Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, we were given the most honest, visionary and fair budget that we have gotten in 8 years. It includes the cost of the wars and the cost of patching the Alternative Minimum Tax which the Bush budgets were never willing to do. It invests in an education and energy future that will sustain a strong prosperous economy. And the fact is that it is fair.

Now, that's going to be the talking point, that it does allow taxes to be restored on those who have seen the highest income growth over the last 8 years, the wealthiest 2 percent of our society. This issue has historically been a defining feature of America, that people who benefit the most from our economic prosperity should pay for the cost of the military that defends that wealth, should pay for the cost of the roads and the rails that transport that wealth, and, in fact, should pay for the cost of educating the workforce that produces that wealth.

This budget, for the first time in 8 years, is not dead on arrival. This is a clear visionary blueprint for America's future, and we should support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Congressman Inslee, to support the ``Safe Drug Disposal Act of 2009,'' legislation that will address the risks to our families, our communities, and the environment from unwanted or unused drugs that are left in the home or that are disposed of improperly.

Drug waste is a problem at every juncture of the health care system. Medications can accumulate in numerous settings--in nursing homes, hospitals, and hospice care facilities, and in home-based care settings and private residences. To encourage safe disposal of these drugs, many communities have developed take-back programs or sponsored collection events that allow consumers to properly

dispose of unwanted or unused drugs. These programs reduce the quantity of unused pharmaceuticals entering the environment and reduce the amount of drugs available for diversion, theft, abuse, or accidental poisoning.

While these programs are clearly of benefit to the consumer, they can be difficult to administer because, under current law, a representative of law enforcement must be present to take custody of medications that are classified as controlled substances. This bill will amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow end users, or caretakers of an end user, to safely dispose of unused prescription drugs and over-the- counter drugs through Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) approved state-run drug take-back programs. This bill also prohibits pharmaceutical companies from recommending flushing as a safe means of disposal on prescription drug labels.

Pharmaceuticals in surface waters and in drinking water supplies

For many years, consumers were advised to dispose of their unwanted medications down the toilet. However, we now know that chemicals from over-the-counter and prescription medications are not always screened in water treatment systems, and can be discharged into rivers and lakes and enter our drinking water supplies. In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that some traces of common medicines such as acetaminophen, hormones, blood pressure medications, codeine, and antibiotics were detected in very low concentrations in 80 percent of samples taken from 139 streams across 30 states.

Little was known about people's exposure to such compounds from drinking water, so scientists at the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas screened tap water from 19 U.S. water utilities for 51 different compounds. The surveys were carried out between 2006 and 2007. Of the eleven most frequently detected compounds, nine were pharmaceuticals:

Atenolol, a beta-blocker used to treat cardiovascular disease.

Carbamazepine, a mood-stabilizing drug used to treat bipolar disorder.

Estrone, an estrogen.

Gemfibrozil, an anti-cholesterol drug.

Meprobamate, a tranquilizer widely used in psychiatric treatment.

Naproxen, a painkiller and anti-inflammatory.

Phenytoin, an anticonvulsant that has been used to treat epilepsy.

Sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic used against the Streptococcus bacteria, which is responsible for tonsillitis and other diseases.

Trimethoprim, another antibiotic.

Further testing of drinking water supplies has shown that at least 46 million people are exposed to trace amounts of pharmaceuticals through this route, while the overwhelming majority of U.S. communities have yet to test.

The Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies are working to evaluate exposure and potential effects on humans and aquatic life. While we know that pharmaceuticals have health effects at the therapeutic dose, EPA is working to better understand and evaluate the potential risk to humans associated with long-term exposure to low concentrations of the same chemicals.

Aquatic organisms may experience more pronounced effects than humans because they are continually exposed. Researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs, and other aquatic species in the wild. Pharmaceuticals are seen as a source of the endocrine disrupting compounds in wastewater effluent that are suspected of causing the high rate of intersex characteristics detected in certain species of smallmouth bass found in the Potomac River. In addition, even small amounts of antibiotics that are not captured by wastewater treatment systems can kill off natural bacteria in waterways, encourage microbes to become drug-resistant, and poison fish. EPA is monitoring fish tissue and water samples in developed and urban areas across the country to produce a statistically representative estimate of the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in fish tissue and waterways.

EPA is also researching whether higher-level water treatment strategies can remove pharmaceuticals from wastewater and drinking water. EPA advises that while most pharmaceuticals from human sources are entering water through natural biological functions, it is important for the public to understand that they can help prevent pollution of our waterways by not using the toilet as a trash can for unused medications.

Abuse of prescription drugs

This legislation will address not only the risks to our water supply, but will have public health benefits. Several studies of drug abuse patterns indicate that nonmedical use of prescription drugs is increasing. Last fall, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services released the results of the nation's largest substance use assessment, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. For 2007, the study showed that cocaine and methamphetamine use among young adults dropped significantly, but that abuse of prescription drugs increased. Among young adults ages 18 to 25, the level of current nonmedical use of prescription pain relievers has risen 12 percent.

