Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my frustration with the state of the budget. As we all know, during August recess, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the federal government will tap $29 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund and $9 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for government operations in this year alone, and another $30 billion from Social Security and $170 billion from Medicare over the next five years. This grim scenario will occur without a single dime of additional spending, despite the ever-increasing need to fund critical priorities like defense and education. Nor will we be able to deliver on our promise of a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for Medicare without dipping into Social Security and Medicare. And perhaps worst of all, the long-awaited opportunity to finally pay down our national debt has been squandered. The CBO estimates represent the most objective and accurate budget projections available. Today, these projections show that the Bush tax cut, which disproportionately favors the most affluent citizens, combined with the slowing economy have eliminated virtually the entire surplus--the surplus that at one point offered us the rare chance to tackle major initiatives like improving education, making prescription drugs affordable for our nation's elderly and paying down the national debt. By enacting an irresponsible $1.7 trillion tax cut we have ensured that CEOs get a tax break while their employees get pink slips, students are forced to learn in crumbling schools, seniors face skyrocketincy drug prices, and the current workforce is left to wonder whether Social Security will be there for them when they retire. When I was elected to Congress, I promised my constituents that I would protect the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. And I was not alone. Over one hundred of my colleagues have co-sponsored legislation that would prevent Congress from spending the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, and this chamber has voted seven times in the past three years to establish lockboxes for these funds. Past and present adi-ninistrations made the very same pledge to not touch these vital trust ftinds, We must honor our promises by acknowledging that the economy is slowing and working together to find a solution to the budget crisis that is fair, and based on an honest, realistic budget. It has become clear that relying on tax relief to the exclusion of all other priorities is not the answer. Let us find a better way before it Is too late.]

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding time for me to speak on this issue. Before I begin, I want to mention that, of course, I never had the opportunity to meet his father, Mo Udall, but I have nothing but respect for the reputation that he has established in public service, and I know that he would be proud of his son, the gentleman from Colorado, in continuing that proud family tradition of strong commitment to public service. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the fourth anniversary of the passage of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act and to stress the vital importance of expanding support and research for treatment of Parkinson's disease. Named for Arizona Representative Mo Udall, the Parkinson's Research Act expands basic and clinical research on Parkinson's disease and establishes Morris K. Udall Centers for awards for excellence in Parkinson's disease research. Since its introduction, this landmark legislation has received overwhelming congressional support. In the 105th Congress, the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act garnered 255 cosponsors, and in the 106th Congress it passed the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote of 95 to 3. I am proud that Congress embraced this initiative, as more people suffer from Parkinson's disease than multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Lou Gehrig's disease combined. But our work is far from over. About 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with this disease each year, that is one person every 9 minutes, and more than half a million living with Parkinson's disease today. Fortunately, there may be some hope on the horizon. Parkinson's disease is one of the many diseases for which stem cell research offers significant promise. Yesterday I testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee about the potential for embryonic stem cell research to alleviate pain and suffering in millions of people. It is my strong hope that our Nation's premier researchers will be able to engage in this ground-breaking research expeditiously to save, lengthen, and dramatically improve the quality of life of those who live with Parkinson's and other debilitating diseases and conditions. On this anniversary of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act, I urge my colleagues to follow through on our commitment to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health, increase funding for the Morris K. Udall Center, and break down the barriers to unprecedented, life-saving stem cell research. Until we have conquered Parkinson's, our work is not complete.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act, and urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. The growth of the U.S. economy over the last decade has significantly increased our nation's need for energy. Maintaining a reliable and affordable supply of power is essential to American businesses and consumers, and we must take precautions to ensure that our economy is not stalled due to blackouts or prohibitively high energy costs. Our nation's energy policy should guarantee access to affordable power, encourage conservation efforts, and pursue increased use of environmentally responsible and renewable sources of energy. While I applaud the House's effort to address our nation's energy needs, I am greatly troubled by some of the provisions of the SAFE Act. H.R. 4 permits energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which I strongly oppose, as drilling in this environmentally fragile area would have a harmful impact on its diverse array of animal and bird species. I am greatly disappointed by this destructive provision, and believe we must protect Alaskan wilderness by continuing the current moratorium on drilling in ANWR. The SAFE Act also misses a prime opportunity to decrease oil consumption by increasing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for our nation's vehicles. I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) to require sport utility vehicles (SUV's) to meet the fuel efficiency requirements of passenger vehicles, rather than adhere to the current light trucks standard. Closing this ``SUV loophole'' could reduce U.S. daily oil consumption by 1 million barrels--the approximate daily estimated oil yield from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am also disturbed that the bill provides such extensive tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. Though the energy sector is reporting record profits, H.R. 4 offers billions of dollars in tax deductions for oil and gas activities. This provision is particularly egregious in light of the recently passed $1.35 trillion tax cut that now endangers our federal surplus. Additionally, the bill further threatens our dwindling surplus by repealing existing fuel taxes for railroad and inland waterway transportation. Again, I appreciate the efforts of many of my colleagues to address our nation's energy needs, but I have significant reservations with some of the priorities of H.R. 4, and hope that we will be able to address some of these concerns in the near future.