Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am going to be the last speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of my class and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Doggett.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased and privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, who I feel knows as much or more about this issue than anyone, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, 2 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, who is the chairperson of the Budget Committee, my good friend, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, a friend of mine and classmate, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I won't respond to the distinguished minority leader, but I would like to submit the statements of the AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare in support of this resolution. National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Washington, DC, July 24, 2008. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, we strongly urge you to support H. Res. 1368 when it comes to the House Floor. H. Res. 1368 would suspend section 803 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (known as the Medicare ``trigger'') for the remainder of the 110th Congress. The Medicare ``trigger'' requires the Medicare Trustees to include a finding in their annual report whenever they project that general revenues will make up more than 45 percent of total Medicare funding within the first seven years of the 75 year valuation period. This finding was made in the two most recent annual reports, thus requiring the President to submit legislation to Congress to bring the federal contribution to Medicare down below the 45 percent threshold. The legislation is subject to expedited procedures designed to hasten its consideration. H. Res. 1368 would suspend the Medicare ``trigger'' through the remainder of the 110th Congress. The 45 percent threshold at which the ``trigger'' is set was a completely arbitrary limit included in the Medicare Modernization Act. There has never been a public debate on whether it is appropriate to establish a cap on the federal revenue contribution to the Medicare program at any level, nor has any policy rationale been identified for selecting 45 percent as that federal contribution limit. The fact that more than 45 percent of Medicare financing may come from general revenues poses no more of a problem in itself than the fact that 100 percent of the financing for defense, veterans' benefits, education or most other federal programs comes from general revenues. The problem facing Medicare is the cost of health care, not how the cost is allocated between revenue sources. Limiting the federal government's contribution to the Medicare program ignores Medicare's financing structure, which was designed to rely on general revenues to finance about 75 percent of Part B and Part D. This structure allows the revenue raised by income taxes to shoulder a higher portion of the responsibility for Medicare's funding, placing the burden on a revenue source which is relatively progressive and taxes all income. If general revenue contributions are limited, the burden would shift to beneficiaries, who are typically retirees on fixed incomes or the disabled, generally the least able to shoulder the burden of increased costs. In fact, about 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes under $25,000 and 85 percent have incomes under $40,000. Nearly two-thirds of older households have incomes under $20,000, and they are already spending 30-50 percent of their incomes on health care. Arbitrarily cutting Medicare without getting at the root of the continuing upward trend of health care costs is a strategy for failure. It has real impacts on real people-- most of whom have nowhere else to go for coverage and limited ability to pay higher medical costs, accounting for rising senior bankruptcies. Measuring Medicare's financial health solely by considering the percentage of general revenues contributed to the program produces a meaningless number, which will nonetheless be used as a catalyst for policy decisions that could have a devastating effect on the health care of seniors and people with disabilities. For example, the 45 percent limit has been triggered, in part, because more beneficiaries are being treated in outpatient settings than in hospitals. While this shift may disproportionately increase costs for Medicare Part B, which accelerates the date at which the cap will be reached, when compared with Part A, which is not counted in the limit, it is generally considered a positive development in health care. A second major reason the cap was triggered is the Part D prescription drug program. Although Part D is providing needed drugs to millions of seniors, the cost of these drugs is still rising much faster than general inflation. We believe this is the result of the lack of a traditional Medicare drug option, which the Medicare Modernization Act specifically prohibited. In addition, the Act provided billions of dollars in subsidies in order to entice private insurance and drug companies into the Medicare program. While passage last week of H.R. 6331 helped trim some of the most egregious overpayments, billions in subsidies continue to flow to private companies. Both the rising cost of drugs and the private sector subsidies provide little or no benefit to Medicare enrollees, yet they contribute to the rise in costs both for beneficiaries and the federal government--and accelerated the date at which the cap was reached. Finally, the legislation submitted by the President in response to the ``trigger'' could have devastating consequences to Medicare beneficiaries with little oversight by Congress. For example, Section 101(d) of the implementing legislation directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to design and implement a new performance- based reimbursement system for all Medicare providers as well as a new ``incentive'' program intended to drive Medicare beneficiaries to selected providers under this new system. With this one provision, Congress would delegate to the Secretary unprecedented authority to change the way the Medicare program operates through the regulatory process, rather than reserving such important