Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for 1 minute, and Mr. Lewis understands that the AARP has endorsed this bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who understands that many of the adults on the program last year were pregnant women.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Congresswoman from Florida (Ms. Kosmas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Schauer from Michigan for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to recognize for 1 minute the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, if I may, I will yield myself 2 minutes.

I just want to rise and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2. It has done a lot of things. It expands insurance coverage to another 4 million children. You can argue one way or the other that they may have insurance someplace else, but this will guarantee that those 4 million additional children will get the medical care or the insurance and, without which, they will not get first-class medical care in this country.

We've passed this bill in several different forms in the past, and I want to thank the 40 or 50 Members from across the aisle who have supported it in the past. We've made some changes, and we've acknowledged the legitimacy of all legal residents in our Nation by giving States the option to cover them if they choose.

I am glad to report that the bill is fully financed. We can argue about what happens 4 or 5 years out, but I am sure we'll have more of an argument on whether the very rich should enjoy escaping the capital gains tax or whether we should do away with the inheritance tax, which will bother many of the opponents much more than the idea of the tobacco tax or, indeed, the prohibition on the unethical kickbacks that physicians receive from ownership hospitals, most of which are of questionable safety and quality. This legislation expands health coverage to our Nation's children, and it is worthy of our support.

I would like to take just a moment to thank the staff members who have worked so hard over the past almost 2 years. From the staff on the Committee on Energy and Commerce: Bridgett Taylor, Karen Nelson, Andy Schneider, Amy Hall, Purvee Kempf, Tim Gronninger, Hasan Sansour, and Bobby Clark.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.

From our own staff on the Committee on Ways and Means Health Subcommittee: our staff director--Cybele Bjorklund--Jennifer Friedman, Debbie Curtis, Karen McAfee, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, and Drew Dawson.

I urge the passage of H.R. 2.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm delighted to recognize the Speaker of the House, the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of pay equity.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear was absurd. If I broke the law for nearly two decades--as the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company did when they stiffed Lilly Ledbetter out of the pay she deserved for 19 years--I couldn't turn around and say that I didn't owe anything because no one caught me during the first 6 months. Yet that's exactly what the Supreme Court allowed Goodyear to say to Ms. Ledbetter.

The existing law is unfair. Many workers don't even discover that they're being discriminated against until the existing 180-day statute of limitations has passed. In every other area of American tort law, the clock restarts with every new violation. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act simply fixes existing law so that sex discrimination is treated the same way.

My Republican colleagues love to call up the ``frivolous lawsuits'' bogeyman to scare hard-working Americans out of their rights, but there's nothing frivolous about equality and justice. The wage gap in the United States has remained stagnant over the last 7 years. Women in the United States still make less than 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. Women of color have it even worse: African-American women earn only 68.7 cents and Latin American women 59 cents for every dollar an American man makes.

That's why I'm a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and why I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation. American workers deserve better. They deserve equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual and gender orientation. When they don't get it, they deserve their day in court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was a landmark piece of legislation. Along with other civil rights laws, it has helped to cut the gender-based wage gap in America nearly in half. But women are still paid less than 78 cents for every dollar a man is paid. African American and Latin American women face even greater income disparities. For the last seven years--after four decades of steady progress toward equality--the wage gap has remained stagnant.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will give workers the tools they need to get back on track to equality in the workplace. It modernizes the Equal Pay Act, bringing it in line with other civil rights laws by updating rules for class-action suits and permitting punitive damages. Further, it closes a major loophole relating to

affirmative defenses, requiring employers to substantiate the rationale for pay disparities if they claim they aren't based on gender. If enacted, the Paycheck Fairness Act will also strengthen the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ability to detect illegal salary practices.

It's far past time to stand up for fair pay for women. I'm proud to cosponsor this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2009, legislation to provide universal health coverage to our Nation's children.

