Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act, and H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act. Only in the backward world of Republican campaign strategy would passing more ineffective bills be seen as a way to highlight ``progress'' on illegal immigration.

I hope that the American people ask what happened to the massive immigration bill that the House passed in December. I hope they question why House Republicans are today spending time debating three bills they know the Senate will never consider. The truth is that Republicans aren't interested in stopping illegal immigration. If they were, they'd crack down on employers. Or at least make an effort to resolve differences with their colleagues in the Senate.

If you define progress by anything other than fear-mongering rhetoric, then this Congress is no more likely to secure the border than the Capitol Police are to stop an armed intruder.

Because this Republican Congress long ago abandoned the idea of purposeful governing, they slapped together these three immigration bills without concern for constitutionality or feasibility. No bad idea from a backbench right-winger was too extreme. If these bills became law:

Immigrants could be indefinitely detained at the whim of the Department of Homeland Security. Hey, it hasn't worked at Guantanamo, but why not try it on U.S. soil?

The Attorney General could order immediate deportation of anyone deemed to be a member of a designated street gang, regardless of whether members had committed crimes. In other words, hanging around the wrong crowd, at least in the eyes of Alberto Gonzales, would be a deportable offense.

Federal courts hearing immigration cases would be instructed that any relief granted to immigrants would have to be the ``minimum necessary'' and ``least intrusive'' to government agencies. So if the government wrongly jailed you for 20 years, you might get released, but don't expect any compensation for the loss of your livelihood.

They say that desperate times call for desperate measures, and the Republican Party is clearly desperate to cling to power. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4844, the wrongly entitled Federal Election Integrity Act. Like so many Republican window dressings, this bill might seem like a no-brainer to some. Only citizens can vote, so why not have them show their ID and prove their address and citizenship to reduce fraud? If only the real world were as simple as country club Republicans imagine.

What about students whose driver's licenses show their home address but who register to vote on campus? Nursing home residents who have been voting for over 50 years but whose documents are nowhere to be found? Low-income Americans who don't drive and have never had a state- issued identification? It's no coincidence that the people who will be disenfranchised by this bill are core Democratic constituencies. Powerful interests have figured out that there are lots of ways to institute a poll tax by another name.

What about reducing voter fraud, something we all support? It will come as no surprise to anyone who has run for office or worked in campaigns that there is little evidence of fraudulent voting. It's hard enough to convince most registered voters to go to the polls. What is the incentive to engage in voter fraud, a felony offense? In particular, there is little incentive for immigrants--against whom this legislation is targeted--to vote illegally. Voter fraud by immigrants is subject to immediate deportation without appeal. Do the sponsors of this bill really believe that thousands, or even tens, of immigrants would risk deportation to cast a single vote?

If anything shatters confidence in our election system, it is the thousands of votes that are not counted because of dimpled chads, electronic voting breakdowns, provisional ballot mishaps, three-hour lines at polling places, and the like. The Help America Vote Act, which was supposed to address some of these problems, has never been fully funded or enforced, and yet the Republican Majority wants to further restrict voting and create a new administrative nightmare for our states and localities.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, so that all Americans might have the opportunity to cast their vote in November against this desperate cling to power.

Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to the thousands of cancer advocates in Washington this week and thank them for their service and dedication. They have come to Washington to tell Congress to make concrete commitments to fight cancer, but instead of action, they get this useless resolution.

Cancer patients, survivors and advocates are getting nothing but empty words. It is all hat and no cattle. It is typical of Republicans' approach to serious problems in this country. I am surprised that they didn't try and land on an aircraft carrier and declare that cancer was conquered. I am offended that the Republican do-nothing Congress is bringing forth a do-nothing resolution as its response to fighting cancer.

No cancer advocate in our country should be appeased by this vote. The resolution is empty rhetoric and not action. And action is what is needed for cancer, for AIDS, for Parkinson's disease, and so many other diseases that impact our citizens and people around the world.

The sponsor of this resolution is offering a few platitudes that agree with the laudable goal of eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by the year 2015. I don't know anybody that would not subscribe to that. Maybe move it up to the year 2010, but I can't think of a human being that would object to that.

