Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the President's request to spend billions more for this protracted war in Iraq. It's time to bring our troops home.

Next week we will commemorate the second anniversary of the war and U.S. occupation. Over 1,500 American lives have been lost along with countless numbers of Iraqi civilians. Over 11,000 Americans have been wounded. The world is still not a safer place. What have we gained?

I disagree with those who claim a vote for this bill is a vote to support our troops. I stand behind these brave Americans and believe they ought to have every resource to protect them.

How is it supporting our troops to keep them in harms way without a plan to win this war?

How is it supporting our troops when we continue to allow the Bush administration to spend hundreds of millions of dollars at will on no bid Government contracts with no oversight?

How is it supporting our troops when we don't provide for mental health services for those troops traumatized in combat?

For all of these reasons, I'm voting ``no'' on the President's $81.3 billion supplemental request. It is time for a plan to bring our troops home, not give the President another blank check.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how long has it been since we have really had any fun around here, and would it not be a lot better if we just cut out this leaking underground storage tank stuff; we are talking about a LUST bill. I thought we might as well get that on the record and endure whatever the smirks are, because it is really an important bill. It is not controversial. It is a straightforward extension for 6 months, and I got a smile from Mr. Speaker.

It is a 0.1 cent per gallon excise tax. It will go to clean up drinking water and the environment. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) for this bill and look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an excellent article recently published in the New Republic. It has been apparent for years that free market solutions will do nothing to ameliorate the healthcare crisis in our nation. This article, authored by Arnold S. Relman, M.D., the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, shows us exactly why market forces hinder, not help our attempts to reform the system.

In his article, Dr. Relman explains how free market approaches-- focused on consumer driven health care and individually purchased high deductible health plans--will only exacerbate the problem of the uninsured. The only thing that is empowered by these solutions is blatant discrimination against the sick and poor who will not have affordable access to care. We already have 45 million uninsured in this country, and according to Dr. Relman that number will only continue to grow if we continue down this dangerous path.

Dr. Relman proposes a solution that isn't politically popular but would fix the myriad problems in our current system. It starts with a ``tax-supported national budget for the delivery of a defined and comprehensive set of essential services to all citizens at a price we can afford.'' This universal system would rely on networks of not-for- profit providers supplying all the care covered under the national plan. A new federal agency would administer the plan, generating huge economies of scale and reducing spending by billions. This is the only real solution to our current crisis, and I commend Dr. Relman for taking a tough stand on this difficult issue.

It is with pleasure that I submit the attached excerpts from the article, ``The Health of Nations,'' for inclusion in the Congressional Record. The article originally appeared in the March 7, 2005 edition of the New Republic.

[From the New Republic, March 7, 2005]

Excerpts From: The Health of Nations

(By Arnold S. Relman)

In this past election season, our dysfunctional and

extravagantly expensive health care system was pushed off the

front pages by concerns about the candidates, the fight

against terrorism, and the war in Iraq. And yet the health

system's problems will not go away; sooner or later we will

have to solve them or face disastrous consequences. Over the

past four decades (starting just before the arrival of

Medicare and Medicaid), both the system itself and ideas

about how it should be reformed have changed a lot, but an

equitable, efficient, and affordable arrangement still eludes

us.

During the past four decades our health policies have

failed to meet national needs because they have been heavily

influenced by the delusion that medical care is essentially a

business. This delusion stubbornly persists, and current

proposals for a more ``consumer-driven'' health system are

likely to make our predicament even worse. I wish to examine

these proposals and to explain why I think they are

fundamentally flawed. A different kind of approach could

solve our problems, but it would mean a major reform of the

entire system, not only the way it is financed and insured,

but also how physicians are organized in practice and how

they are paid. Since such a reform would threaten the

financial interests of investors, insurers, and many vendors

and providers of health services, the short-term political

prospects for such reform are not very good. But I am

convinced that a complete overhaul is inevitable, because in

the long run nothing else is likely to work . . .

. . . In 1963, a seminal analysis of the medical care

system as a market was published in the American Economic

Review by the distinguished economist Kenneth J. Arrow. He

argued that the medical care system was set apart from other

markets by several special characteristics, including these:

a demand for service that was irregular and unpredictable,

and was often associated with what he called an ``assault on

personal integrity'' (because it tended to arise from serious

illness or injury); a supply of services that did not simply

respond to the desires of buyers, but was mainly shaped by

the professional judgment of physicians about the medical

needs of patients (Arrow pointed out that doctors differ from

vendors of most other services because they are expected to

place a primary concern for the patient's welfare above

considerations of profit); a limitation on the entry of

providers into the market, resulting from the high costs, the

restrictions, and the exacting standards of medical education

and professional licensure; a relative insensitivity to

prices; and a near absence of price competition.

But perhaps the most important of Arrow's insights was the

recognition of what he called the ``uncertainty'' inherent in

medical services. By this he meant the great asymmetry of

information between provider and buyer concerning the need

for, and the probable consequences of, a medical service or a

course of medical action. Since patients usually know little

about the technical aspects of medicine and are often sick

and frightened, they cannot independently choose their own

medical services the way that consumers choose most services

in the usual market. As a result, patients must trust

physicians to choose what services they need, not just to

provide the services. To protect the interests of patients in

such circumstances, Arrow contended, society has had to rely

on non-market mechanisms (such as professional educational

requirements and state licensure) rather than on the

discipline of the market and the choices of informed

buyers.

Of course, another conclusion could have been drawn from

Arrow's analysis (though he apparently did not draw it). It

is that medical care is not really a ``market'' at all in the

classical economic sense, and therefore that the basic

theories of economics are not relevant to the discussion of

the first principles of health care. But our society assumes

that market economics applies to virtually all human activity

involving the exchange of goods or services for money, and

this dogma is rarely questioned. Most economists would

acknowledge that medical care is an imperfect or

idiosyncratic market, but still they believe that it is a

market, and that it should therefore obey economic

predictions . . .

. . . In 1980, in The New England Journal of Medicine, I

described this changing face of American health care as the

``new medicalindustrial complex.'' The term was derived, of

course, from the language that President Eisenhower had used

(``military-industrial complex'') when warning the nation, as

he was retiring, about the growing influence of arms

manufacturers over American political and economic policies.