decisions for Congress and the Committees of jurisdiction. The President's legislation also would dramatically expand Medicare means-testing through a provision that has been proposed repeatedly as part of the President's budget submission only to be rejected by Congress. Section 301 of the President's bill would expand means-testing to include the Part D program, a policy which many experts believe would be extremely difficult to administer, and further would not allow the income limits to rise to reflect inflation. Income limits that are not indexed ultimately affect far more people than the ``wealthy'' they are originally designed to cover--a fact well demonstrated by the current reach of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Medicare faces challenges in the future, but they are not unique to the Medicare program--they reflect the same pressures driving health care costs for those under age 65. Addressing these challenges will not be advanced by a contentious debate on the share of program costs funded through general revenues. In fact, such a debate will distract from the true challenge of Medicare: determining how to provide high-quality health care for an aging population in an era of rising health care costs. We strongly urge the House to suspend the Medicare ``trigger'' by passing H. Res. 1368 and focus instead on making health care affordable for all Americans. Cordially, Barbara B. Kennelly, President & CEO.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to say to my friend, the ranking member, everything debated in this House doesn't have to be a battle. Turning off this provision is the correct thing to do, and I will tell you why. The perceived problem with Medicare funding has already been addressed. Let me repeat that. The perceived problem with Medicare funding has already been addressed. The recently enacted Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act fixed the funding of Medicare to keep it below the 45 percent trigger. Let me refresh your memory. On July 15, the House voted to override the President's veto of this important legislation. Every single member of the Rules Committee, Democrat and Republican, voted to override. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a champion of SCHIP, which required overriding twice a veto by the President. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just read, House Resolution 1368 provides that section 803 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 shall not apply during the remainder of the 110th Congress. This resolution is needed today because of a procedural gimmick which was stuck into the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill in the dead of night shortly before the bill found its way to the floor back in 2003. The provision was a way for Republicans to get conservatives in their party to support an unpopular bill that may very well be the largest campaign donor payback program in the history of this institution. However, even this provision failed to prevent one of the most shameful nights in the history of this institution as arms were twisted and threats delivered into the wee hours of the morning to get the votes needed to pass this bill. Under current law, when the Medicare trustees project in two consecutive trustee reports that general revenues will exceed 45 percent of Medicare spending within a 7-year window, an expedited process is triggered to reduce the percentage. This expedited process, however, bypasses regular order in the House, as well as the Rules Committee. Once the percentage of Medicare funding coming from general revenues reaches 45 percent, the President is required to send legislation to the House and Senate that will address the matter. That bill must then be introduced by the House majority and minority leaders and referred to the appropriate committees. The process by which that bill, or any bill meeting the requirements of the trigger, moves through the committee process and is discharged to the floor includes a privileged motion. The privileged motion requires only one-fifth of the House, or just 87 Members, to second the motion and force a vote on that motion that would bring the bill itself to the floor for a vote. Under the trigger, if this small minority of the House is successful and the motion passes the House, the bill would come to the floor within 3 legislative days and can be debated with up to 5 hours of general debate and 10 hours of debate on amendments. Adding to the unprecedented nature of this provision, amendments are given blanket waivers with the only requirement being certification by the Budget Committee that the bill will eliminate excess Medicare spending from general revenues. Astonishingly, the trigger waives the rules of the House and blocks Members from raising points of orders against the bill for earmark, PAYGO, or any other violation of House rules. All that a Member needs to do to force a vote on discharging a bill is introduce a bill titled ``To Respond to a Medicare Funding Warning.'' As long as that bill meets the requirements of the Budget Committee, then anyone, Democrat or Republican, may seek to disrupt the proceedings of the House. Realize, if the House fails to pass this resolution today, it will leave itself vulnerable to chaos and extraordinary political gamesmanship. We will lay the groundwork to effectively becoming the Senate, stalled and unable to act as a victim of its own rules and procedures. Every moment of every day here in session, under the guise of trying to fix Medicare, a Member could move to discharge a bill which includes provisions that have nothing to do with Medicare. The only way to avoid this chaos and potential shutdown of the House in the 110th Congress is for the House to pass this resolution today. What is perhaps most troubling about this entire process, Mr. Speaker, is that Congress fixed the revenue problem in a more comprehensive manner last week when the House and Senate both voted to override the President's veto on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. In that bill, Democrats, in a bipartisan fashion, removed waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare advantage plan without hurting seniors. Under our leadership, seniors continue to have access to their doctors and prescription drugs without having their premiums raised or coverage reduced. Very occasionally, Mr. Speaker, many of us talk with different people in our constituency. Last week I had an opportunity to talk with a physician in this city named Stern. And Dr. Stern indicated to me that I should, among other things, fight real hard to have people understand how effective Medicare is and what a single payer plan could do for this Nation. We talked considerably about this, and I'm delighted that I had an opportunity to be edified by someone that is in this profession. But because of this Medicare trigger provision, a provision which was not in the House or Senate bill and was slipped in the conference, I will repeat, slipped in the conference during the dead of night, and I was here, Pete Stark and David Dreier, all of us were here when this happened, forced to deal with the legacy of, in my opinion, the misguided former majority. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to do the right thing and support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the ranking Republican of the Rules Committee, Representative Dreier. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1368.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, who is the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Stark. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, this is a good rule for a critically important bill. The sooner that the House approves this rule, the sooner the U.S. can continue to save and improve millions of lives around the world and here at home. The Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act has received overwhelming support across the political spectrum because it balances fiscal responsibility, oversight and comprehensive health care programs. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting a bill that uses scientifically proven strategies, international cooperation and cultural competence to combat some of the most devastating diseases in recent history. We executed an aggressive response to the tuberculosis and malaria epidemics in this country because we understood that it would allow us to be a stronger and better Nation. Although we have made tremendous progress in our country, the battle is far from over. As the richest nation in the world, we now have the privilege of helping other countries on their road to development. We must use the knowledge that we gain from these partnerships to address the disparities that continue to deprive countless men, women and children in this country and abroad of a healthy and productive life. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule that brings the underlying bill to the House. Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to address this request of my good friend and colleague from Florida about energy. What he is saying is, and the people on his side of the aisle, is immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill, H.R. 6107, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes. Now this bill that we're here on, Madam Speaker, is named after two of the most distinguished persons that have ever served in this body. My colleague from Florida and all of us that are here knew both of these men and knew their seriousness when they came to this floor about matters. We commemorate their memory with this bill. But what we do is we denigrate their memory by bringing up political hyperbole, political grandstanding, exhausting political hyperbole and bumper stickerism. Enough of this. Everybody knows that we have put forward, on the side that I am privileged to represent as Democrats, numerous measures dealing with these matters. We all know that there are 68 million acres off the shore that are leased already to oil companies. Footnote. Has anybody asked any of these oil companies whether or not they want to drill in these areas? And in ANWR there are 23 million acres that are available. How dare we come here with this pitiful excuse for a previous question and say to the American people that on a matter of this consequence, on a matter of dealing with malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS that we would come here and denigrate the name of the two persons that we commemorate with such a foolish proposition. It makes absolutely no sense. Now we will hear, obviously from now until the time that we're out of session, from my Republican colleagues about energy. And I have said to them repeatedly and over and over and over again, that all the hyperbole, switchgrass, deed exhaustion, coal, shale, offshore, ANWR, all of those things, geothermal, I can name them. All of us in here can name them. Many of those are things in the future. All of us know that we have a crisis in this country. Every man and woman in the House of Representatives and in the United States would like to solve that crisis. We know that speculators are involved in this. We put forward energy legislation. Nancy Pelosi led with energy legislation. Markey and Dingell have been on the floor repeatedly with energy legislation. We are here about AIDS, and someone would dare come here and talk about energy. That's crazy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'm the last speaker for this side, Madam Speaker, and I'll reserve my time until the gentleman from Florida has closed for his side and has yielded back his time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), my good friend who on yesterday and days previous led the fight on having us get relief in this country in foreclosure and cities having an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in trying to help those in the need area of affordable housing.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the speaker, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, for pointing out the needs that Native Americans have. It is extremely important, the issues that she spoke to. And at another point in time, I am hopeful that we will address the diabetes question with greater strength in this body's involvement. At this time, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen, who has been involved in not just this particular issue but all of our health care issues in a fashion that few Members are involved in this body.