But how does this resolution achieve that goal? Does it increase the NIH funding for cancer research? No. Do the Republicans oppose that? Yes.

Does it boost support for the Department of Defense breast cancer research program? Not one penny.

Does it extend the expiring tax credit for research and development of life-saving cancer treatments? No. That, by the way, is something that a few Republicans support, but they can't seem to get it to the floor to get a vote. And they control this place. If they can't get it to the floor, who can?

Does it provide for stem cell research as advocated by the scientific community? No. They are pandering to a bunch of religious radicals and avoiding dealing with scientific research

that is needed to cure these diseases. They put their head in the sand and pander to political contributions.

The sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), voted to cut money for the Centers for Disease Control and early detection and prevention of cancer. This resolution doesn't restore that.

Does it expand health coverage to the nearly 47 million Americans who lack health insurance, can't even find out if they have cancer and, therefore, fail to get the preventive care available to them? No, it does not add insurance to one of the 47 million people without health insurance in this country, who, therefore, do not get medical care. It is the Republican way of all talk and no action.

This resolution is an affront to those who have traveled here from across our Nation to advocate better cancer care. Not only does this resolution fail to do anything to help eliminate cancer, but this Congress is taking us in the wrong direction. Led by the Republicans, President Bush and this Congress have aggressively cut funding for NIH. This year, adjusted for inflation, they have cut $213 million. Over the last 4 years, they have reduced the agency's purchasing power by more than 12 percent.

The cuts aren't just to research. Since President Bush and the Republican leadership have taken office, nearly 7 million people have lost their health insurance, and we all know that is the only way to get proper care. The President used the only veto of his administration to keep in place restrictions on life-saving stem cell research, and the Republican leadership in this Congress didn't have the courage to override that.

I guess I could go on, but I think I have made my point. I wholeheartedly agree we must do much more to eradicate cancer and other dreaded diseases, but I, like the American public, want action, not words. That is why I suspect the American public will join with us in voting for a change in direction in this Congress. We need a new direction. We need people who will put their money where their mouth is and will vote to take action that is so close within our grasp to help these people and not just sit up and preen and say, My goodness, we think cancer is bad. Let's do something about it.

I urge cancer advocates across the country to recognize this resolution for what it is: a pathetic attempt to play lip service to an issue that requires resources, not rhetoric.

You could replace the inheritance tax. That will give you enough money to fund many of these programs, instead of standing up, sticking your thumb in the pie, and saying, ``What a good boy am I.''

Let's get busy. Let's change the direction of this Congress. Let's change the leadership and get action toward finding a cure for cancer, not empty rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006, H.R. 5295. Although this bill seeks a noble end, protecting our children and their teachers, it gives me pause because it authorizes school systems to strip away student's constitutional rights.

All children should feel safe at school. All teachers should be secure while carrying out their mission of teaching our children. We all agree on this. However laudable these goals of safety and security may be, they should not be sought at the expense of the rights of our children.

School is not only a place where children learn math, reading, and writing.School is also a place where children learn how to be citizens in a free society. Being a citizen of this country means living free from the fear of unnecessary searches and government harassment. My fear is that when we expose our children to constant violations of their privacy through limitless drug tests and unreasonable searches during their school years, they will grow up to believe that violations of their constitutional rights are the norm in our country. The future generations that we will depend on to defend the Bill of the Rights may no longer know what those rights are. They may be all too willing to accept ever-increasing government intrusion into their private lives. In an age of warrant-less wiretaps and secret surveillance, this is not a risk I am willing to take.

In addition, this bill does not adequately protect the privacy interests of our students. In 1969, the Supreme Court said that children do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. Yet this bill is so vaguely and broadly worded that it potentially opens a ``Pandora's Box'' of 4th Amendment violations in our schools. This bill does not require that school officials actually suspect an individual of wrongdoing before searching them. Rather, it allows for searches if a school official thinks that his or her actions will help the school remain drug free.

I am worried that this bill will lead to instances similar to what happened in Goose Creek, South Carolina in November of 2003. School officials in Goose Creek suspected that a student was dealing drugs in the high school.