Results of a separate study of seventh through twelfth grade students were released in 2005 by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The Partnership Attitude Tracking Study tracks consumers' exposure to and attitudes about drugs. The study focuses on perceived risk and social attitudes. For the first time in its seventeen-year history, the study found that teenagers are more likely to have abused a prescription pain medication to get high than they are to have experimented with a variety of illicit drugs including Ecstasy, cocaine, crack, and LSD. The study reported that nearly one in five teenagers, or 4.3 million teenagers nationally, reported using the controlled substance Vicodin without a prescription; approximately ten percent, or 2.3 million teens nationally, reported using the controlled substance OxyContin without a prescription; and ten percent, or 2.3 million teenagers nationally, reported having used prescription stimulants, Ritalin and/or Adderall, without a prescription. Fifty percent of the teenagers surveyed indicated that prescription drugs are widely available; a third indicated that they were easy to purchase over the Internet; and 63 percent said they could easily obtain prescription opiates and painkillers from their own home.

The 2006 National Institute of Drug Abuse survey of drug use by teens in the eighth, tenth, and twelfth grades, ``Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use'', found that past-year nonmedical use of Vicodin remained high among all three grades, with nearly one in ten high school seniors using it in the past year. Despite a drop from 2005 to 2006 in past-year abuse of OxyContin among twelfth graders (from 5.5 percent to 4.3 percent), there had been no such decline among the eighth and tenth grade students, and the rate of use among the youngest students had increased significantly since it was included in the survey in 2002.

The consequences of prescription drug abuse are seen in the data collected by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on emergency room visits. In the latest data, ``Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2005: National Estimates of Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits,'' SAMHSA estimates that about 599,000 emergency department visits involved nonmedical use of prescription or over-the-counter drugs or dietary supplements, a 21 percent increase over 2004. Of the 599,000 visits, 172,000 involved benzodiazepines and 196,000 involved opiates. Overall, controlled substances represented 66 percent of the estimated emergency department visits. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of visits involving opiates increased 24 percent and the number involving benzodiazepines increased 19 percent. About a third (200,000) of all visits involving nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals resulted in admission to the hospital; about 66,000 of those individuals were admitted to critical care units; 1,365 of the visits ended with the death of the patient.

The most recent data available in the National Poison Data Base compiled by the American Association of Poison Control Centers show that in 2006 there were 21 pharmaceutical-associated fatalities in children under age 6, and 47 such fatalities in children 13 to 19 years. We may never know how many of these incidents affecting our children and youth are due to access to unused medications found in the home. Even so, it is important to look for opportunities to reduce the frequency of these incidents.

Local and state programs operated under existing law

The Drug Enforcement Administration administers the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations to ensure an adequate supply of controlled substances for legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial purposes, and to deter the diversion of controlled substances to illegal purposes. Controlled substances are drugs that have a potential for abuse and psychological and physical dependence; these include opiates, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and drugs that are immediate precursors of these classes of substances. The substances are divided into five schedules. Schedule I substances have a high potential for abuse and have no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. These substances may only be used for research, chemical analysis, or manufacture of other drugs. Schedule II-V substances have accepted medical uses and also have potential for abuse and psychological and physical dependence. Virtually all Schedule II-V controlled substances are available only under a prescription written by a practitioner licensed by the State

and registered with DEA to dispense the substances. Overall, controlled substances constitute about 10 percent of all prescriptions written in the United States.

In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress sought to control the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances into illicit markets by establishing a ``closed system'' of drug distribution governing the legitimate handlers of controlled substances. Under this closed system, all legitimate manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances must register with DEA and maintain strict accounting for all controlled substance transactions. DEA advises that current law does not allow a DEA registrant, such as a retail pharmacy, to acquire a controlled substance from a non- registrant, such as an individual patient, even for purposes of disposal. The individual determines whether or when to dispose of unneeded medications, although DEA recommends that controlled substances be disposed of in a way that does not allow them to be easily retrieved.

Communities have responded to the public health and environmental problems posed by unused pharmaceuticals by developing several different models of take-back and collection programs at the State or local level, including:

Collecting unwanted pharmaceuticals at pharmacies, grocery stores, or other retail settings.

Having citizens turn over unwanted medications to law enforcement officers.

Accepting unwanted pharmaceuticals at periodic household hazardous waste collection events, often with law enforcement personnel present to take custody of controlled substances.

Collecting unwanted pharmaceuticals through caregivers in residential care settings (i.e. hospices, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, boarding homes, adult family homes, child care programs, schools, correctional facilities, and animal boarding facilities).

Using the U.S. Postal Service for mailing unwanted pharmaceuticals to a secure consolidation location for disposal.

Collecting pharmaceuticals lost or abandoned by residents or visitors from hotels, campgrounds, cruise ships, homeless shelters, and other temporary housing or recreational sites.

The volume of medications these programs have collected is stunning. In 2006, a one-day drug return program at 25 locations in Chicago netted 1,600 pounds of medications. Separate one-day take-back programs in Michigan and Milwaukee the same year each yielded more than a ton of medicine. In one day in November 2008, a community-based effort at the Detroit Medical Center Surgery Center in Madison Heights collected 300 pounds of prescription and over-the-counter medicines and sent them to an incinerator. In one week in April 2008, EPA's Great Lakes Earth Day Challenge collected nearly 4.5 million pills from throughout the Great Lakes region. Macomb County, Michigan's hazardous waste recycling program collects more than 1,000 pounds of drugs a year.

