Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. This important legislation takes a number of steps to reduce medical errors.

In November of 1999, the Institute of Medicine released its groundbreaking report, To Err is Human, which raises serious concerns about shortcomings in the area of patient safety.

According to some estimates, as many as 98,000 people die in any given year from medical errors that occur in hospitals. That's more than die from motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS.

The costs of preventable adverse events are staggering. The direct and indirect costs of medical errors range from $17 billion to $29 billion. By any standard, that is far too much.

The Institute of Medicine recommended a number of options to help reduce medical errors, such as the creation of a Center for Patient Safety within the Agency for Health Quality and Research.

They also suggested a new system of reporting, and better use of technological advancements.

The legislation we are considering today incorporates many of the suggestions made by IOM, and will go a long way to help health care providers improve patient safety and prevent medical errors.

This legislation creates a ``culture of safety'' by encouraging providers to report medical mistakes. By reporting these problems, physicians and other providers are able to learn from their mistakes and prevent them from happening in the future.

This legislation also permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide to patient safety organizations and to States technical assistance with reporting systems for health care errors, to establish a process to certify patient safety organizations, and to develop or adopt voluntary national standards promoting the interoperability of information technology systems involved with health care delivery.

These provisions will go a long way in helping our hospitals and physicians offices a safer place. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope to see it signed by the President this year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This is an issue so important to some of us who represent districts in Texas and Georgia, and it is important nationwide because there has been legislation in the last 4 years that had a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives as cosponsors to repeal the offset for public employees, for teachers, firefighters and police officers. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was a cosponsor of the bill 2 years ago, and now we are gathering signatures again. It is a system that is wrong, and it needs to be changed; but in my 5 years, we have not had a chance to address it on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I know my colleagues talk about the 1 day as a loophole. Well, it may be a loophole, but it is also complying with the law. It is interesting, we are going to close a loophole and allow firefighters, police officers and teachers to go to work 1 day in a system that has Social Security and their retirement system and be eligible for Social Security. Yet we are willing to open up millions of loopholes for corporations to be able to walk through.

I regret to say Enron is from the area I am from in Houston, and they have not paid Federal taxes in 6 years. We do not mind opening loopholes big enough for corporations to drive trucks through, but for a school teacher who wants to get her husband's Social Security benefits because she has taught for 30 years teaching our children, we are closing up that loophole. They get penalized on their widow's benefits. We are talking about widows' benefits and not somebody that is double dipping, and I know previously that is what the committee wanted to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 743, and I hope that Members will look at it to change it. Some public employees are not covered by Social Security, and in Texas it is particularly our police officers, firefighters and teachers. Our school districts can be part of Social Security or not. The individual employee, whether they are a cafeteria worker or custodian or a teacher, they do not have a choice. All they want to do is serve our children, and yet they are getting penalized.

My example is the best one I can think of. My wife and I have been married 33 years. She has been a teacher in Texas for 26 years. If I died tomorrow, she would be penalized on all the benefits that I have put into Social Security. I have paid the maximum for I-do-not-know- how-many years. She would be penalized because she is a public schoolteacher in Texas.

H.R. 743 has a great many good things in it, but this is so bad we ought to have enough votes on the floor to be able to defeat it and bring it back without this provision in it, or at least bring it back and debate it fully on the floor with an opportunity to amend it.

Full spousal benefit ought to be if I paid into Social Security, my wife as a widow when I pass away ought to get the same benefit no matter whether she is a stay-at-home housewife or actually worked as a schoolteacher. We should not punish teachers and firefighters and police officers by stripping away this right unless we address the underlying problem of the government pension offset.

Closing a loophole, that is what the current law is. And in Texas I have a good example. I have a teacher in my wife's school district who was 73 years old. Her husband died in her early sixties. She was receiving his Social Security widow's benefit. She could not retire because of the cut she would take in her Social Security benefit from her husband. They were married many years so she was entitled to it. What she did, she went and worked in a school district that had Social Security and teacher retirement for that 1 day at 73 years old. How long do we want people to have to work?