Referring to Arrow's analysis, I suggested that market-driven

health care would simply add to the explosion of medical

expenditures and the growing problems of inequity and

variable quality. I was also worried that this uncontrolled

industrial transformation would undermine the professional

values of physicians, which are surely an essential

ingredient of any decent medical care system. Financial

incentives were replacing the service ethic of doctors and

hospitals, as the providers of care began to compete for

market share and larger income. Yet competition on the basis

of the price and quality of services--an essential

characteristic of most free markets--was little in evidence,

demonstrating again the truth of Arrow's argument that the

medical care market was different . . .

. . . In an increasingly profit-driven and entrepreneurial

medical market, piecework payment for specialized outpatient

services stimulated an even greater fragmentation of medical

care and a greater use of individually billable items of

outpatient technological service. Less attention was given to

the continuity and the integration of care, and to preventive

medicine. Decreased payments to primary-care physicians and

increased pressure on them to see more patients reduced the

time that they spent with each patient. As a consequence of

all these developments, the quality of primary care suffered,

and the difference between the quality of average medical

care and the best medical care widened, even as per capita

expenditures rose and the number of uninsured and

underinsured patients increased. This quality ``gap'' was the

subject of a major report in 2001 from the Institute of

Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, which described

the many deficiencies in the way patients were being treated

and suggested how their medical care could be improved.

Unfortunately, the experts preparing the report were not

asked to consider how the system itself might be restructured

to facilitate the needed improvements.

And so we now live with a seriously defective medical care

system, based more heavily on market incentives than the

health care regime of any other country in the world. The

commercial tone is set by investor-owned insurance companies

(the major share of the private insurance market), investor-

owned hospitals (about 15 percent of all community

hospitals), and investor-owned ambulatory-care facilities

and nursing homes (the great majority of both these

markets). The behavior of many of the so-called ``not-for-

profit'' health care facilities is not much different from

that of their investor-owned competitors, because they

have to survive in the same unforgiving marketplace, which

is indifferent to the social values that originally

motivated most health care institutions. As for American

physicians, their attitude toward their profession has

also been changed by the new medical marketplace. To a

degree greater than anywhere else in the world, our

doctors think of themselves as competitive business

people. As such, they own or invest in diagnostic and

therapeutic facilities (including specialty hospitals),

they form investor-owned medical

groups, and they advertise their services to the public .

. .

. . . Our failure to address the glaring deficiencies and

inequities in our health care system is nothing to be proud

of. A growing number of people are losing their private

health insurance. There are now more than 45 million

Americans without coverage. Much of this is due to the loss

of good jobs, but high costs are also a significant factor.

The financial burdens of those who are insured increase

steadily, as hard-pressed employers reduce covered benefits

and increase the fraction of insurance costs being shifted to

beneficiaries. Rising health costs are threatening the

financial stability and competitiveness of many American

businesses, and are discouraging the hiring of new full-time

workers. The government is also shifting insurance costs to

Medicare beneficiaries, as exemplified by the recent large

increase in the premium charged for coverage of outpatient

medical services and physicians' care (``Part B'').

What really astonishes me is that so many conservative

business and health policy experts continue to hold an

unshakable faith in a market solution for our system's major

problems. They believe that market forces have not been

allowed to contain costs or to improve access and quality

because of government regulation, and because of badly

designed insurance that prevents consumers from playing an

appropriate role. They think that the consumers of medical

care in both public and private insurance systems have not

had enough influence on the supply of services and have not

been sufficiently involved in price negotiations with

providers. These days the ``free market'' is held to be the

solution to most social and economic problems, and it is

commonly believed that in health care the most important

missing ingredient of a free market is the traditional

consumer who has the incentive and the ability to bargain for

the desired price and quality of services. So it shouldn't be

surprising that the idea for improving our health care system

that is currently most popular is so called ``consumer-driven

health care,'' or CDHC.

The term ``consumer-driven health care'' is used to mean a

market for medical care in which patients, as the

``consumers'' of medical services, would have a lot more

responsibility for choosing those services and would share

more of the costs. In the most fully developed proposals,

providers of medical care (physicians, hospitals, clinics,

and so on) would compete for patients on the basis of

quality, price, and convenience--not simply for market share,

as they do now. Patients, like consumers in any service

market, would have access to all the information they need to

make their own health care choices. They would choose and own

their insurance plans. They would select not only their

health care providers, but also the particular

medical services they want. Since they would share more of

the costs, they would have an incentive to make prudent

choices and to demand higher quality. The net result, it

is claimed, would be a better, less expensive health care

system . . .

. . . The assumption of the CDHC system is that such a plan

would moderate health care inflation by encouraging patients

to become more prudent consumers of elective and non-

catastrophic health services, because they would be spending

money they otherwise could invest in their savings account.

It is also assumed that in competing for business, the

providers of medical care would try to make their services

more attractive to patients by improving quality and

convenience, as well as by moderating their prices . . .

. . . There are compelling reasons, I think, to predict

that they will not. For a start, high-deductible insurance is

not likely to produce reductions in expenditures, except

among low- and modest income families, who would feel

financial pressure to cut their doctor visits and their use

of other medical services. There is good experimental

evidence that high deductibles have such selective effects,

which expose the most vulnerable patients to greater health

risks. Higher earning beneficiaries would not feel such

pressure and would continue to use all medical services

freely. Whatever reductions in total expenditures might occur

would be achieved largely through reducing services to those

with lower earnings. Adjusting the size of the deductible in

approved plans to the income of the beneficiaries might

ameliorate that injustice, but it would add to administrative

costs and would be virtually impossible to do properly--given

the difficulties in making fair assessments of financial

need.

If people were allowed to select whatever insurance plan

they wanted, the inequity would probably increase in another

way. Healthy, young families would choose the least expensive

plans with the highest allowable deductible, and those with

health problems would be forced to choose plans with the

lowest allowable deductibles but higher premiums. The

premiums or the required co-payments of the latter plans

would spiral upward because of the greater use of services by

sicker beneficiaries, so it would become even harder for

those with the greatest need for insurance to afford

coverage. In this way, one of the most important values of

insurance--the sharing of risks over a broad population

base--would be lost. Adjusting the contribution of employer

or government to the health status of the beneficiaries has

been suggested as a means of avoiding this problem, but the

relatively primitive state of the art of risk adjustment and

the difficulty in applying it to families make this solution

unlikely. It also would add greatly to administrative costs .

