Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 324) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as the House Democratic leader to offer this resolution. Earlier today the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats were subjected to an indignity, an indignity that no Member should have to endure.

Ms. PELOSI. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PELOSI. I do not yield. There is half an hour on the other side. They have plenty of time to make their point.

Ms. PELOSI. I will proceed, Mr. Speaker, but not before saying that I do not appreciate the gentleman trivializing a rare occasion of this House when a leader of a party stands up for a point of privilege on the House floor. If the gentleman wanted a copy of the resolution, he knew he could go right to the well and get it at the desk. Now I would like to proceed. Earlier today, the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats were subjected to an indignity, an indignity that no Member should have to endure; but it appears that indignity is the order of the day on the majority side. As the Democratic Members of the Ways and Means Committee were caucusing in a committee room while a bill was being read for amendment, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summoned the Capitol Police to remove them from that room. Make no mistake about this: the police were summoned to remove these Democratic Members because the chairman did not want them in the room, not for any other reason. The facts could not be clearer. As the Democratic Members of the Committee on Ways and Means were leaving the rostrum to caucus prior to other events, the chairman told his staff to call the police. How outrageous. I will not even go into how the markup was conducted; I will leave that to the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I will not talk about the fashion in which the Chair rammed through the reporting of the legislation; the members of the Committee on Ways and Means will do that. I want to focus on how the chairman can call upon the Capitol Police to evict Members at his whim from the committee space. We cannot let this stand. We cannot let this go unchallenged. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recites the facts, and my colleagues have heard them. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, one of the people who was evicted from the room.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry about the remaining time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just make note of the fact that the gentleman from Louisiana has just stipulated to the facts that the police were called to go to the library to evict the Democratic Members from that room. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the newest member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a former judge of the Supreme Court of Texas and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also thank him for his leadership in bringing this motion to instruct to the floor this evening. Mr. Speaker, it is just after midnight in Washington, D.C., and once again the Democrats have come to the floor to fight for the children of working families in America. It has been about 43 days since the Senate passed the expanded child tax credit and 33 days since the House passed a bill. The President says he wants to sign a bill quickly. It is too late for quickly. Let us move on to soon. Let us hope the President can sign the bill soon. All it would require would be for the Republican leadership in the House to go to conference with the Senate conferees and agree on the Senate language. What is holding it up? The Republican leadership in the House. The House Republicans are the only ones standing between 12 million children and the extended tax credit. Those children include 250,000 children of our men and women in uniform. On a regular basis around here, we come to the floor to honor our men and women in uniform, to pay tribute to their patriotism, their courage, and the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country; and it is right that we do that. But we dishonor them by saying that their children are unworthy of a tax credit because they do not make enough money. We are saying to the children of over 6 million families, that would be around 12 million children, that they are not worthy of a tax credit because their parents do not make enough money, because they do not make above $26,000 a year. Many of these families have two wage earners, both making the minimum wage. They still do not earn enough money to receive this tax credit. We could raise the minimum wage, but of course the Republican majority would resist that as well. So all this is, is about fairness to our children. The Republicans say that people making $26,000 a year do not pay taxes, so, therefore, they should not get the tax credit. I would like to know anyone who pays a payroll tax who does not think that he or she is paying taxes, and I would like to know anyone who is paying sales tax every day does not think he or she is paying taxes. The sadness of it is, is that some of these families make in 1 year what Members of Congress make in 1 month, and we can be sure that the children of the Members of Congress who are of that age will receive the expanded tax credit. So when Members of Congress leave here they will be soon be receiving a check in the mail for their children. But if they make under $26,000, the Republican majority says their children are unworthy of that tax credit. This is also good for the economy, Mr. Speaker, because we are giving checks to people who need the money for necessities, and when they spend that money on necessities, they will be injecting demand into our economy, creating jobs, growing the