During the campaign, President-elect Obama spoke of the need to mandate coverage to ensure that every child receives needed health care services. MediKids is the simplest, most effective means of achieving that goal. While it is critical that any reform proposal meet the special needs of children, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting we start with children or stop with children. I am looking forward to working with the new Administration and Congressional colleagues on a health reform effort for which the goal is assuring comprehensive care for everyone. I am open to other proposals and believe that we have to look across the board at various options. However, I submit that MediKids contains many elements that could be useful in the upcoming debate.

Nearly 9 million children in this country still lack health insurance coverage. The majority of these children live in families with at least one full-time worker. Often, their families are not offered coverage by their employers at all or they cannot afford the premiums. These simple, but sobering, statistics speak to the need for change. Our system is fundamentally broken when a working parent cannot get health coverage for his or her children.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I think we should build on what works. When Congress created Medicare more than 40 years ago, our Nation's seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Many senior citizens were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the private market, even if they had the resources. Today, as a result of Medicare's success, seniors are much less likely to be shackled by the bonds of poverty or to go without needed health care.

Sadly, children are now the group who are most likely to be living in poverty. Kids in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. This travesty is morally reprehensible, and it has grave consequences for the future of our country. Our future rests on our ability to provide our children with the basic conditions to thrive and become healthy, educated, and successful adults. Poor children are often malnourished and have difficulty succeeding in school. Untreated illnesses only worsen their chance to become productive members of our economy. Healthy children are the key to our economic future.

The MediKids Health Insurance Act would create a new Federal health insurance program for children. Modeled after Medicare, MediKids would provide comprehensive benefits appropriate to children, simplified cost-sharing, prescription drug coverage and mental health parity.

Every child in America would be automatically enrolled in MediKids at birth and maintain that eligibility through age 23. The cost, adjusted for income, would be applied to the family's annual tax bill, unless they opted for

other coverage and showed proof of that coverage. As such, parents would retain the choice to enroll eligible kids in private plans or other Government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP. However, if a lapse in the other insurance coverage occurred, MediKids would automatically fill in the gap.

MediKids doesn't have complicated enrollment and eligibility hoops. Instead, it assures that families will always have access to affordable health insurance for their children, and it ensures that all children get a truly healthy start in life.

MediKids was originally written in close collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics. They have endorsed MediKids as the best way to provide health coverage to all our children. The bill has also been endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund, Families USA, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and other organizations advocating for better health care for America's children. As we work on health care reform, we need to pay particular attention to the unique needs of our Nation's children. MediKids is a model that accomplishes that goal.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to reintroduce the AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2009. I have often spoken before this body about the great need to reform our health care system. For too long, we have been plagued with an inadequate patchwork system that today leaves nearly 46 million Americans uninsured. We spend more per person than any other country in the world, yet our health outcomes lag well behind that of other industrialized nations.

The failing economy is even more proof of our need to act now. Our broken health system is a tremendous financial burden on our

Nation's families and businesses alike. Since 1999, family premiums for employer-sponsored insurance have increased 119 percent, nearly 4 times the increase in wages (34 percent) and inflation (29 percent) during that same time. About one in three Americans reported a serious problem ``paying for health care and health insurance'' in October 2008. Half of all bankruptcies can be traced to medical bills. 49 percent of people in foreclosure named medical problems as a cause of their financial difficulties.

According to the New America Foundation, our economy lost as much as $207 billion last year because of the poor health and shorter lifespans of those without health insurance. General Motors spends more on health care than on steel. While I'm not suggesting we import the Canadian health system, it is worth highlighting that if we paid the same amount for health care as Canada, G.M. would have accumulated an additional $22 billion in profits over the last decade. Inadequate health coverage is crippling our economy.

The President-elect declared that health care reform should happen ``this year''. Chairman Rangel and I are ready to work with him, Chairmen Waxman and Miller, our leadership and the Senate to achieve this goal.

AmeriCare is a template of a way that we can achieve universal health care. AmeriCare is built on a framework that is consistent with many of the principles that President-elect Obama identified during the campaign.

Like President-elect Obama's plan, it includes a public plan option. It uses Medicare's existing administrative infrastructure, but improves upon Medicare's benefits to address some of the current gaps in coverage. A public plan option is the only way to ensure that beneficiaries have access to an option that promotes people over profit. As Medicare itself includes both public and private plan options, one could make the case that AmeriCare has an exchange, like Obama's plan as well.

