Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this morning, President Bush announced his prescription drug benefit plan for senior citizens in this country. When it was all said and done, at the end of the speech it became clear that there really is no plan for prescription drugs from the Bush administration for the seniors in this country.

The President said he wanted to give seniors more rights to choose and it be more flexible, but the fact is, there is nothing to choose and nothing to be flexible about. He promised comprehensive benefits, but he refused to define what a comprehensive benefit was. He said he wanted to protect against high drug costs, but he refused to say what a high drug cost was. He said he wanted to provide catastrophic care, and yet he refused to say what that catastrophic figure would be so that the seniors could take benefit of it.

Why is that so? Because the prescription drug benefit announced by the President today is no different than the one that was announced just a few months ago; that is, he does not use prescription drugs to benefit the seniors of this country that need it to maintain their health, to prevent diseases and illnesses, and to help them recover from illnesses; rather, he uses prescription drugs to beat down the Medicare system.

The plan he announced today is the same as he announced before: seniors must leave the Medicare system. In order to get a prescription drug benefit, they must leave the Medicare system that has served millions and millions of seniors so well over the last 40 years. It has provided them the health care they would not have otherwise been able to have; and it also kept millions of them out of poverty, because it provided that health care. It has improved all of the health statistics with respect to seniors.

Now the President says if they want a prescription drug benefit, they have to leave that system. They have to go into the HMO system. In the last several years, millions of senior citizens went into the HMO system. They enticed them with glasses, hearing aids, with prescription drug benefits. Only later did the seniors find out, as they read in the newspaper, that their HMO was going bankrupt, that their HMO was withdrawing service from that area. Millions of rural seniors have found out that the HMOs are not available to them if they do want to take advantage of them. Hundreds of thousands of seniors in northern California participated in the HMOs. Now those HMOs have gone, and they are looking for health care somewhere else.

Why would we do that again? Why would we rerun that history of trying to bait and trick the seniors out of the Medicare system, where every day they have health care coverage, where every day they are able to choose their doctor, where every day they are able to choose their physician, where every day their physicians should be able to do what is best for them?

The President wants to use prescription drugs to trick the seniors out of that system. That is not the answer. That is not the answer. Later this morning, the Democrats introduced a prescription drug benefit. It has no tricks, it has no sleight-of-hand, it has no gaps, it has no secret thresholds, it has no small print. It simply says that we will provide a prescription drug benefit to the seniors of this country in the Medicare system, all of those who are eligible, for $25 a month with a deductible of $100 a year and co-insurance. The beneficiary will pay 20 percent of all drugs, and Medicare will pay 80 percent. After one reaches $2,000, the government will pick up the rest.

That is the prescription drug benefit that essentially Federal employees and Members of Congress enjoy. That is what the President stood here and said he wanted for America's seniors; but that is not the plan, that is not the plan that the President offers to America's seniors. Instead, what he offers them is a plan to dismantle the Medicare system, to do away with it; and for those who stay in the Medicare system, he offers them a discount card, a

discount card. That is not a prescription drug benefit.

So for those seniors who leave and join an HMO, lose the choice of their doctors, lose the choice of their pharmacy, lose the choice of their drugs; for those seniors, they will get a prescription drug benefit of minimal coverage, of minimal coverage. When the HMO goes bankrupt or refuses to see them, they will come back and they will not have their drug coverage.

He wants to make whether or not your drugs are covered based on where you get your health care as opposed to what your illness is, as opposed to what the doctor says you need, as opposed to what all of the indices say you might need for a particular illness. His determination is whether or not you are in Medicare.

That simply does not comport with the health care needs of America's seniors. America's seniors today need prescription drugs, just as they need coverage for doctors' visits, for surgery, for outpatient and inpatient care. It is part of the continuum of health care.

