[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 129 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8678-H8683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       SOCIAL SERVICES EMERGENCY RELIEF AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3971) to provide assistance to individuals and States 
affected by Hurricane Katrina.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3971

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Services Emergency 
     Relief and Recovery Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

              TITLE I--ASSISTANCE RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT

Sec. 101. Special transfer in fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 102. Flexibility in unemployment compensation administration to 
              address Hurricane Katrina.
Sec. 103. Regulations.

                      TITLE II--HEALTH PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Elimination of medicare coverage of drugs used for treatment 
              of sexual or erectile dysfunction.
Sec. 202. Elimination of medicaid coverage of drugs used for treatment 
              of sexual or erectile dysfunction.
Sec. 203. Extension of sunset for transitional medical assistance 
              (TMA).
Sec. 204. Extension of abstinence education program.
Sec. 205. Extension of Qualified Individual (QI) program.

                            TITLE III--TANF

Sec. 301. Additional funding for certain States affected by Hurricane 
              Katrina providing emergency short term benefits to assist 
              families evacuated within the State.

              TITLE I--ASSISTANCE RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT

     SEC. 101. SPECIAL TRANSFER IN FISCAL YEAR 2006.

       Section 903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``Special Transfer in Fiscal Year 2006

       ``(e) Not later than 10 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall transfer from the Federal unemployment account--
       ``(1) $15,000,000 to the account of Alabama in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund;
       ``(2) $400,000,000 to the account of Louisiana in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund; and
       ``(3) $85,000,000 to the account of Mississippi in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.''.

     SEC. 102. FLEXIBILITY IN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                   ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS HURRICANE KATRINA.

       Notwithstanding any provision of section 302(a) or 
     303(a)(8) of the Social Security Act, any State may, on or 
     after August 28, 2005, use any amounts received by such State 
     pursuant to title III of the Social Security Act to assist in 
     the administration of claims for compensation on behalf of 
     any other State if a major disaster was declared with respect 
     to such other State or any area within such other State under 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act by reason of Hurricane Katrina.

     SEC. 103. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any operating 
     instructions or regulations necessary to carry out this title 
     and any amendment made by this title.

                      TITLE II--HEALTH PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. ELIMINATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF DRUGS USED FOR 
                   TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860D-2(e)(2)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(e)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, as 
     such sections were in effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this part.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Such term also 
     does not include a drug when used for the treatment of sexual 
     or erectile dysfunction, unless such drug were used to treat 
     a condition, other than sexual or erectile dysfunction, for 
     which the drug has been approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration.''.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as preventing a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD 
     plan from providing coverage of drugs for the treatment of 
     sexual or erectile dysfunction as supplemental prescription 
     drug coverage under section 1860D-2(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(a)(2)(A)(ii)).
       (c) Effective Dates.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of 
     the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) and the 
     amendment made by subsection (a)(2) shall apply to coverage 
     for drugs dispensed on or after January 1, 2007.

     SEC. 202. ELIMINATION OF MEDICAID COVERAGE OF DRUGS USED FOR 
                   TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1927(d)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(d)(2)) is

[[Page H8679]]

     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(K) Agents when used for the treatment of sexual or 
     erectile dysfunction, unless such agents are used to treat a 
     condition, other than sexual or erectile dysfunction, for 
     which the agents have been approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration.''.
       (b) Elimination of Federal Payment Under Medicaid 
     Program.--Section 1903(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (19);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (20) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (20) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(21) with respect to amounts expended for covered 
     outpatient drugs described in section 1927(d)(2)(K) (relating 
     to drugs when used for treatment of sexual or erectile 
     dysfunction).''.
       (c) Clarification of No Effect on Determination of Base 
     Expenditures.--Section 1935(c)(3)(B)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396v(c)(3)(B)(ii)(II)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     including drugs described in subparagraph (K) of section 
     1927(d)(2)'' after ``1860D-2(e)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to drugs dispensed on or after January 1, 2006.

     SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF SUNSET FOR TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE (TMA).

       (a) In General.--Section 1925(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(f)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2005''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(e)(1)(B) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(1)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``the last date (if any) 
     on which section 1925 applies under subsection (f) of that 
     section''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective as of September 30, 2005.

     SEC. 204. EXTENSION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       Activities authorized by section 510 of the Social Security 
     Act shall continue through December 31, 2005, in the manner 
     authorized for fiscal year 2005, and out of any money in the 
     Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, 
     there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to 
     this authority through the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 
     at the level provided for such activities through the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2005.

     SEC. 205. EXTENSION OF QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL (QI) PROGRAM.

       (a) Through End of 2005.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iv)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 2005'' and inserting 
     ``September 2006''.
       (b) Extending Total Amount Available for Allocation.-- 
     Section 1933(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) for the period that begins on October 1, 2005, and 
     ends on December 31, 2005, the total allocation amount is 
     $100,000,000; and
       ``(E) for the period that begins on January 1, 2006, and 
     ends on September 30, 2006, the total allocation amount is 
     $300,000,000.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by inserting ``or (D)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective as of September 30, 2005.

                            TITLE III--TANF

     SEC. 301. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CERTAIN STATES AFFECTED BY 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA PROVIDING EMERGENCY SHORT 
                   TERM BENEFITS TO ASSIST FAMILIES EVACUATED 
                   WITHIN THE STATE.

       (a) Eligibility for Payments From the Contingency Fund.--
     Beginning with the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending with August 31, 2006, any of the States of Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, or Alabama shall be considered a needy State for 
     purposes of section 403(b) of the Social Security Act if--
       (1) the State includes an area for which a major disaster 
     has been declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 
     as a result of Hurricane Katrina;
       (2) a family that resided in such an area of the State 
     before the onset of the hurricane evacuated from their place 
     of residence (not necessarily directly) to another part of 
     the State as a result of the hurricane;
       (3) while the family was in such other part of the State as 
     a result of the hurricane, a cash benefit under the State 
     program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act was provided to the family on a short-term, 
     nonrecurring basis; and
       (4) while the cash benefit was so provided, the State 
     determined that the family--
       (A) was not receiving a cash benefit from any program 
     funded under such part (other than the cash benefit described 
     in paragraph (3)); and
       (B) had not received a cash benefit of any kind from any 
     such program in the 3-month period ending with the date the 
     cash benefit was first so provided.
       (b) Limitation on Funding.--Subject to section 
     403(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act, the total amount 
     paid under section 403(b)(3)(A) of such Act to a State which 
     is a needy State for purposes of section 403(b) of such Act 
     by reason of subsection (a) of this section shall not exceed 
     the total amount of cash benefits provided as described in 
     subsection (a)(3) of this section, to the extent that the 
     conditions described in subsection (a)(4) of this section 
     have been met with respect to the families involved.
       (c) No State Match Required.--Sections 403(b)(6) and 
     409(a)(10) of the Social Security Act shall not apply with 
     respect to a payment made to a State by reason of this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of the Social Services Emergency Relief and 
Recovery Act of 2005. In part, this bill will serve as an extension to 
several important health care programs that already exist to assist 
low-income families. You will hear more about these programs from later 
speakers. I want to take this opportunity, though, to talk to you about 
another part of the bill that will offer immediate assistance to the 
workers that have lost their jobs due to Hurricane Katrina.
  Since Hurricane Katrina roared through my home State and Mississippi 
and Alabama, more than 150,000 people just in Louisiana alone have 
filed for unemployment assistance. The infrastructure in New Orleans 
and surrounding areas has been severely compromised. It is not known 
when these workers will be able to return to work or if they will have 
jobs to return to. The circumstances are a little different in 
Mississippi and Alabama, but assistance is greatly needed in those 
States as well.
  The Social Services Emergency Relief and Recovery Act will help 
provide assistance by immediately disbursing $500 million from the 
Unemployment Trust Funds to help these States pay regular unemployment 
benefits. The funds will be divided among States according to their 
share of expected increased unemployment benefit payments attributable 
to Hurricane Katrina.
  Additionally, Louisiana and Mississippi may soon trigger the extended 
benefits program which will give workers in those States an additional 
13 weeks of unemployment assistance. The money in this bill may be used 
by the States to help pay their half of these additional UI benefits. 
H.R. 3971 also includes the provision to give States flexibility in 
using their existing Federal unemployment administrative dollars for 
the purpose of helping displaced workers apply for their unemployment 
benefits.
  Finally, we have included a provision to clarify earlier legislation 
that gave States flexibility with their TANF dollars. This change will 
ensure that disaster States may be reimbursed from the current TANF 
contingency fund or emergency assistance they pay to intrastate 
evacuees from Hurricane Katrina, just like all States may be reimbursed 
under the prior legislation for emergency assistance provided to 
interstate evacuees.
  Many of my colleagues will also appreciate that this bill is fully 
offset and reduces, actually reduces, the deficit by about $100 million 
over 5 years and $1 billion over 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, the circumstances in Louisiana and Mississippi and 
Alabama necessitate immediate action on H.R. 3971 by the House. We need 
to pass this bill this afternoon so that these States and, more 
importantly, these workers can get relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the people in the Southeast. The 
magnitude of the destruction and distress and the dislocation of the 
gulf coast cries out for a national response that only the Federal 
Government can meet.
  Instead, we continue to see missteps, mismanagement, misinformation, 
sort of reminiscent of the continuation of the Brown Factor.
  Hurricane Katrina left hundreds of thousands of people wet, homeless, 
and

