Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend and colleague, Mike McNulty (NY-21), who is retiring after 10 terms in Congress.

With nearly 40 years in elective public office, Mike has served his community as a local leader, a member of the state legislature, and its representative in Congress.

During his Congressional service, I have been privileged to work by his side on the Ways and Means Committee. On our Committee, Mike can always be counted on to stand up for the interests of working families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

Most recently, as Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, Mike has been a leader in protecting Social Security from Republican attempts to privatize it. He's also initiated improvements to the program as well. For example, in this Congress, Chairman McNulty was able to secure $150 million in additional funding for the Social Security Administration to lessen the backlog of cases and better serve beneficiaries.

While Mike has never been one to reach for the headlines, when it came to speak up for seniors and the middle class, Mike's voice was always heard loud and clear. We will miss Mike's friendship and his steady leadership in Congress. The people of upstate New York are losing an outstanding representative, and we are all grateful for his lifetime of service to his community and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008'' with my colleague Mr. Camp of Michigan. 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.

As I well know from my time on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Representative Tubbs Jones 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 percent of the nearly 100,000 people who are currently waiting for organ transplants. Since the national transplant waiting list began, over 80,000 donation- eligible Americans have died waiting for an organ to become available; in 2007 alone, over 6,500 people died for lack of a suitable organ. Donating an organ to someone whose life depends on it is laudable, and it should be recognized and encouraged. The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act sends a clear message that donating one's organs is an act that should receive the profound respect of our Nation.

I would like to thank Former Senate Majority Leader, and transplant surgeon, Dr. William H. Frist, for whom this bill was named in an earlier version in this Congress (H.R. 1765/S. 1062). Dr. Frist was a tireless advocate of organ donors and their families during his time in the Senate. He worked on behalf of the Gift of Life Medal Act for years and has expressed strong support for renaming the bill for Representative Tubbs Jones. We appreciate his graciousness in doing so.

This legislation directs the Treasury department to design and produce a commemorative medal that the Department of Health and Human Services will award to organ donors or to a surviving family member. Enactment of this legislation would have no cost to the Federal Government. Funding for the medals would be self-sufficient through charitable donations.

This is non-controversial, non-partisan legislation to increase the rate of organ donation while honoring the life and service of our colleague, Representative Tubbs Jones. 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. I urge swift passage of the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased that this bill, S. 3406, will sustain the rights and remedies available to individuals with disabilities, including individuals with learning disabilities just as in the measure passed by the House, H.R. 3195.

Would the Chairman agree that the measure before us rejects the assumption that an individual who has performed well academically cannot be substantially limited in activities such as learning reading, writing, thinking, or speaking?

I thank the Chairman.

Specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, are neurologically based impairments that substantially limit the way these individuals perform major life activities, like reading or learning, or the time it takes to perform such activities often referred to as the condition, manner, or duration.

This legislation will reestablish coverage for these individuals by ensuring that the definition of this ability is broadly construed and the determination does not consider the use of mitigating measures.

Given this, would the chairman agree that these amendments support the finding in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners in which the court held that in determining whether the plaintiff was substantially limited with respect to reading, Bartlett's ability to ``self-accommodate'' should not be taken into consideration when determining whether she was protected by the ADA?

I want to thank the chairman. It is indeed our full intention to ensure that the civil rights law retains its focus on protecting individuals with disabilities and not the interests of entities that may need to address their practices in accordance with the ADA.

I look forward to working with the chairman to continue to protect individuals with specific learning disabilities to ensure that unnecessary barriers are not being erected in their path.

I want to thank the chairman, the distinguished ranking member, our colleague from Wisconsin, and the majority leader for their work on this landmark legislation.

Madam Speaker, I point out that this subcommittee stands as proxy parents for half a million children in this country who spend time in foster care each year. So I would like to thank Grandpa McDermott and Grandpa Weller on behalf of these 500,000 children whose lives are being improved, and Grandma Tauscher, for

helping see that these children's lives are improved.