The President should not, the President should not do a bait and switch with America's seniors so that they can get a prescription drug benefit. Every Medicare beneficiary should be covered for prescription drugs, and that is what the Democratic bill does that was introduced today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit to my colleagues in the House the Act to Leave No Child Behind. The Act to Leave No Child Behind 2001 was endorsed by more than 1400 groups and organizations around the nation, more than 400 state legislators and mayors, and it has been the focus of numerous community rallies, petition drives and advocacy events in Washington and throughout the country.

Our nation currently faces many great challenges. We are engaged in a war on terrorism--a war we can and must win. We are on the brink of a possible war overseas, in Iraq. If the time comes, we will put aside our differences on the merits and the timing of this war and rally in support of our men and women in the armed forces.

But we cannot afford to neglect our responsibilities at home. We cannot afford to turn our Federal programs into piggy banks that Governors can raid to fill gaping state budget shortfalls. We cannot afford--morally, socially, or economically--to write off the needs of a generation of children.

This bill is intended to remind us of those obligations. We have obligations to ensure that our children have access to quality health care; obligations to provide our children with an education that will prepare for their role in our workforce and our society; obligations to make sure our child have a safe, affordable, and stable place to live.

Together with many of my colleagues in the House and my friend Christopher Dodd in the Senate, we are introducing this bill today because we can no longer afford to abandon the children and families in this country who struggle daily with poverty, hunger, inadequate health care and education, poor housing and crime.

This bill calls upon the federal government to lead the way with vision and commitment toward a future where all children have quality health care, educational opportunity, family stability and safe communities. No child in this country should grow up poor, or hungry, or sick, or scared.

Now is the time. America must make a choice when it comes to the future of our children. We must decide whether we will invest in the healthy development of all our children or in tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens in this country. We cannot do both. This bill represents a vision and a commitment toward a future where all children have a chance to succeed so that we may use our resources in a constructive way to truly leave no child behind.

This legislation provides every child and their parents with health insurance, lifts every child from poverty through tax credits, work supports, and a new minimum wage, and ends child hunger through the expansion of food programs. This bill makes sure every child is ready for school by fully funding quality early learning programs, and offers significant reforms for our system of public education that increases accountability, reduces classroom size, and guarantees that all children will be taught by qualified teachers in modern and safe classrooms. This legislation also builds affordable housing and safe communities through sensible environmental protections, gun safety laws, and programs to reduce children's exposure to neglect, abuse, and violence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the House to join me and co-sponsor the Act to Leave No Child Behind.

Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to be joined by 73 of my colleagues in introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. The legislation that we are introducing today provides for a $1.50 increase in the minimum wage, in two steps. Our bill raises the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per hour to $5.90 sixty days after enactment and raises it again to $6.65 one year thereafter. In addition, the legislation extends the applicability of the minimum wage to the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Our bill is identical to legislation introduced in the other body by the Democratic Leader, Mr. Daschle, and 34 of his colleagues.

The minimum wage has not increased from its present level of $5.15 since 1997. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week, fifty-two weeks a year earns $10,712--almost $7,500 below the poverty level for a family of four, more than $4,300 less than the poverty level for a family of three, and $1,200

less than the poverty level for a family of two. The real value of the minimum wage today is 30 percent below its peak in 1968 and 19 percent below where it stood in 1981 at the start of the Reagan Administration. Even if the minimum wage is increased to $6.65 by 2004, the real value of the minim wage will still be below its 1981 level. However, by enacting this legislation we will restore purchasing power to minimum wage workers, better enabling them to support themselves and their families and to more fully participate in our economy.

Raising the minimum wage to $6.65 will lift the wages of seven million low-wage workers. While women makeup less than half of the workforce, sixty-one percent of the workers who will benefit from a minimum wage increase are women. One-third of the affected workers who benefit from a minimum wage increase are African American or Hispanic, though those groups together make up less than a quarter of the workforce. A minimum wage increase is especially beneficial to workers in low-wage industries and occupations, including those employed in sales, service, and food preparation, and especially those in retail trade.