National guidelines

At the national level, both the public and private sectors have taken steps to address the problem of disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. In 2007, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and EPA jointly released new guidelines for the proper disposal of unused, unneeded, or expired prescription drugs. The guidelines are designed to reduce the diversion of prescription drugs, while also protecting the environment. The new guidelines urge Americans to:

Take unused, unneeded, or expired prescription drugs out of their original containers.

Mix the prescription drugs with an undesirable substance, like used coffee grounds or kitty litter, and put them in impermeable, non- descript containers, such as empty cans or sealable bags, further ensuring that the drugs are not diverted or accidentally ingested by children or pets.

Throw these containers in the trash.

Flush prescription drugs down the toilet only if the accompanying patient information specifically instructs it is safe to do so.

Return unused, unneeded, or expired prescription drugs to pharmaceutical take-back locations that allow the public to bring unused drugs to a central location for safe disposal.

In addition, the pharmacy profession through the American Pharmacists Association has partnered with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in establishing the SMARxT DISPOSAL program to help protect the country's fish and aquatic resources. SMARxT DISPOSAL is a consumer awareness- heightening program that highlights the environmental threat posed by medications that are disposed of improperly, with the key message being ``crush, don't flush.'' It encourages consumers to dispose of most unused medications in household trash rather than through the wastewater system, to take advantage of state and local medication collection programs, and to consult with a pharmacist should any questions arise.

International programs

Under British Columbia's Medications Return Program, the public can return expired or unused medications at participating community pharmacies across British Columbia. The pharmaceutical industry voluntarily established the program in November 1996. In 1997, provincial legislation made all brand-owners of pharmaceutical products responsible for the collection and management of their left-over products. This program allows consumers to return unused or expired medications at no charge to over 90 percent of participating pharmacies in the province.

Spain's Integrated Waste Management System (SIGRE) allows citizens to return packaging and leftover medicines to pharmacies across the country free of charge. The program has been in place since 2002 and is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Collected wastes are taken to a central processing facility for recycling or destruction.

France's medicine take-back program, established in 1995, is an industry-funded system that is run collaboratively among manufacturers, wholesalers, and community pharmacies. Households are invited to return all unused medicines and packaging. Bags and leaflets are handed out at the time of dispensing; window stickers and posters reinforce the message of safe disposal.

Hazardous pharmaceutical waste

EPA has offered its support of pharmaceutical take-back programs by proposing to revise its rules for managing hazardous pharmaceutical waste. A small proportion of pharmaceutical waste meets EPA's definition of hazardous waste. The proposed amendment to EPA's universal waste rule would improve the management of hazardous pharmaceutical waste by providing a more streamlined waste management system, while ensuring that the waste is sent to hazardous waste management facilities, rather than municipal landfills, for final disposal. The streamlined standards include modified requirements for storage, labeling and marking, preparing the waste for shipment offsite, employee training, response to releases, and notification. In addition, no manifest would be required to transport the waste. This management system could also be used for safely collecting, transporting, and disposing of unwanted non-hazardous pharmaceuticals as part of a take-back program. Should these proposed rules be finalized, states operating EPA-authorized hazardous waste programs could adopt them to support their take-back programs.

What this bill would do

The Safe Drug Disposal Act of 2009 amends the Controlled Substances Act to allow end users, or caretakers of an end user, to safely dispose of unused prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs through DEA- approved, state-run, drug take-back programs.

Accumulation of dispensed controlled substances in the hands of individual or institutional care takers, including those caring for animals, can be a serious concern. Long-term care facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, jails, schools, and veterinary clinics may act in a custodial capacity, holding controlled substances that are prescribed for an individual and belong to that individual. The care taker dispenses these medications as directed by a medical practitioner. As a result of these dispensing practices, when a patient dies, leaves the facility or their medication is discontinued or changed, the care taker may be left with excess controlled substances that must be disposed. Under present law, these care takers may dispose of controlled substances directly, but, unless they are registered with DEA, they may not transfer controlled substances that have been dispensed to an individual to a DEA-registered entity for disposal.

Specifically, this bill directs DEA, within one year, to create five approved drug take-back program models from which states may choose. Should a state seek to implement a model not listed among those five DEA approved models, a state must seek approval from DEA for the modified version. In creating the five specific drug take back program models, DEA must comply with a specific set of criteria:

Protecting the public safety.

Allowing the ultimate user to dispose of their unused drugs though persons other than law enforcement.

Respecting environmentally sound practices for disposal (take-back programs may not include the disposal of drugs through public waterways or municipal solid waste landfills).

Being cost-effective for the state.

Including take-back program options for both rural and urban locations.