It is just outrageous what the law has made people have to do. Teachers across our country are chronically underpaid. We give lots of lip service on the floor. Yesterday we passed a resolution about Lutheran educators. I am talking about public school teachers who teach our children every day. Is it perfect? Of course not. But this is the only thing we can do on the Federal level because teachers' salaries are set by the school districts and by the States. But this is something we can do to say we are not going to slap them in

the face. We are going to make sure that if someone is a teacher and has taught all those years, and their husband has been under Social Security and they pass away, and I say husband because most of the teachers are women. They are the ones in their retirement years who have less than we do as men, and yet we are taking that away from them. Again, that is just outrageous.

We find it harder and harder to attract teachers. Let us make sure if teachers are married to someone who pays into Social Security, they can get their widow's benefit without being punished for it. This issue is close to the heart for a lot of us in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my strong support to the joint resolution of both my colleagues, Chairman Hunter and also Ranking Member Skelton. I think not only myself, but all of us have the highest respect for our young men and women, and they deserve our sincerest gratitude, for the Armed Forces in our country do not make foreign policy, they fulfill the tasks that our democracy puts to them with skill and honor.

In my hometown of Houston and throughout Texas, many active duty personnel have been shipped overseas and Reserve and National Guard units are also being called up. The Houston-based 75th Army Training and Support Division has been completely mobilized for the first time since World War II. Just yesterday, the 17,000 strong 1st Cavalry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas, got the call to ship out overseas.

These men and women are not allowed to tell where they are heading or what this mobilization will lead to, but this is a life they volunteered for. The war on terrorism requires sacrifices for many, but the military is always on the front lines defending our national security. After September 11, the work required of our military has greatly expanded, and I believe they are up to the task.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell our Armed Forces that our hearts and minds and prayers are with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk with my colleagues on a very controversial provision within the Social Security Protection Act which the House will be considering on the floor tomorrow. This legislation includes a number of important provisions to defend Social Security against fraud and abuse, and ensure that disabled beneficiaries are protected.

Unfortunately, this legislation fails to offer any protections to an equally important population: public employees who suffer at the hands of an unfair provision known as the government pension offset. In States where some public employees are not covered by Social Security, such as Texas, the government pension offset reduces spousal benefits by two-thirds, and, in some cases, eliminates these benefits altogether.

This provision unfairly penalizes public servants such as schoolteachers, firefighters, and police officers who educate our children, protect us from harm, and care for us during emergencies. This is a particular burden for widows, especially our public school teachers who had planned their retirement benefits thinking they would receive a full spousal benefit, because their spouses did pay into the Social Security trust fund. The only way they can escape this unfair penalty is by working their last days in a job covered by Social Security and their retirement system.

Unfortunately, so many school districts and some law enforcement agencies in Texas do not have both their pension plan plus Social Security. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering tomorrow would prevent teachers from using this benefit, forcing them to work 5 more years in order to receive a full spousal benefit. In other words, they would have to leave their jobs at the school district which may not be part of the Social Security system, because in 1983 Congress allowed public employees not to be included, to then work for a school district that is both under the teacher retirement system in Texas and Social Security for 5 years.

We should not punish teachers by stripping away this right unless we address the underlying problem, the unfair government pension offset, the GPO. The widow's benefit is vital to many individuals in my district, especially public school teachers, who have worked their whole lives trying to educate our children. It is not by their choice that they happen to work in a school district that does not pay Social Security; it is school district decisions by the board Members.

I have received literally hundreds of phone calls and messages from constituents who are hurt by this provision. They planned their retirement thinking that they would receive a pension benefit or spousal benefit if their husbands or wives die.

Let us be clear: Most of the impact of this provision is on women. At the time they chose their profession, teaching may have been the best opportunity for females; but they retire, to find that they are not eligible for their husband's benefit, their widow's benefit, because they receive a public pension that was not covered under Social Security. By that time, it is too late.