Like President-elect Obama's plan, it maintains employer sponsored coverage. People can keep the coverage they have if they like it. We need to build on what works, not create an entirely new system.

Like President-elect Obama's plan, it includes a pay-or-play component to ensure that the private sector continues to play a role in providing health care.

AmeriCare meets the Health Care for America Now! reform principles. It was endorsed last year by the coalition, as well as provider groups, beneficiary advocates, and unions including: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Nurses Association, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Association of Public Hospitals, SEIU, Universal Health Care Action Network.

AmeriCare is a practical proposal to ensure that everyone has affordable health coverage in our country. It builds on what works in today's health care system to provide simple, affordable, reliable health insurance. I look forward to working with President-elect Obama as he assumes the office of the President to achieve a universal health care program that meets the principles that he will outline to Congress.

I will submit for the Record a short summary of AmeriCare. More can be found on my website at http://www.house.gov/stark.

AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2009

Overview: The AmeriCare Health Care Act (``AmeriCare'') is

a practical proposal to ensure that everyone has health

coverage in our country. It builds on what works in today's

health care system to provide simple, affordable, reliable

health insurance. People would be covered under the new

AmeriCare system, modeled on Medicare, or they would continue

to obtain health coverage through their employer.

Using the administrative efficiencies within Medicare and

building on the existing coverage people receive through

their jobs today, we can create an affordable, efficient, and

stable universal health care system in America--and guarantee

access to medical innovation and the world's most advanced

providers and facilities.

Structure and Administration: Creates a new title in the

Social Security Act, ``AmeriCare.'' Provides universal health

care for all U.S. residents, with additional coverage for

children (under 24), pregnant women, and individuals with

limited incomes (< 300 percent FPL). Sets out standards for

supplemental plans with a focus on consumer protection.

Requires the Secretary to negotiate discounts for

prescription drugs.

Benefits: Adults receive Medicare Part A and B benefits;

preventive services, substance abuse treatment, mental health

parity; and prescription drug coverage equivalent to the BC/

BS Standard Option in 2008. Children receive comprehensive

benefits and Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and

Treatment (EPSDT) coverage with no cost-sharing.

Cost Sharing: There is a $350 deductible for individuals/

$500 for families (indexed over time), and 20 percent

coinsurance. Total spending (premiums, deductibles, and co-

insurance) is capped at out-of-pocket maximum of $2,500

individual/$4,000 family (indexed over time), or 5 percent of

income for beneficiaries with income between 200 percent-300

percent FPL and 7.5 percent of income for beneficiaries with

income between 300 percent-500 percent FPL. There is no cost

sharing for children, pregnant women and low-income

individuals (below 200 percent FPL). Sliding scale subsidies

are in place for cost-sharing for individuals between 200

percent and 300 percent FPL.

Financing: At April 15 tax filing each year, individuals

either demonstrate equivalent coverage through their employer

or pay the AmeriCare premium based on cost of coverage and

class of enrollment (individual, couple, unmarried individual

with children, or married couple with children). Employers

may either pay 80 percent of the AmeriCare premium or provide

equivalent benefits through a group health plan (the

contribution for part-time workers is pro-rated). AmeriCare

does not affect contracts or collective bargaining agreements

in effect as of the date of enactment, and employers may

choose to provide additional benefits. Employers with fewer

than 100 employees have until January 1, 2014 to comply

(employees of small businesses would still only pay 20

percent of the premium).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to yet another taxpayer funded bailout

of an industry that has been poorly managed for years. I voted no when Wall Street came asking for their handout in September and I will vote no to bailing out corporations that have refused to evolve and build products that people want to buy.

The automakers are in trouble because they have been mismanaged. For years they built gas-guzzlers, stifled innovation, and lobbied against reasonable environmental and safety standards. Even when credit was flowing freely, Americans weren't buying Detroit's products.

