Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 344, which blames China for our dependence on foreign oil.

The Republican Majority has already sold the entire farm to foreign central banks and multinational corporations, and now they're trying to tell the American people that they're standing up for them by stopping China from buying a leftover chicken.

Mr. Speaker, where were these patriotic Republicans when the House passed an energy bill and couldn't even muster the votes to raise fuel economy standards on automobiles? Where were they when we passed trade deals and tax laws to make it easier for their corporate friends to ship jobs to China? Why has President Bush refused to stand up for American workers who wither against illegal dumping practices and an undervalued Chinese currency?

The American people need to know: as long as the Republican Majority and their corporate friends get their tax breaks and boondoggle defense contracts, they don't care who pays the bill. China, in turn, is happy to prop up the dollar and finance the debt because it gives them great leverage over the U.S. for years to come. No empty resolution like this or indignant politician can change that.

So why are we talking about China now when they have been stocking oil supplies and U.S. currency for years with no change in course from this administration? It's very simple: cheap Chinese imports and labor enrich the pockets of the people who really matter in the Republican party, but a Chinese company owning Unocal does nothing for the base. This non-binding resolution is a talking point for July 4th barbecues, just the way the Republicans will tell their constituents that they're making them safer by throwing billions more into the quagmire in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I have proudly voted for renewable energy, against trade deals that sell out American workers, and against tax breaks for millionaires financed by foreign governments. I support real economic security, and I will not support this sham resolution to give cover to my greedy colleagues and their corporate contributors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I join my colleagues in the House today to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005. This bill is also being introduced in the Senate by my good friend, Jay Rockefeller.

Mr. Speaker, this year we are honoring the 40th anniversary of Medicare, our nation's health insurance program for the elderly and people with disabilities. At the time we created Medicare, our nation's seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the market even if they could afford it. Today, as a result of Medicare's success, seniors are much less likely to be shackled by the bonds of poverty.

Now it is our nation's children who are most likely to be poor. Kids in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. This travesty is not only morally reprehensible, it also denotes grave consequences for the future of our country. Poor children are often malnourished and have difficulty succeeding in school. Untreated illnesses only worsen the chance for success. The future of our country rests in our ability to provide our children with the basic conditions to thrive and become healthy, educated, and productive adults. Guaranteeing continuous health coverage is a critical component of realizing this potential.

The MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005 assures that every child in the United States has health insurance by 2012. Modeled after Medicare--with benefits appropriate to children, simplified cost sharing, and comprehensive prescription drug coverage--MediKids covers America's kids from birth until age 23.

MediKids assures that families will always have access to affordable health insurance for their children. Parents retain the choice to enroll their kids in private plans or government programs such as Medicaid or S-CHIP. However, if a lapse in other insurance coverage occurs, MediKids automatically fills in the gap. MediKids is the ultimate safety net, available nationwide, with maximum simplicity, stability, and flexibility.

Many children's advocates and health care professionals who care for children are united in their support for MediKids, including: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Nurses Association, Consumers' Union, FamiliesUSA, the March of Dimes, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the National Association of Community Health Centers, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, and the National Health Law Program. I am submitting a sampling of letters from these groups along with my statement.

I can think of no better use of Congress' time than to provide health insurance to every child. While some are fixated on flag burning, Terri Schiavo and banning gay marriages, my colleagues and I are offering solutions to real problems facing American families. Providing a simple, stable, and flexible health insurance option will afford millions of parents the peace of mind of knowing that their children will be cared for when they are sick. Our nation's priorities should be centered on creating a bright future for our children, and MediKids helps to achieve this goal.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the many endorsing organizations to enact the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005.

MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2005--Bill Summary

The MediKids Health Insurance Act provides health insurance

for all children in the United States regardless of family

income level by 2012. The program is modeled after Medicare,

but the benefits are improved and targeted toward children.

MediKids is the ultimate safety net, with maximum

simplicity, stability, and flexibility for families. Parents

may choose to enroll their children in private plans or

government programs such as Medicaid or S-CHIP. However, if a

lapse in other insurance coverage occurs, MediKids

automatically picks up the children's health insurance.

MediKids follows children across state lines when families

move, and fills the gaps when families climbing out of

poverty become ineligible for means-tested programs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations bill today. This bill grossly underfunds key domestic priorities in education, health, human services, job training, public broadcasting, and the list goes on and on.