. .

. . . The CDHC plans that are now being advocated by

believers in the magic of markets shift to patients not only

a large part of the responsibility for being their own

doctors, but also the burden of paying more of the cost--and

that burden would be heaviest on the poorest and sickest of

our citizens. This is surely a denial of the ethical

principle underlying universal coverage and the sharing of

costs. But the major payers, government and employers, are no

longer willing or able to shoulder health care's rising

costs, and so they are promoting CDHC. They may justify their

views by arguing that it makes sense to shift more of the

costs to patients because patients are in the best position

to put the brakes on health cost inflation. This might be a

reasonable argument if medical care were like other services

in other markets--but it is not.

For all these reasons, then, ``consumer-driven'' plans are

unrealistic and unfair, and they are not likely to be

politically viable in the long run. There is some

understandable support for the idea that individuals should

be more responsible for the cost of elective or optional

medical services, but most people believe that the

availability of needed services should not depend on ability

to pay. We are a wealthy society, and decency requires that

we make equitable arrangements to ensure at least minimally

adequate health care for all--a goal that is beyond the scope

of market forces. . . .

. . . When that time comes, we should be prepared to

replace a failed market-based system with a better one that

can deliver the health care we need. What kind of system

might that be? The question cannot be confidently answered in

any detail before the market-based system has run its course,

and before there has been some preliminary experience with

non-market-based models--perhaps at first in a few states.

Still, a few general principles and objectives can be

proposed now, based on what we have learned from our

experience during the past four decades and on what we know

about the essential nature of medical care.

First, since we cannot rely on the free play of markets to

control costs or guarantee universal coverage, we should

establish a tax-supported national budget for the delivery of

a defined and comprehensive set of essential services to all

citizens at a price we can afford. Employers should pay an

appropriate part of the tax for their employees. These

services should include both acute and long-term care, and

they should be exclusively reimbursed through a single-payer

national insurance plan, with other elective and non-

essential services paid out of pocket or through privately

purchased insurance. No services covered by the national plan

should also be covered by private insurance plans, but the

latter could insure services, such as ``aesthetic'' plastic

surgery and private hospital rooms, that would not be covered

by the national plan. There should be no billing by providers

and no piecework payment in the single-payer plan, thus

eliminating the huge business costs and the colossal hassle

of the present billing and payment systems in multiple public

and private insurance plans.

Second, not-for-profit, prepaid multi-specialty groups of

physicians should provide all necessary medical care on the

approved list of insured services. The physicians in the

groups should be paid salaries from a pool of money that

would be a defined percentage of the total patient income

received by the group from the central payer. The groups

should be privately managed but publicly accountable for the

quality of their services, and they should be expected to use

standardized information technology that could be integrated

into a national data system. They should be indemnified

against losses due to adverse selection or other costs beyond

their control, assisted with start-up and technology

expenses, and exempted from antitrust restrictions. They

should compete for patients on the basis of the quality of

their services. All groups should be open to all citizens,

although the number of members for a given-sized group should

be regulated to ensure an appropriate ratio of doctors to

patients.

Third, patients should be free to choose their own

physician group and to switch membership at specified

intervals, but everyone must be included in the national plan

and belong to a group--including politicians. (Lawmakers are

unlikely to neglect the needs of a health care system that

provides care for themselves and their families.)

Physicians should be free to join any group that wanted

them and to change their affiliation, but they should not

provide services outside the national system that are covered

by the latter.

Fourth, all health care facilities (whether privately or

publicly owned) that provide services covered by the central

insurance plan should be not-for-profit, and should compete

on the basis of national quality standards for patients

referred by the physicians in the medical practice groups.

Facilities should be paid, and monitored for their

performance, by the central plan. They should have no

financial alliances with the physicians or the management of

the medical groups. Teaching facilities should be separately

funded by the national plan and be paid for their extra

costs, including education. Budgets in all facilities should

include salaries for full- and part-time clinicians providing

essential services.

Fifth, the health care system should be overseen by a

National Health Care Agency,

which should be a public-private hybrid resembling the

Federal Reserve System. It should be independently

responsible for managing its budget and establishing

administrative policy, but should report to a congressional

oversight committee and to the public. It is essential that

the plan be sufficiently independent of congressional and

administration management to be protected from political

manipulation and annual budgetary struggles. . .

. . . Our present medical care system lacks the structure

and incentives to improve the quality of care. A not-for-

profit system of salaried physicians, who work together in

groups that have no financial incentive to do more or less

than is medically appropriate, who compete with other medical

groups only on the basis of quality and their attractiveness

to patients, and whose results are publicly accountable,

could be expected to deliver the kind of health care we need.

The quality of care would also be improved by a system of

competing not-for-profit facilities that are held to national

standards.

As for access and equity, the plan outlined here would

guarantee universal coverage for all essential services and

would allow employers and individuals to share in the costs

through an earmarked and graduated tax. The government would

be expected to pay the costs of today's uninsured, as well as

the contributions it now makes to government insurance

programs. Given the large savings expected in this system,

the change in net costs to government should be minimal. . .

. . . A real solution to our crisis will not be found until

the public, the medical profession, and the government reject

the prevailing delusion that health care is best left to

market forces. Kenneth Arrow had it right in 1963 when he

said that we need to depend on ``non-market'' mechanisms to

make our health care system work properly. Once it is

acknowledged that the market is inherently unable to deliver

the kind of health care system we need, we can begin to

develop the ``nonmarket'' arrangements for the system we

want. This time the medical profession and the public it is

supposed to serve will have to be involved in the effort. It

will be difficult, but it will not be impossible.

Mr. Speaker, as dean of the California congressional delegation, it is my distinct honor to introduce the newest Member of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Doris Matsui.

She was elected Tuesday, leading a field of 11 candidates with more than 69 percent of the vote, and I think that is just spectacular.