Workers are not to blame--they have already accepted deep wage and benefit cuts. If there was anything in this bill that provided protection for those workers, then I might think differently. What I see, however, is a repeat of the September bailout scenario; a large commitment of taxpayer money with very little explanation of how these funds will address the significant problems of the industry. Indeed, the CEOs tell us that the $15 billion will ``get them through January.'' And then what?

If you want to see quality cars being made by unionized workers, go to my district. At the NUMMI plant in Fremont, UAW-organized workers build cars, such as Corollas, that people want to buy. This plant is a joint venture between GM and Toyota and has made a profit for both companies. They are not here asking for a bailout.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of three months ago by throwing good money after bad.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the service of my colleague Jim McCrery of Louisiana who is retiring after over 20 years as Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Jim and I have also served together on the Committee on Ways and Means for 16 years.

Though we are from opposite sides of the aisle--and we frequently take opposite perspectives on issues--he is a colleague I admire greatly and a friend I will miss.

One of the many downsides to the increased partisanship in Congress is that many Members do not take the time to develop personal relationships across the aisle. Jim has never adhered to that philosophy. Maybe that's because he started in Congress on the staff of a Democratic Member of Congress. But I believe it's because Jim values the array of opinions to be had in Congress and is willing to look at the data and listen to others' thoughts before he makes up his mind-- not necessarily always toeing a straight party line.

As the Ranking Member on the Committee on Ways and Means during this session of Congress, Jim and our Chairman Charlie Rangel restored civility and respect to the proceedings of our Committee--something that didn't exist under the leadership of the previous Chairman.

For Jim, the title ``Honorable'' is truly representative of him. He's served his constituents and this country well. His leadership and service will be missed. I wish Jim and his family all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's Baldwin High School Boys Varsity Cross-Country team for their first place finish in the McDonald's Cross Country Festival at Maymont, Virginia. The team finished 25 seconds ahead of the second place team in the silver division. With their decisive victory the boys of Baldwin are now recognized among to top cross-country teams in Pennsylvania this year.

The McDonald's Cross Country Festival at Maymont draws over 3,000 of the best high school athletes from 15 different States. The Baldwin team put in long, hard hours of training to place among the elite teams in the State. I would like to recognize the dedication of T.J. Hobart, Matt Cecala, Dennis Logan, Michael Cain, Paul Degregorio, George Crompton and my grandson, David Wainwright. I congratulate their fine performance in Maymont.

I recently spoke with Baldwin's cross-country coach Wright and he highlighted the special comradery and commitment of everyone on the team. The Baldwin team has attended the meet for the last 3 years; however, the dedicated young men I have mentioned are the first to emerge victorious. The coach spoke of his pride with the boys' accomplishment and I share his pride today.

It is my honor to recognize the victory of the Balwin Boys Varsity Cross-Country team, especially my grandson David. I commend their hard work and commitment to teamwork as they head into ``championship month'' in Pennsylvania. I wish the boys the best of luck in the Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League State Championship in Hershey later this month.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and unfortunately, I have to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Somebody in the press not so long ago earlier this week said eight out of 10 of my colleagues know nothing about economics or banking, and this bill shows that he was quite right.

This bill does nothing but bail out Wall Street and large corporate America. It spends $800 billion that the taxpayers will end up having to pay for, and it does nothing for middle Americans.

Is there a crisis in this country? Yes, there is, but there is not a crisis for those people who have been working, trying to pay their bills. There's not a crisis for your average community bank who has no problem with liquidity. There is not a crisis for your credit cards being unable to work.

That's Paulson's way to scare us, as Colin Powell tried to scare us some years ago by saying if we didn't vote for an ill-conceived war we'd see terrorists on the streets.

We're getting the same kind of misinformation now, the same kind of rush to judgment to tell you that a crisis will occur. It won't. Vote ``no.'' Come back and help work on a bill that will help all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of providing much needed assistance to the millions of workers struggling to make ends meet.

Unlike the Wall Street bailout we just passed, extending unemployment benefits will actually help to keep people in their homes. Unlike giving a $700 billion blank check to Henry Paulson, extending unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and will bring money into local communities.