I could give many examples of people who have worked many years teaching our children, working as a custodian in our school districts, or helping serve food to our children whose husband passed away and they find out, well, sorry, you do not pay Social Security, even though your husband did all those years, and now you do not receive but a very small amount, or none, of Social Security widow's benefits.

H.R. 743, that is on the floor tomorrow, will make it harder for teachers and other public servants to get the benefits they deserve, but it does nothing to address the unfair system that created this situation in the first place.

I encourage my colleagues to stand up for public servants by opposing this legislation tomorrow, and to work instead to eliminate the government pension offset, the GPO. I am a strong supporter of legislation introduced by my colleagues, the gentlemen from California, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Berman, which would eliminate the government pension offset and the windfall elimination provision, another quirk in Social Security that hurts public employees. That is legislation we should be considering tomorrow, but we are not.

I know my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), has been a champion on this issue and is planning on introducing legislation which would provide a remedy for the government offset. We should consider these bills before we consider H.R. 743.

I urge my colleagues and the leadership to act on these bills and finally solve the government pension offset problem.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, there are few decisions more difficult than the one we are making today. If it were simply a debate about human cloning, I doubt that we would have one vote for it. I think the vote would be 435 to zero.

I think we are all troubled by the recent media reports by the Raelians about attempting to clone a human being. Human cloning is a horrifying practice that should be banned, and people like the Raelians should be stopped.

But this legislation is more than human cloning. There is an exciting field of research known as therapeutic cloning that can potentially cure diseases and conditions such as diabetes,

Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, organ failure, Alzheimer's, and other life-threatening illnesses. Who of us has not had a constituent or family member touched by one of these illnesses so that we would be willing to do whatever research possible to end their suffering?

We have heard amazing testimony from scientific experts who have made a compelling case for therapeutic cloning. They tell me that individuals currently receiving organ transplants may endure toxic immunosuppressive drugs in order to stay alive; but by cloning tissues and organs, nerve cells and other cells, we can provide a genetic duplicate that the body would not reject. If this technology is developed, we could cure any disease that involves the damage or deterioration of tissues and cells. There are very few diseases that do not fall in this category. This is the most promising approach for millions of Americans whose suffering could end if therapeutic cloning is allowed. That is why I support the Greenwood substitute.

Many oppose cloning because they believe it is not allowed in their religious beliefs. The Greenwood substitute prohibits human cloning but it allows for our God-given intelligence to make our world a healthier and safer and less painful place.

As Christians, I hope that is our mission and our prayer, to eliminate human suffering. That is why I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Greenwood substitute and give hope to these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally give 1 minutes any more, but after hearing my colleague from the Republican side talk about it, I shall.

I was home most of last week and talked with my constituents about the President's proposed tax cut. One of the things that I think bothers a lot of folks is if we eliminate the so-called double taxation, we have double taxation in lots of areas in our country, but if we eliminate double taxation, the double taxation is a good issue, but it is just patently wrong for a person in my district who makes $60,000 a year working at a chemical plant or refinery, because they work 40 hours a week and maybe overtime to pay their tax rates. For somebody to sit home and clip coupons because maybe they inherited that and they make $60,000 a year, to say I am sorry, you do not have to pay taxes on that is wrong. Income is income.

Now, I agree that I would like to increase the dividend deduction so we can help smaller investors, but, again, abolishing the dividend tax, which is half the President's plan, is just patently wrong for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution which recognizes December 21 1960, the date when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

The Pilgrims were Dutch and English citizens who sought to escape the religious persecution and economic problems of their time by immigrating to the New World. Their voyage was one of discovery and an enduring quest for freedom that began by boarding the Mayflower. After a difficult journey across the Atlantic, the pilgrims arrived prepared to create a new society modeled on freedom. The many months of hardship and deprivation was rewarded with their arrival at the New World. When land was sighted on November 9, 1620, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact, which ensured the equality of every person. This pact laid the foundation and moral framework for the future United States of America.