They then subjected 150 students to a police raid, and drug dogs going through student's backpacks. The searches occurred despite the fact that the suspected drug dealer was absent from school on that day. Not surprisingly, no drugs were found. Unfortunately, 150 students were humiliated by the school officials that are supposed to guide them on their journey to adulthood.

School safety is a vitally important issue. Children must be able to learn in an environment free from fear and violence. Providing students and teachers with safe schools does not require students to check their civil liberties at the door. The Bill of Rights envisions a balance between individual freedoms and law enforcement. That balance has served our country well for more than two centuries. There is no reason that such a balance cannot be struck in our school system. If we want safe schools we should invest in afterschool and mentoring programs. We should invest in programs that teach children how to resolve conflicts in non-violent ways. We should teach our children that they have privacy rights that follow them wherever they go, including to school. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to George Hagan, who is retiring from his position, held since 1998, as Trial Court Administrator, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Fremont Hall of Justice in Fremont, California. He has served more than three decades of exemplary service in the California judicial branch of government. Prior to coming to Alameda County, Mr. Hagan served in court administrative positions in Imperial and Los Angeles counties.

Mr. Hagan was Clerk of the Court and Administrative Officer for the Fremont-Newark-Union City Judicial District from 1977 through 1998. During this time, the court doubled in size as the tri-city area became one of the major residential and commercial regions of the San Francisco Bay Area. Under Mr. Hagan's administration, the court received the prestigious Ralph Kelps Award from the Judicial Council of California for an innovative traffic citation collections program which allowed the driving public to pay their traffic fines at anyone of fifteen Southern Alameda County branches of Fremont Bank.

He is past president of the California Association of Municipal Court Clerks. In this capacity, Mr. Hagan worked with the California Legislature on several key pieces of legislation affecting the administration of the state courts.

Mr. Hagan's service to others is noteworthy. He is past president of the Union City Lions Club. During his term, an entire civil defense field hospital, including three ambulances, was donated to three public hospitals in the Philippines. For his humanitarian effort, Mr. Hagan received special commendations from a host of public officials in the Philippines.

Mr. Hagan is actively involved in his local community, having served as founding president of the New Haven School Foundation. The Foundation, under his leadership, has raised thousands of dollars to insure the continuation of sports and fine arts programs in public schools. He is past president of the Washington Township Men's Club; member of the school board; past chairman of Mission Hills Christian School in Fremont and was instrumental in establishing the Union City Youth Soccer League. He is a member of the Lay Advisory Council for the Northern California Conference Seventh-Day Adventist Church and was a leader in the establishment of the Veterans Memorial Park in Fremont.

A retirement dinner is planned for Mr. Hagan on September 22, 2006. I join his colleagues in thanking him for his service to the courts and his community and wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act. I ask my colleagues: If you were considering illegally immigrating to a country, which would be more likely to keep you out: a fence, or knowing that it would be impossible to get a job in that country?

The answer is obvious. You can't tunnel around unemployment.

So why won't my Republican colleagues support comprehensive immigration reform that would provide a stable, legal workforce and harshly punish employers who hire illegal immigrants? Maybe they don't want to admit that we need some immigrant labor to make this country run. Maybe they don't want to offend their corporate backers who want to continue exploiting illegal immigrants by paying them low wages without benefits. Maybe they think the image of a fence will play well to their base in the upcoming election. Maybe they think it will distract voters from the fact that they haven't done anything to fix our dysfunctional immigration system.

Whatever the ploy, I refuse to go along. This is the United States of America--not the former East Germany. We don't solve problems by building fences. We can be smarter and we can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject this embarrassing bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce a Concurrent Resolution recognizing the independence of the courts of the United States, which I authored in response to recent ``court-stripping'' bills such as the Pledge Protection Act and the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. These bills threaten the foundation of American government by stifling productive discussion of social issues and undermining our system of checks and balances.

As explained in the resolution, the function of the Judiciary is to review the constitutionality of laws. It is thus undemocratic and blatantly partisan to use a procedural trick to protect certain legislation from being questioned in court. Not only does this indirectly violate the Constitution by devaluing the Judicial Branch, it also renders the entire document meaningless since constitutionality is no longer a standard by which all laws must be judged.