Appropriations bills typically include at least a slight increase in spending from the following year to make up for inflation, if nothing else. Instead, this bill actually cuts spending below last year's level by $1.6 billion. The cuts are so plentiful that it is hard to put together a concise statement highlighting my rationale for voting no.

President Bush and the Republicans in Congress proudly proclaimed their support for improving our Nation's education system when they passed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind law. Ever since that time, they've been avoiding putting the dollars behind that commitment. Today's bill is another example of this retreat.

The bill before us underfunds No Child Left Behind by $13.2 billion. It also goes on to freeze funding for after-school programs even though only 38 percent of eligible programs can obtain funding at these levels. It also shortchanges special education for 6.9 million children by failing to meet our government's commitment to IDEA. Head Start, a program well-documented in its effectiveness, fails to obtain the resources necessary for it to give a step up for millions of eligible children.

The bill is no better when it comes to important health care priorities. President Bush has gone out of his way to emphasize his commitment to ending AIDS around the globe. But, when it comes time to turn that sound bite into reality, he and his party turn their backs. This bill eliminates funding to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS and freezes almost all funds in the Ryan White AIDS programs which provide services to people suffering from HIV and AIDS here at home. At the same time the bill wastes $115 million on unproven abstinence only education programs.

This bill eliminates funding for HHS health professions training programs, slashes funding for public health efforts to increase preventive care, eliminates the Healthy Families Communities Access Program aimed at helping local advocates and governments develop solutions to cover the uninsured, and provides the smallest increase in 36 years for the NIH.

On the human services front, this bill fails to provide needed funds for child care. For the 4th year in a row, it freezes federal funding for the Child Care Block Grant even though millions of low-income families cannot afford adequate, safe child care for their children. It also cuts vital funding for low-income home energy assistance. And, it slashes funding for the Community Services Block Grant which provides funds to local communities to help them provide basic services to low- income families.

The provision in this bill that has received the most public attention is the provision to gut $100 million in funding for public education. I'm pleased that we passed an amendment on the House floor to eliminate that cut. So, we've protected PBS, NPR and other public broadcasting initiatives for now. But, make no mistake about it, the Republicans want to go much further than reducing funding. Much like they're working to privatize Medicare and Social Security, they would happily turn our airwaves--which are public space--over to the private sector as well.

These are a sampling of the many reasons I oppose the bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting ``no'' on the wrongheaded priorities of the Republican majority. Health, education and human services are core responsibilities of our Federal Government. This bill fails on all fronts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which proposes a Constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag, because what people do with a piece of fabric, however meaningful, is not worthy of Congressional intervention. Flag burning has as much to do with patriotism as weapons of mass destruction had to do with our invasion of Iraq.

This is not the first time the Republican Majority has sought to divert attention from otherwise pressing matters. This body could be focusing on providing health insurance to our Nation's 45 million uninsured, improving our public education system, addressing our swollen deficit, or any number of equally important issues. Instead we are mired in the issues of Terri Schiavo, steroids in professional sports and flag burning.

If we wanted to show our patriotism and support our troops there are tangible options available. We could focus, instead, on providing them with enough bulletproof vests, ensuring veterans have access to the best possible health care, and sending our troops into war only as a last resort. Perhaps if the members of this body were so concerned with a symbol of democracy, an effort could be made by our leaders to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards.

Mr. Speaker, how patriotic do you think the American people feel when a chief negotiator of the Medicare drug bill leaves Congress to become the head of the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group? How much pride in our democracy do Americans have when they learn that the President was planning to invade Iraq months before he bothered to tell them about it? How should the American people feel when they learn the Republican Majority votes to cut health care for millions of impoverished Americans and then boosts funding for no-bid defense contracts to Halliburton?

The Republican Majority consistently doesn't support our troops and has sold the government to the nation's wealthiest corporations; a debate about flag burning will not change these facts. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote to undermine our freedoms and make a mockery of our Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense Appropriations bill.

I cannot support legislation that throws more money at President Bush's quagmire in Iraq without the Bush Administration providing a withdrawal date or exit strategy. Even with bipartisan Congressional calls for this timetable, President Bush still has provided no such strategy.