A $1.50 increase in the minimum wage will add $3,000 to the annual income of full-time minimum wage workers. For a low-income family of three, $3000 means 15 months of groceries, 7 months of utilities, or tuition for a community college degree. Enacting this legislation will restore purchasing power to minimum wage workers and better enable them to support themselves, their families and the economy. Work should pay. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, a fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. The failure of Congress to increase the minimum wage is driving more and more working families into poverty. We owe it to them and to the Nation to act quickly on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the nation was deeply touched by the terrible tragedy involving the recent loss of seven astronauts aboard the Columbia Space Shuttle. As in the case of the Challenger Shuttle explosion 17 years ago, Congress must become deeply involved in reviewing the causes of this accident. That review, as our former colleague and highly respected expert on the space program, Tim Roemer reminds us, must be an independent study. Far too much--in money, in effort and in lives--is invested in the manned space program for us to fail to undertake a thorough and fully credible review, including whether or not congressional funding decisions might have affected the adequacy of the resources devoted to shuttle safety.

Congressman Roemer offered sound advice to the Gehman Commission that is charged with investigating the Columbia tragedy in a recent column published in Roll Call, which I am submitting to the Record.

The article follows:

NASA Panel Needs To Find Real Solutions

(By Tim Roemer)

After the Challenger space shuttle exploded on takeoff in

1986, the prominent physicist Richard Feynman dramatically

conducted an experiment visually linking the cause and effect

for all to understand. He carefully dipped the rubber O-rings

into a glass of ice water to replicate what had happened when

they hardened, cracked and, consequently, malfunctioned. An

independent panel, known as the Rogers Commission, generally

concluded that NASA officials and contractors were largely at

fault. The report went on to list poor communications with

management, sacrificing standards to remain within the

budget, and not paying enough attention to hazards and

warnings.

Now, 17 years later, the Columbia has disintegrated upon

re-entry. We cannot merely round up the usual cast of

suspects, appoint the same names to an investigation board

and point the finger at the predictable target. It is too

important to understand how this happened, with decisions led

us there and how to fix it.

Whatever the final conclusion, the newly appointed Gehman

Commission tasked with discovering the cause should be loaded

with independent and aggressive individuals willing to

challenge Congressional budgeting decisions and oversight

performance. Everything should be on the table.

The commission should have begun its investigation 10 years

before last month's takeoff of Columbia. On June 23, 1993,

Congress voted 216-215 to authorize $13 billion for space

station costs over the next decade. While Members of

Congress, the administration and especially NASA recognize

that the space station was experiencing significant design

glitches, cost overruns and scheduling delays, they also knew

that more money would eventually be needed in the overall

NASA budget. But the overall NASA budget level would decline

in real dollars over the next 10 years. The space station

overruns multiplied.

Something had to give. The overall NASA budget went from

$14.36 billion in 1993 to $14.9 billion in 2002. However,

this declining budget in real dollars included an increase in

2002 for securing the NASA facilities from terrorist threats

after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. What happened during this

same period to the space shuttle budget? In 1994, the budget

for the shuttle was $3.8 billion. It was cut each year for

eight years by more than $500 million. In 1997, $200 million

was moved from the ``shuttle account'' to the ``space station

account'' by NASA with Congress' approval. Meanwhile, the

space station budget grew to $2.4 billion and then went down

to $2.1 billion. Due to NASA's many alternations in

accounting during this 10-year period, it is exptemely

difficult to calculate precise figures for many of these

programs. The commission should get a detailed and thorough

explanation on how much was spent and where the money went.

By 1996, a single prime contractor took over the shuttle

operations. The ``USA'' on the astronauts' uniforms now stood

for ``United Space Alliance,'' a collaboration of private-

sector companies. Did Congress object? Approve? Ring the

alarm bells? I was a member of one of the responsible

committees, and we didn't do enough.

The Gehman Commission should analyze the role of Congress

in many of these important decisions. In the end, Congress

may or may not be part of the problem. But it can be part of

the solution.