Moreover, as courts become functionally irrelevant when faced with certain Acts of Congress, minorities have no recourse and cannot challenge oppressive laws. The view endorsed by ``court-stripping''-- that a legislative vote constitutes the whole of American democracy--is myopic because it ignores that the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all, regardless of the whims of the majority. These rights must be protected by the Judiciary. I am sure my colleagues agree with me that the popular choice is not always the right one, and that a Congressional majority is not the arbiter of universal truth.

Discrepancies between Acts of Congress and the Constitution can always exist, so a body is necessary to adjudicate conflicts between the two sets of laws. Because courts fill this vital role and maintain American democracy, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a misguided resolution that caters to partisan politics more than it honors the victims of 9/11 and the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform.

The fifth anniversary of a national tragedy should be a time for bipartisan unity. But rather than follow the example of the Senate Republican and Democratic leadership and introduce a 9/11 Anniversary resolution designed to bring America together, House Republicans insisted on a divisive and partisan resolution.

Unfortunately, H. Res. 944 praises both a Patriot Act that undermines the most basic of our civil liberties and a hateful immigration bill that makes the provision of humanitarian services to undocumented workers a crime. It goes on to wrongly characterize Iraq as a ``front line'' response to 9/11 and ineffectually attempts to equate the distinct wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a single conflict.

I would have liked nothing more than to today vote to honor the selflessness and sacrifice many demonstrated on and after the attacks. I encourage Americans to make September 11 a day of national service. But I cannot vote for a politically charged resolution that celebrates policies my constituents and I vehemently oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have joined 202 of my colleagues in cosponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and I rise today in support of its passage. It is time to put a stop to a business that has been allowed to go on for far too long.

Many Americans have made their stance on this issue clear: a recent poll shows that almost 7 percent of Americans are in favor of banning horse slaughter. The slaughtering process is one that is shockingly inhumane--when transported to slaughtering houses, horses are crammed into trucks and may go unfed for as many as 28 hours. Animals that survive this ordeal often die by the captive bolt, an instrument meant to cause immediate trauma to the brain but is often used improperly, resulting in slow and painful deaths.

Those who oppose this law believe H.R. 503 will result in an overpopulation of horses. Yet the Department of Agriculture has found that 5,000 horses have been imported to slaughter plants since August 2004. As the Humane Society of the United States rightly observes, there would be no reason to import horses if we have an overpopulation.

Opponents of this bill have also warned that horses who would otherwise be slaughtered would not receive adequate care once they are transferred to alternate homes or rescue facilities. But horse rescue groups are required to abide by state and local animal welfare laws. California banned horse slaughter in 1998 and there has been no documented rise in cruelty and neglect cases. Similarly, there was no increase in brutality toward horses following the closing of Illinois' only slaughter plant in 2002.

There is no reason why the inhumane treatment of these animals should continue, particularly when our horses are being slaughtered solely for the purpose of pleasing foreign diners. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today to introduce a Concurrent Resolution recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Lambda Theta Nu Sorority, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter sorority established for Latina college women on the West Coast.

Lambda Theta Nu is a wonderful sorority. It has now grown into a well developed and structured organization that caters to the needs of Latina women in higher education. This sorority's B+ average grade point average among all its undergraduate members shows their dedication to academic excellence among Latina college women. Lambda Theta Nu prides itself on turning girls into women, Latinas into professionals, and students into graduates. Lambda Theta Nu's devotion to the Latino community and the positive development of its members should be applauded by all Members of the House.

The text of the resolution follows, and I urge my colleagues to show their support for this distinguished organization by cosponsoring it.

Recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the

founding of the Lambda Theta Nu Sorority, Incorporated, the

first intercollegiate Greek-letter sorority established for

Latina college women on the West Coast.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am going to start with three fairy tales, I had four, but my staff made me cut one out, fairy tales your mother would tell you.

