Richard A. Gephardt

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5218, Matt's Health Insurance Plan Act of 2004, which I introduced last month. This bill has a very personal meaning to me, and I believe it is integral to solving America's health care crisis.

Today in this country, over 40 million Americans live without health coverage. These Americans are people just like you and me. Citizens who work full-time jobs where no health care is offered. Parents who work two and three part-time jobs just to feed their children and provide a safe place to live. Entire families where values like hard work and responsibility mean something, but where no member of that family can find full-time work with full benefits in a struggling economy.

Americans who don't have health coverage too often don't have access to health care. In a day and age when morals dominate the political landscape of this country, how can we remain indifferent to the millions of Americans who can't receive the care they need? This is the biggest moral problem our country has. It's time we fixed it.

Let me tell you why this is so important to me. Three decades ago, when I was an attorney in St. Louis, my two year old son Matt was diagnosed with what they said was terminal cancer. My wife Jane and I were told he probably wouldn't last six weeks.

In the end, we were among the most fortunate in more ways than one. My law firm had a health plan, and it was the only way we could afford the new and experimental therapies. That insurance plan, the talented doctors and nurses, and the grace of God saved Matt's life.

But I remember the nights we spent in the hospital waiting room talking to the parents of another patient--a child with severe cancer from a family who couldn't afford health insurance. Those parents didn't know what to do. All they could do was pray. As long as I live, I will never forget the terror in their eyes. In this country, it should never be this way.

Matt's Plan, named after my son, is my vision for how we can cover everyone in America with health insurance--with no new bureaucracy and no nationalized plan. This is more than just a health care plan. It's also an economic stimulus plan designed to create jobs and get this economy moving again.

The plan is essentially this: we pass a law requiring every employer to provide access to quality coverage, with employer tax credits covering most of the cost.

Today, an employer can take a tax deduction that would cover about 30 percent of the cost of health insurance. But that deduction is effectively worthless when a company is struggling and losing money in this economy.

There are also far too many employers who fail to provide health insurance because the tax deduction doesn't come close to covering the cost of the insurance premiums. As a result, millions of families are left without health insurance.

My plan would change that. Employers who don't currently offer health insurance would be required to offer a quality health plan, and they'd receive a refundable tax credit equaling 60 percent of the full cost of the premium. A tax credit they'd pass through completely to their employees in the form of health insurance. Employers would only be responsible for 60 percent of the full cost of the premium and would not be required to contribute to the cost of health coverage beyond the nominal administrative cost of providing health insurance coverage. Employees would not be required to pay more than 40 percent of the premium cost.

And for those employers who currently do offer health insurance, my plan replaces the existing tax deduction with a 60 percent refundable tax credit--a tax credit on the employer's share of the premium, which puts more money directly into the business that has been doing the right thing. `Refundable' means the employer will receive the credit, regardless of whether they're making a profit.

This health care plan leaves no American on their own. The 60 percent tax credit would apply to part-time employees. It would apply to retiree health benefits paid by former employers. It would apply to the self-employed. And state and local governments would receive federal assistance equal to 60 percent of their health care costs.

My plan would allow individuals between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare coverage at no cost to the federal government. It would subsidize 65 percent of the cost of COBRA health insurance for the unemployed. It would subsidize low-wage workers who are below or near the poverty line who can't afford their share of the premium. And it would modify the SCRIP Program for uninsured low income children, expanding it to include their parents, and expanding efforts to find those families who qualify.

Under my plan, employers who already offer health insurance would see an immediate reduction in their overhead. The economic stimulus would result in billions of dollars in increased wages and benefits, more money in the pockets of the average family, and more jobs. And the result of adding millions of Americans to the ranks of the insured means more preventive care, far fewer trips to the emergency room, and lower health care costs for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this bill so that Matt's Plan will become part of the public record on the health care debate. I hope that as Congress continues to deal with the health care problem in America, someone will reintroduce this bill and develop this plan further.

To me, this plan is a bold, innovative idea that can work--an idea that can bridge a canyon of fear and illness and cover everyone in America with health insurance, and jump start the economy at the same time. It's morally

right and economically sensible. Healthy workers are productive workers. And healthy families make for a stronger America.