Successful take-back programs are likely to receive substantial volumes of medications, most of which will not be controlled substances. Under the Controlled Substances Act, Congress established a ``closed system'' of distribution designed to prevent the diversion of controlled substances. As part of this closed system, all persons who lawfully handle controlled substances must be either registered

with DEA or exempt from registration by the Act or by DEA regulations. Another central element of this closed system is that DEA registrants must maintain strict records of all transactions in controlled substances. Consistent with the Controlled Substances Act, current DEA regulations employ a system to account for all controlled substances received, stored, distributed, dispensed, or otherwise disposed of.

Take-back programs are unlikely to have the resources to separate controlled substances from other medications or to provide a detailed accounting of the kind contemplated in the Controlled Substances Act. Take-back programs currently in operation have demonstrated that it is possible nonetheless to protect against diversion. It will be particularly important for DEA model programs to provide methods for tracking collected medications that are cost-effective for the state to implement and operate.

Finally, the Safe Drug Disposal Act prohibits pharmaceutical companies from recommending flushing as a means of disposal on prescription drug labels. Guidelines issued by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy recommend that the general public dispose of their waste pharmaceuticals in household trash, except for thirteen substances which should be flushed down the toilet. The federal guidelines recommend the flushing of these thirteen substances because their drug labels (required of all pharmaceutical products and resulting from the Food and Drug Administration's approval process) recommend flushing.

This bill provides that, in approving an application for a medication, FDA shall ensure that the labeling not include any recommendation or direction to dispose of the medication by means of a public or private wastewater treatment system, such as by flushing down the toilet. The bill also directs FDA to conduct a review of the labeling of medications already on the market, and to order any labeling that includes a recommendation or direction to dispose of the medication by means of a public or private wastewater treatment system, such as by flushing down the toilet, to be revised to exclude that recommendation or direction. This order would be required to be issued within one year of enactment of the bill.

Conclusion

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the lack of an effective disposal mechanism for excess controlled substances and other pharmaceuticals, including over-the-counter medications, is contributing to contamination of our drinking water supply and putting aquatic wildlife at risk. It is also associated with a dangerous increase in nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals, especially among our young people. While it is easy to identify the problem, it is more difficult to devise a solution that consumers and law enforcement professionals will both accept. This bill will allow States to adopt take-back programs suited to the needs of their communities, and as such will help our nation to move toward a comprehensive solution.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to recognize an enduring legacy of John F. Kennedy--the Peace Corps--in recognition of its 48th anniversary this year and to commend 48 constituents from Northern Virginia currently serving in 35 countries around the world. It is an honor to represent these young people, as well as to serve with colleagues in both the House and Senate who have served our country in the enhancement of citizen diplomacy. I hope all Americans will join us in supporting and expanding this enduring commitment to convey our values as a nation.

A year ago, Fareed Zakaria wrote that after last November's election, ``America will have to move on and restore its place in the world. To do this we must first tackle the consequences of our foreign policy of fear. Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast, alone, unilaterally and preemptively, we have managed in six years to destroy decades of international good will, alienate allies, embolden enemies and yet solve few of the major international problems we face.''

The London Financial Times last year reported that the U.S. has suffered a significant loss of power and prestige around the world in the years since the beginning of this century, limiting our ability to influence international crises, according to an annual survey from a well regarded British security think-tank. The 2007 Strategic Survey of the non-partisan International Institute for Strategic Studies picked the decline of U.S. authority as one of the most important security developments of the past year--but suggested the fading of American prestige began earlier, largely due to our failings in Iraq.

One of our most special and effective citizen agencies of public diplomacy is the Peace Corps. Think of this--more than 195,000 volunteers have served this venerable legacy of former President Kennedy, serving in 139 countries--where they bring our values to other peoples, and bring understanding and appreciation of other cultures back home.

The greatest gift of the Peace Corps and other civilian programs is not just that ordinary Americans share their values and our culture with other peoples, but also that when volunteers return, they bring greater understanding and appreciation of other cultures.

Foreign policy is not just what we do, but also who we are. America as a place has often been the great antidote to U.S. foreign policy-- and it should be again. Again, as Mr. Zakaria wrote: ``When American actions across the world have seemed harsh, misguided or unfair, America itself has always been open, welcoming and tolerant . . .''

At the end of the day, our openness is our greatest foreign policy. We have succeeded not because of the ingenuity of our government, but rather because of efforts like this unique program to keep ourselves open to the world--to sending our people out across the countries of the world to share our unique culture, our goods and services, our ideas and inventions, our people and cultures. This openness, this civilian diplomacy, has allowed us to make friends across boundaries. It will be central to our place as a nation in the future.

This week, as we celebrate National Peace Corps Week, we honor volunteers old and young who have served in developing countries since President Kennedy's call to service in 1961 in places as diverse as China, Mali, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, El Salvador, and Namibia. This can be lonely and demanding service, but service that can create enduring friendships and values that transcend boundaries and cultures.

Today, more than 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers around the world are currently providing training and education in 76 countries. These volunteers each donate their time and skills for over two years, in order to make a difference in the world and to promote understanding between cultures. By offering their valuable skills and showing a passion for helping others, they show the world that Americans value learning and cross-cultural exchange.