When the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, they faced harsh conditions. It was too cold to plant crops and many died due to exposure, disease and starvation. It was not until the spring when the Pilgrims and Native Americans came together as a community teaching each other survival skills and agriculture that life gradually improved.

During the War of Independence, residents of Plymouth, Massachusetts began celebrating the historic landing at Plymouth Rock. It began as a feast that the descendents of the original pilgrims celebrated and eventually grew into a town festival. The festival continued through the years until President Abraham Lincoln started celebrating it in the White House during the Civil War.

In 1941, Congress passed a Joint resolution that ``Thanksgiving'' should fall on the fourth Thursday in November but not until now has Congress had the opportunity to commend the actual date the Pilgrims landed.

Please join me in commemorating the first of many steps that crafted this great nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Ms. Woolsey), my former colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for yielding me this time.

I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 4, the so-called Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. How our names sometimes get in the way! H.R. 4 is not the solution to what we need to do. There has been success in lowering welfare rolls since 1996, but it was the good economy that did this, not welfare reform; and I would love to see numbers for welfare recipients for 2002 instead of just going back to when our economy took the dip in 2001.

We all know that education is the silver bullet and it is the key that helps individuals find higher-paying jobs which lift them out of poverty and achieve the American dream, but this bill makes the same mistakes as its predecessor by limiting recipients' access to education and training. Without these services, welfare beneficiaries are trapped in those low-paying jobs. The best solution to welfare is a job that pays a decent wage. This legislation will also have disastrous effects on our State budgets because it imposes strict new requirements but provides absolutely no funding. For example, it increases the work requirements to 70 percent, which philosophically I do not mind; but currently in my home State of Texas it is struggling to maintain its participation at 26 percent. It will cost the State of Texas $688 million when we already have a $12 billion shortfall.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sales Tax Equitability Act, important legislation which would eliminate the discrimination faced by individuals who live in States that have no income tax.

Under current law, individuals can deduct their State income tax from their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, in many States like Texas, which has no State income tax, residents are not eligible for this deduction. Even though they pay State sales taxes that are equitable to income taxes in other States, these individuals are penalized because they don't pay a State income tax. This situation is patently unfair.

The legislation I am introducing today would allow residents of States with no income tax to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax. This legislation would provide fairness for all Americans by ensuring that, in States where there is no income tax, State and local sales taxes are treated the same as income taxes.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I first would like to thank my California colleague for those kind words for Texans. Texans, as you noticed yesterday, did take the loss of the Columbia to our heart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my neighbor.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, from the pioneering Mercury missions, to the Apollo voyages to the moon, to the construction of the revolutionary International Space Station, America's astronauts have boldly gone where no man has gone before. Our scientific understanding, quality of life, and ability to imagine a better future have been greatly increased by the brave men and women who volunteer and are selected for these difficult missions.

In my hometown of Houston, Space City, Texas, NASA's astronauts and employees are part of the family. They are our neighbors and friends, they help us educate and motivate our schoolchildren, they attend our churches with us, and they serve as role models in our community.

Since 1997, I have had the privilege of having NASA astronauts visit middle schools in my congressional district. These visits are meant to encourage students to take math and science classes and to consider our space program as a career opportunity. I have been fortunate to get to know Dr. Ellen Ochoa, the first Hispanic woman astronaut, Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, the most traveled astronaut in NASA history and Dr. Danny Olivas, one of the newest astronauts. I believe that all students need to have access to roll models like Dr. Ochoa, Dr. Chang-Diaz, and Dr. Olivas.

Individuals who proudly brave the dangerous conditions of spaceflight in pursuit of technology and scientific research to improve life on earth deserve our highest respect. Along with our other heroes of space exploration Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon will not be forgotten for making the ultimate sacrifice.

NASA and Congress will have to do the hard work and ask the hard questions to determine what went wrong and why from both on the shuttle itself, and within NASA's management and operations. Then we must take the required action and devote the required resources to improving the safety of our astronauts.

Improving safety may or may not require more money, but the NASA budget is extremely small within the federal budget. If safety funding needs to be bumped up, so be it, but it should not come at the expense of the other valuable activities at NASA.