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by 40 of my colleagues in introducing the ``Accidental Shooting Prevention Act'' to address the large number of firearm injuries and deaths that occur when users mistakenly fire guns they believe are not loaded. This sensible bipartisan legislation would require that all semiautomatic firearms manufactured after January 1, 2004, which have removable magazines, be equipped with plainly visible chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms. As with many other consumer products, firearm design can reduce the risk of injury. But unlike other products, gun design decisions have been largely left to manufacturers. Fortunately, firearms manufacturers have already produced many guns with safety devices, such as chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms, which can help reduce the risk of accidental injuries. A chamber load indicator indicates that the gun's firing chamber is loaded with ammunition, but to be effective, a user must be aware of the indicator. Generally, chamber load indicators display the presence of ammunition via a small protrusion somewhere on the handgun. Unfortunately, most chamber load indicators do not clearly indicate their existence to untrained users or observers. We must ensure these indicators are easily visible to all gun users, and my legislation will do just that. By comparison, a magazine disconnect mechanism is an interlocking device which prevents a firearm from being fired when its ammunition magazine is removed, even if there is a round in the chamber. Interlocks are found on a wide variety of consumer products to reduce injury risks. For example, most new cars have an interlocking device that prevents the automatic transmission shifter from being moved from the ``park'' position unless the brake pedal is depressed. It is common sense that a product as dangerous as a gun should contain a similar safety mechanism. This is an issue of great importance to me. At the age of sixteen, I was left paralyzed when a police officer's gun accidentally discharged and severed my spine. Had the gun involved in my accident been equipped with a chamber load indicator, the officer would have known that the weapon was loaded. Clearly, mistakes can happen even when guns are in the hands of highly trained weapons experts, which is why safety devices are so critical. I urge my colleagues to join me and the 40 original co-sponsors of this bill in reducing the risk of unintentional shootings. Please co- sponsor this responsible measure, and help make guns safer for consumer use while protecting those unfamiliar with the operation of guns.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to voice my strong support of the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood-Berry patients' bill of rights. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill which our wise counterparts in the Senate passed more than 1 month ago. Over 800 organizations endorse the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood-Berry patient bill of rights, and numerous surveys show overwhelming support for the kind of bipartisan commonsense protections this bill provides. We must pass this bill and not delay or deny the American public what so many of us have promised them time and time again since 1998. More than 160 million Americans receive health services through managed care. Sixty-three percent of the insured population in this country have employment-based insurance. This patients' bill of rights would not only ensure a basic minimal level of health care for these Americans but also ensure that doctors, and not bureaucrats, are making decisions when it comes to patient care. We must pass the newly revised Ganske-Dingell-Norwood-Berry patients' bill of rights, H.R. 2563. This bill gives HMO patients the right to choose their own doctor, covers all Americans with employer-based insurance, ensures that external reviews are conducted by independent and qualified physicians, and holds a plan accountable when it makes a decision that harms or kills someone. It also provides access to emergency room care, OB-GYNs, pediatricians, specialty care providers, and clinical trials and prescription drugs. And while it does allow patients to sue in Federal and State courts, the newly revised bill makes it clear that employers will not be sued for wrongs committed by health plans. It limits employer liability by providing an exemption for self-employed plans and permitting employers to appoint a decisionmaker to immunize them from lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, furthermore, this legislation narrows the scope of defined violations to provide meaningful protections for employers trying to provide the best care they can for employers and employees. Mr. Speaker, an understandable and equally important concern for many of America's hardworking employers is the increased cost of providing health care for their employees. H.R. 2563 has been crafted to minimize this risk as well. The Congressional Budget Office issued a cost analysis of the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill, which is virtually identical to H.R. 2563, and concluded it would increase health insurance premiums by only a de minimis amount. Moreover, a cost increase may never occur, since many HMOs have changed their policies over the past 3 years to ensure that patients can obtain medically necessary care. I applaud these HMOs and hope that others will follow, especially since some Members of the House seem determined to never let H.R. 2563 be considered on the House floor. I think that would be a travesty, Mr. Speaker. This patients' bill of rights represents a critical step toward improving our health care system by placing control of patient care firmly in the hands of patients and their doctors. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think of their constituents and the promises that we have made to improve health care in America. We must pass meaningful health care reform. We must pass this patients' bill of rights, and we must do it now.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2172.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our American flag and as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 36, which would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to protect the United States flag from acts of physical desecration. Our flag occupies a truly unique place in the hearts of millions of citizens as a cherished symbol of freedom. As an international emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American flag should be treated with respect and care. I do not believe our free speech rights should entitle us to consider the flag as mere ``personal property,'' which can be treated any way we see fit, including physically desecrating it as a form of political protest. The American flag is a source of inspiration wherever it is displayed, and a symbol of hope to all nations struggling to build democracies. As a proud member of the House Armed Services Committee, I deeply admire those who have fought and died to preserve our freedoms. These men and women have bravely defended our flag and the fundamental principles for which it stands. They deserve to know that their government treasures the flag and all it represents as much as they do. For these reasons I, as well as a great number of Americans, believe that our flag should be treated with dignity and deserves protection under the law. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting one of the most enduring symbols of our nation and our democracy by adopting this resolution today.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan Velazquez-Kelly amendment which would restore a portion of the funding that was cut from the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan and other crucial programs in the FY 2002 Commerce, Justice, State spending bill. By providing loan guarantees to eligible small businesses that would otherwise be unable to secure financing, 7(a) loans fill the gap left by traditional private lenders and supplies the necessary capital for America's small businesses to expand and create jobs. Last year, this crucial program backed more than 43,000 loans worth over $10.5 billion to small firms nationwide. In the first 6 months of this year, 24 different financial institutions in Rhode Island approved over 540 7(a) loans for a total of over $61 million to Rhode Island's small business community. In fact, 7(a) loans make up nearly one-third of all long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses. Mr. Chairman, this program is important to every small business in America, and it deserves the continued support of the Congress. At a time when an economic downturn threatens businesses, jobs, and families across the country, cuts to SBA programs pose more danger than ever. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Velazquez-Kelly amendment, and I strongly and admirably commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) on their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the severe funding cuts in Small Business Administration programs that were reported in the FY 2002 Commerce-Justice-State spending bill. While I understand the appropriators' difficult task for maintaining fiscal responsibility while adequately funding the wide variety of programs contained in this bill, I am extremely disappointed in the subcommittee's decision to slash SBA funding by $132 million, a 15 percent decrease from FY 2001. In particular, I am very concerned about the $30 million in cuts to the 7(a) guaranteed loan program. By providing loan guarantees to eligible small businesses that would otherwise be unable to secure private financing, this crucial loan program fills the gap left by traditional private lenders and supplies the necessary capital for America's small businesses to expand and create jobs. The committee's funding level amounts to a 32 percent cut and would eliminate an estimated 14,000 critical loan guarantees. Just last year, the 7(a) program backed more than 43,000 loans worth over $10.5 billion to small firms nationwide. Since 1992, the program has provided almost $76 billion in capital to America's small entrepreneurs. In fact, 7(a) loans make up nearly 30 percent of all long-term loans made to U.S. small businesses. This program is important to every small business in America, and it deserves the continued support of Congress. Another element of the 15 percent cut to SBA would end the New Market Venture Capital initiative, and the PRIME and BusinessLinc programs. The New Market Venture Capital Program, which was designed to spur investment in low-and moderate-income communities and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last year, has been zeroed out in this year's bill. The funding for the PRIME program, which allows the SBA to award grants to non-profit micro-enterprise development organizations, has also been eliminated. Finally, BusinessLinc, which grants funding to local non-profit economic development organizations to assist them in bringing local businesses to the attention of large corporations, has been underfunded to the point that the program will effectively no longer exist. Discontinuing these vital programs will undoubtedly negatively affect economic development initiatives targeted to assist low-income and minority business communities. At a time when an economic downturn is threatening businesses, jobs and families across the country, these kinds of cuts pose more danger than ever. Small businesses are the backbone of Rhode Island's economy and account for more than 95 percent of the jobs in the state. They bring new and innovative services and products to the marketplace and provide business ownership opportunities to diverse and traditionally underrepresented groups. Many of these small businesses rely on the valuable loan assistance, technical training and grant programs offered by the SBA. These harsh budget cuts would severely impact Rhode Island's small business community, just when we need their contributions the most. In closing, Mr. Chairman, these unwarranted cuts to SBA's budget will seriously undermine the agency's ability to deliver services to small businesses. The small business community supplies over half of the nation's workforce, and in the last decade has shown the greatest growth in our economy. In order to continue this successful entrepreneurial trend, small businesses need the access to capital that SBA provides. I would strongly urge the appropriators to reconsider their decision to cut SBA's funding. The small business community deserves our full-fledged support and nothing less.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, I was up here speaking as the proud sponsor of a resolution honoring Erik Weihenmayer, a young man who inspires not only people with disabilities but all of us struggling to overcome our own obstacles and challenges. As the first blind person to summit Mount Everest, he illustrates the immense power of the human spirit. However, while it is important to pay homage to such remarkable people, I believe it is equally important that we honor those who make such special achievements possible. Tonight I would like to pay tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration; the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy); the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Small Business and all their dedicated staff, as well as those who manage the floor activity on a daily basis. They have all provided tremendous support to me as a freshman Member of the United States Congress. My experience illustrates the compassionate understanding one can receive from his colleagues and employers once they are aware of his or her needs. I have been overwhelmed by just how considerate and flexible my colleagues have been in ensuring that I can work effectively in Congress. When I dreamed of running for this office, I was not sure how accessible the congressional buildings would be, but from the moment I was elected in November of last year, the hardworking engineers, architects, design managers, and my fellow Members of Congress made it clear that they would do whatever was necessary to make my office, the committees on which I serve, and the House floor accessible. One of the products of this generous response to my needs, in fact, is the lectern and microphone that I am using right now. It took months to design and build this remarkable podium which can be easily raised and lowered and is truly a work of art. I gratefully recognize all the time and resources that were dedicated to making this lectern, to installing additional voting machines on the floor, and placing ramps in my committee rooms and providing accessible office space. What everyone involved in this process may not realize, however, is that beyond enabling me to better serve my constituents, they have also opened the doors for people with disabilities to serve in this Chamber in the future. As I have said many times before, I may be the first quadriplegic elected to the United States Congress but most certainly I will not be the last. The invaluable message that has been delivered in making this Chamber accessible is that any one of the nearly 53 million people with disabilities in this country can become a Member of the United States Congress or can serve in any other field of endeavor with just minor changes. Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities are an integral but underutilized part of our workforce. With minor accommodations they can become an even more important part of our society and be involved in strengthening America's communities, businesses, and government. That is why I am so thankful to President Bush, who has highlighted the need to make workplaces, housing, education, technology, and our society in general, more accessible to all Americans. The President's new Freedom Initiative is an important proposal which calls for funding of a broad range of programs that together can help create countless new opportunities for many Americans who continually face unnecessary obstacles because of their disabilities. Mr. Speaker, I am eager to work with President Bush to make this new Freedom Initiative a reality. To this end, I recently sent a letter co- signed by 23 of my colleagues to the House appropriators seeking their support in providing funds for the President's proposals. This is an issue on which we can all come together regardless of party background and help open doors for millions of people who are eager to conquer new challenges. Mr. Speaker, once again, I extend my heartfelt thanks to the dozens of people who have made my tenure in Congress possible. Ensuring that some day every workplace in America will be able to respond to the special needs of employees in the same way is one of my top priorities in Congress. When that happens, we will all benefit from the remarkable talents and contributions of the millions of Americans with disabilities who are eager to pursue their dreams just as I have.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. As a member of this committee, I am honored to work with the gentleman to ensure our military is provided the necessary funding to protect America and our allies. I support this amendment because it provides critical funding for basic maintenance costs, as well as personnel needs for each of the services. Specifically, this amendment would add a total of $2.7 billion to the supplemental appropriations bill for various defense programs. This funding will be used for flying hours, spare parts, maintenance, housing allowances, and subsistence allowances. It will also be used to repair or replace the EP-3 supply plane on Hainan Island, much-needed repair of the U.S.S. Cole and deployment munitions. These programs desperately need this funding. Let us make no mistake about it. Mr. Skelton wrote this amendment based on the service chiefs' fiscal year 2001 unfunded requirements list. It is reasonable and in direct response to the expressed needs of our military. Mr. Chairman, we must pass this amendment. We owe it not only to our hardworking men and women who have dedicated their lives to ensuring freedom and democracy in this great Nation, but we also owe it to all the Americans who are counting on us to ensure that they are safe. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and vote for the Skelton amendment.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancements Act. This measure will modernize one of the most important pieces of legislation of the Twentieth Century, the Montgomery GI Bill, which was passed in 1944. I am pleased that we finally have the chance to bring the GI Bill in line with the current costs of higher education. When the GI Bill was first enacted, it provided the stimulus for thousands of Americans to go to college after serving their country in World War II. This was a fitting reward to what has come to be termed as ``The Greatest Generation,'' allowing them to move beyond the places they came from and pursue the American Dream. The GI Bill has since allowed millions of young men and women who could not otherwise afford college to have their education paid for after serving their country. Unfortunately, as time has passed, the costs of sending our men and women to college has escalated considerably, and increased funding for the GI Bill has not been enough to keep the benefit current with costs. The maximum benefit right now is only $650 a month, which does not cover the cost of the average four-year state institution. As a result of letting inflation erode our commitment to our veterans, we have lost a powerful recruiting tool for bringing new people into our armed forces. It is past time for us to raise the amount of these benefits. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1291. It will link any future increase in the education benefit to the consumer price index so that inflation will no longer be an issue. We owe this not only to our veterans, but to the millions of young men and women who will be looking to our military in the future as their best hope of obtaining a college degree. I ask that all my colleagues join me in whole-heartedly supporting this measure today.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, the Honorable John Joseph Moakley. The passing of Congressman Moakley was a tremendous loss to this Congress, and we should continue to honor his memory as befits a man of his stature. In both his personal life and his service in this body he displayed the highest values of statesmanship, and with that service an unparalleled quality of character. Joe brought hard work and integrity to this body, and he fought for people everywhere. He worked to provide for the people in his home of South Boston. He also championed human rights. In 1989 he chaired a special commission to investigate the killings of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador. After concluding his duty on the commission, he continued to fight for democracy and freedom for the people of El Salvador. He also fought to make education affordable and available for all, claiming, ``student loans and public education are the essence of the American dream.'' Throughout his public service career he ensured that this dream would be realized by our youth. Throughout his years in Congress, Mr. Moakley was magnanimous and respectful of all his colleagues. Those who worked with him closely in the Rules Committee and on the House floor, always refer to his wit, humor and professional demeanor regardless of how controversial an issue might have been. He may have disagreed with you, but he would always respect you. He was a true friend to members on both sides of the aisle. I wish to express my sympathies to the family and friends of Congressman Moakley, and the members of his staff; and to Mr. McGovern, in particular, who worked for Mr. Moakley for 13 years before running for Congress himself. I urge all of my colleagues to strive to emulate Joe Moakely, and embrace the statesmanship and integrity he brought to this chamber.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I teamed up with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), to introduce this resolution to honor Erik Weihenmayer. Before I explain just how amazing Erik is and what his achievement epitomizes for people with disabilities, I would first like to thank the leadership, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. All of them have provided strong support for this legislation and helped bring it to the floor in an expeditious fashion, which ensures timely recognition of this great feat. I am an ardent fan of Erik Weihenmayer. Little does he know that I and millions of others with disabilities have followed his trek not since May 23, when he summited Mount Everest, but many months ago when I first learned of his expedition. Since 1926, when George Mallory was the first man to reach the top of Mount Everest, only about 1,000 people have successfully climbed it, and more than 150 have died trying. Not only has Erik conquered a mountain few people with 20/20 vision would ever fathom climbing, but he has also become an inspiring example of how to live life to its fullest. At the young age of 32, Erik has already climbed Mount McKinley, Mt. Kilimanjaro, and even the Polar Circus, a 3,000 foot ice waterfall. Erik is the consummate athlete. He is an acrobatic skydiver, SCUBA diver, long distance biker, marathon runner, skier, mountaineer, and an ice and rock climber. He has received countless awards from the Health and Fitness Association, from the Glaucoma Foundation, ESPN, and many more. He has even carried the Olympic torch. But Erik's successes reach far beyond physical challenges. As an inspirational speaker and writer, Erik has shared the lessons learned in turning obstacles into opportunities. He has pioneered, not just the people with disabilities, but for all of us struggling to overcome our own tribulations. What Erik shows us is that, despite obstacles and challenges that we all face in our lives, each of us can make our own dreams come true. But myself personally, I had dreamed of being a police officer my entire life, and that dream ended for me at the age of 16 when, as a police cadet, a police officer's gun accidently discharged in the police locker room and severed my spinal cord. But with the help and support of my family, my friends and my entire community, I was able to persevere and find a new dream. Today I join my colleagues as a Member of the United States Congress. Erik's spirit and determination symbolized my philosophy for living life to its fullest; that is, to dream it, to do it, and to dig a little deeper. It is so important for us to experience life and to have dreams, to know that there is something out there that we want to accomplish; and then, yes, we put that plan into action and just do it. Believing in ourselves, knowing that, despite the difficulties and the obstacles that we can overcome, we all can persevere, and that is when we need to dig a little deeper. When the obstacles present themselves and we think we have nothing else left to give, all of us must know that it is possible and we must dig deep within ourselves and then to push forward and to persevere. That is a lesson and a message that we all must share and that Erik has certainly demonstrated for all of us today. In his first inaugural address, FDR said happiness lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. I cannot think of a person who embodies this spirit more than Erik Weihenmayer. Today we will pass a resolution to honor this perfect illustration of the accomplishments people with disabilities can make if they are provided with the proper resources, training and opportunity. But most important of all, this is a powerful example of the triumph of the human spirit. I thank my colleagues for embracing and encouraging this drive to achieve in valuing the need for all of us to experience this great joy.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) on this important topic. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address in particular the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs, which is making this essential component of our Nation's health care system inaccessible to those who need it most. Older Americans, who make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 34 percent of all prescriptions dispensed and 42 cents of every dollar spent on prescription drugs. The average Medicare beneficiary fills 18 different prescriptions per year. Obtaining prescription drugs is a clear necessity for our senior citizens. Yet, the annual spending per capita in the Medicare population for prescription drugs has jumped from $674 in 1996 to $1,539 in the year 2000, and is expected to climb to over $3,700 in 2010. Overall, prescription drug prices rose 306 percent between 1981 and 1999, while the Consumer Price Index rose just 99 percent during that same period. In the year 2000, total spending in the U.S. for prescription drugs was $116 billion, more than twice the $51 billion spent in 1993. That amount is expected to triple to $366 billion by 2010. These escalating prices can and must cease. For every dollar that a consumer pays for a prescription drug at the pharmacy, 74 cents goes to the drug manufacturer, 3 cents goes to the wholesale distributor, and 23 cents goes to the pharmacy. In 2000, pharmaceutical companies had after-tax median profits of 19 percent, compared with 5 percent for all other Fortune 500 companies combined. While I recognize the importance of researching and developing technological advancements that have helped numerous Americans, and of course we all want to see this continue, I know drug manufacturers do not need such astronomical profits to ensure continued research. Mr. Speaker, let us face facts: most core research for prescription drugs is funded through NIH. In addition, pharmaceutical companies dedicate more than 18 percent of revenues to profits and 30 percent to marketing and administration, compared with just 12 percent to research and development. In fact, the 12 drug companies with the highest revenues spent three times as much on marketing as on R&D in 2000. Mr. Speaker, access to prescription drugs is critical to the survival and maintenance of an accessible quality of life for millions of our senior citizens. As we know, Medicare does not offer any prescription drug program, and most seniors have found that the Medicare+Choice program has not provided the kind of opportunities Congress thought it would. As a result, today at least one in three people in the Medicare population have no drug coverage at all in the course of a year, and nearly half have no coverage for at least part of an entire year. These Medicare beneficiaries spend on average 83 percent more for their medications than those with drug coverage. Moreover, almost half of Medicare beneficiaries without any form of prescription drug coverage have incomes less than 175 percent of the poverty level. That means they had incomes of $15,000 in 2001. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we need to require drug companies to give local pharmacies the best price they give their most favored customers, or the average foreign price, and reinstate the requirement for reasonable pricing on products that were researched and developed using taxpayer money via NIH. Moreover, we need to authorize the Federal government to buy drugs in bulk and at a discount for Medicare beneficiaries. And most of all, we must provide a Medicare prescription drug plan. While the administration's budget includes $153 billion over 10 years to provide for prescription drug coverage and Medicare reforms, this plan falls far short of a comprehensive drug coverage program. The 4-year Immediate Helping Hand proposal provides block grants to the States to help low-income seniors purchase prescription drugs, and then an unspecified Medicare prescription drug benefit is to be developed, along with Medicare restructuring. According to the administration's own cost estimates, adjusted by CBO's projections of drug inflation, covering only the low-income population's prescription drugs would cost over $200 billion, almost $50 billion more than what has been provided in the budget. Furthermore, the Immediate Helping Hand program would deny eligibility to about 20 million Medicare beneficiaries, most of whom lack affordable, dependable prescription drug coverage. For instance, under the administration's plan, an 85-year-old widow with an annual income of $17,000 would receive no assistance with her prescription drug costs. Now that we have passed what I believe is an irresponsible and partisan budget, providing the kind of comprehensive and effective drug benefit our seniors need appears to be next to impossible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to forget our seniors, and to not neglect the American public, who is counting on us to follow through on a promise that was made by Democrats and Republicans alike to provide a quality prescription drug plan for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act, because it fails to reflect the priorities of my constituents. This tax cut has been sold to the American public as a cure for an astonishingly wide variety of ills, from a possible recession to spiraling energy prices. The unfortunate truth, however, is that this package offers nothing to guard against an economic downturn in the near term. Instead, it provides a series of back-loaded tax cuts, overwhelmingly skewed to the wealthiest Americans, while jeopardizing our ability to fund other priorities. Equally worrisome is the fact that this legislation creates the very real possibility of a return to deficit spending should the projected surpluses fail to materialize. Just this week, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has made a significant downward adjustment in this year's surplus estimates, virtually wiping out the ``contingency fund'' that has already been promised to a variety of needs, including increased military requirements and a prescription drug benefit. We are kidding ourselves and our constituents if we believe that this is not a sign of worse news to come. To fit this 10-year tax cut under a $1.35 trillion budget ceiling, the conferees have provided for the entire package to sunset at the end of 2010. While this ridiculous gimmick allows the tax cuts to meet budget restrictions on paper, in reality, the agreement will substantially exceed these targets when all of the costs are factored in. In the meantime, we are left with an increasingly complex tax code whose provisions are phased in and then repealed largely at random, making it difficult for taxpayers to understand, and impossible for them to rely upon as they plan for their families' futures. In addition, the agreement leaves out major provisions whose enactment is widely viewed as inevitable, such as extension of the research and experimentation credit and measures to address serious problems with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). By sunsetting the tax cuts before the end of the eleven-year budget period and simply omitting foreseeable costs, the conferees have distorted the final cost of the tax cut and used the ``extra'' money to throw even more last- minute provisions into the final package. Currently, 1.5 million taxpayers are subjected to the AMT. Under this conference agreement, over 30 million more would be subject to the AMT by 2010. That is double the number of taxpayers who would be affected by this provision under current law. Consequently, these tax cuts will in effect increase tax liability for many households and may result in even greater income disparities in the future. Some 30 percent of American taxpayers--roughly 51 million people-- will not receive the full amount of the tax rebate included in the conference report. I am strongly in favor of providing immediate tax relief to hard-working families, but this legislation will leave out many of those families who need short-term relief most urgently. In so doing, the rebate will also fail to jump start a flagging economy, as the Administration continues to claim it will do. For example, sixty-two percent of those taxpayers who make less than $44,000 a year will get less than the full rebate amounts, with 42 percent of these taxpayers receiving nothing at all. In Rhode Island, 44 percent of taxpayers--over 123,000 individuals--making less than $40,000 a year will receive no rebate. Although these taxpayers may not have the highest income tax liabilities, they incur a disproportionately high payroll tax liability, which is not figured into the rebates. I am also frustrated with the conferees' decision gradually phase out the estate tax--culminating in its repeal for only one year before the bill sunsets and the estate tax is again in full effect--instead of providing an immediate and permanent increase in the exemption, which would protect the vast majority of families, small businesses and family farms from estate tax liability. The provision contained in this agreement would allow the wealthiest two percent of our population to pass wealth to their heirs without taxation, while hard-working families would continue to be taxed on every dollar earned. It would also have a devastating impact on charities, foundations, universities and other philanthropic organizations. Additionally, I am disappointed that the conferees have failed to provide immediate marriage tax relief for couples. The agreement before us does not even begin to address the marriage penalty until 2005, and relief