One, if you didn't clean your ears, potatoes would grow in your ears. The second fairy tale my mother told me was if you ate too many watermelon seeds, a watermelon vine would grow out of your belly button. The third fairy tale is that this bill will do one blessed thing to help information technology.

I am not surprised that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spin every issue in a partisan way, but it is a shame that you are now using health information technology as a pawn to advance your bankrupt ideology. The promise that information technology holds to save lives and money is vast, but H.R. 4157 forestalls that promise.

It is a lousy bill. It does nothing. H.R. 4157 doesn't provide for the development of or the adoption of interoperability standards; it does not provide funding to help providers transition to an electronic medical records system; and it does not strengthen privacy protections.

It does do one thing: It weakens Medicare's fraud and abuse laws. My colleague from Louisiana on the Ways and Means Committee acknowledged in our full committee markup that if the fraud and abuse provisions were removed from this bill, it would accomplish nothing. Zip. That is a Republican who said that.

CBO says, ``CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4157 would not significantly affect either the rate at which the use of health technology will grow or how well that technology will be designed and implemented.''

The reason that it has no cost is it doesn't do a bloody thing.

People who I often disagree with, America's Health Insurance Plans, representing the for-profit hospitals and plans, wrote to us and said, ``The pending legislation falls short of its stated goals and will lead to serious unintended consequences for consumers. We have consistently shared these concerns, and cannot support the legislation with the following provisions as currently drafted.''

I don't know what my colleagues across the aisle think they are doing. We offered some amendments to address the serious failings of this bill and we were opposed on party line votes. Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Hayworth voted against adding funding so that doctors could afford to transition. These same people, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Hayworth voted against adding provisions that contain waste, fraud and abuse. They opposed setting a date certain for the implementation of interoperability and standards. And they opposed, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Hayworth and Mrs. Johnson, an amendment to make sure that people's private medical records were protected. Unfortunately, these amendments, all rejected on party line votes, would have improved the bill somewhat.

This does not have to be a partisan issue. The Senate was able to pass unanimously a bill that is greatly better than this bad bill.

I have spent countless hours reading and discussing this issue with physicians and other experts. I spent a day at the VA to learn about their system. On numerous occasions, I have reached across the aisle in an attempt to come up with some vision about how we might move forward.

Sadly, this is just a fig leaf, a political statement for campaigns that does absolutely nothing to improve the future of information technology, which is sadly needed by our medal providers. Indeed, it does harm to that. I hope we can reject this bill, come back after the elections when there is a better climate for bipartisan work and report a bill out that will do some good.

I urge my colleagues to oppose 4157.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen, who knows firsthand how important the issue is before us today.

Mr. Chairman I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who has been a champion on the issue of information technology.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, to close debate for our side, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip, who supports information technology, but realizes this bill does nothing to help it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act.

Were India to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the primary international tool for limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, I would gladly support the agreement. My district is home to a large Indian-American population, whose opinions I value and whose support I have long enjoyed. I regret having to disagree with many of them today.

But I am--and have always been--an ardent proponent of nuclear nonproliferation. I believe that the fewer nuclear weapons that exist in the world, the better. Unfortunately, America's unilateral agreement will encourage an arms race on the Indian subcontinent, promote weak export controls around the world, and undermine the NPT.

This week, it was revealed that Pakistan is constructing a new plutonium-production reactor that will massively increase its bomb- making capacity. Rather than adding fuel to the fire by offering India a deal that will allow and encourage it to also increase weapons production, the United States should work to end the production of all fissile material in South Asia.

A unilateral agreement with India could also undermine the cohesiveness of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. If the United States exempts India from nuclear nonproliferation controls, China would likely feel it appropriate to make a similar agreement and export civilian nuclear technology to Iran or North Korea.

I am aware that as part of the agreement, India has opted to allow some of its reactors to be inspected. This concession, however, is largely symbolic. The reactors that will continue to be off limits could make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. Furthermore, the precedent of working outside the NPT is dangerous. If India can secure the benefits of NPT membership without adhering to the treaty's limitations, other countries will have little incentive to remain in the NPT.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for non-proliferation and join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the AmeriCare Health Insurance Act of 2006. I am joined by the AFL-CIO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers' Union, Families USA, SEIU, the Universal Health Care Action Network, and the National Association of Community Health Centers in supporting this common sense solution to achieve universal health insurance coverage.