economy. It is fair. It is fiscally sound, as opposed to what the Republicans want to do in the House, and it is fast acting in terms of stimulating the economy. Time is running out for the children of America's working families and military families. The Republican leadership must step aside and allow the vote. Just in case anybody missed the particulars on this, remember the great night when the Republican leadership put forth a tax credit giving an $88,000 tax cut to families making over $1 million a year. In that bill, there was an expansion of the tax credit for children, and that was good, except for children of working families who did not make over $26,000 a year. No less a figure than the Vice President of the United States presided over that decision to cut out children of working families and the military in favor of giving a tax cut to the wealthiest in our country. We want to give tax cuts. We know it is possible to give tax cuts that are fiscally sound, fair, and fast acting to grow the economy, because that is exactly what the Democratic stimulus package did. But is it fair to say to these children, you do not deserve a tax cut because we do not pay enough in the minimum wage to have your parents reach a certain plateau? So this is just part of what I call the trifecta that the Republicans have as their assault on America's children this week, within one week. Last week they cut $9 billion out of the Leave No Child Behind bill, $9 billion drastically affecting children from disadvantaged areas, teacher training, every kind of after-school program, across the board, a cut that affected the quality of education of America's children, especially children of working families in America who make below this figure. So the children took it in the chops on the Leave No Child Behind bill; the Republican version left millions of children behind. We have this refusal, resistance, this obstacle to giving a tax credit to the children of working families in our country on the part of the Republicans in the expanded tax credit refusal; and the third, of course, is the unraveling of Head Start, which is a part of the Republican agenda against the children of America. So this is part of a pattern. It is part of their trifecta against the children. It is so important that children get a different message about their value and their worth to us, all children, not just children of families over a certain income level in our country. So I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor at this hour. Usually the majority allows us to bring them at a time when most people are not watching television, to find out what the Republicans are up to. This is absolutely outrageous. It has a moral undertone to it as well. So for every reason, because it is right, because it is fair, because it is good for the economy, it is important for the gentleman's motion to instruct be accepted by this body.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership and that of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor. Because indeed, I say to my colleagues, this amendment presents this Chamber with a moment of truth, a moment of truth as to whether this Congress is honest about its commitment to education, whether or not it will honor its promise to America's children contained in the Leave No Child Behind Act, and whether it is honest about what our expectations are of those children. When the President signed the bill, he did so signing a bill that was bipartisan, bicameral in the support that it had; and people were quite excited about the prospect of the additional resources that would go to helping children to be accountable. Republicans talk about accountability, though, while failing to provide the resources necessary for children to meet the challenge. Mr. Chairman, I call to the attention of our colleagues this report that I and the staff of the Committee on Appropriations have put out, the Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations have put out called ``GOP Funding Bill Shortchanges America's Children By Underfunding Key Education Priorities.'' I just want to read a few provisions in this, and it will point out the tremendous need for the Allen amendment today: ``The GOP bill shortchanges Title I,'' which is the subject of the Allen-Moore amendment. ``Title I is the primary Federal program that helps school districts enrolling low-income children meet the new accountability mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. To help raise the academic performance of these students, Congress has agreed to phase in the Title I payments.'' For fiscal year 2004, that payment would have been $18.5 billion and, yet, the GOP funding bill provides $12.35 billion. ``As a result, under the GOP bill, America's children will lose $6.15 billion in Title I grants below the amount called for'' in the No Child Left Behind bill. Over $6 billion in that one title alone, depriving children, low-income children of the opportunity to be accountable. In addition, the bill also shortchanges children with disabilities. On April 30, the Republicans passed the IDEA reauthorization bill. It promised a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA grants in fiscal year 2004 to help local school districts educate children with disabilities. Everyone who has children with disabilities in their districts, and that would be all of us, knows the pressure on school districts to provide education and quality of access to children with disabilities. It is a very important priority for our country. Yet despite the rhetoric of the authorization bill of just April 30, the Republican IDEA bill, this bill, has less than half. Instead of $2.2 billion, it has a $1 billion increase for IDEA. We all have heard the value of