Just very quickly, Doris was raised in the small Central Valley town of Dinuba, California. She has pursued a life of public service and civic leadership ever since. She was deputy assistant to President Bill Clinton. She has put service to her community and Nation foremost in her career and has a deep commitment to improving people's lives.

She worked to give voice to concerns of children, the elderly and equality for women and minorities. As a member of President Clinton's transition team and during her tenure at the White House, she played a key role in developing important policy initiatives. She increased the number of public school teachers, expanded health care for children and made college more affordable.

Appointed by President Clinton to chair the Nonprofit Liaison Group, she worked to coordinate the efforts of the Federal Government and nonprofit organizations. She serves as a trustee of the Woodrow Wilson Center which seeks to bring scholars and public policymakers together on major public and international issues.

She has been an advocate for professional international exchange programs between the United States and 140 nations.

In all Doris' efforts, she had a strong partner in Bob, who would be proud to see her carry on the Matsui tradition of public service. We welcome the Matsui family, Doris' son Brian; his wife, Amy; and granddaughter Anna.

Both sides of the aisle have their own dean. I think the other one may be

somewhat older than I am, but he is still the dean; and it is my distinct pleasure to yield to the Honorable Jerry Lewis, the dean of the Republican delegation from California.

And now, Mr. Speaker, with a final note that the California Democratic delegation of 33 members is now 55 percent nonmale, I want to introduce our newest Member, the Honorable Doris Matsui.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of Wauwatosa High School in a Wauwatosa, WI, I rise to pay tribute to Myron C. Nutting, a mural artist, whose work has been restored and will be rededicated on March 6, 2005, at my alma mater.

Myron Chester Nutting was born on October 18, 1890 in Panaca, NV, but moved to Milwaukee in 1934 to work as an art instructor at Layton School of Art under the Federal Arts Program. Before coming to Milwaukee, Nutting had lived and studied in Paris with expatriate artists and writers whom history has been labeled as the ``lost generation.'' At the time, Nutting was considered among the top 15 Wisconsin artists with training both in America and Europe.

Nutting left Milwaukee in 1939, moving to southern California where his artistic life and reputation grew. He was a recognized portrait artist of many southern California clients, a critic and writer, and flourished as a lithographer, oil and water color artist. He died in Los Angeles in 1972.

Nutting had a close relationship with the controversial Irish writer James Joyce as evidenced by portraits he painted in the early 1920s of James Joyce's wife, Nora, their daughter Lucia, and the unfinished portrait of James Joyce himself. All three pieces as well as Mr. Nutting's other art work and personal papers are in collections at Northwestern University, the University of California at Los Angeles, the American Art Archives at the Smithsonian in Washington, and in dozens of smaller museums, galleries, and archives throughout the world.

With regard to his work in Wisconsin, Nutting was commissioned by Charlotte Partridge, State director of the Federal Arts Project at the time, to design and paint two oil-on-canvas murals at the then recently constructed Wauwatosa Senior High School. The work was started in January 1934 and completed the following June. The murals were originally hung on March 2, 1935, but were covered up during a renovation at the school in the mid-1970s. For unknown reasons, the murals were left unsigned. They remained covered up for 30 years until restoration work began 2 years ago when they were rediscovered.

On March 6, 2005, at Wauwatosa High School, the Wauwatosa Historical Society and the school district office will rededicate these two murals that have been beautifully restored in the main lobby of the school. These two 14, by 4, murals have been restored to their original museum quality and will be an important educational tool for the school's present and future generations.

More than 190 Wauwatosa High School alumni, as well as many members of the community, have donated more than $125,000 to restore these historical art pieces.

These murals remain the property of the Federal Government and will be registered with the General Services Administration's office of fine arts, which acts as a steward for the preservation of these art pieces.

I join in honoring all alumni, students, the community of Wauwatosa, the many volunteers who have worked for many months to bring these artifacts back to their former glory, as well as the artist, Myron C. Nutting, for all their contributions to work and restoration of the mural pieces. These are all wonderful contributions to the school's valued history and tradition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert (Bob) Harrison Glaze. Bob Glaze served honorably on the City Council of San Leandro, California from 1984 to 2004. He was the youngest Vice Mayor in the city's history.

Bob Glaze was born in Oakland, California, and moved to San Leandro in 1963. He is a graduate of Chabot College and Marina High School, where he served as Athletic Commissioner and Curriculum Council member.

Alameda County and the San Leandro community have benefited from Bob's activism and commitment to make a positive difference. During his tenure on the San Leandro City Council, he served on a variety of Council Committees, including Finance, the Cherry Festival, Quality of Life, School Liaison, Revenue Sharing, Long Range Fire Planning, School Safety, Technology and Policy.

Bob is an Alameda County Fire Commissioner and an alternate member of the Alameda County Transportation Committee, Alameda County Waste Management Authority, Association of Bay Area Governments and the Congestion Management Authority. He is a member of the governing board of the Associated Community Action Program and the Alameda County Training and Employment Program.

His community service extends far and wide. He continues to be active in all areas of Scouting, serving as Scoutmaster, Merit Badge Counselor, District Committee Member, District Finance Chairman, District Chairman as well as Exploring North Commissioner. He was 1993 Scout Jamboree Selection Chairman. Other organizations that have benefited from Bob's leadership include Washington Home Owners Association, Washington Manor Lions' Club, San Leandro Human Resource Commission and the Optimist Club of San Leandro.

Bob Glaze is truly an involved and model citizen. His commitment is exemplary. I join the citizens of San Leandro who will pay tribute to him on his retirement from the City Council and thank him for his countless contributions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 27, the so-called Job Training Improvement Act of 2005.

Today's bill has nothing to do with improving job training for our workforce--far from it. Instead, this bill actually weakens worker protections, opens the door to hiring discrimination, and dismantles the employment service program that helps unemployed workers find jobs.

Apparently the Republicans haven't monitored the weak job market numbers. How else can you explain being so cruel and unfair as to pull the rug out on our nation's unemployed?

Let me remind my Republican colleagues that there are still fewer jobs available in America than when President Bush came to office. Inflation is still growing faster than the average earnings of workers--a fact that is particularly true for low-skilled and low- income workers.