Volunteers work in areas of education, health and HIV/AIDS, business development, environment, agriculture and youth, and must often be creative and flexible when living and working in new cultures and learning new languages. The resulting experience is rewarding for all involved, and it highlights the importance of cooperation and involvement between cultures around the globe.

When volunteers return home and share their overseas experiences with their communities, the Peace Corps helps Americans as much as the people in developing countries. From recent college graduates to doctors with decades of experience, volunteers choose to use their valuable skills and education to help people all over the world, but their work affects their lives and our place in the hearts of friends around the globe long after returning home.

This week we remember the dedication and passion of Peace Corps volunteers, young and old, current and returned. We thank them for their service, and encourage more Americans to volunteer with the Peace Corps.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an inequity in the computation of retirement annuities for some federal employees. The Part-Time Federal Employees Equity Act is intended to help support the federal government's ability to retain current employees in the face of the oncoming wave of retirement that will hit the federal workforce in less than a decade.

I am proud to represent more than 98,000 Virginians who have served our country within the ranks of the federal civil service. Protecting the quality of life of these beneficiaries and ensuring the future strength of the federal retirement system are two of the most important issues to my district. It is essential that Congress support efforts that maintain the integrity, quality and vitality of the federal workforce.

It has been well documented that over the next ten years, the federal workforce will undergo significant demographic changes that threaten the federal government's strength and effectiveness. As the baby-boom generation, which makes up a disproportionately large part of the overall workforce, nears retirement age, federal agencies will face a crisis in manpower, especially within its senior executives and management ranks. Information from OPM shows that approximately ``60 percent of the government's 1.6 million white-collar employees and 90 percent of about 6,000 Federal executives will be eligible for retirement within the next ten years.''

This likely wave of retirement threatens to drain the federal workforce of its most experienced and talented employees at a pace that will be difficult to replace with a well-qualified, trained workforce. Congress, in coordination with the Executive Branch, must develop an overall strategy with specific policy solutions so that the potential ``brain drain'' doesn't threaten the efficient delivery of government services.

One leading factor that influences the retention of senior personnel is the retirement package offered by the federal government. As currently structured, the federal retirement system for some workers actually penalizes employees that wish to extend their careers by working part-time. As the federal workforce faces the prospect of losing an unprecedented number of employees over the next 10 years, many of the anticipated shortages can be met with part-time employees. One of the greatest impediments to allowing part-time work are disincentives and restrictions imposed by the federal pension system.

I have introduced the Part-Time Federal Employees Equity Act to address the annuity computations of federal employees retiring under the Civil Servant Retirement System (CSRS). I believe that this legislation can serve the dual purpose of correcting a longstanding inequity for retiring federal employees, as well as offering employees nearing retirement the option for continued part-time service without negatively impacting their retirement benefits.

Over 10 years ago, the 100th Congress included a provision in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1986 (P.L. 99-272) that amended the civil service retirement law for federal workers with part-time service. Section 15204 prevented part-time employees from being credited with the same number of years of service as those who worked full-time over the same period. Before the law's passage, an individual who had worked part-time for most of his or her career could switch to full-time work the last three years of his or her career and receive the same retirement benefits as someone who worked full-time throughout the same period.

As the Subcommittee knows, federal annuities are calculated by multiplying the average three highest continuous years of salary, times years of service, by an accrual rate. The new methodology determines the proportion of a full-time career that a part-time employee works and scales annuities accordingly. Under the formula, a part-time salary is calculated on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE) for retirement purposes. Thus, a worker's ``high-three salary'' could occur during a period of part-time service. This often happens when a senior-level worker cuts back on his or her hours. The disproportionate share of these workers appears to be women, who leave the federal service to care for others.

The problem with the new formula is that it has negative consequences for workers hired before 1986. First, it fails to provide the accrued full year of credit for each year of part-time service of workers who, before 1986, had completed part-time service for which they had understood they would receive full-time credit. Second, the formula can have a negative impact on retirees' annuity if the computation of the ``high-three salary'' occurs during part-time service. Specifically, the formula incorrectly minimizes full-time employment before 1986, which hurts agencies' ability to retain experienced federal workers by offering part-time employment. Finally, this complex formula can lead to computational errors involving annuities with part-time service. There are possibly

thousands of civil servants who are eligible under CSRS that may be impacted by the inequity in this law.

My legislative proposal will restore full credit for part-time work performed before 1986, eliminate the adverse effect of part-time service performed late in an employee's career, and provide a simplified annuity computation in cases involving part-time service. Though it is important to eliminate the inequity for future retirees, it is perhaps more important to tear down the artificial barrier to part-time service at the end of an employee's career.

Madam Speaker, I believe that this proposal will correct a long- standing obstacle to part-time service and may help agencies retain qualified federal employees nearing retirement for part-time service.

Mr. Speaker, America is blessed to be led by the most eloquent spokesperson on the planet, but Barack Obama very well knows, as we do, that it's not enough to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. The first step on that very rocky road begins tomorrow with the budget submission.