Last month the economy lost 160,000 jobs--the ninth month in a row of job loss. Without congressional action, 800,000 workers are expected to lose their unemployment benefits in October. In my State of California, the unemployment rate is 7.7 percent and climbing. Many of these workers are exhausting their benefits and are unable to find work. This legislation will provide immediate relief to these workers.

Today we heard a lot of bluster about Main Street. Make no mistake, people are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Wall Street has already gotten their share; I urge all of my colleagues to make sure that we take this small step to help millions of workers get their share.

Madam Speaker, I will be voting no on this bill. I recently read in the press that 8 out of 10 of my colleagues know nothing about economics or banking. This bill shows that account is quite right.

This bill does nothing but bail out Wall Street and large corporate America. It spends $800 billion that taxpayers will end up having to pay for and it does nothing for middle-income Americans.

Is there a crisis in this country? Yes there is. But this is not the solution for those people who have been working and trying to pay their bills.

There is not a crisis facing your average community bank which has no problem in liquidity. There is not a crisis for your credit cards-- endangering their ability to work.

This rushed bailout package is nothing more than President Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson's way to scare us as Colin Powell tried to scare us some years ago by saying if we didn't vote for an ill- conceived war, we'd see terrorists on the street.

You're getting the same kind of misinformation now--the same kind of rush to judgment--to tell you that a crisis will occur. It won't. Vote no, and let's come back and help work on a bill that will help all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud House and Senate passage by unanimous consent of H.R. 7198, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008. Representative Tubbs Jones' life ended as she lived it; by exemplifying concern for the welfare of others. She donated her organs in the waning hours of her life so that the lives of others could continue. In that spirit, this legislation creates a commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation. It is a fitting tribute to her, and I look forward to seeing this program get up and running.

This bill is a modified version of H.R. 6950, which passed the House on September 25, 2008. We modified the bill in order to address concerns from the other body and ensure its passage.

Unfortunately, in modifying the bill, we had to delete findings included in H.R. 6950. I ask to insert these findings into the Record.

(1) Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was dedicated to eliminating health disparities and protecting vulnerable populations.

(2) Through her service on the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, she was a strong voice for those who were poor, elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, and disenfranchised.

(3) Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones' concern for others was demonstrated by the decision to donate her organs, so that as her life ended, the lives of others continued.

(4) There are currently 99,625 candidates for organ donation on the national transplant waiting list. Every 16 minutes, a new name is added to such list. Sixteen persons die each day waiting for a life saving organ transplant.

(5) Minority populations account for nearly 50 percent of those on the national transplant waiting list.

(6) Diseases that can lead to organ failure, such as hypertension and diabetes, are found more frequently in ethnic minority populations than in the general population.

(7) While minorities donate organs in proportion to their population, the rate of organ donations fails to keep pace with the need for transplants in the population. African Americans, for example, represent about 13 percent of the population and 12 percent of organ donors, but comprise roughly 23 percent of individuals on national transplant waiting list for kidney transplants.

(8) Transplantation success rates are higher when organs are matched between people

sharing the same racial and ethnic background.

(9) Because of the disparities in the need for organs, minorities are more likely to wait longer to find a successful match and are more likely to be sicker when an organ is found.

(10) An increase in minority organ donations would decrease the waiting time and increase the likelihood of successful transplantations for minorities.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

President Bush tells us that we face unparalleled financial doom if this $700 billion bailout is not approved today. He and his Treasury Secretary--a former Wall Street fat cat--tell us that we have reached the point of ``crisis.'' That is a familiar line from this President. It sounds like the disastrous rush to war in Iraq and the subsequent stampede to enact the Patriot Act. As I opposed the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, I stand in opposition to his latest rush to judgment.

We are not in a sudden crisis. It has been building over the past 8 years of the Bush Administration. Lax oversight of the financial industry ballooned into a house of cards.

Homeowners throughout the country have seen property values decline as their mortgage rates adjusted upward. As a result, millions of people across our country have already lost their homes to foreclosure and many more are on the way.