after-school learning opportunities for children, and so the No Child Left Behind bill did as well; and it authorized $1.75 billion for 2004 for after-school centers which provide safe places between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. where children receive academic help and enrichment activities. Yet the Republican bill falls $750 million short, nearly half of the funding provided in the No Child Left Behind bill in after-school program funding below the level. It goes on and on. In order to have quality education for our children, the No Child Left Behind bill authorized $3.3 billion for teacher-quality grants to the States which are used to provide high- quality professional development to teachers. Yet the GOP bill freezes funding at $2.9 billion. As a result, teachers will lose $350 million in teacher-quality grants below the level called for in the No Child Left Behind Act. My colleagues get the picture. Over and over again, children, millions of children are being left behind. As we honor our men and women in uniform, I think it is important to note that the GOP bill on the floor today leaves military dependents behind. The Impact Aid program, as we all know, helps children of military personnel receive quality education. Yet the GOP bill, under the GOP bill, America's children will lose, children of our men and women in uniform, will lose $583 million in Impact Aid below the level authorized. The list goes on and on. One more, just for older children, is that Pell Grants for college students are frozen, even though State tuitions have increased significantly, making it more difficult for our children to get the higher education that we want them to have for their personal fulfillment and to help our economy grow. So these are just a few of the shortcomings in the education section of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. Others have spoken to the 2.5 percent lowest increase for the National Institutes of Health in many years. In fact, in terms of education, this bill provides the smallest percentage increase in education funds in 8 years. So here we have these vastly increased mandates, which we all applauded, some found controversial; but with the funding, we could help the children succeed. Instead of setting up children for success, however, this bill, the Republican bill, sets our children up for a fall. And that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy. So what the Allen-Moore amendment has set out to do is to put forth an amendment that goes only to title I in the bill; and it says, of the full funding, the $18.5 billion appropriated for title I in the bill, then the requirements would not be in place. None of the funds made available in this act may be used to enforce any requirement that a school be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under the bill. That is really only fair. It is unfortunate, but it is fair, because these children, these teachers, these parents, these school districts cannot possibly measure up and be accountable without the money to match the mandate that we called for in the No Child Left Behind Act. The tragedy of it all is that this is not that much money compared to the tax breaks which are the priorities for the Republicans in this Congress. And sadly, there is not any tax break that the Republicans can come up with, no R&D tax credit at this time, which I fully support; but nothing that my colleagues can name in terms of tax cuts does more to grow the economy than the education of the American people. Early childhood education, K through 12, higher education, postgraduate education, lifetime learning for our workers. Nothing is more, to use their word, ``dynamic'' for the economy, brings more money into the economy, brings more money into the public Treasury than educating our children. But that is only a practical matter. Let us talk about their self- fulfillment, the confidence that they have to go forward and to be leaders in our country. They are the future. They are worthy of the investment we should be making in them. But we cannot mandate accountability to our children and yet not put the money there to match the mandate. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), and I want to commend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for this very brilliant amendment that they have brought to the floor to test the truth of where the Republicans stand on educating our children. Is it just rhetoric, or are we ready to put up the resources to match that rhetoric? I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Allen-Moore amendment and to vote ``no'' on this very unfortunate legislation that is the base bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I said the other night in the debate on Medicare that on this floor of the House people can misrepresent the facts, and that is okay; but if you call them on it, you can be questioned on questioning the veracity of your colleague. Well, I seriously not only question the veracity of my colleague, I challenge him, because I have voted for every defense bill practically since I have been here. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my colleague, can testify to that, as can all of the chairmen of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. So either the gentleman knows not of what he speaks, or he seriously is misrepresenting the facts.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership in managing the rule on this very difficult bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the previous question and to making the Obey amendment in order. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his great leadership for America's children and families and for his giving us an opportunity today to reverse a decision that the Republican leadership has made that is detrimental to those children and those families. I do this with great regret, Mr. Speaker, because I have the deepest admiration, and he knows it, for the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I had the privilege of serving under his leadership on the committee and watched him in action for a number of years. I know that his priorities are in the right place. Unfortunately, the priorities of this bill are not in the right place. And how could they be when the Republicans in the weeks leading up to now have bled, have starved the budget of the resources to meet the needs of America's children. The previous speaker said, oh, you never have enough money. This is not about endless money. This is about money promised by President Bush in the Leave No Child Behind bill. Instead, the legislation that will come before us under this rule, if this rule passes, would leave millions of children behind because of the $8 billion shortfall in the President's own Leave No Child Behind bill. We see here a continuation of the pattern of the credibility gap, of the rhetoric, versus the harsh realities of the budget, and those realities are made all the more harsh because of the tax cut. The gentleman from Wisconsin gives us an opportunity this afternoon to correct the situation, somewhat. The Obey amendment would simply say that if you make $1 million a year, your tax cut will be $44,000 a year instead of $88,000 a year. That is an additional tax cut. With that money, we can put around $5 billion into the Labor-HHS bill and help to redress some of the shortfalls contained herein, and also help with children's health in addition to the education provisions. Earlier today, the Democratic staff of the Committee on Appropriations in our office put forth a report, which I hope that everyone will take advantage of, which is entitled GOP Funding Bill Shortchanges America's Children by Underfunding Key Education Priorities. Instead of giving $88,000 and instead giving $44,000 to those making $1 million a year, we can instead fund the following programs. And let me just talk about how the GOP shortchanges children, and then we can talk about redressing it. The Republican Labor-HHS bill cuts education for America's children by a total of $9.2 billion below the levels authorized by the President's No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA Reauthorization Act, with the key highlights as follows: IDEA, funding for children with special needs. Parents, children, school districts, teachers, anyone concerned about education throughout the country are crying out for the Federal Government to keep its promises to children with special needs. As a result of this bill, America's children with disabilities will lose $1.2 billion in IDEA grants below the level promised in the Republican IDEA Reauthorization Act. In their own bill. The rhetoric, the reality, the harsh credibility gap. Shortchanging after-school learning opportunities. As a result of the GOP bill, America's children will lose $750 million in after-school program funding below the level called for in the No Child Left Behind bill, the President's own No Child Left Behind bill. Failing to fund highly qualified teachers in every classroom. Under the bill, America's teachers will lose $350 million in teacher quality grants below the level called for in the President's No Child Left Behind bill. It goes on and on and on. Sadly, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Tauscher), mentioned, as a result of this bill, America's children will lose $583 million in Impact Aid grants below the level authorized. And this is for children of military personnel, another blow to military personnel and their children. As you know, they do not make enough and are unworthy of the expanded tax credit, but that is another bill, another day. Part of the pattern, however. The list goes on and on about how the GOP funding bill shortchanges children in America, and we have it broken down State by State for those who are interested in this information. So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for giving us an opportunity to correct some of that. But this is tragic. Education does more for our economy, educating American people, early childhood, K through 12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning for our workers does more for our economy than any tax cut, tax credit, tax gimmick, tax break that you can name. It returns more money to the Treasury than anything you can name. It is more dynamic, to use the Republican word in budgeting, than any initiative you can name. It is also not only good for our economy, it is fundamental to our democracy to have an informed population, an educated population. It is good for our international competitiveness as well. But most of all, it is important to the self-fulfillment of our children. And so we have a series of broken promises that the Obey amendment would correct. This is a defining vote for the Republican Party. If they vote for this bill, then all the statements that they make claiming to support education are simply unreal. Republicans cannot proclaim their commitment to our Nation's schools and then withhold their support for funding to the level that the President has in his own bills. They cannot tell our children and parents, we care about schools, and then watch our decaying classrooms fill with greater numbers of unprepared children. Kids are so smart. You cannot tell children that education is important to their self-fulfillment and to their lives and to their livelihood later in life, you cannot tell them it is important that they should place a value on it if we do not place a value on it. Children get a mixed message when they hear us say