The Administration also refuses to estimate the true costs of the war. The war has already cost $208 billion, including an additional $80.5 billion approved by Congress just this year. In fact, Congress was forced to add in another $45.3 billion for the war in Iraq in this bill, against the President's wishes. While the funding will only cover 6 months of costs, at least my colleagues across the aisle are willing to level with the American people as to the cost of the war even if the leader of their party is not.

As we all know, these additional funds are not helping the situation in Iraq. Insurgents continue to kill scores of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians and security forces. More than 1,700 young Americans and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. As long as the United States is in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency will continue to have a justification to carry out their savage attacks on Iraqi security forces and American soldiers.

I also oppose provisions in this bill that continue the Republican tradition of funding wasteful weapons systems. It appropriates $7.6 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense. This system has been proven to be inoperable. It seems like the real purpose of building this system is to provide corporate welfare to defense contractors rather than to protect American lives or make the world a safer place.

The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has not requested and military airplanes that are unnecessary and redundant. For instance, it adds $3.2 billion, on top of the $40 billion already used, to build 22 F/A-22 Raptors that were justified as necessary in order to compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters. Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as the ones the U.S. Air Force currently uses in combat. The recent conflicts in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan have shown the superiority of current U.S. fighters to other nation's combat aircraft. Not only is there no need for the F/A-22, the GAO adds further rationale for its demise by reporting that its costs have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than budgeted for by the Air Force.

Finally, this bill wrongly encourages the development of nuclear weapons. As we fight terrorism and nuclear proliferation overseas, it is reckless to believe that more nuclear bombs at home will result in fewer bombs abroad. In fact, expanding our own nuclear capability will encourage terrorists and nations, like Iran, to build nuclear programs to match U.S. firepower, thus making them more of a threat to U.S. national security.

I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons, continues to place our troops in harms way with no plan to bring them home and provides billions of dollars in gifts to defense contractors. I urge my colleagues to vote down this defense bill that does nothing to keep our Nation safe and, in fact, makes the world a much more dangerous place.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation for the outstanding service that Mr. Richard Price of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has provided to the U.S. Congress. In June, Mr. Price is retiring from CRS after 32 years of service. In his position at CRS, Mr. Price has been an invaluable asset to Congress both through his own work analyzing major health care legislation, and in his tireless efforts to guide other analysts in Health and Medicine unit.

Over three decades at CRS, Mr. Price has worked on or supervised work on most, if not all, of the major health care legislation that Congress has considered. Mr. Price is a recognized expert in Medicare and Medicaid, the major U.S. health care financing programs; his particular areas of expertise span most aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement policy, public health service programs and long-term care issues, including Medicaid eligibility and nursing home reform. His contributions to the development of legislation in these areas have been substantial. Through thoughtful analyses, balanced presentations, and clear explanations, Mr. Price has also helped countless Congressional staff understand the effect of the legislative proposals being considered. The importance of his dedicated support to the Ways and Means Committee when major health legislation was pending cannot be understated. We have relied on the CRS staff through the years both for analytical and technical assistance during consideration of major legislation and for help in writing up reports to accompany bills that move through the Committee and the Congress. Mr. Price has played a key role in these processes.

In addition to his own work on legislation, Mr. Price has been responsible for managing an array of CRS analysts who assist Congress across a broad spectrum of health care issues, including those related to Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Veterans Administration. In his position as section head in the Domestic Social Policy Division at CRS, Mr. Price was instrumental in building the health care staff of CRS into a large team of experienced senior analysts.

His service to Congress in the analysis and development of policy alternatives affecting the range of private and public health care programs, his ability to conceptualize complex public policy issues, as well as his leadership of staff who work on many varied and complex health care issues, set the highest standards for assistance provided by CRS in service to the Congress. I am grateful for his assistance through the years, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005. Sen. Mikulski is introducing the companion bill in the Senate. This simple, bipartisan bill would greatly improve access to mental health services for Medicare beneficiaries in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) by allowing clinical social workers to direct bill for their services.

This legislation seeks to correct a flaw in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with respect to Medicare coverage of clinical social work services to nursing home residents. The law omits Certified Social Workers (CSWs) from a list of clinical professionals allowed to directly bill Medicare Part B for mental health services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in SNFs. As a result of this omission, Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes often go without necessary mental health services.