The House and Senate space oversight committees have a

historic opportunity to conduct 18 months of comprehensive

oversight hearings over the remaining 108th Congress. They

should produce a comprehensive and long-range report

detailing general options for a pared down space station, a

plan for robotic space exploration even beyond Mars, a robust

replacement shuttle, a bigger and better Hubble telescope,

and a vision for human space travel using nuclear propulsion

technology. And they must propose an affordable and

sustainable budget without sacrificing the viability of one

program for the benefit of another.

This would be like the phoenix rising from earth, a

testimony and living memorial to the seven Columbia

astronauts. Together, their spirits and earthly remains would

break ``the surly bonds of earth.''

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank her publicly for all of the work over the last several years that she has put into our Democratic substitute, trying to advance this discussion about our obligation to try and help those individuals who want to work to be able to go to work and to be able to get a job that not only takes them off of the public assistance rolls but it also takes them out of poverty. That has to be our goal.

It is unbelievable that the Republicans would introduce the very same bill that they introduced almost a year and a half ago when the economy has changed entirely. During that time what we have seen is the highest unemployment rate since 1994. We have seen almost 1.7 million jobs lost since 2001. Almost 2 million jobs have disappeared.

In those sectors of our economy where people are likely to go to get entry-level jobs, in the hospitality industry, in the retail industry, in the fast food industry, they are all in trouble. They are all laying workers off. Yet we want to act like today is how it was a year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago.

No. What we need is we need jobs and we need child care for those individuals who are seeking those jobs. The Republican bill fails to provide that. It fails to recognize how lousy the Bush economy is and how many people are in trouble.

We have 1 million people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and cannot find work. And somehow we are suggesting that these people just go out and look, that they will be able to find that work. I hope they are able to, but they will not unless we provide the kind of child care that is necessary.

The gentlewoman from California has made it clear: In 20 States we have a waiting list of the working poor, of people trying to get off of welfare, of people who are working to try to find child care for their children. In California, 200,000 people are waiting for child care. The money they have in the bill will not take care of the problem in California, much less nationwide.

The problem nationwide is $11 billion in child care. They put in $1 billion in mandatory child care.

The Republicans have got to wake up and understand what has happened to our economy. We want these people to be able to go to work. We want those people who are working now to be able to stay in the workplace. But the economy has to improve, and they have got to provide the underpinnings so these individuals can take advantage of those job opportunities should they come along.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues attention to an article that appeared in the February 13, 2003 issue of the The New York Times. The article was written by Ginger Thompson and appeared under the headline ``Behind Roses' Beauty, Poor and Ill Workers.''

This St. Valentine's day, many of roses Americans will purchase as expressions of love for spouses, parents and others will have been produced in Ecuador. In a 20-year period, Ecuador has become the fourth-largest producer of roses in the world. The Andean Trade Preference Treaty of 1991 provides tariff-free access to American markets.

It, therefore, behooves us, both as Members of Congress and as consumers, to be aware of the conditions under which these roses are produced. As Ms. Thompson's article makes clear, there is reason for serious concern that workers, making as little as $156 a month, are being poisoned as a result of the misuse of pesticides, fungicides, and fumigants. The Ecuadorean rose industry employs 50,000 workers, 70 percent of whom are women.

I commend the following excerpt from the article to the attention of my colleagues and the public and urge you to read the entire article. In our efforts to express affection for a loved-one through the purchase of a flower, I am sure that none of us wants to be a part of the poisoning of another.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 13, 2002]

Behind the Beauty, Poor and Ill Workers

(By Ginger Thompson)

Cayambe, Ecuador, February 10--In just five years,

Ecuadorean roses, as big and red as the human heart, have

become the new status flower in the United States, thanks to

the volcanic soil, perfect temperatures and abundant sunlight

that help generate $240 million a year and tens of thousands

of jobs in this once-impoverished region north of Quito.

This St. Valentine's Day, hundreds of American florists and

catalogs are offering the roses of this fertile valley. Calyx

& Corolla, for instance, bills it as a place ``where Andean

mists and equatorial sun conspire to produce roses that

quickly burst into extravagant bloom, then hold their glory

long after lesser specimens have begun to droop.''