[[Page H8680]]

destitute. And the Federal response is leaving thousands more high and 
dry.

                              {time}  1700

  We have not provided adequate housing for the homeless, health care 
coverage for the sick, protection for vulnerable children, and 
unemployment benefits for the jobless.
  This bill, in my view, is like throwing a 100-pound sandbag on a 
ruptured New Orleans levee. There is some relief, but it is totally 
inadequate.
  While suggesting otherwise, this legislation provides almost no real 
relief to jobless disaster victims, and I must say at this point I feel 
for the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery). I think he would like 
to do better, but the portions on his side are such that this is what 
we have.
  Those who survived the natural disaster in the gulf now face a man-
made disaster in the House of Representatives. There are three major 
problems we are ignoring.
  First, over 6,000 people have already exhausted unemployment benefits 
in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Another 20,000 jobless workers 
in these States are projected to run out of benefits by Christmas. 
These workers need a federally funded extension of their benefits while 
they put their lives back together and search for unemployment.
  Secondly, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have the three lowest 
levels of average weekly unemployment benefits in the entire country. 
In all three States, the average benefit is less than $200 a week. That 
is $800 a month. That is about half the poverty level for a family of 
four. Such small amounts are difficult to defend during any period of 
job loss, but these paltry sums we have to remember are unconscionable 
when a family has lost not only their job but their home, their car, 
their belongings, the very fabric of their lives; and we give them 40 
percent poverty and stand out here as though we are doing something.
  The third is that the disaster-affected States are seeing an enormous 
surge in unemployment claims and bankruptcy claims. In Louisiana alone, 
new claims for unemployment benefits have surged 10 times above their 
normal levels, and State officials expect Katrina-related unemployment 
benefits to exceed $800 million. Now, the money is supposed to come 
from a State economy that has been devastated by the loss or 
dislocation of 70,000 businesses, many of which, they estimate less 
than half of those, are going to go back into business.
  Under Louisiana law, once their unemployment trust fund slips below a 
certain level, benefits are automatically cut for jobless workers and 
tax increases for employers are triggered into effect. That means that 
people who get the unemployment benefits in Louisiana can see their 
benefits being slashed by as much as $37 a week. Remember, they are 
getting $170 a week. That is the generosity we have already given them, 
and it started in January. It could easily be cut another $37. That is 
like Rita hitting after Katrina except that we can control that. We can 
make it different.
  We owe the people of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama a full 
measure of national compassion.
  Instead, in response to these enormous problems, the bill before us 
simply sends a lump sum of money that forces these hard-hit States to 
bear another burden. The mayor of New Orleans yesterday laid off 3,000 
people. Tell me how that economy is going to come out of it.
  What we are sending covers less than half the cost of regular 
unemployment claims caused by a disaster. There is no money at all for 
extending expiring benefits or to supplement the meager benefits 
currently available. Does anybody on this floor really believe this is 
the best we can do? I know the chairman does not believe that.
  Ask the people in the shelters, with no place to call home. Ask 
Americans on any street corner in any American city. They would be 
embarrassed all over again if this got on the television.
  Perhaps part of the reason this legislation is limited in scope is 
the sudden demand by the Republican majority to cut spending regardless 
of the need or consequences.
  Fiscal offsets did not concern Republicans when they gave every 
millionaire a $100,000 tax break or kept charging $215 billion for the 
Iraq war to future generations. Nobody's talking about offsets there, 
but we have got to have offsets here. We cannot spend too much on these 
unemployed people.
  But now that it comes time to meet the needs of unemployed Americans, 
Republicans require that an American get hurt for another American to 
get help.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush promised that we would do whatever it 
takes. It takes more than what the President's party has offered today.
  People in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi are waiting for the 
President to make good on his promise. People across the country are 
watching and hoping the President will say something other than, 
``Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.''
  It was not so then, and it is not so now in this legislation. We can 
and should do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) 
for working with me and others on not only this bill on unemployment 
compensation but on others that affect the disaster-stricken States. He 
has been very constructive with the suggestions and his comments, and I 
want to tell him how much I appreciate his cooperation.
  I do not disagree with him entirely that this package does not meet 
the full needs probably of the States with respect to unemployment 
compensation needs and other related needs; but it is a very, very 
positive first step.
  We can always come back later, Mr. Speaker, if we find that the needs 
of the States are indeed much greater than anticipated by this 
legislation; but what this bill does today, and I would beg the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and my colleagues in the 
House not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, this is a good 
bill.
  This gives the States of Louisiana and Mississippi, particularly, the 
certainty that there are going to be Federal dollars transferred to 
them to help them with what they would otherwise have to pay out of 
their own State funds. So, essentially, we are going to be saving the 
States $500 million that they would have to pay out of their own State 
funds. That is a big deal. That is a huge help to my State of Louisiana 
to know that they are going to have that money from the Federal 
Government, and therefore, they do not have to find it from their own 
coffers.
  If the States that are involved wanted to use that infusion of 
Federal money to increase their benefits temporarily, they could do 
that. That is within their rights. They can pass a law to change those 
benefits on a temporary basis if they wanted to, or a permanent basis, 
and use this money that is going to be sent to them from the Federal 
Government for that purpose.
  So, again, I appreciate the constructive comments from my colleague 
on the Committee on Ways and Means and want to encourage him to 
continue to work with me and others from these affected States to help 
folks who were disadvantaged tremendously by the effects of the storm.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
which has jurisdiction over part of this legislation; and I ask 
unanimous consent that he control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was an early and fervent 
supporter of providing health benefits to families on welfare as they 
made the difficult transition to work, often to entry-level jobs not 
providing basic care for their children.
  So I appreciate the need for this bill for welfare recipients and for 
premium subsidies for our elderly and disabled citizens on very low 
incomes, but I do strongly object to the way these benefits are paid 
for in this bill. I regret