Numerous reports suggest that mental illness is highly prevalent in nursing homes, with mental health problems affecting more than 80 percent of the residents. These mental disorders--including major depression, anxiety, and severe cognitive impairment of Alzheimer's disease--interfere with a person's ability to carry out activities of daily living. Furthermore, older people have the highest rate of suicide of any age group, accounting for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. Thus, access to mental health services for seniors in nursing homes is critically important.

Clinical social workers are highly trained mental health professionals and have been approved providers in the Medicare program since 1987. They provide 61 percent of mental health treatment in our country, and constitute the single largest group of mental health providers in the United States. Clinical social workers are also cost effective because they are paid less than Medicare's other mental health providers. They are reimbursed at 75 percent of the rate paid to psychologists.

Sadly, in many cases vulnerable nursing home residents have no access to mental health services when highly skilled CSWs are unable to bill Medicare Part B for services in SNFs. Rural and other medically underserved areas are particularly disadvantaged because psychiatrists and psychologists are often unavailable.

Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers were able to bill Medicare directly for providing mental health services to SNF residents, just like clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. Their current exclusion from this provider list is indefensible.

The ultimate victims of the current regulations are the vulnerable seniors who need mental health care. Mental health treatment works. Alzheimer's patients and their families can benefit enormously from psycho-education and counseling around how to cope and manage behavior problems. Research trials have repeatedly demonstrated that psychotherapy, either alone, or in combination with medication, can be effective in treating depression and debilitating anxiety.

The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005 again makes it possible for CSWs to provide mental health services in skilled nursing facilities. This legislation helps to ensure access to needed mental health services for the many Medicare beneficiaries who reside in skilled nursing facilities. This bill is a small technical change to existing law, but would have the enormous effect of improving the lives of Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes who are suffering from mental illness. We urge our colleagues to work with us to enact this important legislation this year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judy Goff who served, from 1999 to 2005, as Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Alameda Labor Council, based in Oakland, California. She was the first woman elected to lead a major labor council in California and was also the first woman elected statewide President of SEIU Local 535.

Judy Goff's leadership in the labor movement is exemplary. She has consistently supported labor solidarity by speaking at numerous rallies, walking countless picket lines, and being arrested for the cause of worker's rights.

She is a founding member of the Labor Immigrant Organizing Network, which initiated a successful resolution to change the National AFL-CIO policy on immigrant workers' rights. Ms. Goff has never hesitated to put herself and the labor movement squarely on the side of the downtrodden and oppressed. She is a staunch supporter of workers' civil rights. During her leadership, the Alameda Labor Council opposed police action against workers and protesters and was instrumental in changing police tactics and policy to insure safety and respect.

Increased diversity in the leadership of the Alameda Labor Council is another example of Judy Goff's consistent voice and steady leadership to represent the interest of all workers, locally, nationally, and internationally. She has devoted her efforts to improving labor education at all levels, including service on the California State Assembly Speaker's Commission on Labor Education.

In keeping with her ongoing interest of economic parity for workers, she spearheaded the successful passage of a Living Wage Ordinance in the cities of Berkeley, Hayward, and Oakland as well as the Port of Oakland.

On June 10, 2005, the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL- CIO will bestow its Lifetime Achievement Award on Judy Goff as Unionist of the Year. I join the Council and Ms. Goff's friends, family and admirers in appreciation for her many years of dedicated service and congratulate her on a distinguished career in the labor movement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this defense authorization bill. Once again, the Republican majority has pushed forward a defense budget that does nothing to make this country any safer.

This bill continues Congress' long-held tradition of throwing away billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. It authorizes $7.9 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense, a $100 million increase over President Bush's request. Yet, this unproven Cold War concept does not address the very real security threat posed by weapons of significant magnitude that are readily delivered in a suitcase or cargo container.

Developing new nuclear weapons, as this bill encourages, will not deter terrorists or rogue nations like North Korea. It encourages them to answer in kind, especially as the Bush Administration pursues its belligerent policy of preemption.

Further, as long as the United States is in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency will continue to have a justification to carry out their savage attacks on the Iraqi people and security forces and American soldiers. It is unfortunate the Republican majority continues to believe that throwing more money at the problems in Iraq will somehow slow death rates.

Over 1,500 young Americans and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed; the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is necessary if the United States is serious about bringing peace and security to the Iraqi people.