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1362 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Madam Speaker, the Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act is a comprehensive and fiscally responsible way to continue and advance America's leadership in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. I might add that the two persons for whom this act is named were persons that exemplified and manifested throughout their careers the need for the Foreign Affairs Committee to proceed in a comprehensive and responsible manner. The bill authorizes $48 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria for fiscal year 09 through fiscal year 2013, and includes guidelines and goals for reducing the burden of these diseases. The bill supports culturally competent prevention and treatment measures that are based on empirical evidence rather than ideology. Additionally, the underlying bill includes provisions that support a multi-faceted approach to treating and preventing the three diseases, and encourages foreign and domestic health care entities to collaborate. The bill prevents foreign governments from unjustly profiting from U.S. aid and prohibits them from taxing the funds that the bill authorizes. Lastly, the bill seeks to improve oversight, transparency and accountability in assessing the progress of United States global HIV/ AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs. Madam Speaker, the United States has become an important player in combating these global epidemics. However, although the underlying bill has bipartisan support, some have argued that it is imprudent to invest in global health programs while we are experiencing so many problems domestically. Nothing, in my opinion, could be further from the truth. Investing in global health ultimately leads to communities and countries that are more economically, socially and politically stable. In this globally connected era, it is imperative that we address health and development in foreign countries. Malaria was virtually eradicated in most of the West more than 50 years ago. In fact, the Washington D.C. area was particularly vulnerable to this disease. Effectively resolving this health threat undoubtedly contributed to the ability of our country and other Western countries to thrive and prosper. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the 40 percent of men, women and children who are at risk for contracting malaria live in poorer countries, with less access to education, preventative health care, and treatment. As we consider this important bill, we would be remiss if we did not look at it as an opportunity to think about how we can improve our response to HIV/AIDS and other debilitating diseases that affect people in this country. The fight against HIV/AIDS is also a fight against the health, economic and educational disparities that continue to exist in communities that have been historically underprivileged. Nearly three decades after the first national reports on HIV/AIDS, the disease has reached every corner of the world and has claimed an estimated 25 million lives. Although the scope of HIV/AIDS has changed, the link between socioeconomic disparity and those who contract and die from the disease remains consistent around the world. In our hemisphere alone, whether you're talking about Honduras or Haiti or my home State of Florida, people of African, indigenous, and Hispanic ancestry are disproportionately contracting and dying from HIV/AIDS. Madam Speaker, this issue hits close to home for me, as Florida has consistently ranked third in the Nation in the number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS. In 2006, blacks accounted for 45 percent of all AIDS cases in men and 69 percent in women, which is more than any other racial or ethnic group in the State of Florida. Sadly, in that same year, the HIV/AIDS case rate among black women was 17 times higher than among white women. In the absence of a cure, education and increased access to medication are the most powerful and cost-effective ways to treat and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS around the world. Yet the resistance of antiretroviral drugs and other treatment has not translated into accessibility. Less than 25 percent of patients in developing countries and 30 percent of patients domestically receive antiretroviral treatment. Even more, the consequences of allowing people to remain ignorant about HIV/AIDS has proven to be just as deadly as the virus itself. Consider this: Political leaders of countries particularly stricken by HIV/AIDS have told their citizens that HIV/AIDS can be controlled by consuming garlic, lemon juice, and beet root. Such a statement sounds unquestionably absurd to most. However, around the world, people continue to be misinformed about preventing and treating this disease. They allow fear to halt open and honest discussions about this disease. Personally, I have hosted three town hall meetings in the last year and a half in the congressional district that I'm privileged to represent. At each of them, activists, specialists, religious leaders and the general public have openly discussed and asked questions about how to address HIV/AIDS in their community. These fora have been educational and meaningful tools in fighting this disease, and more are needed. I might add that at those fora, Madam Speaker, some courageous young women that are HIV/AIDS infected appeared and gave their testimonies, compelling in respect to their own issues, and informative as to those that were in the audience to hear people who are living with this disease actually put forward ideas about the need for greater education, information and treatment. As a leader in global health and human rights, Madam Speaker, this country, all of us, must not allow ignorance, stigmatization, and unequal access to medication to continue in this country or abroad. By supporting this bill and the underlying bill, we're investing in global health, the global economy, and our global community as a whole. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, Madam Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, classmate and good friend, Representative Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1362.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1362 and ask for its immediate consideration.