Mr. Speaker, I found out something I did not know about Charlie today. I found out from our leader that he is a San Francisco Giants fan. If I had known that, I would not have come today.

On a more serious note, I have had some time lately to do some things

that I usually have not had time to do, so I have been watching on television the early part of the proceedings here in the House, and I hear these rules being explained. I have tried to put myself in the shoes of an average citizen, and I think it is gobbledygook, and I do not understand what they are talking about. But that really is the magic of this place.

As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said earlier, I am fond of saying that politics is a substitute for violence. It really is. And the only thing that allows us to resolve our differences peacefully is that we have a process. We have rules. We have laws. We have parliamentary procedure. And that process is what makes this place work and makes democracy work in our country.

The keeper of those rules has been our subject today, Charles Johnson. He has done it, in my view, as well as it can be done. He has always been fair. No one questions his judgment or his enunciation of the precedents of the House, whether it comes down in your favor or it does not. He is a professional. No one ever doubts his knowledge or his dedication to knowledge about the process.

Finally, his character, his human character, has been impressive to everybody who has come in contact with him. Whether a Member, staff, people visiting, everyone knows that this is a man of great character.

I guess the best story I can tell to kind of sum up my feelings about Charlie is that we had a common friend, someone that I went to Northwestern University with and was one of my best friends there, wound up at the University of Virginia Law School and became a friend of Charlie's. So we, in that common friendship, got somewhat of a personal relationship; and we, unfortunately, saw our friend die of cancer some years back. But even with that personal relationship I had with Charlie, I never, ever felt that in anything he did while I was leader or in anything I have done here was anything other than fair. Never prejudiced. Never giving in to human relationships. Always calling it the way he saw it and making judgments on the process, which is at the heart of our democratic experiment, fairly and with honesty and good character.

Charlie, we truly will miss you. We welcome the successor, who is going to do a great job; and we wish you the greatest time in retirement that anybody could ever have. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Congress today will vote on an issue of great importance to the Nation.

This week, Congress will vote on the President's request for $86.7 billion in supplemental spending to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

Like many, I have grave concerns about this administration's failure to forward a plan on the reconstruction of Iraq that will lead to Iraqi self-rule, lessen the financial burden of the reconstruction effort on American taxpayers, and successfully conclude our military efforts in that nation. And I believe this failure has unnecessarily put our troops in harm's way and made our nation less secure. Yet while I have significant reservations about this administration's prosecution of the aftermath of the war in Iraq, I will support this request because I believe supporting our troops in the field and providing them with the necessary resources to successfully complete their mission is the right thing to do.

While some may attempt to characterize my support for the supplemental legislation as an endorsement of the Administration's failed policy, nothing could be farther from the truth. I met with President Bush and congressional leaders following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I told him that we would have to trust each other and put politics aside if we hoped to successfully address the new threats confronting our Nation. My paramount objective has always been to keep our people safe, and that objective has motivated my every action without fail since September 11.

To that end, I worked with the President in an honest, good-faith effort last year to develop legislation that would provide a responsible policy framework to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's leadership of Iraq. At my insistence, this legislation included provisions that: Called on President Bush to work with our allies and others through the UN to build a consensus for action; demanded that the President's actions against Iraq not undermine our nation's broader efforts to prevent terrorism; and required the President to develop a plan to promote stability and democracy in post- war Iraq.

Congress adopted this legislation with wide majorities in both the House and the Senate, and President Bush signed it into law. Unfortunately, he subsequently failed to implement any of these guidelines, which I believed were necessary to ensure the success of our effort. In my view, it is undeniable that this failure has led to the situation we find ourselves in today in Iraq and across the globe.

First, by not working with other nations and building a broad international consensus, America is now much more isolated. Even our closest allies are reluctant to join a U.S.-led peacekeeping force in Iraq and contribute the necessary resources to the reconstruction effort. This administration's posture has also made it extremely difficult to obtain support for a meaningful United Nations role in Iraq, needlessly delaying tangible support that is critical to reducing the burden on the U.S. with respect to the restoration of Iraq's civil authorities and provision of ongoing humanitarian assistance. In addition, without broader international support, our goal to turn authority back to the Iraqi people and their new democratic institutions will take much longer to accomplish. Our goal must be the tangible support of our allies in the form of a meaningful financial contributions and additional troops on the ground, not just their unanimous consent on a piece of paper at the U.N. Security Council.