will not be fully phased in until 2009. Married couples who have been contacting my office seeking relief from this unintended consequence of our tax code will surely be disappointed when they realize that their wait will continue for at least four more years. This tax package will cause enormous revenue losses and threaten our ability to address national priorities like extending the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, reducing our national debt, implementing a prescription drug benefit for seniors and improving education and health care for all. Furthermore, the agreement will jeopardize resources and programs that are absolutely vital to our nation's small businesses, workforce, environmental protection, energy efficiency and housing needs. We should use our current prosperity to enhance those federal programs relied upon by some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Without a doubt, American taxpayers deserve a substantial tax cut. But they also deserve a strengthened Social Security system, a Medicare program that covers prescription drugs, a military that is equipped to protect our nation, a quality health care system that is affordable and accessible to every family, and a world-class educational system that prepares our children for the 21st century. These needs are great and they must not be ignored. They will require additional spending by the federal government, but this tax cut leaves room for no such investment. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-advised tax cut, which will jeopardize our future fiscal security, while doing nothing to address immediate economic needs.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee for crafting a bill that contains landmark investments in education and prioritizes disadvantaged children and low-performing schools. In total, H.R. 1 authorizes $22.8 billion, about $5'billion more than was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. This bill creates new accountability systems that hold our schools responsible for delivering the first-rate education that our children deserve. It tackles the problem of illiteracy by creating two new reading programs and authorizing them at three times the level of past programs. H.R 1 gives children more personal attention and improves teacher quality by almost doubling funding for class size reduction and professional development for teachers. It authorizes $11.5 billion for Title I in 2002 with increases over five years that amount to almost twice the 2001 level. Finally, H.R. 1 rejects both vouchers, which would drain resources from public schools, and ``Straight As,'' which would politicize education and deny critical funding to the students who need the money most. In sum, H.R. 1 is a remarkable measure. My only fear is that the budget we were forced to vote on last week so binds our hands that we will not be able to keep our promises. By enacting a $1.35 trillion tax cut and a four percent cap on discretionary spending increases, we have virtually guaranteed that we will not adequately fund all the programs we are about to authorize. Mr. Speaker, reforms without resources will not produce results. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1. However, we must all remember that our job is not over until we meet these obligations during the appropriations process.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee for crafting a bill that contains landmark investments in education and prioritizes disadvantaged children and low-performing schools. In total, H.R. 1 authorizes $22.8 billion, about $5 billion more than was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. This bill creates new accountability systems that hold our schools responsible for delivering the first-rate education that our children deserve. It tackles the problem of illiteracy by creating two new reading programs and authorizing them at three times the level of past programs. H.R. 1 gives children more personal attention and improves teacher quality by almost doubling funding for class size reduction and professional development for teachers. It authorizes $11.5 billion for Title I in 2002 with increases over five years that amount to almost twice the 2001 level. Finally, H.R. 1 rejects both vouchers, which would drain resources from public schools, and `Straight As,' which would politicize education and deny critical funding to the students who need the money most. In sum, H.R. 1 is a remarkable measure. My only fear is that the budget we were forced to vote on last week so binds our hands that we will not be able to keep our promises. By enacting a $1.35 trillion tax cut and a four percent cap on discretionary spending increases, we have virtually guaranteed that we will not adequately fund all the programs we are about to authorize. Mr. Speaker, reforms without resources will not produce results. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1. However, we must all remember that our job is not over until we meet these obligations during the appropriations process.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join my colleagues in addressing the serious issue of rising energy costs. Today in Rhode Island, the average price of one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline reached $1.77, almost 5 cents above the national average and a record high in my State. Thousands of my constituents depend on their automobiles to get to their jobs each day and simply cannot afford the drastic increase in gas prices that they are being forced to pay. Additionally, this problem has a significant impact on Rhode Island's economy which relies heavily on summer tourism. Increased gasoline costs threaten to discourage people from summer travel, which would have a disastrous effect on our communities. Mr. Speaker, we need a solution to this problem now. I have contacted the administration and insisted that any energy strategy that they develop must help American consumers by lowering gas prices. Both the President and the Vice President have extensive experience and contact in the oil industry. I am certain that, if properly motivated, they could find a way to lower gasoline prices and bring relief to Americans that have been hardest hit by this price spike. Our national energy strategy must also incorporate technologies to improve vehicles' fuel efficiency standards in order to reduce our runaway consumption of oil and gasoline. For example, by requiring SUVs to simply meet fuel efficiency standards of passenger cars would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels per day, approximately the daily estimated oil yield from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Even though the technology currently exists to make our Nation's cars and SUVs more fuel efficient, Congress has blocked the establishment of higher standards since 1995. Mr. Speaker, I intend to work with my colleagues in Congress to increase fuel efficiency standards, not only to cut our consumption of oil and gasoline, but also to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the greatest contributor to global warming. I am optimistic that the United States will take advantage of our current energy debate to develop a forward-thinking plan for the future. We must establish an energy strategy that addresses short-term and long-term problems, is environmentally responsible, and truly benefits the American consumer as well as the future of this world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 586, the Foster Care Promotion Act. As the son of parents who welcomed 25 foster children into their family, I know firsthand the worth of the foster care system. This bill would allow foster parents to exclude payments for foster children of any age placed by a non-governmental foster care agency from their taxable income. By subsidizing the cost of foster children, regardless of their age or the method in which they were placed, we will properly value the incredible work of foster parents everywhere. Foster parenting is an act of true selflessness, as each child requires a significant financial and emotional investment. Many foster children have been abused or neglected. Such treatment leaves indelible scars, which foster parents lovingly attempt to heal. We should not ask such generous individuals to give of their pocketbooks as well as their hearts. All children need love and support. This bill takes an important step toward ensuring that some of the most needy children will received it.