But roses come with thorns, too. As Ecuador's colorful

blooms radiate romance around the world, large growers here

have been accused of misusing a toxic mixture of pesticides,

fungicides and fumigants to grow and export unblemished pest-

free flowers.

As in other industries like garment production, bananas and

diamonds, the poor worry about eating first and labor

conditions later. They toil here despite headaches and rashes

here for the wealthier of the world, who in turn know little

of the conditions in which their desires are met.

Doctors and scientists who have worked here say serious

health problems have resulted for many of the industry's

50,000 workers, more than 70 percent of them women.

Researchers say their work is hampered by lack of access to

flower farms because of reluctant growers. But studies that

the International Labor Organization published in 1999 and

the Catholic University issued here last year showed that

women in the industry had more miscarriages than average

and that more than 60 percent of all workers suffered

headaches, nausea, blurred vision or fatigue.

``No one can speak with conclusive facts in hand about the

impact of this industry on the health of the workers, because

we have not been able to do the necessary studies,'' said Dr.

Bolivar Vera, a health specialist at the Health Environment

and Development Foundation in Quito. ``So the companies have

been able to wash their hands of the matter.'' . . .

Dr. Cesar Paz-y-Mino, a geneticist at the Catholic

University, said several pesticides used on a farm that was

the setting for his research in the late 1990's were

restricted as health hazards in other countries, including

the United States, and labeled as highly toxic by the World

Health Organization.

Among the most notorious are captan, aldicarb and

fenamiphos. Dr. Paz-y-Mino refused to identify the flower

farm under an agreement that he said he had with the owners.

He described the conditions as astonishing and recalled

workers' fumigating in street clothes without protective

equipment, pesticides stored in poorly sealed containers and

fumes wafting over the workers' dining halls. When asked what

government agencies monitor worker health and safety, Dr.

Paz-y-Mino said, ``There are no such checks.'' . . .

Industry representatives denied that there was a health

problem or that unacceptable risks were taken.

``The growers we know are very conscious of environmental

issues,'' said Harrison Kennicott, the chief executive of

Kennicott Brothers, a wholesaler in Chicago who is a former

president of the Society of American Florists, a trade group.

``They go to lengths to get certified environmentally,''

Mr. Kennicott said. ``The growers take care of the people.

They provide housing and medical care.

``Our job is to satisfy our customers, who are the florists

and retailers who deliver flowers to the public. Our interest

is having the best quality product at a competitive price.''

Yet it is hard to erase images of workers like Soledad, 32,

and Petrona, 34, both mothers and both looking jaundiced and

bony. In interviews after quitting time, they asked not to be

fully identified out of fear that they would lose their $156-

a-month jobs cutting flowers in greenhouses. The women said

they had elementary school educations but did not need high-

level science to tell them why their kidneys throbbed at

night and heads throbbed in the day.

``There is no respect for the fumigation rules,'' said

Petrona, who has worked on flower farms for four years.

``They spray the chemicals even while we are working.''

``My hair has begun to fall out,'' she added, running a

hand from the top of her visibly receding hairline down a

single scruffy braid. ``I am young, but I feel very old.''

Soledad, who has worked on flower farms for 12 years,

slowly turned her head from side to side.

``If I move my head any faster, I feel nauseous,'' she

said, and then pulled up her sleeve to show her skeletal

limbs. ``I have no appetite.''

When asked whether the farm where they worked had a doctor

on duty, the women rolled their eyes.

``He always tells us there is nothing wrong with us and

sends us back to work,'' Petrona said. ``He works for the

company. He does not help us.'' . . .

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to recognize and commend the appropriators for the difficult task that they had over this past year in coming together on this legislation.

I also want to express my very serious disappointment on what happened in the conservation accounts in the Interior appropriations portion of this legislation, that we were not able to fund the commitments that we had made that so many local communities and conservation organizations rely on, where we have partnerships with business and civic organizations and individuals coming together to try and provide for the conservation of our lands and our open spaces, which have been terribly successful.