I was lucky enough to have Cherita Jones, a former foster youth, as an intern in my office earlier this year. Cherita worked hard and was lucky to live with a caring foster family. She is now out working as an advocate for foster children. I am proud that we are taking this step here today.

This bill does, in fact, continue foster children's care beyond age 18, and it further allows relatives, grandparents, to participate in supporting the foster children and allows them in many cases to live in loving homes rather than group homes and less permanent settings.

I hope we can continue to work together to improve their lives, and I look forward to working with Chairman McDermott to protect the Social Security benefits of foster children and make sure that these resources are used for the benefit of these children and not as a funding source for general revenue to many States. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in adamant opposition to the National Capital Security & Safety Act as amended. I commend my colleagues Delegate Holmes-Norton and Representative Waxman on the work they have done to ensure that the DC City Council remains the leader in enacting the laws necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Unfortunately, Mr. Childers' amendment ruins the intent of this legislation and has dire consequences for the Nation's capital.

I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Regardless, I do believe that the DC City Council is in the best position to decide what regulations are appropriate for their community. Congress has trampled on the District's autonomy for long enough. The last thing DC needs is Congressional Members to repeatedly and unnecessarily intervene in issues specific to the District of Columbia.

Equally problematic and more disturbing are the repercussions of Mr. Childers' amendment. His amendment throws out the DC City Council's emergency handgun regulations and replaces them with so-called regulations that in fact endanger their communities' public safety. His amendment allows for the stockpiling of semiautomatic assault weapons, fully loaded firearms in homes, and discourages the passage of common- sense legislation addressing safe storage requirements or age limits for the possession of assault rifles.

The supporters of this amendment are not representing the people of DC, they are representing the gun lobby. The nationwide statistics on deaths caused by intentional and accidental gunfire are extreme to begin with, but Washington DC is rated as the thirteenth most dangerous city in the country, where the homicide rate is almost double the national average. Are the supporters of this amendment representing the families in the District who have lost their loved ones to gun violence? Or

the policemen and women who experience up close the misuse of guns by both kids and adults every day? No. Supporters of this amendment are only supporting the National Rifle Association.

We're not living in the 1700s, when governmental police forces were nonexistent and state militias were a constant threat to central government. Supporters of Mr. Childers' amendment need to pull their heads out of the past and face the present: gun violence is an ugly reality, and we're not doing the people of the District of Columbia any favors by considering legislation that will endanger lives under the disguise of protecting constitutional rights. The people who make up this country are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they certainly can't claim their right to the last two if they lose their lives. That's what guns do--they kill people.

I strongly urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support a comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 6899, that will help to end our addiction to foreign oil and will move our Nation toward a clean energy economy.

For nearly 8 years, we have seen the consequences of policies made by an administration that was literally ``in bed'' with the oil companies, as evidenced by the recent scandal at the Mineral Management Service, MMS. Profits for Exxon-Mobil and others are setting records, while family budgets are stretched to the breaking point by high energy prices. Rather than putting forth real solutions, the President and his congressional Republican enablers have offered a regressive plan and a slick political slogan that amounts to more giveaways to oil companies with nothing that will lower prices in the short-term or move our Nation away from fossil fuel dependence in the long-term.

The Democratic Congress, in contrast, has already passed legislation, H.R. 6, to raise fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020--the first increase in a generation. Reaching the 35 mpg threshold will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, more than 10 times the amount of oil that offshore drilling will be producing in 2020. By 2030, we will be saving 2.5 million barrels a day, or the same amount that we import from the Persian Gulf. That is a real solution.

I agree with the Department of Energy's assessment that expanded drilling will only reduce prices at the pump by 3 or 4 cents and not for another 10 years in the future. However, I support the legislation before us today because it represents a commonsense compromise on drilling that protects the environment and allows individual States to decide whether drilling off their coasts is appropriate.