it is important, but not important enough for us to give you the smaller classes, indeed the smaller schools that all the scientific evidence says is good for you; that we do not give you the schools that are wired for the future; the after-school programs, the qualified teachers, the funding for disadvantaged children and the funding for children with disabilities. If it is important, then it should be important in our spending priorities as well as in our investments. Just 3 months ago the Republican budget resolution promised $1 billion for Title I, but the bill on the floor today falls $334 million short of this promise, denying quality instruction to 140,000 disadvantaged schoolchildren. The Republican budget resolution also promised a $2 billion increase for special education, but this appropriation bill, as I mentioned earlier, provides $1 billion, a 55 percent discrepancy between what they promised and what they propose to deliver. The Obey amendment provides the full amount promised in the budget resolution for both Title I and special education. This is a great bill, usually. This is a great opportunity. In our service on that committee, anyone who ever served there always called this the people's bill. It dealt with Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is lamb-eat-lamb. There is no place to go get money in the bill to correct some of the mistakes in it, because everything in the bill is good. And under these circumstances, everything is being starved, so you have to put additional funding in the bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin has given us a way to do that. Without his correction, we are stuck. We are stuck with a bad bill that is underfunded, leading to underinvestment in our children's education. And in terms of other aspects of the bill, in terms of health, patients and advocates for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDS have all been clear: We must strongly support increased research at the National Institutes of Health. The fruits of medical research are truly miraculous. Despite this proven record of success and the opportunity to fund vital research, the Republican bill provides the smallest increase for NIH in more than 15 years. The only amendment provides substantially more funding to advance the science that is helping us find cures. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that the Obey amendment helps Republicans keep their own promises and takes advantage of important opportunities to help the American people. The Republican leadership should be thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin. They should be thanking him. Instead, they will not even allow a vote on his proposal. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that they are going to have to shrink one of their big tax cuts in order to invest in America's children? Probably. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote to support the Obey amendment.

Mrs. PELOSI

Mrs. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, many of us will spend part of the Independence Day work period at ceremonies marking the heroism of our service men and women, and the sacrifices of their families. If we were to ask any military commander present at those ceremonies, What is the most important aspect of leadership? The answer would be: First, take care of the troops. This bill provides an opportunity for the House to exhibit that kind of leadership, the opportunity to take care of our troops. Instead, sadly, it is another missed opportunity. If military quality of life issues were a priority, we would not be considering a Military Construction Appropriations Bill that is $1.5 billion below last year's funding level, but we would be passing Mr. Obey's amendment, which would help nearly 8,000 service members and their families get the housing they deserve. Instead, we pass resolutions that talk about supporting the military and then refuse to provide that support in the appropriations bills. Active and retired military personnel and their families have been among the victims of the irresponsible and fiscally unsound budget and tax policies of the Republican majority. If putting the troops and their families first were a Republican priority, they would not have submitted a budget that continues the tax on disabled veterans, that cuts veterans benefits, and that impacts aid. And they would not have approved a tax cut that takes care of the children of the wealthy few while ignoring 250,000 children of active duty military personnel. That is a regrettable message to send to the troops just days before the Fourth of July.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for his very inspiring words about the people who were honored today and for having the idea along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our former leader, recognizing the distinguished service of our former colleagues. Today's ceremony was an opportunity to honor these individuals and to remind ourselves how the outstanding character of a few fine people through the sheer measure of their decency can elevate the institution for everyone. It was a sincere pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see our friends and former colleagues today, and it was a moving occasion to thank them for their service and to rededicate ourselves to the ideals by which they lived. Those of us who served with them are indeed blessed to be able to have called John Rhodes, Louis Stokes, Don Edwards, and Bob Michel our colleagues. These former Members, as the Speaker indicated, were on different sides of the aisle, but they took a shared oath and recognized a greater obligation to serve the country together to find their common ground where they could and to stand their ground where