Confronted with such evidence, this Congress should be doing everything we can to bolster workforce investment. Yet, this Republican bill cuts employment and re-employment services at the time they are needed most. It underfunds the Employment Service, Adult, and Dislocated Worker programs by consolidating them into a single block grant. This puts a greater financial burden directly on the states, exacerbating their budget deficits and perversely triggering layoffs among the very state employees who administer these programs. Yet, much worse, it forces unemployed workers and welfare recipients to fight it out for a share of these limited funds.

To add insult to injury, the Republicans give states the right to waive basic worker protections that allow employees to seek redress when they've been treated unfairly. They even allow religious organizations to engage in hiring discrimination in an unholy attempt to turn back a half-century of progress in preventing workplace discrimination.

Current law prohibits employers participating in federal job training programs from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age disability, or political affiliation or belief. The Republican bill would allow the taxpayer dollars that pay for these job-training programs to go to religious organizations that blatantly discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs. What next? Will the next Bush initiative include allowing discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or political affiliation?

The vital civil rights provision barring federally-funded religious discrimination has never been controversial and has never been a partisan issue. In fact, the provision was first included in the federal job training legislation that former Senator Dan Quayle sponsored. It passed through a committee chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch and was signed by President Ronald Reagan.

Throughout its 23-year history, this civil rights provision has not been an obstacle to the participation of religiously affiliated organizations in federal job training programs. Currently, many religious organizations participate in the federal programs and comply with the same civil rights protections that apply to other employers.

But suddenly, under the leadership of the White House, we are being asked to forget the principle of equal opportunity on which our country was founded.

Now is not the time to be rolling back civil rights protections and it certainly isn't the time to be short-changing the unemployed.

Congress ought to be creating solutions to make it easier for folks to find jobs, not more difficult. This Republican bill is clearly not a solution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 27.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., to introduce an amendment to the US Constitution to guarantee health care as a right in this nation.

The current state of our health care system, if you want to call it a ``system,'' is bleak. Yet, Congress and the White House continue to ignore the problems we face, or worse yet, offer ideological solutions that only exacerbate our current ills. Making changes to the tax code will do nothing to extend high-quality health care to the millions who are left outside of the system today. I am frustrated, as many Americans are, with the lack of leadership on this issue. This is why I have come back to an idea I had more than a decade ago--to force Congress to provide health care of equal high quality for all by guaranteeing this right in our Constitution.

The problems we see today are the same that have been with us for the past century. While some claim that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, the high-tech medical technologies that are available to some in this country are out of reach to the 45 million uninsured--including eight million children--and millions more who are underinsured and cannot afford this care. Even when people do have health insurance, bare-bones policies with high out-of-pocket costs help force millions of families into bankruptcy each year. Access to ``the best medical care in the world'' shouldn't be determined by your income tax bracket.

And for all the praise of the advanced medical technologies available in this country, high-tech does not necessarily equate to high quality. Although the U.S. spends far more than any other nation on medical care, we do not have the best health status. Studies have shown that overall Americans receive the recommended treatment only 50 percent of the time.

Inequities in our system are not only based on what people can afford or where they live. Perhaps the most disturbing finding in recent years is the disparities in access, treatment, and outcomes that exist for people of color. It is unconscionable that the quality of health care may be determined by skin color, rather than need or proven medical practice.

An individual's health is the key to their ability to achieve the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that this nation was founded on. To ensure these rights are conferred, we must be certain that everyone--regardless of their income, race, education, or job status--can access health care of equal, high quality. Today, only prisoners in the U.S. enjoy this right.

Other countries--both developed and undeveloped--recognize the importance of health care and have guaranteed the right to health care through their constitutions, including Afghanistan, the European Union, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somali, and South Africa. Even the provisional constitution of Iraq--written in part by the current Bush Administration--guarantees health care as a right. It is shameful that the U.S., the shining example of prosperity and democracy throughout the world, still leaves so many people on their own when it comes to health care.

For more than 30 years I have served in this body as an advocate for health care for all people. Unfortunately, time and time again I have seen efforts to expand and improve access to health care squashed under the weight of special interests protecting their individual fiefdoms. I firmly believe that until all people have an equal right to high- quality health care guaranteed through the Constitution, their interests will continue to be ignored as those who profit off the existing system maintain their opposition to reform. It's time for a grassroots movement to put the interests of the people first! I look forward to working with the advocacy community to make the shared vision of quality health care for all a reality.

On a final note, I am introducing this amendment today to extend a specific right to all people, which is the purpose of such amendments. Unfortunately, this Congress is likely to consider other amendments to our Constitution that will remove rights and codify discrimination against certain groups of people. Our Nation's most sacred document must never be amended to set aside certain rights for select groups, while barring others from ever realizing these rights. I can only hope that my colleagues take their responsibility to protect equal rights for all people in our democracy as seriously as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this misguided legislation to limit the ability of average Americans to seek redress for injury and harm caused by corporate malfeasance.

Don't be fooled by the title of this bill. Congress is not standing up for the average American under this bill. It's not fixing inequities in our judicial system. It's making those inequities worse by giving the upper hand to big corporations.

I won't vote for this Republican-sponsored hoax. It unfairly threatens the very people we are all elected to protect. When the so- called party of local control makes it a top priority to move class action cases from State to Federal court, there's an ulterior motive.

Don't believe the myth my Republican colleagues want to sell you. Class action suits aren't frivolous. They allow average Americans financially unable to launch a judicial battle on their own the means to seek redress for injury or death of a loved one. They empower consumers to challenge wrongdoings by wealthy corporations who would otherwise ignore their appeal.

I don't think that the American public would be satisfied knowing that if this bill passes, the accountability of companies like Eron would be held less accountable. And the makers of

Vioxx and other dangerous drugs would be held less accountable.

It is truthful, law-abiding citizens who will lose if this bill becomes law, Apparently, in America today, we have government for, by, and of corporate interests and not the people.

I ask my colleagues to stand up for real people and vote against this shameful bill.

Mr. Speaker, people are dying because the drug industry is making billions marketing drugs they know to be unsafe. Today I propose a bill that will end this dangerous practice by increasing accountability for pharmaceutical manufacturers and their executives who withhold evidence of drug risks.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Accountability (PhRMA) Act would impose criminal penalties and fines on those who fail to disclose evidence of serious adverse drug experiences. It is unfortunate we need this legislation, but the only way to make manufacturers accountable for drug safety is to hit them where it hurts--putting executives in jail and imposing large individual and corporate fines for wrongdoing.