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the Republican budget on which we voted because it slashes critical investments in education that are essential to Rhode Island's schools. This budget falls $21 billion short of even the President's proposal for education investment. President Bush and too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made this tax cut for the rich a top priority and paid for it with Draconian budget cuts in critical social services. I am disheartened to see the President abandoning his campaign promise and abandoning our children. Under this partisan budget that we were forced to vote on today, Rhode Island will lose critical funding for class size reduction, school construction and violence prevention programs. In 1999 and 2000, Rhode Island received more than $11 million under the 100,000 New Teachers program. With these funds, Rhode Island was able to hire 145 new teachers. President Bush wants to terminate this valuable program and resign Rhode Island's children to overcrowded classrooms. More teachers and smaller class sizes are critical to helping all students, and they have a particularly dramatic impact on those from low-income families. In fact, smaller class sizes are key to substantially closing the achievement gap between high-performing and low-performing students. To leave no child behind, we must reduce the size of classes by helping schools recruit and hire more teachers. Rhode Island is also in serious need of money for school construction. Many schools throughout the State are deteriorating dramatically. Too many children are learning in trailers and in classrooms that do not meet even the minimum health and safety standards. In sum, Rhode Island schools are in need of $1.6 billion in repairs. Yet the Republican budget abandons Rhode Island's children by providing zero funding for school construction. Instead of creating modern and safe schools that are conducive to learning, the Bush budget eliminates the school renovation program and retroactively redirects the $1.2 billion already appropriated for this year to other programs. As many as 1,000 schools in disrepair will not be renovated because of this budget. Mr. Speaker, reforms without resources will not produce results. Public demand to invest in education has never been stronger. Parents and taxpayers want to reduce class size, repair schools, ensure students have the highest-quality teachers and target Federal assistance to schools that are most in need. This opportunity must not be squandered on ill conceived plans or sacrificed because of inadequate funding and a lack of political courage. Let us make children and public education our top priority and provide resources needed to make a difference for every child in America. To truly leave no child behind, the White House and Congress must match rhetoric with resources needed to turn words into deeds and hope into reality.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to a budget conference agreement that jeopardizes fiscal discipline and critical social programs to make room for an enormous tax cut skewed toward the wealthy and based on surplus projections that may never materialize. Despite a modest reduction in the tax cut originally proposed by the administration, it is still far too large. To pay for it, the agreement usurps funds that should go to other critical priorities, like reducing our debt, creating a stable defense, improving education, providing affordable health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and, yes, a real prescription drug benefit for our seniors, particularly in light of the fact that just today, as reported, spending on prescription drugs has increased by almost 19 percent. Furthermore, this fundamentally flawed agreement would cut Federal programs that are vital to our Nation's small businesses: worker, health, environmental protection, energy efficiency and housing needs. This budget also shortchanges our vast transportation and infrastructure needs, decreases funding for critical law enforcement programs, and cuts budget authority for the benefits our veterans have earned. We would all like to reward hard-working Americans by returning some of their tax dollars, but we would also need to ensure that our most pressing needs are met. These are real concerns that warrant a real budget based on real numbers, not partisan rhetoric that falsely touts cooperation and accord. Bipartisan negotiations involve a lot more than just inviting a couple of folks over to the White House for lunch. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-conceived Republican proposal and supporting instead a sensible, well-balanced budget resolution that speaks to the needs of every American family.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for H. Con. Res. 91, the Increase Awareness of Autism and Support Greater Research, Treatment & Training Resolution, to honor Autism Awareness Day, and to pay tribute to parents and families of autistic children everywhere. As a result of autism, an estimated 400,000 Americans have lost the ability to communicate and interact with others. In my home state of Rhode Island, autism had become an absolute crisis. The incidence of the disorder has risen by over 1000% in the past seven years, and by over 300% in the past five years alone. Caring for people afflicted with autism costs more than $13 billion per year, and the majority of these costs are borne by the families of the victims of autism. These parents have sacrificed tremendously to provide the specialized education and support services that their children need. Yet, they still do not receive the support they deserve from the government. My nephew has a form of autism so I know firsthand the challenges these families face. Many days, my nephew's parents cannot hold conversations with their son. Communicating with him takes extraordinary patience. Had his parents not engaged him in an intensive intervention program immediately after his diagnosis, he would have made much less progress today. It was not many years ago that children with autism would have been misdiagnosed and often institutionalized for the rest of their lives. Parents of autistic children regularly encounter people who do not understand the difficulties associated with autism. Friends and teachers become impatient. They repeat the same phrase over and over, as if the child will understand if it is repeated one more time. Teachers are often ill-equipped to deal with the special challenges of autistic children. H. Con Res. 91 calls upon federal, state and local governments to allocate sufficient resources to alleviate the shortage of appropriately trained teachers of autistic children; and recognizes the importance of worker training programs tailored to the needs of developmentally disabled persons, including those with autism. The resolution further expresses Congress' support for increasing federal funding for research to learn the causes of autism, identify the best methods of early intervention and treatment, and promote understanding of the special needs of autistic persons. It urges swift implementation of the Children's Health Act of 2000, particularly the establishment of at least three ``centers of excellence'' at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at least five centers at the National Institutes of Health, in order to monitor the prevalence of autism at the national level. As a proud member of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E.), I will fight for increases in support this year, to correct years of under-funding of organizations and programs that deal with autism issues. In addition, the federal government must honor its promise to contribute up to 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for special needs funding. To date, the maximum the government has ever contributed is 15 percent. As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1330, the Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I am fighting to ensure that the federal government honors its commitment to local districts. It is of utmost importance to me that the federal government keep its promise to special needs students so they receive the first class education they deserve. I commend my colleagues for honoring this special day and implore them to work together to guarantee that the national crisis called autism receives the critical attention and financial support its merits.