I wish to express my deep respect for those brave men and women we lost this Saturday and to extend my heartfelt sympathy to their family, friends, and fellow astronauts. They have touched many in Houston, Texas, our Nation, and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) control the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is vitally important to ensure that states can provide quality health care to uninsured children.

On October 1st of last year, states with unspent federal funding allocation were forced to return those amounts back to the U.S. Treasury. These funds are from the early years of the CHIP program, and were unspent because it took many states several years to develop and implement their CHIP programs.

Unfortunately, we are cutting these funds at a time when they will be needed most. Under the Balanced Budget Act, CHIP funding was reduced by $1 billion, or 26 percent in fiscal year 2002, and is slated to remain at this reduced level until fiscal year 2004. States that had been able to draw on unspent funds in order to avert cutbacks will now have to start eliminating services. As a result of this problem, the Office of Management and Budget estimates that 900,000 children will lose their CHIP coverage.

This is a particular problem in my home state of Texas. Even though Texas has enrolled and provides coverage to over 500,000 children, the state was forced to return $285 million at the end of fiscal year 2002. This is especially problematic, as the state is facing a budget shortfall of approximately $5 billion.

The legislation I am introducing would restore $1.2 billion in unspent funds under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This is a necessary move to ensure that our children have access to the health care they need. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Life Insurance Employee Notification Act of the LIEN Act for short. As a strong supporter of the American worker, I am here on the floor reintroducing legislation to stop American companies from profiting in the deaths of their employees. Last year, over 50 of my colleagues joined me as cosponsors on this important consumer protection legislation. Excellent investigative reporting by the Houston Chronicle brought this unsavory insurance practice to my attention. Businesses operating in Texas are purchasing secret life insurance policies on their employees without their knowledge or consent. These policies are known as Corporate-owned Life Insurance or COLI.

Unfortunately, they also have another name ``dead peasant policies.'' They are called dead peasant policies because these Corporate-owned Life Insurance policies are usually purchased for the rank-and-file employees and not the CEO, CFO, or the Board of Directors. Executive Insurance or ``Key Man Insurance'' is the norm in corporate America and I have no problem with that because it is disclosed to investors and the individual. Dead peasant policies, on the other hand, are not disclosed to the low-level employee because he or she is not eligible to collect the death benefit. This failure to notify the ownership of the death benefit is the crux of the problem.

American companies are purchasing secret life insurance on the chance that one of their employees dies and they can collect the six figure death benefit. These companies have created a death derivative. In a large company with thousands of employees, economic modeling can be done to predict how many policies will be collected on in a given year. This blood money can be used for whatever the company wants, but most importantly it is rarely used to compensate the families of the dead employee. While I find the use of life insurance in this manner offensive, I understand it is not illegal and is in fact condoned in many states; Texas is not one of them.

The LIEN Act is a sunshine bill that forces companies to disclose to the employee that a dead peasant policy has been purchased in their name. In addition, it requires the company to provide the name of the insurer, the benefit amount, and under whose name the policy is in.

I do not want to ban this practice, but simply provide workers with more information about what the employer is doing on their behalf. As we saw with Enron, corporations often do not provide pertinent financial information to their employees. I am frankly disgusted with this whole practice and am amazed that this all began as a simple tax dodge worth billions of dollars. In the mid 1990s, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the classification of these policies as a legitimate business expense for the purpose of reducing their federal tax obligation.

I urge my colleagues to again cosponsor this important legislation protecting all hard working Americans from dead peasant insurance.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a simple piece of legislation making 3 new changes to the way that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) reviews rail construction projects, particularly when in residential areas.

I am introducing this legislation following the frustration I have experienced dealing with the STB on a matter of great importance to thousands of my constituents' quality of life--the potential San Jacinto rail line in Southeast Harris County, Texas. The level of concern in the community, on many issues, and the outpouring of public opposition produced during the STB's formal process has been tremendous.