In the past six months alone, Vioxx has been taken off the market for causing heart attacks and strokes, and a new ``black box'' warning has been added to antidepressants due to increased risk of suicide in children. What's worse, evidence suggests the manufacturers knew about these deadly safety issues, but masked or withheld the information from consumers and the FDA because they were making so much money on these drugs.

Profit before public safety is the modern mantra of pharmaceutical manufacturers. These companies continued to market drugs that caused individuals to be severely physically disabled or die. While the companies have been civilly sued for their actions, their typical response has been to pay enormous monetary settlements that don't even put a dent in their outrageously high drug profits. Even worse, the manufacturers never admit guilt and require injured parties to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of the settlement, effectively hiding from the public the horrific tales of death and disability.

The PhRMA Act will put an end to this irresponsible corporate citizenship by placing responsibility for the knowing concealment of serious adverse drug experiences on the pharmaceutical executives who ultimately decide to place profits over people's lives. In the wake of Enron and other corporate accounting scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act created 10-year prison terms for withholding financial information from shareholders and regulators. The PhRMA Act would impose a minimum jail term of 20 years and fines of up to $2 million on executives who withhold information, proving once and for all that life is more valuable than the almighty dollar.

The bill would also require CEOs to annually attest that they have disclosed all evidence of serious adverse drug experiences to the FDA. Failure to meet this requirement would result in fines up to $100,000 per month for the CEO and $1 million per month for the Corporation.

Under today's fast track process at FDA, drugs are often approved with the caveat that manufacturers complete specified post-marketing studies of safety and effectiveness. Unfortunately, drug companies currently ignore these requirements because they know FDA will not revoke approval of a drug unless it is clearly unsafe. This perverse system actually provides an incentive for manufacturers to ignore required post-marketing studies so there is no new safety evidence available for FDA to justify a market withdrawal.

The PhRMA Act ameliorates this problem by requiring post-marketing studies to be completed in a time-period specified by the FDA. Failure to complete these studies can lead to fines of $5 million for each month the study goes unfinished. As always, FDA retains the authority to pull a drug from the market, but the PhRMA Act would give them an important intermediate sanction to make drug companies accountable for meeting their obligations.

The influence of the drug industry has infiltrated every aspect of society. The Bush Administration gave drug manufacturers a huge windfall in the Medicare prescription drug bill, the FDA bows to the industry while ignoring the science, and millions are taking unnecessary prescriptions because of TV commercials or doctors bribed by manufacturers.

The PhRMA Act can begin to turn the tide on an industry that continually puts profit and shareholder earnings above patients' lives and health. By holding pharmaceutical manufacturers and their executives responsible for the safety of their products we can ensure prescription drugs save lives, not destroy them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the so- called Broadcast Decency bill.

I am as concerned as any parent about the content on television. I do not want my young children or grandchildren exposed to programming that is unsuitable for them. Yet, nowhere in this bill is there a definition of indecent material. All this bill does is increase fines over tenfold for what the Bush administration deems to be indecent.

Our laws are only as good as the people enforcing them and I do not trust this administration to exercise the appropriate judgment without clear standards. I'm concerned they'll use this new enforcement authority as a Trojan horse to arbitrarily target programming they deem unacceptable.

I could not possibly give this administration more leeway to choke free speech. We have reached the point in this country where questioning our leaders is called unpatriotic and characterized as aiding the terrorists; columnists are paid our tax dollars by the Federal Government to spout the Bush administration's official propaganda; the very agency charged with maintaining a diversity of ideas on the airwaves wants to give free rein to a handful of corporations to control information; and where stations refuse to air the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' lest the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission might be ordered to find a sacrificial lamb to appease the religious right.

I do not support the rush to media conglomeration and I do not trust religious zealots to decide for every American what they can and can not watch. Since that is who this administration is serving, I vote ``no'' on giving them more authority to undermine freedom of speech.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join Congressmen Ramstad and Kennedy in introducing the bipartisan, bicameral ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This bill would help parents obtain necessary mental health treatment for their severely emotionally disturbed children without being forced to relinquish them into State custody to get that care. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Pryor (D-AK) are introducing the companion legislation in the Senate.

No family should be required to relinquish legal custody of their mentally ill child to a State child welfare agency or the juvenile justice system as their only means of obtaining desperately needed mental health services. Yet as Maryland resident Diana Miller recounted to me last year, State officials gave her this exact ultimatum when she sought potentially life-saving mental health care for her daughter, Erica.

Tragically, Diana and Erica Miller are not alone in their predicament. In April 2003, the GAO reported that parents in 19 States placed over 12,700 children in State child welfare or juvenile justice agencies in 2001 to obtain mental health services for them. We know that the nationwide number is even higher because 31 States did not respond to the survey.

According to GAO, these middle class parents find themselves trapped between not having the resources to pay for private mental health care and making too much money for their children to be eligible for Medicaid. Parents are therefore forced to choose between not treating their child's severe illness and transferring custody to the State, which has the resources to provide the necessary care. Families wind up torn apart at the expense of the taxpayers.

A Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law further elaborated on the situations that cause parents and guardians to give up their seriously emotionally disturbed children to State agencies. These situations include the following:

The family has either exhausted their private health insurance benefits, or their benefits do not cover required mental health services (e.g. Residential Treatment Program).

The family lives in a State or jurisdiction in which Medicaid services do not adequately address mental health needs, and agency placement provides access or priority status for entry into needed care.

The family lives in a State or jurisdiction in which children are deprived of federally mandated mental health services through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) as a result of an exceedingly restrictive definition of serious emotional illness. That is, these schools often label these children as solely ``discipline problems.''

The family lives in a State or jurisdiction in which the local child welfare system erroneously interprets Federal law (Title IV-E of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program) as requiring relinquishment of custody even for temporary out-of-home placements.

As all of these reports highlight, families are acting out of desperation to get immediately needed mental health services for their children. The juvenile justice and child welfare systems have become the mental health providers of last resort for far too many families.