Whether or not those soldiers currently fighting overseas are active duty, National Guard or reserves, they all deserve the same access to health care. Unfortunately, this bill once again shortchanges our troops. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee unilaterally stripped out language in the bill that provided the same health care to our National Guard members and reservists as the rest of our soldiers. President Bush's war in Iraq has leaned heavily on National Guard members and reservists. It is only fair that we provide them--and their family members--the same health care as the rest of our soldiers; their sacrifice has been no less.

The American people may be surprised to know that even a defense bill can be used to advance the agenda of the religious right. An amendment to allow servicewomen to use their own funds to obtain an abortion at an overseas U.S. military medical facility was beaten back by conservatives who continue to prove they vote first, and think second.

How can we ask our women in uniform to fight abroad for the rights of others, when we prevent them from exercising their own constitutional right to choose?

I urge my colleagues to vote down this wasteful and irresponsible bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, accounts for what is truly required in Iraq, and provides the best possible support for all our troops. Nor does it alleviate years of Defense Department policies that discriminate against sexual orientation and gender.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hoyer and I rise today to honor Helen Foote, a woman of faith, family, a selfless spirit and infectious laughter.

Ms. Foote was born to the late Reverend Benjamin Collins and Henrietta Collins in South River, Maryland. One of eight children, Helen received her education in a one-room school and spent her free time like most children, fishing, hunting and picking apples from the trees in a nearby orchard. On Sundays, Helen and her cousins spent time learning the art of playing the piano. It was here, during those lessons, her already well-known laughter earned her the nickname ``KeeKee'' embodying the sound of her continuous and infectious laugh.

As she grew up, Ms. Foote developed a reputation for spreading joy both through her laugh and through her altruistic nature. Whether helping wallpaper her parent's bedroom, caring for her ailing mother or donating her time to her church, Helen Foote was the very model of selfless dedication. In fact, her benevolence eventually led Hope Memorial St. Mark United Methodist Church to name her Mother of the Year in 2004. And as a mother of five daughters, one stepdaughter, 10 grandchildren, 5 step-grandchildren, 9 great-grandchildren, 6 step- great-grandchildren and 1 great-great-grandchild, that award was well- earned.

The daughter of a Reverend, religion always remained a pivotal aspect of Ms. Foote's family life. At a young age she attended Chews United Methodist Church in Owensville, Maryland. In her later years she became a member of Hope Chapel now referred to as Hope Memorial St. Mark United Methodist Church. It was here Ms. Foote served as a Communion Steward, an Usher and a member of the United Methodist Women.

Today you can still find Ms. Foote doing the things she loves best: working in her yard, cooking meals for her family, rooting for her beloved Baltimore Orioles, and, occasionally, wallpapering a bedroom.

Helen Foote is truly a blessing to all she encounters. She is an inspiration, a foundation for the young and dedicated, and a distinguished and divine family woman. Helen Foote is truly a woman of strength and I am honored to rise today and honor her in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Our research policies should be decided by scientists and doctors at the National Institutes of Health and not by Karl Rove and self-appointed religious gurus.

If you believe it is morally superior to discard a single cell in a freezer rather than to use it to help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, and you are asked to donate an embryo, then by all means refuse to do so. But do not tell my constituents that we cannot alleviate their suffering because it might offend modern-day Pharisees.

Do not tell my constituent Don Reed and his son Roman, who is paralyzed from a high school football accident, that scientists working on stem cell research in California will not be able to collaborate with the NIH.

Many in government already think they have the right to tell you whom you can marry, what kind of birth control you can use and how you die. Now they think their moral superiority extends to the single cell level. Beyond my outrage at this arrogance, I am saddened by this country's precipitous decline in the estimation of the rest of the world.

If this bill does not pass and scientists of the world meet to discuss this rapidly advancing field, many of our key researchers will be stuck here working with the few stem cell lines that are considered inoffensive.

The Flat Earth Society will tell you that the U.S. has to show moral leadership, and just because the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community supports research, it does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership. I do not look to those that will not acknowledge the existence of global warming for scientific and ethical leadership. I do not think the politicians who so eagerly decided they knew what was best for Terry Schiavo know much about life, dignity, or suffering.

I stand proudly with millions of Americans on behalf of this country's tradition of scientific leadership, and I urge a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 810.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2361. This legislation is irresponsible. It under-funds programs to preserve open space. It endangers public health. And, it abdicates our responsibility to protect the environment for future generations.