[[Page H8681]]

that offsets I suggested were not adopted instead of this flat ban on 
ED drugs.
  Getting Congress involved in medical treatment decisions by limiting 
the availability of any category of prescription drugs sets a terrible 
precedent.
  Congress has repeatedly recognized that we should not be in the 
business of developing or defining formularies. Congress tasked the 
United States Pharmacopoeia with developing the categories and classes 
of drugs to be covered by the new prescription drug plans, and we 
specifically tasked the P&T committees in every Medicare drug plan 
offered to our seniors and disabled citizens with the responsibility of 
assuring that the formularies were medically correct and not 
politically correct.
  Furthermore, Medicare and Medicaid prescription drug plans have a 
number of tools at their disposal to ensure that ED drugs are not 
abused and could be covered only when prescribed for medically 
appropriate care.
  Further, since they are not sold over the counter and must be 
prescribed by a physician, control is not difficult. Medicare covers 
many benefits in some situations and not others, and ED drugs would 
only be another such benefit. As for sex offenders, cross-checking with 
publicly available lists of these offenders is not difficult and could 
prohibit ED drugs from going to sex offenders at taxpayers' expense 
while preserving access to these drugs when medically necessary for all 
disabled and senior men who are not sex offenders.
  Mr. Speaker, ED drugs are covered for Federal employees and Members 
of Congress. They are covered by the VA, and they are very useful in 
treating post-traumatic stress disorder. Why would we treat our seniors 
and people with disabilities worse than we treat all Federal employees 
and veterans? If my colleagues oppose full access, surely Medicare and 
Medicaid beneficiaries should at least have access to all medically 
necessary medications.
  Medicare covers breast reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy or 
accidental injury. Medicare understands ``the importance of post-
surgical psychological adjustment'' as women rehabilitate after a 
damaging cancer treatment or devastating injury.
  Are men not entitled to such wholeness after prostate cancer 
treatment?
  ED drugs help men who have lost sexual function as a result of 
medical conditions like prostate cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, 
Parkinson's, or spinal cord injuries. Men need these medications not to 
enhance their lifestyle but to return them to normal, just like women 
need reconstructive surgery to return as close as possible to normal.
  In fact, wholeness is so important that according to a University of 
Chicago study, 68 percent of men were willing to forego treatments that 
were more effective in eradicating prostate cancer in order to maintain 
sexual function. Why would we force men to choose between the most 
effective medical treatment and wholeness?
  I could not agree more that we should ban ED drugs for sex offenders; 
but a flat ban on ED drugs for all seniors, low-income Americans, 
people with disabilities who have ED-related diseases or conditions is 
just plain discriminatory and wrong.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I respect the concerns of those who support a 
total ban on ED drugs, I hate to see Congress go down this path of 
political correctness. We must offer our seniors, our poor, and our 
people with disabilities medically correct health care plans.
  The real answer to controlling the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is 
not micromanaging the programs, but driving forward the adoption of 
technology that will enable us to manage chronic illnesses proactively, 
reducing both the cost and suffering of hospitalizations and emergency 
department visits for our seniors and those disabled amongst us.
  That much said, and with the hope that we will allow doctors to 
determine treatment protocols, I acknowledge our public responsibility 
to extend access to Medicaid benefits for welfare-dependent families 
and for premium subsidies for our very lowest-income seniors and people 
with disabilities and to provide unemployment compensation funding 
these States so desperately need.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I might, illustrate the 
problem that is faced by unemployed workers in these three States, so 
that everybody understands that while this bill helps the States, it is 
unlikely to help any of the unemployed; and that is too bad.
  About 400,000 people became unemployed after Katrina, 6,000 already 
have exhausted their benefits in these three States since Katrina; and 
about 20,000 more are likely to exhaust their benefits.
  Next, the amounts that are paid in these three States would leave a 
family of four way below the poverty level, way below the poverty 
level. So what we Democrats suggested was to provide moneys to the 
States so that they could cover all of the additional costs. This bill 
only will provide perhaps half. There should be an extension of 
unemployment compensation benefits for those people and also we should 
elevate the amount of money going to people. These are people without 
fault, who lose unemployment through no fault of their own, a 
hurricane.