But this legislation is about much more than drilling. It is a comprehensive plan that takes steps to lower gas prices in the near term by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and fully funding energy assistance programs so families can heat and cool their homes. It reigns in the excesses of oil companies and ensures that they pay their fair share back to the taxpayer when they drill on public lands. Accountability will be restored to the scandal plagued MMS by enacting tough new laws with criminal penalties for MMS employees who engage in unethical behavior with the very oil companies they are charged with regulating.

Finally, this bill ends our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels and confronts global warming. This legislation establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard that will mandate 15 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020, lowering the demand for coal and other dirty fuels. It makes an $850 million yearly investment in public transportation so that cities and States can expand services. In addition, the legislation will provide incentives for the production of renewable energy and will modernize energy efficiency codes for buildings.

The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act is a real solution to America's energy needs. It may not satisfy the ``drill, baby, drill'' crowd, but after suffering through their failed policies for the last 8 years their slogans are little more than hot air.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Eden Housing's 40th Anniversary Celebration. Eden Housing, based in Hayward, California, was founded in 1968 by a dedicated group of volunteers committed to expanding housing opportunities for disadvantaged communities. This group of six community activists was concerned about the lack of non-discriminatory, affordable housing in Alameda County.

These pioneers, working out of makeshift ``headquarters,'' such as local coffee shops, were initiated into affordable housing development by rehabilitating six older homes in Oakland for first time homebuyers. Their next project was a much larger development, the 150-unit Josephine Lum Lodge for seniors in Hayward.

Since those pioneering days, Eden Housing has developed 5,072 units of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors and people with disabilities. Its buildings are located in 21 cities in six Northern California counties.

Although Eden Housing's initial home base for development was Alameda County, Eden's charter calls for the organization to work wherever there is a need for affordable housing in California.

In the mid-1990s, Eden expanded the scope of affordable housing development to include provisions of free onsite support services and programs for its residents. To design and implement its resident support services, Eden founded an affiliate, Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc.

I join the community in honoring all who have contributed to the success of Eden Housing. The community activists who provided the vision and leadership for the creation and early development of Eden Housing are noteworthy.

Eden Housing continues to revitalize California communities through its affordable housing development and property management activities, through the partnerships it establishes and the investments it makes in California neighborhoods and through the free social services and supportive programs they provide to meet the needs of their residents.

Happy 40th anniversary Eden Housing. I send you my best wishes for many more years of successful service.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health-e Information Technology Act of 2008, a bill to stimulate the development of a uniform, interoperable health information technology system for America. Such a system would enable every hospital and doctor to input a patient's information and pull up their medical record--all on-line and readily available. It would also make data available to researchers so that we could improve the practice of medicine.

Health Information Technology (HIT) is the key to improving quality, gaining efficiencies, and reducing cost in the U.S. health care system. That's something that even people ranging from President Bush to Barack Obama can agree on.

If the United States had such a system, we would be able to provide the right care, to the patient, at the right time. A nationwide HIT system would:

Ensure that every hospital could access an emergency room patient's medical record to appropriately treat them.

Reduce duplicative lab tests. One study found that 9 percent of all lab tests were redundant and that physicians canceled 69 percent of lab tests when their HIT systems alerted them to the redundancy.

More quickly eradicate outbreaks of disease because the HIT system would allow us to analyze where people were sick and what they had in common.

More effectively conduct post-market surveillance on drugs approved by the FDA to ensure that they really are safe and effective once they are on the market. According to the FDA, Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003. Providers with health IT systems were able to closely monitor their Vioxx patients and take them off Vioxx at the first sign of harm.

Dramatically reduce the use of paper records which--on top of being cumbersome and environmentally unfriendly--also cause medical errors because of difficulty interpreting handwriting and an inability to easily detect orders that are inappropriate for the patient, given their age, allergies, health conditions, and other drugs they may be taking. One study found that 1.4 percent of hospital admissions were caused by adverse drug events, 28 percent of which were preventable, and at a cost of $10,000 per preventable event.