In this time of increased growth and urban sprawl, our green spaces are more precious then ever. Instead, this bill eliminates funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, designed to help local communities preserve open space, protect wildlife and make recreation opportunities available in urban areas.

In addition, this bill cuts funding for the environmental enforcement activities of the EPA by $12 million. Republicans have consistently sought to weaken environmental standards and this maneuver is the latest in a series of attempts to undermine what have been successful environmental protections and the behest of big business. Big business should never be allowed a free pass to destroy the environment while endangering the health of millions of Americans who will be exposed to dirtier air and water.

I won't vote for this indefensible legislation that only serves to harm the environment and put Americans' health at risk. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and our environment and this legislation blatantly takes us in the opposite direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the pot is calling the kettle black. The Administration is chastising Newsweek magazine for a story containing a fact that turned out to be false. This is the same Administration that lied to the Congress, the United Nations and the American people by fabricating reasons to send us to war. The same Administration responsible for the death of over 1,500 American servicemen and women and countless Iraqi civilians; the same Administration which shields its highest officials from responsibility for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Under those circumstances, how can the Bush Administration, with a straight face, denounce a journalist for not checking all the facts before going public with a story?

Of course, Newsweek should have checked the facts more diligently before publishing their article. They made a big mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, we must keep this incident in perspective. Newsweek did make a mistake, but they had the dignity and honor to own up to it.

Unfortunately, I doubt the Bush Administration is capable of displaying such honesty. Instead, the Bush Administration focuses on public relations tactics to divert attention from their own incompetence and fabrications rather than focusing their energies on creating a plan to get our troops out of Iraq.

The hypocrisy of this Administration is astonishing and this most recent episode is, unfortunately, merely one example of many. Just yesterday Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in reference to the Newsweek article, ``People lost their lives. People are dead. People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be very careful about what they do. ``I couldn't agree more. People should be very careful about what they say and do; President Bush and his Cabinet, most of all.

Mr. Speaker, accountability and power cannot be separated. If the President accepts the duties and responsibilities of his office he must do exactly what he is asking Newsweek to do: he needs to tell Americans the truth about his own indiscretions in this tragic war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

At $82 billion, this is the second largest supplemental appropriations request passed by Congress. This is on top of an already bloated $400 billion defense budget. Instead of borrowing more from our children, Congress ought to instead stop wasteful spending on ineffective, redundant and unnecessary weapons programs.

A supplemental of this size wouldn't even be necessary if Congress dumped pie-in-the-sky missile defense programs, put a stop to the delayed and over budget F-22 and F-35, and ended the boondoggle Osprey that's unsafe for our troops.

There is, however, a larger, more fundamental issue here. The Bush Administration refuses to live up to the human costs of this ongoing war. Over 1,500 young Americans dead, over 12,000 young Americans maimed and wounded and countless Iraqi civilians killed in the continuing bloodshed.

The message of my vote against this bill today is clear. The immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is necessary if the United States is serious about bringing peace and security to the Iraqi people.

The continued presence of an American occupying force only intensifies the resentment, anger and distrust that fuels the ongoing violence against our troops. It's time to bring our troops home.

This message is lost on the Bush Administration. They've sought to establish American dominance in the region and to pursue regime change at any cost. They'll stay the course whatever the tragic consequences for the wives, husbands and families of our soldiers.

These brave young Americans face down deadly conflict in the streets each and every day. We honor their courage and service. But, for their sake, everyone of us in this House must consider the burden they bear. Is it worth it for them and for all of us?

America is not safer today two years after the capricious preemptive invasion of Iraq. Terror networks continue to grow and recruit in response to the US' arrogant preeminence in the Middle East.

Terrorism has been brought to the front door of America: waged mercilessly against our troops in places like Baghdad and Tikrit. That terror won't stop until we get serious about involving the world in solving this conflict.

We must actively involve Arab states, the United Nations and our major world partners in taking a stand against these insurgents--and in taking our place. A large, multinational peacekeeping force is the soundest way forward to end the war and win the peace.

The Bush Administration can continue to throw billions at Halliburton without real accountability. They can continue to look the other way as profiteering trumps genuine reconstruction in Iraq. They can laud its new democracy as one of the key foundations necessary to sustain it-- Iraq's economy--continues to flounder. The Bush Administration can do all these things, but the end of this war will not come any day sooner.