In my tenure in the House, I have been involved in many discussions about how to reform our health system. These debates tend to occur every 10 to 15 years when health costs rise to a level that attracts our attention. Unfortunately, the minor tweaks and threats of reform we have made in the past have not resulted in lasting change. As a result, we are spending more--and getting less--than any industrialized nation.

If history is any guide, we are nearing yet another health reform discussion in this country. This time, we need to get it right. To that end I offer AmeriCare--a practical proposal to ensure that everyone has affordable health insurance.

AmeriCare is based on the principles that the U.S. health system should cover everyone, be affordable, and be meaningful.

Eighty percent of the people who file for bankruptcy because of medical bills have health insurance, but their benefits do not meet their needs. Policies that are unaffordable, that discourage people from seeking care, or that do not cover necessary benefits are empty solutions.

AmeriCare builds on what works--both employer coverage and Medicare-- in an effort to dramatically expand coverage with minimal disruption to the current system. It addresses the broader issues in our health system overall, and provides an important marker for a renewed discussion on health reform.

For the past four decades since it was enacted, the stability and affordability of Medicare have helped millions of seniors and people with disabilities live longer, healthier lives. Because of Medicare, families have been able to save for their children's education rather than having to pay for their parents' health care.

Since the program began, Medicare's per capita costs have grown at a slower rate than private health insurance or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Providers, too, have benefited from Medicare. Without Medicare as a consistent payer, providers would not be able to offer the top quality care they deliver today. Indeed, uncompensated care for people who are uninsured or underinsured is pushing some providers toward the breaking point. Meaningful coverage for all makes good business sense for providers.

AmeriCare also recognizes the important role that job-based benefits play in our current health system. Under AmeriCare, people would continue to obtain health coverage through their employer--as most of us currently do--or they would be covered under the new AmeriCare system. Expanding insurance coverage to all will end the cost shifting that results from the high number of uninsured we have today. This could reduce premiums for job-based insurance by as much as $1,000 for family coverage, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Expanding coverage to all will also strengthen the economy and improve our competitiveness. General Motors recently admitted it spends more on health care than on steel; Starbucks spends more on health insurance than on coffee. The need to address health reform is more urgent than ever before.

AmeriCare is a sensible solution for our Nation's employers--many of whom are already meeting the challenge of providing coverage for their employees. I plan to reach out to the business community to begin a dialogue about how we might move forward with AmeriCare.

AmeriCare creates a new Title XXII in the Social Security Act. It uses Medicare's existing administrative infrastructure, but improves upon Medicare's benefits to address some of the current gaps in coverage, such as mental health parity, coverage for children, and family planning and pregnancy-related services for women. State Medicaid programs would remain responsible for long-term care, but AmeriCare would now cover low-income children, women, and others who currently receive non-long term care services under Medicaid.

AmeriCare is financed through premiums, paid 20 percent by individuals and families and 80 percent by employers, general revenues, and state funds. People with incomes under 200 percent of poverty would be fully subsidized, and premiums and cost-sharing would be phased in for those with incomes between 200-300 percent of poverty.

There is also a limitation on out-of-pocket spending to ensure that no one spends a disproportionate share of their income on health care. Employers could continue to offer their own coverage, so long as it is equivalent to AmeriCare. Payment of premiums would be reconciled at the annual tax filing in April.

Everyone in the room should be aware that there is an effort underway to reform our health system, but not in the way we would like. Republicans have been pursuing stealth reform for the past decade in their dogged determination to dismantle the employer-based system and force everyone into high deductible health plans, regardless of whether they open or benefit from a Health Savings Account.

Their rhetoric makes it sound like you ``own'' your health care. But what they really mean is that you are on your own. It's not just that you have to fend for yourself when purchasing health care, it's that for most people--especially the currently uninsured--the Health Savings Account is purely theoretical. Employers don't have to contribute to these accounts, and most don't.