If the private sector is not willing to make the loans, to start the businesses, to hire the people necessary to get this economy back on its feet, then the public sector has to step up to the plate. But if we are going to be faithful to our children's future, then we are going to have to pay for the cost of this stimulus package and this budget submission, and that means that we are going to have to increase revenue so that we can ultimately balance this budget.

Democrats did that during the Clinton administration, and it worked, we generated budget surpluses and people at the highest tax rates brought home more after tax income than at any other time in American history. I know we have the courage to do that today, but the Republican Party also has to come up with a more constructive mantra than just saying ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Ms. Claudia ``Scottie'' Knott, who will retire from the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on March 1, 2009. Ms. Knott's distinguished government career spans 31 years, and her record of achievement during this period reflects greatly upon herself and upon the organizations with which she has served.

Ms. Knott has served as DLA's Senior Procurement Executive/Component Acquisition Executive (SPE/CAE) since 2001. Under this position Ms. Knott was responsible for the development, application, and oversight of DLA acquisition, policy, plans, programs, functional systems and operations. She has overall acquisition management responsibilities for the Agency including an annual Agency acquisition program exceeding $38 billion.

Born in Petersburg, Virginia, Ms. Knott has followed a wide-ranging career of increasing responsibility culminating in her appointment as Director of Acquisition Management. In 1978, she entered the Federal service as a program assistant for the Department of Agriculture and in 1981 was selected into the Defense Logistics Agency Intern Program. In 1993 she was accepted into the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF), Defense Acquisition University. After ICAF Ms. Knott went to work for the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition Reform/Electronic Commerce). In 1997, Ms. Knott became the Assistant Executive Director, Procurement at the Defense Logistics Agency.

In 2003, Ms. Knott was selected by the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, to be the Deputy Director, Logistics Operations. As the deputy, she was responsible for DLA's supply, distribution and reutilization and marketing business areas which resulted in over $30 billion in sales and services to the United States military and federal customers. Ms. Knott served as the Deputy Director, Logistics Operations until her appointment to Director, Acquisition Management in 2007, a principal staff code in DLA, as part of a reorganization to elevate contracting and contract management.

Ms. Knott attended Florida Institute of Technology, Chapman College and the National Defense University and is the recipient of numerous special achievement and performance awards including the Distinguished Civilian Service Award in September 2008. Ms. Knott was selected as one of the Federal Computer Week Top 100 IT Professionals in 1999 and 2001. She is an honorary lifetime faculty member of the Army Logistics Management College. Ms. Knott has also received the Vice President's ``Hammer Award'' for business re-engineering in 1996 and has been confirmed into the Distinguished Order of Saint Martin, the patron saint of Logistics.

Madam Speaker, I wish to commend Ms. Claudia S. Knott on her retirement from Federal civil service. She epitomizes the dedication and professionalism that make our Federal government a model all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, when the Clinton administration concluded 8 years, it had created 23 million jobs. It left the new administration with a $236 billion surplus and an estimated $5.6 trillion of projected surpluses. It took only 4 years to turn that surplus into deficits. And now when this administration leaves office, they leave this country with an annual deficit over $1 trillion. They have doubled our public debt--from $3.4 trillion to $6.4 trillion--of the amount of debt held by the public.

And it began because instead of balancing the budget, as President Bush the 41st had done and President Clinton succeeded in that policy, they threw the PAYGO concept aside, gave us two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and bankrupted this country. And that is why we have to act this week to restore our fiscal solvency.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan ``Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) Sick Leave Equity Act'' that I am offering with my colleague Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA). The current sick leave policies for the civil service are inappropriately bifurcated between new and older systems, and the current system is costing the Federal Government millions in lost productivity each year.

Today, Federal employees enrolled in FERS may accrue annual sick leave over the course of their career, but under the current ``use-it or lose-it'' policy, all sick leave is eliminated at retirement. Representative Wolf and I believe that this policy serves as a disincentive to conserve sick leave--or an incentive to use sick leave at the end of careers when employees are not really sick. An August 2008 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report indicated that sick leave balances were significantly lower for FERS employees than CSRS employees, and a survey of FERS and CSRS employees showed that 85% of CSRS employees conserve as much sick leave as possible, whereas 75% of FERS employees said they would use as much sick leave as possible during their last years. The Office of Personnel Management confirmed the existence of this ``FERS flu'' phenomenon as well, asserting that the lost productivity and training of new employees to fill in for absent employees cost the Federal Government an estimated $68 million annually. This lost productivity accompanies the aging workforce nearing retirement over the next ten years.

The use of sick leave is a significant problem to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government, but it is also a challenge that has been overcome before. The story of how employees in CSRS got their sick leave benefit provides insight into the same challenges the Federal Government faces today. Originally CSRS employees had no benefit--they all forfeited any unused sick leave upon retirement. As a result, Federal employees were burning their sick leave at the end of their careers. The Civil Service Commission estimated that half of all retiring Federal employees had no sick leave; Congress reported that retiring employees used an average of 40 sick leave days in their last year before retirement.

In response to this problem, in 1969, Congress changed the law to permit employees to receive credit for any accrued sick leave. This policy has remained in place for CSRS--whatever accrued sick leave an employee has, that time is added to their annuity. Not surprisingly, Federal employees began conserving sick leave. A later GAO report showed that retiring employees had significantly higher sick leave balances than those who retired before the law was changed.

