment district, the largest such district in the state.

The artisan attraction to Pawtucket can be summarized quite simply by ease and convenience.

The honor bestowed upon the city of Pawtucket may act as encouragement for other mayors from across the country to contact the city's mayor, James E. Doyle, to learn more about what it takes to foster a developing artistic community. Pawtucket will serve as a guideline for burgeoning art centers to follow.

Mr. Speaker, Pawtucket, RI, is a city rich in history, business, and art. 2003 marks the first time that the city has received any national recognition for this characteristic, and in particular the progress made in recent years.

It is a great honor for me to represent this fine city and I look forward to witnessing its continued growth and success.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

I think it is a disgrace in this budget, although our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), have made the best out of a bad situation.

We are underfunding the Older Americans Act. At a time when our baby- boom generation is getting ready to retire, it seems to me we ought to be getting prepared to deal with these issues. Instead, I will give an example of two programs that we severely underfund in this budget because of the allocation we are given; one, the Meals on Wheels program, and the Congregate Meals program.

I can tell Members, having been out there with meal site workers and with those on the Meals on Wheels program, this is the only meal they get any day. I have been in the homes. These people are looking forward to the knock on the door. In fact, some seniors leave their door open, and we all know how concerned they are with someone breaking in, but they leave the door open when they know the meal site worker is coming by to deliver that hot meal. When the worker comes in, they want to take the dessert and the bread and put it over here because that is their dinner. They have one meal per day, and we are underfunding Meals on Wheels in this bill.

The second issue I want to take up is the issue of the caregiver program. I do not understand our priorities. I thought we were about trying to save money and save lives. It seems to me there is no more valuable way to take care of our seniors than to have the very family members, their spouses and their children, give them the opportunity to take care of their parents. It is $40,000 a year to keep a senior citizen who has disabilities in a nursing home. Why put him in a nursing home when they do not want to go to a nursing home; and, two, and they can live independently at home with just a little support from a family member. We are cutting the caregivers' program. We spend $5 per caregiver so they can take care of their loving spouse.

To me, this budget does not reflect America's priorities. I know I am going to vote against it, and I think we are seeing the consequences of these $3 trillion tax cuts when it comes to delivering hot meals to seniors.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his steadfast leadership on these issues of great importance.

I would like to again ask to have the remarks of my predecessor be included in the Record as remarks that I would be associated with.

And let me say to the people what this bill does in terms of child labor. We always complain when we see those stories about that 5-year- old, that 12-year-old over in some part of this world that is weaving together a rug that will be sent back to this country and sold at Wal- Mart for $10. And yet $10 will probably be all that child sees in any given year, and under this bill this administration cuts by over $100 million the funding to inspect and enforce child labor laws around the world.

Let me just give an example. Between 5 years of age and 14 years of age, there are over 250 million children between 5 and 14 who are working in violation of the International Labor Organization standards. Do the Members not think we ought to do something about that. Do the Members not think that this country has a moral obligation to ensure that these children are not being exploited? Apparently, the administration does not feel that way. They have cut the budget $100 million.

Right now the President is over in Africa. He is talking about HIV/ AIDS. Remember he was promising them a lot of money? Guess what. In this budget he cuts funding for HIV/AIDS partnerships through the ILO, which can help create a private sector involvement to help tackle the scourge, the pandemic of AIDS in Africa. That money has been cut. So we can most clearly see our Nation's priorities are based upon where we spend our money. Millionaires in this country get $87,000-a-year tax cuts, millionaires; but we are going to underfund inspections of child labor. That, I think, is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to state for the record that the Senator from Massachusetts referred to is my father, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican prescription drug bill.

Our seniors know that Democrats have worked to provide them with universal, affordable, and reliable drug coverage.

And they know that THIS bill is just another Republican attempt to dismantle Medicare.

This bill won't help seniors . . . in fact, there is no guaranteed backstop to insure that there will be drug coverage in their area. Indeed, seniors may end up without ANY drug coverage . . . or forced into an HMO that they do not want to be in.

And the problems with the bill today will only increase in 2010, when premium support and competitive bidding kicks in.

Republicans divide this issue between helping our Nation's elderly now or helping our young in the future, but we can help both.

James, a Boy Scout from Lincoln, Rhode Island, wrote to me because he is worried about his two grandmothers who cannot afford their medications.

I hope he doesn't grow up only to realize that we passed a bill in Congress that actually made it worse for his loved ones.

We should not disappoint James, his family, or the forty million Medicare beneficiaries in this Nation.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.