It is easy to blame consumers for purchasing homes they couldn't afford. However, these consumers weren't informed of the extreme risk they were assuming. Creative financiers invented a market for these risky mortgages and preyed upon consumers by peddling the American dream of homeownership to make that market flourish.

While those were poor choices by consumers, they pale in comparison to the irresponsible bets made on Wall Street. These mortgages and their declining collateral values are the root of this financial crisis.

We now face a choice. President Bush tells us we must inject $700 billion into this market to avoid a total meltdown. He and Secretary Paulson say it is the only answer. Many economists--who don't have a financial stake in Wall Street or an 8-year record of bad decisions-- tell us it isn't the only choice. An option would be to assist homeowners with their mortgage payments. By making sure these mortgages remain viable, the market should stabilize.

The bill before us today is basically the same three-page Wall Street give away first put forth by President Bush. The fig leaf adjustments are not enough to outweigh the fact that, no one knows if this bill is what's needed. I'm not willing to make a $700 billion gamble that President Bush is right after 8 years of seeing all that he's done wrong.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Nursing Home Transparency and Quality of Care Improvement Act of 2008'' with my colleague Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois. This legislation is a companion bill to one introduced by my Senate colleagues, Senators Grassley (R- IA) and Kohl (D-WI). I thank them for their leadership and look forward to working with them on this issue in the next Congress.

It has been 20 years since passage of the Nursing Home Reform Act. Despite improvements in some areas of quality, there is still

much to be done. I am introducing this bill because the lives of our most frail senior citizens are at stake, and our return to this issue is long overdue. I recognize we are in the waning days of this Congress, and I look forward to hearing feedback from my colleagues and interested parties in the coming months. It is my hope we will move forward on this issue in the 111th Congress.

A disturbing trend has been underway in the nursing home industry recently. Nursing home chains have changed their corporate structure in ways that conceal the ownership and management of individual facilities. In doing so, the chains are able to shield assets and limit liability. They obscure regulators' efforts to find the responsible party and seek corrective action or collect monetary penalties. Beneficiaries are similarly limited in their ability to seek remuneration for injury or neglect.

The result is a woeful lack of transparency and accountability. How can we hold nursing home chains accountable for the quality of care if they are hiding their true ownership relationships?

Even more worrisome is the negative effect on quality that may result from these changing corporate structures. The heightened focus on profit maximization in the restructured organizations may come at the expense of quality of care. When cost cutting leads to staffing cuts, patient care suffers, and our most frail seniors and people with disabilities are put in jeopardy.

We must not forget that this industry operates largely on the government dime. Medicare and Medicaid pay for the majority--60 percent--of spending on nursing homes annually, with the remainder coming from people's own wallets or from private insurance. At anyone time, nearly 80 percent of residents living in nursing homes are supported by public funds.

These troubling trends in ownership and quality are occurring at the same time that the nursing home industry is enjoying healthy Medicare margins of nearly 13.1 percent in 2006. For profit nursing homes are doing even better, with soaring stock prices and Medicare margins of 16 percent in 2006.

The federal government has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to make sure we know who those providers are and what they are doing, and ensure they are using government dollars to provide high quality care for our nation's nursing home residents. That is why we are introducing this legislation.

The Nursing Home Transparency and Quality of Care Improvement Act would place patients before profits. It provides protections to residents when a home closes, and brings structure to the complaint process. It increases the transparency of nursing home ownership and operations so that seniors and their families know who is calling the shots, and what level of care is being provided in the home. It improves the data available on Medicare's Nursing Home Compare Web site so that families are well-informed when making decisions about the care of their loved one. The bill also improves staff training. The bill strengthens the current enforcement system via mandatory compliance and ethics programs, new quality assurance efforts, and meaningful enforcement penalties.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks shall be brief, because the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health on the Committee on Ways and Means was participating and is so adequately up on this bill that he just said it all. I would associate myself with the remarks of the

distinguished gentleman from Michigan.

I rise in support of the QI Program Supplemental Funding Act, S. 3560.

At nearly $100 a month, the Part B premium can be a real hardship for seniors living on low incomes.