The Congress's failure to learn from the past has caused history to repeat itself. When the FERS retirement system was created in 1986, Congress explicitly eliminated the sick

leave incentive, though they were cognizant of the possible consequences. Report language accompanying the new statute indicate that Congress believed that ``without an incentive to save sick leave, the use of sick leave may increase substantially.''

The ``FERS Sick Leave Equity Act'' will reverse the growing trend of using sick leave by providing the same benefit to FERS retirees that CSRS retirees currently receive. Under the proposal, all FERS-eligible employees will add their accrued sick leave to the years of service that employee has worked in the Federal Government. These years of service are part of the FERS retirement benefits calculation, providing a real incentive to accrue as much sick leave as possible.

The proposal has gained widespread endorsement by Federal employees who know the problem firsthand: the managers who experience the problem every day and the organizations that know the negative effect of the ``use-it or lose-it'' policy. The supporting organizations include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), American Postal Workers Union (APWU), FAA Managers Association (FAAMA), Federal Managers Association (FMA), Federally Employed Women (FEW), Government Managers Coalition (GMC), Senior Executives Association (SEA), National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), Professional Managers Association (PMA), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS), National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA), and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). I am proud and grateful to have this support for the proposal.

Madam Speaker, we need to incentivize the accrual of sick leave, not to keep a policy in place that encourages people to call in sick in the weeks leading up to retirement. It will save the Federal Government millions while providing sick leave parity for FERS employees and their CSRS counterparts. I look forward to working with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the full House of Representatives on this pressing issue.

Thank you, Chairman Spratt. The number of jobs lost hits home--I think to all of us. Each of us probably have different experiences. I remember the day that a large corporation took over the corporation that my father was working for. And he had worked so hard. So he was called into the corporate offices and he was told-- well, he was just told to show up. We all assumed he was going to get a raise or a promotion because he had been working hard.

This was during the 1950s. And they let him go because they said they were doing a corporate restructuring. We were waiting for him. He didn't come home until the middle of the night because he couldn't face us.

Mr. Chairman, that is happening every single day, 20,000 times. That's the pace. 3.6 million jobs. Most of these are breadwinners. I suspect that over this Christmas vacation there are any number of parents who had to take their child aside and explain to them they were no longer going to be able to go back and finish out the last half of their academic year at college because they could no longer afford it.

Or, imagine the mother and father sitting their children down and explaining that they had lost their home. They weren't sure where they were going to go. They would probably have to leave their school.

We look at these numbers, and they are devastating. But I know that you are particularly sensitive, as Ms. Tsongas was as well, to the human face behind these tragic numbers. Worse, really, since the Great Depression, in many ways.

It didn't have to happen. For 7 years of the Bush administration, we saw the largest corporate profit ever in American history. But it's interesting that 40 percent of that profit at one point went to the financial services industry alone, and 96 percent went to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. So that the Americans who have to defend our country, are called on to fight our wars, who pave our roads and build our bridges, who form the workforce that produced that corporate profit, were left with 4 percent of the income growth during the last 7 years to share.

So they relied upon borrowing from the increasing asset of their homes. The amount of money borrowed against home equity and credit cards is exactly equal to the increase in consumer spending. Americans did what their leadership asked them to do in 2001: they went out and spent at the mall, but they didn't have the commensurate income gains to afford that expenditure.

As a result, now that the real estate market has crashed through people in large part manipulating the market for their own gain and the disparity between the borrower and the lender and all these exotic derivatives that were meant to expand the leverage and increase the profit of the financial services industry, now we find ourselves in an economic crisis, Mr. Chairman. You are laying out the figures that this Congress must address on behalf of the American people.

I will have more to say, but I very much appreciate the profundity of these numbers that you are sharing with us today.

I do recall that very well. I was sitting on your committee, and you were almost begging the economic leadership of the Bush administration to follow the example that had been laid out by the 41st President of the United States, George H.W. Bush, when he began the system of PAYGO, that President Clinton then incorporated, raised taxes but balanced the budget, and as a result generated more after-tax profit for the wealthiest people of America than had ever been experienced, but provided the next President, George Bush, the 43rd, with this $5.6 trillion projected surplus. A sunny horizon almost as far as the eye could see now has turned into deep deficits, deeper than anything we can imagine and which we see no end for, and it will bring us all of the way to the point you bring up, Mr. Chairman, when the baby boom generation retires and then puts an enormous additional burden on our budget.

You asked Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan if he would not impose some fiscal discipline on the administration and asked whether we could really afford the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. As we look back, in retrospect we see the reason that $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected was gone in 3 years. By 2004, that surplus was gone.

I thought it was until January of 2004, but you would know better, Mr. Chairman.

The point is it was gone in a very short period of time. It was used on tax cuts. Tax cuts that the vast majority of which went to the people who needed them the least and who then invested them in hedge funds, invested them overseas, and put them into collateralized debt swaps and credit derivatives and every other kind of exotic investment, but they didn't go back into strengthening the economic foundation of the middle class.