                              {time}  1715

  It befuddles me why we have to settle on this floor for such an 
inadequate response to Katrina. And it is not the fault of the 
gentleman from Louisiana who spoke. I am sure of that because I think 
he wanted more. But as I understand it, talks broke down, and the hopes 
for a bipartisan bill that would indeed meet the needs of the 
unemployed, those hopes were essentially shelved.
  Why? Partly because of this terrible budget crunch that the majority 
really has brought into operation. I would also guess because they have 
always opposed in recent times the extension of benefits, and they do 
not want to do anything to elevate the benefit structure even though it 
is way below the normal. I say, in a word, we are adding something 
tragic to tragedy, and we should not be doing that.
  The gentleman from Louisiana said it is a first step. When would the 
second step be? I think there is no plan for a second step. So, 
essentially, in real terms, we are saying to the unemployed, it is a 
half a loaf, and it is hard to feed a family on a half a loaf.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise to express concern about the legislation we are 
considering.
  I heard the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) talk about the 
fact that we would like to do better. But let me just point out that we 
have $25 billion in a Federal unemployment trust account today. Those 
funds should be used for emergency circumstances. If there was ever an 
emergency, what happened to the workers of those three States as a 
result of Katrina is clearly an emergency. This is the time that we 
should be releasing unemployment moneys so that we can extend benefits 
beyond the statutory period that is currently in law.
  Through no fault of their own, the victims of Katrina are unable to 
find employment, and we should be able to provide extended benefits. 
And the funds are there in the Federal unemployment trust account. So 
quite frankly, I do not understand what the delay is. The people are 
hurting. We should be doing everything we can to help, and I would 
expect that we would have had a stronger bill come out that would 
protect the workers who cannot find employment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have a bill before us that 
obviously is an important bill to move forward because it provides 
relief by extension of several programs that are important to the 
people that are affected by this, but I really do believe that we 
should be looking at a comprehensive approach to deal with people who 
have been victimized. Unfortunately, this bill does not really do it 
for those people who are unemployed, have exhausted their benefits and 
are looking to the Federal Government for help.

[[Page H8682]]