The Republican agenda expands the class of people who are underinsured, putting both patients and providers at greater risk. More and more doctors and hospitals are being forced to act as bill collectors rather than care providers, and patients are saddled with debt and even bankruptcy because their insurance benefits are inadequate. For example, many high deductible policies do not cover maternity benefits. The situation will only get worse if we continue to allow high-deductible health plans to take hold.

Without the security of a universal health plan that covers everyone, each of us is at risk. For years we have accepted that people fall through the cracks in our health system. No parent should ever have to deny their child a lifesaving treatment because they cannot afford the cost. No family should ever lose a parent because their condition was treated too late.

We need a strong alternative vision for health reform. That is why I am putting AmeriCare forward today. This proposal promotes shared risk and responsibility, not individual risk and greater fragmentation. AmeriCare offers an alternative vision that is simple and straightforward, fair and manageable.

Our Nation is at a crossroads. Our legacy should be a future where our children are not saddled with debt, where they do not fear financial ruin due to an illness. Whether we build a healthy future for our children or not depends upon the decisions we make today. True compassion means offering real solutions, not empty promises.

Working together, applying common sense approaches that build on what works, we can ensure that no-one risks the loss of insurance coverage. All we need is the will to do it.

As we edge closer to our next discussion on health reform, we need to ask, is medical care a civic and social right like police and fire services, education, and environmental protection?

Or is health care ``you're on your own?''

This decision must be made. I hope I can count on my colleagues and our endorsing organizations to advance a shared vision for health reform by adopting AmeriCare.

Attached is a short summary of AmeriCare. More can be found on my website at www.house.gov/stark.

Americare Health Care Act of 2006--Bill Summary

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 continue to obtain health

coverage through their employer or they would be covered

under the new AmeriCare system, modeled on Medicare.

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.

Benefits: All residents of the U.S. and its territories are

eligible to receive benefits through AmeriCare. The practical

AmeriCare benefits package is tailored to meet the needs of

working people and their families, including: preventive

services; physician services; hospital services; maternity

coverage; prescription medications; mental health services;

affordable cost sharing and a realistic limit on out-of-

pocket costs.

AmeriCare provides additional benefits for children under

age 24 and people with modest income. Supplemental benefits

could be offered by employers or purchased through private

insurance companies. It also improves Medicare's existing

benefit structure to conform with AmeriCare, providing

streamlined cost-sharing and lower drug prices--without a

donut hole.

Financing: AmeriCare is financed through contributions from

employers, individuals, and states, all of whom pay into our

current health care system. Unlike today's system, however,

AmeriCare will save billions of dollars by utilizing

Medicare's highly efficient administrative infrastructure

that operates on a 2% margin. Requiring the Secretary to

negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry for reasonable

prices and expanding the use of health information technology

in the clinical setting will achieve additional savings. The

efficiencies gained from these steps will keep AmeriCare's

premiums affordable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House amendments to the Child and Family Services Improvement Act, which include reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. I would like to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Herger, the chairman of our Human Resources subcommittee, and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott, for their work on this important legislation.

This program does just what it says: it promotes safe and stable families. The amendments before you today guarantee $40 million in funding to ensure that States are able to recruit, retain, and train highly qualified and skilled child welfare caseworkers. This funding is critically important. These amendments are exactly the same as H.R. 5640, which the Ways and Means Committee reported last month. The funding included in these amendments is crucial to making sure that foster children are provided with high level services and safe and stable placements.

A 2003 GAO report highlighted the importance of child welfare agencies being staffed with the very best caseworkers. The GAO found that when caseworkers are well trained and have manageable caseloads they are able to conduct frequent home visits to assess a child's situation and ensure that child's safety. Skilled caseworkers are also able to make well-supported decisions that lead to permanent placements of foster children in nurturing homes. However, when caseworker turnover is high, agencies are not able to meet Federal safety and permanency goals. There is a very strong correlation between caseworker recruitment and retention and safety and permanency outcomes for children.

For Example, the GAO report found:

In Texas, due to caseworker turnover, an investigation into

alleged abuse was delayed by 3 months. By the time the

caseworker was able to make a home visit, the abuse could not

be substantiated and the child remained in that placement.