There is no debate over whether we need such a HIT system in America. The debate is over the right role for government to foster the widespread adoption of such an interoperable, seamless HIT system. In this debate, it is vitally important to ensure that such a system has strong privacy protections and security requirements.

Some might say let the private sector do it. I'd respond that we've tried that and it's failed. Currently only 20-30 percent of hospitals and 10-20 percent of physicians' offices have comprehensive health information systems. Even where systems are in place, they operate in silos and do not provide the aggregate data needed to improve quality of care. One reason for this failure is that private industry has spawned the development of unique proprietary systems. These systems may work well for the doctor's office or hospital system that purchases it, but they are unable to perform outside of their own network and therefore fail to meet the need of integrating our disparate health care system. This lack of progress is costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. Studies have indicated that widespread adoption of HIT could reduce health care spending by $80 million annually.

Just last week at a hearing before the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, a representative for the California Association of Physician Groups (which represents large physician group practices in California) acknowledged that, while each of their member groups had adopted HIT, those systems were unable to talk to each other. The groups had each spent millions of dollars and suffered through reduced productivity during the transition, but their systems still cannot advance the practice of medicine in the United States or engage in other activities to achieve broader system efficiencies and quality improvements.

That's why, in my mind, it is so important for the Federal Government to step into the arena of HIT. Not because I think Government is better than the private sector. But, because I think that if our Government has decided that a uniform, interoperable HIT system is a priority, we should step up to the plate to create the standards and help pay for its adoption. That's precisely what the Health-e Information Technology Act does.

The Health-e Information Technology Act would codify the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology within the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Coordinator--with the assistance of an advisory committee representing private stakeholders and other appropriate public agencies--would be responsible for establishing and implementing a plan to achieve widespread adoption and use of interoperable, secure, and clinically useful electronic health records. In addition, the Coordinator would develop an open source health information technology system that is certified to meet the standards and would be available to health care providers at little or no cost in 2012, after the standards are established in 2011. Private vendors would be part of the process and would be encouraged to ensure that their products meet the new federal standards as well.

The bill would utilize the strength and size of the Medicare program as a tool to assure the adoption of these standards. Starting by 2013, Medicare would provide supplementary payments to doctors and hospitals (each up to a capped amount) to help offset the cost of purchasing new HIT equipment, transitioning to its use, and training personnel. These incentive payments would phase-out on a sliding scale over a four or five year period, for hospitals and doctors respectively. After that timeframe, if doctors or hospitals failed to use an HIT system that meets the defined standards, they would be penalized by a reduction in their Medicare reimbursements. As not all health care providers are reimbursed by Medicare, there are grant programs to assure assistance to them as well.

Maintaining the privacy and security of people's electronic health records is of vital importance. The Health-e Information Technology Act takes the protections afforded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, and updates them for the 21st century. It provides for protections to reach new entities in the e- health environment that were not envisaged by HIPAA, such as e- prescribing gateways and regional health information organizations, and addresses the increased migration of personal health information out of the traditional medical system through business associates. It shuts down the secondary market that has emerged around the sale and mining of patient health information by prohibiting the sale of patient information and applying stiff penalties to any individual or entity that uses or discloses health information in an unauthorized way. The bill also develops a culture of privacy protection through tough enforcement. To date, the Secretary has not levied a single penalty against a HIPAA covered entity, despite numerous privacy and security violations. This bill strengthens the enforcement of privacy and security protections by increasing the amount of civil monetary penalties that may be levied, requiring the Secretary to levy penalties in cases where violations rise to the level of willful neglect, and holding the Secretary accountable for actively enforcing the provisions through period audits and reports.