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the Qualified Individual, or QI, program 
pays the monthly Medicare part B premium for low-income beneficiaries. 
On September 30, 2005, the authorization for QI-1 expired. If it is not 
reauthorized within days, over 160,000 low-income seniors and those 
with disabilities will lose this crucial assistance on which they rely 
to cover their health care costs. That means that some people who make 
less than $1,092 a month will lose almost 10 percent of their income.
  This is simply unnecessary, since QI's extension has strong and broad 
support. It is supported by 35 separate health advocacy organizations. 
In addition, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I have a bill 
to extend the benefit that has bipartisan cosponsorship. In fact, a 
similar extension passed the House last year by a voice vote.
  This bill before us today will make sure our seniors do not lose 
their income by extending the benefit for 1 year. In doing so, it 
builds on a consistent history of temporary extensions in recent years. 
If this bill becomes law, I urge Congress to turn its attention to a 
more permanent solution. Every year the benefit has strong support, and 
more often than not we find ourselves rushing at the last minute to 
keep it alive. My hope is that before it expires again next year, 
Congress will pass a permanent reauthorization.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to distribute the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I thank 
the gentleman from Washington for yielding the balance of his time.
  I rise in support of this legislation, which reauthorizes the QI 
program. This program helps low-income Medicare beneficiaries cover the 
cost of the Medicare premium. Without this, many elderly Americans 
would sink below poverty as they attempt to pay for doctor visits out 
of pocket. That not only places individuals at risk, it is inefficient 
from a fiscal perspective.
  For low-income beneficiaries who cannot afford the Medicare premium, 
Medicaid becomes the insurer of last resort. Absent the QI program, 
more elderly Americans and individuals with disabilities would need 
Federal and State assistance through Medicaid in addition to their 
Medicare coverage. Investing in premium assistance now saves both 
Federal and State dollars in the future.
  And there is untapped potential in the program. Uncertainty 
surrounding funding for this program has had a dampening effect on 
enrollment. States are hesitant to reach out to eligible individuals, 
resulting in artificially low enrollment figures. It is in the public 
interest to address this problem in the future, but extending QI-1 is a 
necessary first step, and I am pleased the bill takes that step.
  This legislation also extends the transitional Medicaid program, or 
TMA, and provides health insurance to families as they move from 
welfare to the workforce. It is a public health initiative and a jobs 
initiative which I strongly support.
  It is my strong preference to make these two programs permanent 
rather than having Congress repeatedly reauthorize them sometimes 
multiple times in a year. I hope we can work with the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal) and others on a bipartisan basis to secure a 
permanent authorization. In the meantime, I am pleased the House is 
taking up this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), a member of the Committee on Commerce and very knowledgeable 
about health care issues.
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the offset of this 
legislation. I obviously applaud the extension of transitional medical 
assistance, which provides health insurance for people leaving welfare 
and going back to work. This is obviously a great thing to do. I 
believe, however, it is dangerous to allow 435 Members of Congress, 