What America needs most is honest leadership and a clear strategy for Iraq. That's not reflected in this bill. Its just more money thrown at a crisis we cannot solve through force of will alone.

That is our problem here today. Congress won't force our President and his advisors to live up to their failure. We'll vote to give them another blank check without addressing the fundamental illusion of our Iraq policy: we can win the peace alone. That's a costly falsehood.

I urge my colleagues to take responsibility for the lives of our soldiers, Iraq's future, and the future security of the United States and the world. Vote down this bill. It is time to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, today, during Cover the Uninsured Week, I am pleased to introduce a bill to help nearly four million people age 55- 65 obtain access to affordable health insurance. I am joined by my colleague Rep. Sherrod Brown and more than 90 additional Democratic cosponsors in introducing the ``Medicare Early Access Act,'' one of three signature bills that offer attainable, common sense solutions for the uninsured.

We have 45 million Americans without health insurance--8 million of whom are children. Millions more are underinsured with paltry policies that exclude necessary benefits or charge a king's ransom for co-pays and deductibles. Increasingly, access to coverage and quality care in this country is determined by an ability to pay rather than medical need.

There are many approaches to addressing the needs of the growing population without health coverage in this country. As most of my colleagues know, I am an advocate of a universal health care system in which each and every American would have health coverage. That is the most fair, affordable, and sustainable solution to our national health care needs.

However, that won't be accomplished overnight. In the meantime, there are steps that Congress can and should be taking to develop immediate, if smaller, steps to providing people affordable health insurance coverage options. That's why we've joined together to introduce three separate bills that each target a specific population that is seeing its uninsured rate climb.

The Medicare Early Access Act targets early retirees; the Family Care Act, being introduced by Rep. Dingell, targets children and families; and the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act, being introduced by Rep. Barrow, targets small businesses and self-employed individuals.

The Medicare Early Access act would provide people age 55 to 65 with the option of buying into Medicare--a program with a proven track record that works.

Unfortunately, retiree health benefits have vanished or are quickly disappearing, leaving people with few or no affordable coverage options. Still, among the 55-65 population, it is more likely that someone who is retired will have health insurance than someone still in the workforce. Access to health insurance diminishes for individuals in low-wage jobs. Thirty-five percent of workers age 55-65 who earn less than 200 percent of poverty are uninsured compared with 17 percent uninsured nationwide.

Age rating and other underwriting techniques resulting in excessive premiums make coverage unaffordable. Those who are offered coverage are often required to pay astronomical deductibles and co-pays, or are severely limited by pre-existing condition exclusions, leaving them grossly underinsured.

In 1965, Medicare was specifically designed to provide coverage for those the market would not insure. Today we have the opportunity to expand on the original purpose of Medicare by providing access to people the market does not adequately cover. The Medicare Early Access Act would reduce the number of uninsured, provide better coverage for the underinsured, and improve the health status of this vulnerable population without harming Medicare or other insurance markets.

That's why the Medicare Early Access Act makes so much sense. It would allow people in this cohort to buy-into Medicare and enjoy the exact same benefits available to all other Medicare beneficiaries. Premiums for these new participants would be based on actuarial calculations of the cost of providing services to the population. There would be no effect on the Medicare trust fund because premiums will cover the entire cost of services provided.

To ensure premiums are affordable, the bill provides a 75 percent advanceable, refundable tax credit. Thus, participants would pay a monthly premium equal to 25 percent of the cost of the program--an amount similar to what employed individuals pay for their health benefits.

I am pleased to report that advocacy organizations representing consumers and seniors agree with us. The Medicare Early Access Act has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, SEIU, and the UAW.

This bill would provide affordable, comprehensive coverage to the most vulnerable uninsured who have few, if any, health insurance options in the current marketplace. The system necessary to implement this bill is already in place; all we have to do is agree the uninsured deserve viable coverage options. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact the Medicare Early Access Act this year.

Following is a summary of the bill.

The Medicare Early Access Act

The Medicare Early Access Act gives early retirees and

others between ages 55 and 65 the option of purchasing

Medicare coverage. Millions of near elderly who are uninsured

can benefit from a Medicare buy-in. This bill provides

affordable health insurance to a vulnerable population, while

protecting the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.