Both the child welfare system and juvenile justice systems are ill- equipped to meet these children's needs. Even worse, the psychological bond between parent and child is unnecessarily disrupted. Their children feel abandoned and their parents feel guilty over turning their parental rights and decisionmaking authority to a State agency.

The stigma is real to families themselves and to those around them. Good parents don't have their children taken away. But, in fact, the need to relinquish custody in these instances doesn't have anything to do with parenting skills. It has everything to do with our system being broken and continuing to allow these children with significant mental health needs to fall through the cracks.

We have known about this problem for many years. In fact, I first introduced legislation in 1995 attempting to address this issue. Since then I have been working with my colleagues to educate the public and other members of Congress about this issue and to find a bipartisan solution.

Our legislation, the ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is the result of this bipartisan and bicameral process. Our bill provides new funding to States that are willing to develop systems that assure these children get the mental health services they need without pulling apart their families.

It provides $55 million over 6 years in new family support grants to States that are willing to end the practice of child custody relinquishment and cover all these children's mental health services under Medicaid, CHIP or any other health program of their choosing. These monies can then be used to improve access to mental health and family support services that keep families together. They can also be used to create Statewide care coordination programs and to deliver mental health care and family support services for these families.

Additionally, the bill establishes a Federal interagency task force. The task force will monitor the family support grants and work with representatives of affected families to make recommendations to Congress to improve mental health services and to foster interagency cooperation. The task force is also required to provide biannual reports to Congress on its progress in improving the delivery of mental health services to seriously ill children.

The bill also provides States with the option of moving children out of hospital-based psychiatric care and into home- and community-based care options, which will allow them to remain with their families.

The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is an important first step toward eliminating child custody relinquishment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this legislation so States can develop innovative new programs that address these children's mental health needs while keeping their families together. Once we've learned what has effectively worked at the State level to restructure these programs, we will need to return to this issue at the Federal level and enact broad legislation to end the practice of forced child custody relinquishment nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, last week, United States Marine Corps LTG James Mattis made public comments that were unbecoming of a military officer. As quoted in numerous newspaper articles and media broadcasts, Lieutenant General Mattis told a San Diego, California audience of 200 civilians that ``It's fun to shoot some people.'' Referencing combatants in Afghanistan he added, ``You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.''

Lieutenant General Mattis has no doubt served his country with courage and distinction as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. It is, nonetheless, inexcusable that, as a high-ranking officer of the U.S. military, he would make these callous and insensitive remarks that denigrate the value of human life.

Furthermore, comments of this nature reinforce negative perceptions of U.S. military actions abroad and have the potential to incite greater animosity toward our troops. The price to be paid for this irresponsible conduct cannot be exaggerated given the vital role support from the Iraqi people and the international community is to the success of ongoing operations in Iraq.

The U.S. Marine Corps Commandant has said that he has counseled Lieutenant General Mattis with regard to his comments. However, it is incumbent on our military's leadership to ensure that this behavior is not repeated on the part of Lieutenant General Mattis or any other military officer in the future.

It is critically important that a clear and resounding message is sent that this type of conduct will not be tolerated in the United States military. It is wholly inconsistent with the values we hold dear as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard enough in this day and age to protect my 9- year-old-son--or any child--from graphic violence rife in popular video games, which demean the value of human life and portray killing as just a game--an act without moral consequence. I suppose they make war look like fun, but tell that to the over 10,000 Americans who've been critically wounded or the families of the nearly 1,500 Americans who gave their lives in Iraq.

Now, we have a general from the field saying how fun it is to shoot people. I think that's wrong, its despicable, it's an unconscionable message to be telling our children.

It is time to put a stop to this unnecessary, obscene war in Iraq and the obscenities of generals like James Mattis, both of which demean and denigrate the moral fabric of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Safe Nursing and Patient Act with Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH). Assuring quality medical care and addressing our nursing shortage should not divide us on partisan lines. That's why I'm especially pleased to be working across the aisle with my friend from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, in this important endeavor. Senator Kennedy is introducing the companion legislation in the Senate.

There are some 500,000 trained nurses in this country who are not working in their profession. Of course, their reasons for leaving nursing are many. But nurses consistently cite their concerns about the quality of care they feel that are able to provide in many health care settings today. Nurses are also greatly concerned about being forced to work mandatory overtime.

Listen to these words of a nurse in the state of Washington:

I have been a nurse for six years and most of the time I

have worked in the hospital environment. It is difficult to

tell you how terrible it is to ``work scared'' all the time.

A mistake that I might make could easily cost someone their

life and ruin mine. Every night at work we routinely ``face

the clock.'' All of us do without lunch and breaks and work

overtime, often without pay, to ensure continuity of care for

our patients. Yet, we are constantly asked to do more. It has

become the norm for us to have patient assignments two and a

half times greater than the staffing guidelines established

by the hospital itself. I cannot continue to participate in

this unsafe and irresponsible practice. So I am leaving, not

because I don't love being a nurse, but because hospitals are

not safe places: not for patients and not for nurses.

While stories like this are telling, we also have a growing body of research to back up the anecdotes. Premier among these studies is a comprehensive report issued by the Institute of Medicine in November 2003 entitled, ``Keeping Patients Safe, Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses.'' Highlighting their concern with regard to this issue, the IOM headline for their release of the report was, ``Substantial Changes Required in Nurses' Work Environment to Protect Patients from Health Care Errors.'' Within the report, they concluded that ``limiting the number of hours worked per day and consecutive days of work by nursing staff, as is done in other safety-sensitive industries, is a fundamental safety precaution.'' The report went on to specifically recommend that ``working more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period and more than 60 hours in any 7-day period be prevented except in case of an emergency, such as a natural disaster.''

Another study published in the July/August 2004 Health Affairs Journal, ``The Working Hours of Hospital Staff Nurses and Patient Safety,'' found that nurses who worked shifts of twelve and a half hours or more were three times more likely to commit an error than nurses who worked eight and a half hours (a standard shift) or less. The study also found that working overtime increased the odds of making at least one error, regardless of how long the shift was originally scheduled. Finally, this article illustrates how nurses are being forced to work more and more overtime. The majority of nurses surveyed reported working overtime ten or more times in a twenty-eight day period and one-sixth reported working sixteen or more consecutive hours at least once during the period. Nurses reported being mandated to work overtime on 360 shifts and on another 143 shifts they described being ``coerced'' into working voluntary overtime.