This bill is necessary to ensure that low-income Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes between $12,000-$14,000 are able to continue receiving financial assistance for the cost of their Medicare premiums.

I support extending this vital program. If this bill doesn't pass, States will drop poor seniors from the program.

My only complaint is that we should be doing more than this today. We have technical corrections from the Medicare legislation we passed earlier this year which should be before us as part of this legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to reach agreement to incorporate those needed provisions in this bill.

There is much we need to do to maintain our commitment to Medicare and Medicaid. This bill is a tiny part of that work. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and on both sides of the Capitol--to do much more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be brief.

I am here to establish my ranking among distinguished Members like Chairman Dingell, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Miller, Chairman Andrews, Ranking Member McCrery, Ranking Member Camp and all of my colleagues. We all get the title today as pieces of parsley on a platter of fish. We are here to garnish the work that Jim Ramstad and Patrick Kennedy, led by former Senator Wellstone and Senator Domenici, have accomplished with diligent hard work. Without it, we would not be here to protect the people and add the protection that people need.

I urge my colleagues to support the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, H.R. 6893, to honor Patrick and Jim for the marvelous work they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I have two or three speakers remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of the ``Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008,'' and to thank the many colleagues and friends of Stephanie's who joined together to bring this bill to the floor.

Stephanie's life ended as she lived it; by exemplifying concern for the welfare of others. She donated her organs in the waning hours of her life so that the lives of others could continue. In that spirit, this bill creates a commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation.

The need for organ donation is critical. Since the national transplant waiting list began, more than 80,000 donation-eligible Americans have died waiting for an organ to become available; in 2007 alone, more than 6,500 people died for lack of a suitable organ.

As an active member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Stephanie worked tirelessly to remedy health disparities in our nation. Organ donation is one area where dramatic health disparities exist, which makes this all the more of a fitting tribute.

While minorities donate organs in proportion to their population, the rate of organ donations fails to keep pace with the need for transplants in the population. Minority populations account for close to 50% of the people who are currently waiting for organ transplants.

I'd like to take a moment to recognize the help of former Senate Majority Leader and transplant surgeon Dr. Bill Frist, for whom this bill was named for when it was introduced earlier this year. Dr. Frist is a tireless advocate of organ donors and their families, and worked on behalf of the Gift of Life Medal Act. I appreciate his graciousness in expressing his strong support for renaming the bill, and I would ask the Chair to have Dr. Frist's letter of support inserted into the Record.

I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation, and pays tribute to the selflessness and memory of our colleague. Stephanie's dedication to improving health care should be permanently recognized. I urge passage of the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act.

Nashville, TN, September 15, 2008.

Hon. Pete Stark,

Chairman, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Cannon

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Stark and Ranking Member Camp: Thank you for

your leadership on the Gift of Life Congressional Medal.

Like you, I am truly inspired by those that donate their

organs. I can think of no act that is more honorable or

selfless, and it is befitting of Congress to pass this act to

recognize these outstanding individuals and their families. I

was pleased to sponsor this legislation in the Senate.

It is also extremely fitting to name this legislation in

honor of the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. A

tireless advocate for those in need, she cemented her legacy

by donating her organs and tissue, which will help over 50

individuals. Her act, and the thousands that have come before

it, must be recognized.

Each year, there are nearly 14,000 organs that are donated.

As a transplant surgeon, I have seen first hand how lives are

transformed through these miraculous gifts. For me, it is a

privilege to be part of the transplantation process. I am

continually amazed at the advances in technology that make

transplants more successful every year.

While advances are being made, there are still too few

donors--nearly 100,000 people are waiting on national

transplant lists. To encourage more donors, we should make

every effort to recognize those that make this life-saving

decision. I believe creating a Gift of Life Congressional

medal is critically important to increasing awareness on this

issue.

Again, please accept my sincere appreciate for your work

and strong support for naming the Gift of Life Congressional

Medal Act in honor of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. It

is a fitting tribute for such and outstanding and committed

woman.

Sincerely,

Dr. William H. Frist.