I recently sat down with the chairman of a major medical association, the head of a physician group practice organization, and two former Medicare and Medicaid administrators--one for a Democratic president and the other for a Republican president. All four of them agreed that without a date certain in law by which a uniform, interoperable HIT system must be used by all of America's doctors and hospitals, it simply won't happen. They also agreed that, while it won't be easy, it is vital that we form consensus around such legislation. They, too, acknowledged that a system that provides financial incentives for adoption, with eventual penalties for failure to adopt, is a sensible way to proceed.

With introduction of the Health-e Information Technology Act, I hope that we can move from the realm of private discussions to public endorsements. I am under no illusions that it will be easy to enact a bill like this. While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet provided a score for the legislation, we know that it will have significant costs. But down-payments are required to achieve yield on long-term investments. I am confident that a uniform HIT system will ultimately lead to dramatic improvements in the delivery system and reap great savings once it is in place.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as physician and hospital organizations, to enact legislation to require the development and adoption of a uniform HIT system. We've been talking about this for decades. It is now time to act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John J. Jermanis, Jr. upon his retirement as the City Manager of San Leandro, California. John's career with the City of San Leandro spanned 37 years. His first position was Assistant Finance Director where he served for 11 years; he next served as Finance Director for 15 years, and was then appointed City Manager in 1997, where he completed an 11- year tenure prior to his retirement.

John was born and raised in Berkeley, California. He graduated from Berkeley High School in 1961, received his bachelor's degree in Business Administration from San Francisco State University in 1966, and has furthered his studies in Public Administration at California State University East Bay.

After serving in the Army National Guard from January 1966 to January 1972, John took a position with General Motors' Personnel Division in Fremont from 1967 to 1968. He began his municipal government service in 1969 as an accountant with the city of Livermore, California and in 1971 he was hired by the City of San Leandro.

Under John's management, the City of San Leandro went through one of its largest building periods in history, seeing the completion of the new main library, Creekside Plaza, Hilton Garden Inn, and Westgate Shopping Center. More recently he has overseen the rejuvenation of Bayfair Center, the opening of the San Leandro History Museum and Art Gallery and the opening of both the Washington Manor Branch Library and the Family Aquatics Center.

Through his guidance, the city has also facilitated a fundamental shift in its business sector, from one largely composed of manufacturing companies to a sector that also includes service and high-tech companies.

John points to his greatest accomplishment as his ability to build and maintain a strong rapport with each council member and city employees with whom he has worked. John also has gained the respect of his colleagues, and elected officials, as well as the San Leandro community.

He has served the city admirably. His expert leadership, intellect and vast talent and experience as the City of San Leandro's top administrator will be missed. My hat is off to John J. Jermanis, Jr. as he departs for a well-earned retirement. Over the past 37 years, he leaves an unmatched legacy of commitment and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6630, a bill to Bar Access of Long-Haul Mexican Trucks. I do so to reject this Administration's dismissal of clear Congressional intent and on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who contacted me to express their opposition to this program.

Congress has a duty to protect our highways from drivers without adequate safety equipment. This bill enables a full examination into the potential effects of allowing Mexican trucks to enter the United States. Then, Congress can consider whether to allow such entry.

Congress has come together--on a bipartisan basis--time again to stop the pilot program. Unfortunately, we have been conistently disregarded by an Administration more concerned with pushing through cross-border trade agreements than the safety of our highways.

In 2007, the Supplemental Appropriations bill explicitly contained language limiting the implementation of the pilot program. Despite this, the Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the pilot.

In response, the 2008 Transportation Appropriations bill prevented the DOT from using Federal money to fund the pilot program. DOT challenged this language and continued with the program.

At the end of July 2008, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously voted to end the DOT pilot program. Immediately afterward, the DOT defiantly declared it was extending the pilot program--not terminating it.

The most vocal message from the House came with the passage of the Safe American Roads Act in May 2007. The bill posed time limits on the pilot program and reporting requirements on the DOT.