Similar occurrences took place in other states at which the

GAO looked.

Caseloads should not exceed 18 per caseworker, however the

American Public Human Services Association, APHSA, data

showed that workers were handling an average of 24 to 31

children each.

The GAO's survey of caseworkers around the country

indicated that a lack of home visits and inadequate

documentation leads to permanency placement decisions being

made without thorough evaluations of the adequacy and

appropriateness of the placement.

The GAO reviewed the Department of Health and Human

Services', HHS, Child and Family Services Reviews, CFSR. All

of the 27 CFSRs reviewed showed that workforce deficiencies--

high caseloads, training deficiencies, and staffing

shortages--contributed greatly to the non-attainment of

assessment measures, including timely investigation of child

mistreatment and facilitation of permanent placements.

In addition, in their comments on the GAO report the Administration for Children and Families, ACF, agreed with the GAO and stated that ACF's own research showed a direct relationship between the consistency and quality of caseworker visits with the child and family and the achievement of positive case outcomes.

Unfortunately, State child welfare agencies face numerous challenges in retention and recruitment of caseworkers. Caseloads are high, salaries are low, and training is minimal. To overcome these challenges, it is vital for us to move to provide States with the means to hire and retain the very best caseworkers. The $40 million included in these amendments will go toward solving the problem of caseworker recruitment and retention. Although $40 million is not nearly enough to fully address the problem, it is vital that we at least provide that much. The money will go toward ensuring that foster children are visited at least monthly by a caseworker. If States are able to accomplish this goal they will then be able to access additional money to improve caseworker retention, recruitment and training. The money can only be used for that purpose.

We have over 800,000 children who spend time in foster care each year. This body has an obligation to make sure that these children are in safe and stable environments. I urge you to support the House amendments and the opportunity they provide to improve the lives of tens of thousands of children.

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this one-sided resolution that condemns recent attacks against the State of Israel while failing to deplore Israeli violence against the people of Lebanon. Like the authors and supporters of this resolution, I support Israel's right to exist and denounce the tragic kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. I also appreciate the desire to marginalize Hezbollah. But Israel's disproportionate military response, which is decimating Lebanon's infrastructure and economy, and preventing the transport of necessary medicines into the country, is counterproductive.

As we are all painfully aware, the Middle East is a fragile place. Unfortunately, America's unconditional support for Israel is now tipping the balance in Israel's favor, facilitating a cycle of violence that undermines hopes for long-term peace. The latest back-and-forth threatens a larger, longer, and more deadly war, and underscores the failure of this administration to bring stability to the region.

Lebanon has a democratically elected government that is by no means safely ensconced. I fear that in an attempt to weaken Hezbollah, Israel will instead undermine a Lebanese government that is more autonomous and sovereign than at any time in the past two decades. Killing Lebanese soldiers, for example, will not help the Lebanese government limit Hezbollah's influence. President Bush and I rarely agree, but even he this week cautioned Israel to be ``mindful'' of allowing Lebanon's government to ``succeed and survive'' after the conflict

I do not agree with the President's refusal, however, to join the international community in calling for a prompt cease-fire. Nor do I appreciate this resolution's tacit approval for a lack of American diplomacy. Rather than back any and all actions Israel takes, the United States should act as an honest broker and pressure both Israel and Lebanon to show restraint. Diplomacy, not more violence, is the path to peace in the Middle East.

Additionally, I strongly encourage the United States to acknowledge the plight of Americans living in Lebanon. Yesterday morning, the Washington Post ran a letter to the editor by a constituent of mine, noting the administration's Katrina-like response to evacuation requests. The constituent's family would like to depart Lebanon, but has been unable to secure transport out of the country.

Finally, I am concerned that particular language in this resolution that all but encourages Israel to take action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Section Eight in particular sanctions ``Israel's right to take appropriate action including to conduct operations in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it'' As with the current violence, I would urge Israel--and the United States--to pursue a diplomatic solution in Iran.

I cannot vote for a resolution that condemns one tragedy while supporting another. I urge my colleagues to embrace the difficult and challenging path to peace rather than the reflexively simple march to war.