The urban parks being zeroed out is a major disappointment to so many urban areas where we have, again, put together coalitions from the NBA, from women's sports to neighborhood organizations, from the Urban League and so many to rebuild these recreational facilities and opportunities for young people. It is a major disappointment.

I also must tell my colleagues that the forest stewardship contracts now simply open up the forest in a most unregulated fashion.

The disappointment is really this, and it is not the fault of these appropriators, it is the process. Because with this process it is not a fact that I did not get to be heard on this bill at one particular time or another, but my constituents did not. So many millions of Americans that are deeply concerned about the health of our environment, about the health of our forest, about the activities on our public lands are shut out from this process because those decisions were made last night or this morning or the night before, and they have had no time to respond to them. The vote will be taken about it, and they will read about it in the newspapers over the coming weeks.

That is a major affront to democracy. That is a major affront to the basic principles of this institution, to the basic principles of representative government, that the people in this country have been closed out of this process.

Yes, the process has gone on a lot longer than it should have, but it was far more closed than at any time in the history of the House of Representatives. And that is a major, major disappointment for those of us, as we sit here on the brink of war talking about freedom and we think about bringing freedom and democracy to other countries and we see it shut down in the people's House.

Legislation sits here and nobody has the ability to read it. Nobody knows what is in it, but we are going to be asked to vote for it. That is not the democracy we should be exporting. That is not the process we should be exporting.

It is a process that denies our constituents. Whether they are interested in education or the environment or public health or aerospace, it denies them the opportunity to be heard; and it is a corruption, an outright corruption of the basic and fundamental principles of our government, of our constitution, and of this institution, and it ought to be stopped.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Obey motion because it keeps a promise with the American public. It keeps a promise with America's schoolchildren, and it keeps a promise with the parents of those children and the

teachers that teach them. And that promise was made by the President of the United States, that promise was made by the Congress of the United States, that in the process of enacting the most far-reaching reforms in the Federal role in education in this country, that we would fully fund the means by which the States and localities and school districts could carry out those reforms. But almost before the ink was dry, the President submitted a budget that, in fact, made cuts in that education promise.

Last night the President talked about the accomplishments that he had had. He talked about setting standards and having young children achieve those standards. That is the promise, but it is not happening. It is not happening in this country, and now it is even under greater threat because of the cuts that are taking place in education because of the economic distress in our country and the budgetary distress in our States.

The question for us is whether or not we will help these school districts carry out these reforms so that these children can have a higher level of achievement, a higher level of accomplishment, and a better chance of participating in the American dream. That is what the Obey amendment is about. That is what this vote is about. It is about whether or not this Congress will redeem that promise on behalf of America's schoolchildren.

We cannot have a freeze on those, as the House appropriations bill did. We cannot have the measly increase that the Senate has suggested. What, in fact, we need is to add this additional $5.7 billion so that the promise of no child left behind is, in fact, a reality. And it is important because States are required under this law to do many things differently, many things better than they have done in the past, and we believe, and most educators believe, that the result will be that America's schoolchildren will have a higher level of accomplishment, will have a higher level of performance. By the same token, those very same independent observers of the American education system understand that if the resources are not there, this promise will be hollow.

The President made the promise, the President should keep the promise, and the Congress of the United States should help him to keep that promise by passing the Obey motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for the Congress to overhaul the failed child welfare system.

In 2000, almost 3 million instances of child abuse or neglect were reported and more than 870,000 incidents substantiated, and 556,000 children lived in foster care. A particularly horrendous example of abuse, and the failure of state agencies to address it, fills the newspapers today in reporting the tragedy in Newark, NJ.

Despite spending billions of dollars on child welfare, we continue to fail these and other children every day. Recent audits by the Department of Health and Human Services have found that every state examined is out of compliance with federal regulations to protect children.