Residents are concerned with increasing traffic delays and accidents in an area already experiencing too many problems with train traffic. Citizens are concerned about the safety of their children going to school, the potential for dangerous spills and accidents, localized noise and air pollution, and several other concerns. Amazingly, in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the STB concluded that the project will have a negligible impact on the surrounding community. I have spoken with hundreds of people about this project, and I can say that the STB is flat our wrong.

I do not believe that they ignore the public interest at the STB on purpose, but I believe that the agency and its decision-making process are biased against the concerns of residents who are facing rail construction in their neighborhoods. I am introducing this legislation to change the decision-making process so that it is more balanced in three ways.

First, if there is a high level of public opposition, the legislation requires that the concerns of residents and local officials be taken into greater consideration than in the past, especially when the rail construction proposal is in a residential area.

Secondly, the legislation requires that, before a final determination, the STB determine whether a proposal would have a disproportionate impact on either minority areas or economically disadvantaged areas. If so, the STB would be required to report to the public what alternatives to the disproportionate impact proposal were considered and why they were not chosen.

Finally, the legislation would require the STB to investigate the providing of false, potentially material information about the project. During the investigation, the entire decision process is put on hold, and if the STB found that the false information was intentionally provided the application is automatically denied.

I am not introducing a rifle shot bill directed at a project in my area, but instead this legislation is broad based and applicable across the country. I have learned from my experience that the STB's balance needs to be shifted back towards the affected community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Children's Access to Technology Act providing the disadvantaged children of this country with the technology they need to succeed in life. My legislation will provide Title I schools with additional financial resources to modernize their Internet delivery tools. Specifically, this legislation will utilize any unspent e-rate funding to provide Title I schools with a maximum $25,000 award to modernize their Internet labs.

Mr. Speaker, the e-rate program has been very effective in bringing the Internet to libraries and classrooms across America. As a strong supporter of that program, I was disturbed to learn that crucial e-rate funding was going unspent because recipients were not following through with their paperwork confirming receipt of service. The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is working to improve the timely utilization of authorized grants to approved school and library systems, but there will always be some unexpended funds in the program.

Because any unspent e-rate funding is lost at the end of each program year, my legislation will create a new funding mechanism, using any unspent monies, that will allow Title I schools to update their computer hardware. Specifically, the legislation directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish a lottery system for Title I schools to enter and be eligible to receive up to $25,000 to modernize their computer hardware.

In light of President Bush's commitment to strengthen and streamline the e-rate program, I believe we must ensure that all funding made available through the USAC be spent on improving our children's access to new and innovative technology. While I understand USAC has taken steps to speed the grant process and close the unexpended funding gap, I still believe there will always be some unallocated funding at the end of each program year. In these instances, my legislation will provide an additional benefit to truly needy schools that are struggling to improve the delivery of Internet services to their students.

Our children are our future; without innovating new approaches to provide better tools in our classroom, the now-passable digital divide will become an impenetrable digital barrier, unbreachable no matter how much funding we throw at the problem.

Mr. Speaker, this is a complimentary piece of education legislation when compared with President Bush's proposals and will further enhance the educational opportunities of our children.

Mr. Speaker, more than 56 million Americans currently live with some kind of disability. These disabilities include blindness, paralysis, mental illness, hearing loss, physical ailments, and a host of other conditions.

The federal government has recognized the unique challenges faced by these Americans by allowing qualified disabled individuals to receive health insurance under the Medicare program. Unfortunately, the law includes a 24 month waiting period before disabled individuals can qualify for coverage.

This waiting period poses a serious problem for many newly disabled Americans. Faced with the loss of their employment due to their disability, their situation is only made worse because they cannot access the health care services they need. The Medicare program was designed to help people in need--not make their situations worse by denying them necessary health care.

That is why I am introducing legislation to eliminate the 24-month waiting period under the Medicare program. This legislation would allow individuals to enroll in Medicare immediately upon their disability determination. This is a necessary change in the law which will help countless Americans access the health care they need upon becoming disabled.