SARA was a powerful, bipartisan effort. 411 members voted for the measure and only three voted against it. However, this overwhelming effort has been undermined by the Administration in its determination to open our borders to unsafe and environmentally damaging transportation practices. The Administration has performed legal and linguistic contortion upon contortion to find loopholes and semantic arguments designed to bypass the very clear intent of Congress; and Congress must not stand for it.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to protect America's highways and push back against such blatant Executive disregard for the intent of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to mourn the passing of my good friend and colleague, Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

While serving with Stephanie on the Ways and Means Committee, and more closely on the Health Subcommittee, I experienced firsthand what a fierce and effective advocate she was in Congress. She was an uncompromising champion for health care as a right for everyone. Her constant effort highlighting the disparities in our health care system and her tireless work on behalf of End-Stage Renal Disease patients made her an outstanding representative. She is, in a word, irreplaceable.

Her spirited advocacy and commitment to justice and fairness were accompanied by warmth and strong loyalty. Those who worked closely with her were privileged to see both her intense passion and joy for her work.

I extend my sincerest condolences to her son Mervyn and her sister Barbara, and the many women and men who counted her among their family and friends. As a colleague and friend, I am honored to have served beside her. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. Chairman, there is no excuse for the wage gap that still exists between men and women in today's workforce. Equalizing wages will provide women with equal pay for equal work and improve the standard of living for millions of American families. That is why I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The need for the reform of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) is obvious. More than four decades after Congress enacted it, hard-working women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar made by men. This is certainly an improvement over the 58 cents women earned when the EPA was passed in 1963, but it is hardly enough. And it still will not be enough when the day comes that women earn 99 cents for every dollar that a man earns. ``Equal'' is not a word that allows room for negotiation, and nothing short of women being paid the same wages as men should be acceptable.

We are here today to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act for the fourth time since it was first introduced in 2005. That is three times too many. We took jobs as Representatives of the House with the promise to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. I don't see how it is possible to do that when we neglect to ensure that something as basic and fundamentally important as fair pay is granted to the working women of our districts.

The Paycheck Fairness Act contains the tools necessary to achieve EPA's goal. It will increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for equal work, require employers to prove that payment disparities among men and women are job related and consistent with business necessity, and protect employees from retaliation after sharing salary information.

In a country that prides itself on equality for all, it is unconscionable that women who do the same work as men receive less pay. I urge my colleagues to bring the ``fairness'' back into the workplace by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with Representative Xavier Becerra to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring all foster children have a fighting chance to lead healthy and productive lives after they leave care.

Each year, hundreds and perhaps thousands of abused and neglected children leave the child welfare system and become illegal immigrants through no fault of their own. Under current law, abused and neglected immigrant children in the child welfare system are eligible to become legal permanent residents under the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) provisions of immigration law. In order to obtain SIJS, a court must find that the child is in long-term foster care with no opportunity for family reunification (either in the U.S. or in their home country). If a child also meets additional immigration criteria, such as not having a criminal record, they can become a Legal Permanent Resident. Once a child leaves the child welfare system, however, they are no longer eligible for SIJS. A series of articles in the Los Angeles Times and other reports have documented how children have aged- out of foster care or been adopted without obtaining SIJS. The result is that these abused and neglected children are forced into the underground economy, are extremely vulnerable to exploitation, and are under the constant threat of deportation back to a country that is unfamiliar to them and may be home to their abuser.

The Foster Children Opportunity Act aims to correct this terrible situation by requiring that all children in the foster care system be screened for SIJS eligibility and assisted through the legal process to obtain SIJS and eventually Legal Permanent Resident Status. The bill will provide technical assistance to help child welfare agencies better understand this problem and provide resources to train judges, attorneys, and other legal workers in a complex area of law.

This legislation will not change any aspect of current immigration law, nor will it result in any adults who have engaged in illegal behavior from gaining legal status. The bill simply aims to protect abused and neglected children by ensuring they have a fighting chance at leading healthy and productive lives when they exit foster care.