Second, in many ways we are now more vulnerable to terrorist threats, especially our troops in Iraq who are subject to attack on a daily basis. Saddam Hussein has assumed a role similar to that of Osama bin Laden, encouraging terrorism against the United States by disgruntled Iraqis and other extremists. Furthermore, the President's continued articulation of the so-called ``preemption doctrine'' and his lack of a coherent diplomatic strategy has inspired other nations not to stop their pursuit of dangerous materials, but to accelerate their efforts in order to avoid being ``preempted.'' North Korea--which today appears to be ramping up for full-scale production of nuclear weapons--is a very troubling case in point.

Third, with a unique opportunity to help the Iraqi people establish a stable, democratic government and society--and serve as a model in a critical area of the world--the President failed to plan ahead for many predictable post-war challenges. As a result, today we are spending more time--and money--trying to protect our troops and prevent chaos than we are helping the Iraqi people build democratic and fee-market institutions that will provide a foundation for long-term stability.

Let me make one thing clear to our president: I believe Congress will support our troops and the Iraq reconstruction effort by approving the supplemental request currently under consideration, and I will cast my vote reluctantly in favor. It is my hope that he will take this opportunity to come to terms with the significant challenges before us and reorient his policies accordingly. In my view, failure is not an option in Iraq, we must see this hard work through with the support of the international community and the Iraqi people. I only ask that the President use this supplemental funding in a manner that ensure our men and women in uniform can come home soon, having completed a mission that we all can be proud of.

Mr. SERRANO, Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my intention to vote against the Iraq supplemental. This is a vote that can only be explained if taken in the context of an earlier vote--my vote last year against the war with Iraq.

At the time of that earlier vote, the administration was arguing that we had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The situation was so desperate that we couldn't wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their work or for the diplomacy to gain the support of the international community. Our President argued that action needed to be taken preemptively and quickly.

Now, with the passage of time, and with the issuance of subsequent reports, it has become more and more unlikely that those threatening weapons of mass destruction existed. So now the administration is engaging in revisionist history as to why we went to war in the first place.

Today, Congress is again facing a vote on Iraq. This time the vote is on whether or not to continue funding for our misguided policy in Iraq. Again the administration is arguing that we don't have a choice--we must quickly and immediately pass this important war spending bill. Again, the patriotism of those who oppose this effort is being questioned.

I think it is time for us to pause. Our troops stationed in Iraq are brave but suffering. They are experiencing hardships that are the direct result of this flawed policy. It is time for Congress to challenge the administration's policy with respect to Iraq.

My vote today is a vote of protest. I was opposed to the war and I am opposed to funding the results of this unjustified war. I do not believe that when the needs of our own country are so great, we should be asked to fund this war spending bill. When I look around the South Bronx, I see man wants. I see housing, education and health requirements that have been put on hold by this administration, because it claims it does not have the resources. If we don't fund this war spending, we could change so much in the South Bronx. I want may constituents' tax dollars spent to make positive changes that can impact the lives of many.

Since I voted against this war, I do not believe I now have an obligation to fund the results of a unjustified action that I so strongly opposed. Some might say we have a responsibility--and we do have a responsibility, to end this funding. We should no longer pretend that what we did in Iraq was right. It is time to stop this charade.

If I were to support this war spending, it would serve to legitimize the war against Iraq. The war was fought based on intelligence manipulated for political ends and with a total disregard for international conventions, coalitions, and public opinion. We need to revise our foreign policy with respect to Iraq. We need to work cooperatively with the international community and truly listen to their concerns. We can no longer afford the cost or lost of life that is accompanying our unilateral approach to Iraq. The only way to end this terrible loss of life in Iraq is to end the funding, and so as an appropriator, I must vote my conscience and vote against supporting this war spending bill.