they could not. No one has come closer to the ideal of a perfect Member of Congress, a perfect public servant, than John Rhodes, Republican of Arizona, who could not be with us, but his son accepted the award for him, accepted the award and the very good wishes of all assembled. And let me say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) had the opportunity of making the presentation on behalf of Congressman Rhodes, and moving it was indeed; Congressman Louis Stokes, who was presented by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), his successor, and with great pride; Congressman Don Edwards, who was presented by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), his successor; and Congressman Bob Michel, who was presented by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), his successor. Any who have served with these people know what giants they were, and as individuals they are some of the finest people ever to pass through these halls. Together they are the welcomed reminder of what our country and what our Congress can be. These first recipients of the Congressional Distinguished Service Award call all of us to a higher standard. Mr. Speaker, it is so appropriate that this ceremony took place in the days following July 4, because all of these people honored the memory and the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers, every one of them, in their service to this country. And in the course of these holidays, and July 4 being a great one for our country, we are all singing God Bless America, and we know that God in the service of Louis Stokes, Don Edwards, Bob Michel, and John Rhodes in their service to this country, God truly blessed America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I think this is a sham Republican Medicare bill which fails to provide women with a real prescription drug benefit which they need and they deserve.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan does just that. This Republican bill, I repeat, is not guaranteed. It is not affordable. It is not a defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare that our seniors want and deserve. The Republican plan is a plan to end Medicare. I urge my colleagues to reject this raw deal for America's seniors and vote no on the Republican bill and yes on the very excellent Democratic proposal.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time and for his tremendous leadership. He has been fighting this fight for America's seniors for access to quality health care for all Americans and an affordable prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. We are all in your debt. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for America's seniors. Another sad day, late at night in the Chamber of the House of Representatives, where the budget priorities of our country should be debated to their fullest extent, but where the limitation on time is placed so that the American people can never really get the full story. This prescription drug benefit bill discussion is an historic occasion for our country because it does indeed, it does indeed give us the opportunity to expand Medicare to provide a guaranteed affordable defined benefit for our seniors. The Senate has taken up the bill for the past 2 weeks. They have considered 30 amendments to the bill. Thirty amendments. The House is considering the bill this evening with no opportunity for amendment. I do want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, for the proposal that they will be putting forth tonight, which is a real prescription drug benefit for seniors. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for his limited opportunity but great product that he put forth on the previous question on the rule earlier. Another excellent proposal. And I commend the Blue Dogs, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for their hard work on our motion to recommit, which we hope will be allowed on the floor tonight. Any one of these would be far superior to the proposal that is being put forth by the Republicans today. Why it is so sad is because we are supposed to honor our parents. Our senior citizens built our country. They raised our families, the backbone of America. They fought our wars. Some of them are part of the greatest generation. Some of them lived through the New Deal, many of them the Fair Deal, and tonight they are getting a raw deal. What makes it so sad is that we had the opportunity to do it right, and one of those opportunities we will hear about next, the Dingell-Rangel/Rangel-Dingell Democratic proposal, of which we are very proud. Nearly 40 years ago, when Medicare came into existence, it came at a time when many, many seniors had no access to health care, and now almost every senior in America has access to quality health care. At the time, there was no prescription drug benefit included in the package. That was unfortunate. Today, it is imperative that we have a prescription drug benefit in the package. The advances to science have been so miraculous. Seniors today, if they have a prescription drug benefit, would be able to self-administer drugs, which would not only be an adjunct to physician or hospital care but be a supplement for it. It would be a substitute for it. So think of what it means to the quality of life for our seniors in order for them to have that independence and to be able to know that it is guaranteed, defined, and dependable. Think of what it means to the taxpayer in the reduction of cost in medical services to seniors because they can have access to prescription drug benefits. That is what makes this such a tragedy. It makes it such a tragedy. So tonight, instead of honoring our parents and our seniors, we are foisting a hoax upon them, at least the