As these studies show, the widespread practice of requiring nurses to work extended

shifts and forgo days off causes nurses to frequently provide care in a state of fatigue, contributing to medical errors and other consequences that compromise patient safety. In addition to endangering patients, studies also point to overtime issues as a prime contributing factor to our nation's nursing shortage. For example, a 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, Nursing Workforce: Emerging Nurse Shortages Due to Multiple Factors, concluded:

[T]he current high levels of job dissatisfaction among

nurses may also play a crucial role in determining the extent

of current and future nurse shortages. Efforts undertaken to

improve the workplace environment may both reduce the

likelihood of nurses leaving the field and encourage more

young people to enter the nursing profession . . .

We have the voices of nurses and the research evidence to prove that the practice of requiring nurses to work beyond the point they believe is safe is jeopardizing the quality of care patients receive. It is also contributing to the growing nurse shortage. Current projections are that the nurse workforce in 2020 will have fallen 20 percent below the level necessary to meet demand.

We have existing federal government standards that limit the hours that pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professions can safely work before consumer safety is endangered. However, no similar limitation currently exists for our nation's nurses who are caring for us at often the most vulnerable times in our lives.

The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act would change that. It would set strict, new federal limits on the ability of health facilities to require mandatory overtime from nurses. Nurses would be allowed to continue to volunteer for overtime if and when they feel they can continue to provide safe, quality care. But, forced mandatory overtime would only be allowed when an official state of emergency was declared by federal, state or local government. These limits would be part of Medicare's provider agreements. They would not apply to nursing homes since alternative staffing and quality measures are already moving forward for those facilities.

To assure compliance, the bill provides HHS with the authority to investigate complaints from nurses about violations. It also grants HHS the power to issue civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for violations of the act and to increase those fines for patterns of violations.

Providers would be required to post notices explaining these new rights and to post nurse schedules in prominent workplace locations. Nurses would also obtain anti-discrimination protections against employers who continued to force work hours for nurses beyond what a nurse believes is safe for quality care. Providers found to have violated the law would be posted on Medicare's website.

Often the states are ahead of the federal government when it comes to pinpointing problems that need to be addressed. It is worth noting that many states are considering such laws to strictly limit the use of mandatory nurse overtime. Several states--including California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia--have already passed laws or regulations limiting the practice.

This bill is an important first step, but it isn't the complete solution. I believe that standards must be developed to define timeframes for safe nursing care within the wide variety of health settings (whether such overtime is mandatory or voluntary). That is why the legislation also requires the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality to report back to Congress with recommendations for developing overall standards to protect patient safety in nursing care. Once we have better data in that regard, I will support broader limitations on all types of overtime. But, we must not wait to act until that data can be developed. The data collection will take years and the crisis of mandatory overtime is upon us now.

I know that our nations hospital trade associations will claim that my solution misses the mark because it is precisely the lack of nurses in the profession today that is necessitating their need to require mandatory overtime. Let me respond directly. Mandatory overtime is dangerous for patients plain and simple. It is also a driving force for nurses leaving the profession. These twin realities make mandatory overtime a dangerous short-term gamble at best. We should join together to end the practice.

Mandatory overtime is a very real problem facing the nursing profession and that is why our bill is endorsed by the American Nurses Association, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, AFGE, UAW, UAN, and UFCW-- organizations that speak for America's nearly 3 million nurses.

Again, our bill is not the sole solution. I supported the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in August 2002. That legislation authorizes new federal investment and initiatives to increase the number of people pursuing a nursing education. Such efforts will help in the future, but it will be years before that law's impact is felt in our medical system. And, it will take even longer if the President and Republicans in Congress continue to withhold the funding necessary for the act to be fully implemented.

We need to help now. We must take steps to improve the nursing profession immediately so that today's nurses will remain in the field to care for those of us who need such care before new nurses can be trained. We also need today's nurses to be there as mentors for the nurses of tomorrow.

Mandatory nurse overtime is a very real quality of care issue for our health system and I look forward to working with my colleagues enact the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. It will start us down the right path toward protecting patients and encouraging people to remain in-- and enter--the nursing profession.

Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to wonder if the Republican Majority was listening to the President when he called for the United States to act as a beacon of freedom for the world. For our first substantive legislation of the year, they would make it nearly impossible for victims of torture and religious persecution to seek refuge in the U.S. and they would get us ever closer to establishing a national ID.

We all accept that sometimes freedom must be sacrificed for security, but the 9/11 Commission itself said that these big brother, anti- immigrant provisions do nothing to enhance national security.

This bill makes changes to the asylum process and state drivers licenses, presumably to address the widely-reported anecdote that the first World Trade Center bombers abused the asylum system and had a total of 63 drivers licenses. However, you have to question the motives of the supporters of this bill when the asylum system was already strengthened ten years ago and the 63 drivers licenses are simply an urban legend. The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackers actually had 13, and this bill would not have prevented any of them from being issued.

So without making the country safer, we're going to deny refugees and victims of torture, rape, and other atrocities safe haven in this supposed beacon of freedom. I guess the asylum system, which is the most rigorous immigration process in this country, resulting in 30,000 denials last year, is not good enough for the immigrant-bashers. If this bill were to become law, an asylum applicant would have to provide documentary evidence of persecution. I hope that residents of the Darfur region of Sudan remember to grab their personal files as their villages are being burned, because under this law, the presumption of credibility would go to the torturers and rapists.

The bill would also retroactively make legal donations, even donations made decades ago, grounds for deportation of green-card holders who have lived here for decades if the organization to which a donation was made was later added to a government terrorist list.

The last section of the bill then goes after American citizens. The sponsors know that nobody would support a national ID, so they're just going to turn your drivers license into one without telling you. It'll look the same, but if this bill became law, all states would have to share all drivers license information in a national database, including identifying information, drivers' histories, and motor vehicle violations.

On behalf of the oppressed people of this world who actually believed President Bush when he said the U.S. would stand with them, and on behalf of Americans who don't confuse secret databases with security, I will vote No on this bill.