The Foster Children Opportunity Act will:

Require State plans for foster care and adoption assistance to document procedures to assist immigrant children in obtaining SIJS, Legal Permanent Residency, or other appropriate forms of immigration relief when doing so is in the child's best interest;

Require child welfare agencies to assist immigrant children, and document their efforts, in obtaining SIJS, Legal Permanent Residency, or other appropriate forms of relief under immigration law before the child exits foster care;

Require juvenile courts and child welfare agencies to determine whether filing petitions or appointing immigration counsel for a potentially SIJS eligible child is in that child's best interest;

Permit the Court Improvement Program to use funds to educate and train judges and lawyers to assist SIJS-eligible foster children;

Direct the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide technical assistance to child welfare agencies in carrying out the provisions of this bill.

Members on all sides of the immigration debate should put down our differences when it comes to protecting abused and neglected children. We should not let the poisonous politics of immigration interfere with helping foster

children become successful adults. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us me in supporting this simple legislation that will improve the lives of thousands of our most vulnerable children.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Michelle's Law. This is a small, but important piece of legislation that will give many college students the sense of security that they deserve regarding continuity of their health insurance.

One of the most frightening moments in a parent's life is sending his or her child off to college. Yet, as parents, we feel comforted by the unspoken assumption that while at college our children will receive continuous access to health insurance based on their dependent status on our family policies. You can imagine the surprise and distress that AnnMarie Morse felt, then, when she learned that her daughter,

Michelle Morse, after falling ill from colon cancer, would only be covered by health insurance if she maintained a full-time class schedule while undergoing exhausting chemotherapy treatment. Michelle shouldn't have been forced to maintain that schedule--and risk her very recovery--because of her need to maintain her health insurance.

Michelle's Law provides needed protections and will help students who are enrolled in college and who only qualify as dependents under their parents' health insurance plans because of their student status. If these students get seriously ill and need to take a physician-certified leave of absence from college for up to a year, they will be able to maintain their coverage under their parent's health insurance. If they graduate before that time is up, their coverage will expire when it normally would have anyway. This is common sense--and will ensure that student-based dependent coverage lives up to its stated goal. No student should be forced to stay in college--and risk ruining their academic standing--because of inability to simultaneously battle their serious illness or injury and maintain their grades.

Although this bill is too late to help Michelle, we can still help other children who might one day have to make the choice between forcing themselves to go to school while severely ill or leaving school and trying to pay insurmountable fees. I'm advised that even the health insurance industry supports this bill. Let's stop debating and quickly pass this important piece of legislation. We owe it to our children to ensure that their health coverage is there when they need it most.

Madam Speaker, tobacco use is the Nation's leading cause of preventable death, and, without aggressive help from Congress, will continue to be in the foreseeable future. That is why I rise today in strong support of the family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a bill that will give the FDA extensive new authority to regulate tobacco products.

I am alarmed by CDC reports that state that 8.6 million Americans have a serious illness caused by smoking, and that close to 440,000 people in the United States die prematurely from either smoking or contact with secondhand smoke. However, I am particularly shocked by statistics that demonstrate that smoking rates among high school students stayed the same from 2003-2007. With all the awareness campaigns targeted toward youth, this rate should have dropped. These statistics are unacceptable, and it is clear that Congress needs to step in.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act allows the FDA, among other things, to restrict tobacco advertising and promotions to children, force manufacturers to obtain approval before making reduced- risk product claims, form standards to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals within tobacco products, and recall unreasonably harmful tobacco products. This piece of legislation is a long sought after bipartisan compromise.

I trust that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Tobacco does not just affect individuals who smoke; it affects our children's futures and the economic prospects of our Nation. Each year because of tobacco use we lose more than $96 billion in medical costs and $97 billion as a consequence of lost productivity. It's time for us to stamp out this burning cigarette, and voting for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will be the first step.

I yield back the balance of my time.