most of whom lack medical training, to pick and choose among which 
illnesses and which treatments should be deemed acceptable under those 
provisions.
  There are thousands of physicians across this country that have 
recognized, for instance, the need for ED medicine, not as a 
recreational activity but as part of living a normal adult life. We 
also set up a potentially dangerous precedent by allowing Members to 
pick and choose individual treatments that they feel do not serve 
sufficient medicinal purposes.
  Today, it is a medicine for ED, but should we choose to go down this 
road, next year we could be having the same debate about mental health 
treatments or biologics deemed too expensive. This is not the place for 
these decisions. This is a conversation for doctors to be having with 
their patients.
  I find it worrisome we are on the verge of using the doctor's office 
as a setting for interjecting our preferred social policies where they 
do not belong. Doctors today prescribe ED medicine because it treats a 
serious medical disease that can lead to divorce and depression. ED is 
a common side effect of prostate cancer surgery and diabetes, and it 
affects millions of men nationwide which, in turn, can affect their 
families. There is not just an issue of men; it is a family issue.
  This is an attempt to interject a political viewpoint into a personal 
decision that should be made by a doctor and a patient, and I hope we 
respect that personal decision more in the future.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me go back and sort of summarize what this bill does and does not 
do. It has been a little confusing, because it is a bill that does 
basically two things: One is it cuts Federal spending, and then it uses 
part of the savings from that cut in four different areas and then 
applies the balance left over from those four areas to reduce the 
Federal deficit by about $150 million over the next 5 years.
  First of all, where does the cut come from? What it does, in order to 
achieve the savings of some $690 million over 5 years, is to eliminate 
from Medicare and Medicaid payments for erectile dysfunction drugs. We 
have heard a couple of speakers who have addressed their dislike of the 
elimination from Federal taxpayer spending the payment for these drugs.
  Well, my people back in North Georgia tell me, and without any 
hesitation whatsoever, that they do not think their tax dollars ought 
to be paying for erectile dysfunction drugs for either individuals 
under Medicare or Medicaid, and they believe that these are not drugs 
that should be available to convicted sex offenders.
  Now, some would say, oh, you mean it is possible a convicted sex 
offender could get an erectile dysfunction drug that is paid for by 
taxpayers? Very definitely that is the case. There is no way for a 
pharmacist who is presented with a Medicare or Medicaid card to have 
access to the NCIC records to determine if that individual is a 
pedophile or some other kind of sex offender. That would be the height 
of embarrassment to this Congress, to discover we are allowing for 
those kinds of situations to exist.
  Now, it is not just a personal opinion of mine. This House has 
already expressed its opinion on this issue earlier this year. In the 
consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriation bill, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King) had an amendment to that bill that would have 
eliminated the payment for ED drugs. That amendment received 
overwhelming support, some 285 to 121 who voted for it. There were many 
others, like me, who supported the concept but, because we did not 
think we should cede jurisdiction on legislating on the issue to the 
Committee on Appropriations, voted against the amendment. In principle, 
we supported the concept. This is the forum in which we have 
legislatively addressed it by an