Republicans are. And a cruel hoax it is indeed. In doing so, the Republicans insult the intelligence, they insult the intelligence of America's seniors. Many of you are blessed to still have your parents with you, and some of us are even bordering on being seniors ourselves, but any of you who have your parents or dear relatives who are older know that they are into stats. They know their statistics. They know their blood count, they know their blood pressure, they know their bank account balance, they know the cost of everything, many of them, because many of them are on fixed incomes and the slightest change has an impact on their economic security. So I want those seniors who are so sensitive to changes in cost to take a look at this chart, which was in the New York Times this morning, and it says, ``Under House GOP Bill Seniors' Out-of-pocket Drug Costs Remain Staggering.'' Remain staggering. The average cost that seniors will pay in drug costs in 2006 is reported to be $3,155. So let us take the $3,000 line for the Republican hoax on seniors. If the beneficiary's annual drug costs are $3,000, seniors out there, if you are paying about $3,000, under the House bill your deductible will be $250. Your premium will be $420. The share of initial coverage is $350. Gap in coverage, here is where you fall into the gap, $1,000. So of that $3,000 worth of drug cost, you, America's seniors, will be paying $2,020 out-of-pocket. Where is the benefit? And this is the best case scenario. These prices that you see here are suggestions to the HMOs. The prices could be much more, and your out-of-pocket cost could be much more. I do not know how many of you think the hole is the most delicious part of the donut, but seniors, when they fall into this donut hole where they get no coverage, they still pay the premium. They are paying a premium for something that is not there. It is not there. And of course, if they pay $4,500 in drug costs, they are paying $3,520 out- of-pocket. A cruel hoax on America's seniors. And they call that modernization. I call it humiliation. I call that insulting the intelligence of America's seniors. It was interesting, in this same article today one senior who was quoted on the subject said, ``Do you think anybody in Washington, D.C. has any idea what people on a limited income have to do to live?'' Clearly, the Republicans do not. They are just too busy giving the biggest tax breaks to the highest-end people in our country. They are just too busy giving those tax breaks that they cannot write a decent prescription drug benefit for seniors. In fact, I might add seniors and children. Where, oh where did the child tax credit go in all of this, as we adjourn tomorrow? Tax cuts instead of child tax credits. Tax cuts instead of prescription drug benefits. At the beginning of life; toward the end of life. It is a cruel hoax. And so, my colleagues, no matter what the Republicans tell you about their bill, the euphemism that it is a modernization of Medicare is really a laugh. It is an elimination of Medicare. Because no matter what they tell you, the facts are these: The Republicans do not provide a guaranteed defined benefit for seniors. The Republican bill does not reduce the high cost of prescription drugs. Indeed, the hardest to explain to anyone is that the bill prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating for best prices. I repeat: Not only does the bill not bring down the cost of drugs, it prohibits the Secretary of HHS from negotiating for the best prices. Every business in America, indeed the VA, does that. Volume gives you leverage; gives you opportunity. Except in this bill it is prohibited. And at this point I want to say that the proposal put forth by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the cost of it would be cut in half, cut in half, if the Secretary had the authority, which our bill calls for, and indeed took that responsibility to negotiate for best prices. What the bill does also, instead of modernizing Medicare, is to unravel not only Medicare, and I hope seniors are listening, not only the prescription drug benefit, but part A and part B along with the prescription drug benefit, forcing seniors to compete and pay more to stay in Medicare, the Medicare they know and trust. I repeat: When this bill, in 2010, comes to fruition, seniors will have to pay more to stay in Medicare for part A, part B, and prescription drug benefits. And this is really a sad one in their bill. The employer piece. The employer piece. There are many businesses in America who honor their responsibility to their retirees. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that under the Republican bill one-third of all retirees who get their benefits from their employers will lose their coverage. Millions of seniors will be worse off. So that is why I say this is really a tragedy. It is a missed opportunity. It could be so good. It could be bipartisan. It could be what seniors expect and deserve. Democrats have a better idea. The Rangel-Dingell/Dingell-Rangel proposal, the two distinguished gentlemen who have spent a lifetime in public policy promoting access to quality health care, whose credentials are impeccable in this regard, they support Medicare. They have promoted a bill that is worthy of the seniors whom we respect. It is a guaranteed defined benefit under Medicare. It does give the authority to the Secretary to negotiate for best prices. It protects seniors' options in terms of their employers giving them benefits; not making millions of seniors be worse off. America's seniors deserve a benefit that is affordable, with reasonable premiums and deductibles. America's seniors deserve a benefit that is available to all seniors and disabled Americans, including Americans in rural areas.