Unfortunately, nearly every Member can find horrific stories in their own state about the failure of the child welfare system. In the most recent New Jersey tragedy, despite the state welfare system being repeatedly notified about abuse in this family over 10 years, two young brothers were found starving and neglected with their brother laying dead in another part of the basement. Serious reform at the local, state and federal levels is long overdue.

In November 2002, Representatives Rangel and Cardin and I convened a Child Welfare Summit that brought together child welfare experts, administrators, judges, and academicians to discuss the state of child welfare reform. Summit participants discussed the great need for reform and the communities in which improvements have been achieved. They called for more community involvement and partnerships, better investment in prevention, standards of accountability for welfare systems and improved caseworker training, supervision and retention.

The following article from The Washington Post discusses the urgent need for reform and some of the recommendations of the Summit. Congress needs to act without delay to review these findings and implement changes to safeguard our most vulnerable children.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2003]

Before the Next Tragedy

By Susan Notkin

We have become accustomed to the headlines: A child in

foster care is missing. An infant is left alone in a locked

car on a hot day. A child dies at the hands of a parent whose

acts of abuse or neglect went unnoticed--or, worse, were

noticed and ignored by those who might have helped. One

week's troubling stories may come from Florida, Michigan or

Texas, but the next week it could just as easily be another

state, another child in the news.

These tragedies initiate predictable events. Politicians,

journalists and others point fingers. A caseworker,

supervisor or child welfare commissioner resigns. A blue

ribbon panel is convened. But real system reform seems

impossible, and the sense of urgency fades until the next

headline.

In the year 2000, nearly 3 million cases of child abuse or

neglect were reported, with more than 870,000 incidents

substantiated. For each day of that year, three children died

as a result of abuse or neglect. In 2000, more than half-a-

million children were in foster care nationwide, many

residing in communities far from their homes and families.

The problem is not lack of caring. Child welfare workers

and administrators go to work everyday hoping to do their

best for vulnerable children and families. But state and

local agencies suffer from inadequate resources, high

turnover, poor training, low pay and outrageously heavy

caseloads. At present, dozens of states are either involved

in child welfare class action lawsuits or are operating under

court order for failing to adequately protect abused and

neglected children. Still we lack the political will for

major reform.

Recently, national child welfare experts and congressional

leaders held a Child Welfare Summit to discuss urgent

problems confronting child welfare services and to recommend

priorities for reform.

Participants called for major changes in our nation's

approach to protecting children. They recommended investing

in prevention instead of continuing with inadequate after-

the-fact responses. They stressed that efforts to hold child

welfare systems more accountable must be coupled with

relevant standards

for child welfare practice that make accountability possible.

They supported measures to build skills and improve

compensation for caseworkers, increase caseworker retention

and provide rewards for superior performance. Nearly all

participants spoke to the need to address the over

representation of children of color in our child welfare

system.

Perhaps the area of greatest consensus was that government

alone cannot effectively protect children. We need much

greater community involvement, especially in the form of

partnerships between public child welfare agencies and local

communities. Such partnerships make keeping children safe

everybody's business. Neighbors and community leaders reach

out to vulnerable families to talk about good parenting. They

carry the challenge of child abuse prevention to neighborhood

meeting, block parties, picnics and congregations of

different faiths. These partnerships offer individualized

services based on a family's needs and give families at risk

more say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Because child welfare, mental health, substance abuse and

domestic violence agencies typically work with the same

families, community partnerships ensure that their services

are coordinated. And when children must be placed outside

their homes, every effort is made to keep them in their own

communities. Community partnerships are already showing great

promise in more than 50 locations across the country,

including cities as diverse as Jacksonville, Fla., Cedar

Rapids, Iowa, and Atlanta.

The task of changing the way we conduct child welfare is

demanding, but we have no choice. The terrible cost to

children and families who fall in the cracks of the current

system is obvious enough, but the financial cost is also

daunting. Prevent Child Abuse America reports that we spend

more than $93 billion annually in direct and indirect

responses to child abuse and neglect. We could spend this

money far more wisely by implementing the types of reforms

recommended by the nation's leading child welfare experts.

This is the future we must invest in.