[[Page H8683]]

authorizing committee to address this question.
  Now, that does not mean that individuals who are under Medicare part 
D cannot obtain these drugs if they choose to do so. The plans are free 
to offer them. They simply cannot use Federal taxpayer subsidies to pay 
for them.
  All right, that is where the savings come from, is the elimination of 
ED drugs from Medicare and Medicaid, some $690 million over 5 years. 
Now, what are we spending the savings on? Part of it is spent, as we 
have heard from some speakers, to extend the Medicare Qualified 
Individual 1, the QI-1 program, for another year. That applies to 
150,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries, to give them assistance in 
paying their Medicare part B premiums.

                              {time}  1730

  A second part goes to transitional medical assistance, TMA. Most 
Members recall that was an essential ingredient in welfare reform. It 
provides individuals who are transitioning from welfare to work 
additional coverage and medical assistance to them during that 
transitional period.
  A third category is it applies and uses money for abstinence 
education to fund those block grant programs for 3 months. These are 
programs that States have launched to try to sustain the abstinence 
approach and it has been a successful program and would fund it for and 
additional 3 months.
  The fourth category, the one we heard a lot of talk about at the 
beginning of this debate, was that it does provide $500 million to the 
three States most severely affected by Hurricane Katrina, that is, 
Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, for assistance in paying 
unemployment compensation. It provides $400 million to Louisiana, $85 
million to Mississippi, and $15 million to Alabama. I think that is an 
appropriate way to spend part of the resources, and we then apply the 
remaining $150 million to reducing the Federal deficit.
  Now, I would remind my colleagues that if they did not like the 
provisions or did not think the provisions for the unemployment 
compensation were adequate, our counterpart across the way passed by 
unanimous consent a bill that addressed these other areas, but had no 
provisions for unemployment compensation at all in their legislation. 
We are hopeful they will accept our version of it.
  In conclusion, I remind Members who forget, we have appropriated over 
$60 billion in emergency assistance for hurricane victims, the largest 
single appropriation for emergency disaster relief that this Congress 
has ever voted for. Some of the speakers seem to forget we have done 
that. What we are doing here for unemployment compensation is only a 
small part of a very, very large package; but it is an essential part 
of it. We hope that this body, the House as a whole, would do as we 
have seen the Senate do: they approved their version by unanimous 
consent. I would urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this 
bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to 
reauthorize the Qualified Individual program, or QI. This program helps 
low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are almost, but not quite, 
eligible for Medicaid assistance, and are still struggling with living 
and healthcare costs. It pays the cost of the Medicare Part B premium 
for seniors with incomes of approximately $11,484 to $12,920 a year. 
This is a good program that helps thousands of low-income seniors each 
year.
  The initial program was a block grant enacted in 1997 and set to 
expire in 2002. Congress has re-authorized this program a number of 
times since then. The uncertainty surrounding funding for this program, 
however, has had a dampening effect on enrollment. States are hesitant 
to reach out to eligible individuals, resulting in artificially low 
enrollment figures. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me 
in fixing this problem in the future--but for now, I am pleased that we 
are passing this stopgap measure.
  In addition, I support the extension of the transitional Medicaid 
program, or TMA. This program is critical for families moving from 
welfare to the workforce and provides health insurance during this 
time. TMA provides peace of mind for millions of working Americans so 
that they can maintain health insurance coverage as they begin working 
again.
  I would note that it is my strong preference to make these two 
programs permanent, rather than having Congress continually reauthorize 
them, sometimes multiple times in a year. I thank Senators Grassley and 
Baucus for their work in the Senate, and Chairman Barton for his work 
with me, and am pleased that the House is taking up this legislation to 
extend funding for these programs for the immediate future.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3971.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________