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act. This comprehensive legislation is an excellent first step toward rectifying the severe retirement savings shortfall in this country. At present, half of our nation's workforce--75 million Americans-- lack access to a 401(k)-type plan or any kind of pension. Further, contribution limits on pensions and IRAs have been frozen at their current levels since 1981. As a result, individuals could invest more in a 401(k) plan in the early 1980s than they can today, and of all retirement savings plans, only the IRA limit has never been indexed for inflation. H.R. 10 would allow individuals to set aside more money by increasing the current $2,000 IRA contribution limit for both traditional and Roth IRAs to $5,000 over a three-year period. Additionally, it would reduce regulatory burdens on plan sponsors, enabling small businesses to offer retirement plans. Finally, this legislation would allow for greater portability between plans, strengthen legal protections for pension participants, offer quicker vesting and include ``catch-up'' provisions to make up for earlier missed contributions by reaching out to women reentering the workplace and workers over fifty. As traditional, employer-funded benefit pension plans continue to shift toward contribution plans funded by workers, retirees need to have the tools to better manage their assets during the savings phase and ensure that they do not outlive their income during retirement. Current statistics indicate that one-fifth of today's 35-year-olds who reach retirement can expect to live into their 90s--evidence that many Americans will outlive their retirement savings. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that Congress ensure that Americans have the resources necessary to achieve a financially secure retirement. I would urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation that would expand access to private pensions and increase flexibility for families to save for retirement.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment, which would require a two- thirds majority vote in Congress to pass legislation increasing internal Federal revenues, except in time of war or military conflict. While I support a simpler, fairer and more efficient tax code, I cannot back this fiscally irresponsible proposal, which would unnecessarily tamper with the Constitution and undermine its principle of majority rule. This resolution would deny Congress its legislative ability to address weaknesses in our current tax code and possibly close outdated and costly tax loopholes. Further, this constitutional amendment would prevent us from passing reconciliation bills, which reduce future deficits by making balanced spending cuts and raising revenues, unless there are tax cuts of equal size. The philosophical battle over supermajorities was waged after the Articles of Confederation was enacted. During, this debate, our Founders became convinced that supermajorities were unfeasible and that a simple majority--our present system for the passage of tax bills--was the most practical. For centuries, our government has abided by this fundamental principle and concluded that our republic would be compromised if a two-thirds majority vote were required for revenue bills and other day-to-day legislative matters routinely before us. We all want to protect hard-working families from tax increases, but requiring a two-thirds vote to raise revenues to pay for spending initiatives that we have already authorized would make funding our national priorities even more problematic. Furthermore, this constitutional amendment would make it extraordinarily difficult to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and reduce our national debt. Finally, this legislation is largely unworkable, given the vagueness and ambiguity of its language. If Congress is truly concerned about guarding the American public from unwarranted tax increases, it should pass meaningful tax reform legislation, maintain a balanced budget, and trust American citizens to elect representatives who will legislate in their best interests. For these reasons, I cannot support this proposed change to the Constitution. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this imprudent measure.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I have organized my freshman Democratic colleagues to speak out on an issue of great importance to our country, that is, on the issue of health care. I understand that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) has already spoken, and I thank my colleague for his participation. Mr. Speaker, many of us were elected in large part because we vowed to reform our health care system, to make quality medical care and prescription drugs affordable for all Americans. Today nearly 44 million Americans under the age of 65, 11 million of whom are children, do not have health insurance. In the State of Rhode Island, my home, 1 out of 10 people lack health insurance. As we all know, health insurance is critical to obtaining necessary, affordable care. Those without insurance often pay two, even three times more for medical care than an insured person pays for that very same service. The uninsured are hospitalized at least 50 percent more often than the insured for avoidable conditions. They are also more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage cancer than those with insurance. Even newborn infants born to uninsured mothers have a 31 percent greater risk for adverse health outcomes. This inequity in access to medical care reflects the unfair disparity and health care costs the uninsured face on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, that is why I plan to introduce legislation to require the Department of Health and Human Services to make substantive recommendations on how to eliminate this disparity and report to Congress within 1 year on these findings. Another facet of today's health insurance quagmire is the high cost employees must pay for health insurance premiums, so high, in fact, that many opt out of this vital benefit. Over one-third of the uninsured are in families where employer-sponsored coverage is declined, and Medicaid does not always cover these families, which is why I plan to introduce legislation to help States subsidize employees and some of the employers' health insurance premium costs. I want to make sure employed workers are able to obtain the health care coverage that they need and deserve. A third aspect of health insurance I am deeply concerned about is the lack of prescription drug coverage in Medicare; 13 million Medicare recipients lack drug coverage at the present time. In Rhode Island alone, almost 200,000 of our seniors have no drug coverage; and drugs are not cheap. In 1999, prescription drugs accounted for almost 10 percent of individual health spending. In many cases these prescriptions amount to $500 or more per month. To a senior on a fixed income, this represents a greater share of their monthly check. A disproportionate share, and this is wrong. With 77 million baby boomers soon to retire, we must curb this trend before it spirals out of control. By requiring drug companies to sell prescription drugs in the United States for the same price they charge in underdeveloped countries, I believe we can alleviate the burden on people lacking drug coverage. I commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has introduced H.R. 1400, of which I am a proud cosponsor, the Prescription Drug Fairness Act for Seniors 2001. This legislation ensures drug companies charge fair prices in the U.S., and it is estimated to reduce prices for brand-name prescription medications on average by 40 percent. All of these issues that I have mentioned address healthcare affordability, and ensuring and guaranteeing a minimum standard of quality is also important. After all, the health care we must pay for is essential for everyone, and it must provide the care that people need. The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, otherwise known as the Patients' Bill of Rights, would ensure patients obtain this quality care and are granted greater control over their health care. If enacted, this bill would provide access to emergency care, specialty care, and clinical trials and allow external review for all Americans who receive employer-sponsored health care. This bill represents a critical step toward improving our health care system and placing control of patient care firmly in the hands of patients and their doctors. Disparity in health care costs, lack of affordable health insurance, a prescription drug plan for our seniors, and patients' rights to control the quality of their own medical care are some of the most pressing health care issues facing America today. I urge my colleagues to work together to solve these problems. Reforming our health care system is probably one of the most complicated endeavors for Congress to undertake. But let us not lose sight of it. It is a goal that we can and must achieve together. It must happen. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to make this a reality.