As a result, we look back now and we see that those tax cuts, putting aside what we were promised, those tax cuts generated about 13 cents on the dollar. In other words, about 87 cents of every dollar of tax cut never went back into strengthening the economy, it showed up in deficits. That is why this deficit situation is so difficult to deal with. We have to increase the deficit now to stimulate the economy because the private sector was given $350 billion out of $7 billion and they weren't willing to lend so the public sector has to come in, but it is all on borrowed money, as you emphasized, Mr. Chairman. And again, it did not have to happen.

You were there sounding the warning. It is on the record if anyone would choose to check. And yet you were ignored and the members of your committee and the leadership, or at least on the Democratic side, was ignored. It seemed as though the policy was anything but the Clinton administration's economic policy. And now we find ourselves in as bad a situation as has existed almost for 75 years. I greatly thank you for raising that issue.

It was clearly connected to confidence in the economy and the people that were directing the economy and their reliance upon the private sector, but recognizing that the Federal Government had a role in terms of regulation and in terms of monetary policy and in terms of balancing the budget. The budget was balanced, and it was creating jobs, and now to think that we have gone from increasing jobs from 230,000 to losing 600,000 jobs a month, 20,000 a day, just an unbelievable reversal in terms of employment that parallels a fiscal reversal of $12 trillion from what the administration inherited to the situation we find ourselves in now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the FERS Re-Deposit Act, which will help incentivize former federal employees to return to the civil service by allowing them to buy back into the Federal Employee Retirement System.

In no short time, the federal government will face a serious workforce shortage crisis. In ten years, 90 percent of our nation's civil service federal executives will be over the age of 50 and many will be nearing retirement. This coming brain drain threatens the stability and functioning of essential government functions. At a time when the American people are demanding efficient and effective government--from the implementation of public programs to the oversight of the Iraq war--we are about to lose many of our dedicated and most knowledgeable professionals.

The FERS Re-Deposit Act will begin to help with the coming workforce shortage. The FERS Redeposit Act would allow individuals who left the federal government, and received a refund of their Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) contributions, to re-enter government service without losing their accrued annuity. Instead of forfeiting credit earned during their prior service, returning employees would be able to redeposit their cashed out annuity upon re-employment. This benefit is already available to federal employees who are registered under the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

I have received many letters of former federal employees who work in the private sector, but would like to return to civil service. Many of these well-qualified men and women are choosing to remain in the private workforce because the costs to re-entering the federal workforce are too high. In an economy where people will change jobs many times over the course of their careers, a reinvestment option under FERS will make government service more competitive, incorporating the flexibility and mobility that are so common in the private sector and in businesses of the new economy.

As more and more FERS employees leave the federal government and later wish to re-enter federal service, a redeposit option would provide the incentive needed to bring these individuals back into government service.

Madam Speaker, now is the time to act before the workforce shortage hits our civil service the hardest. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to make federal service more attractive by supporting the FERS Re-Deposit Act.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider the stimulus bill today, it's important to reflect on how we got into this financial morass.

After all, over the last 8 years of the Bush administration, we saw the highest corporate profit and the deepest tax cuts in American history. So what's the problem? Well, 96 percent of the income growth over those 8 years went to the top 10 percent, only the wealthiest Americans.

They were the ones that benefited from the tax cuts. They benefited from the corporate deregulation. Forty-six percent of the profit went to financial services firms. So the problem is that only 4 percent of the income growth during the Bush years went to the 90 percent of middle-class Americans and those struggling to get into the middle class.

But what did they do to cope with this static income? Well, they did what the President told them to do. After 9/11 he said go shop in the mall, and that's what they did by borrowing. The increase in consumer spending was exactly equal to the amount of money borrowed from inflated home equity values.

That's what they did, and now we have the bust in real estate values and almost 40 percent of Americans are technically insolvent. That's why this bill starts to turn around that maldistribution of this Nation's wealth and income. That's why it should be supported today.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, today it begins: the process of turning the rhetoric of hope into the reality of change. Today we will enfranchise 4 million children with health insurance, many of whose working-poor parents have had to watch their children suffering in bed from an accident or an illness not knowing how serious it is or what to do, only knowing that they couldn't afford to find out.

Now, we have passed this legislation before--twice--only to have it vetoed by President Bush. Why? Because we paid for it with a tobacco tax, which, in itself over the years, will save the lives of millions of people.

But this bill that we pass today will be signed into legislation because that's exactly what President Barack Obama meant when he promised real change for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. Truly, we face a health care crisis in this country--in the richest country on Earth; 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, including 9 million children. The need is even greater in these sad economic times. With rising unemployment, more families are losing their health insurance. This bill will go a long way to provide health care for uninsured children and fulfilling our moral obligation to them.

In my home State of Virginia, the CHIP program currently provides coverage to 144,163 low-income children each year. The CHIP Reauthorization Act will help us cover an additional 75,000 children. It will ensure that these children have access to high quality health care, including the preventative services that children need to be healthy and successful in school and later in life. This bill will provide dental and mental health benefits on par with medical and surgical services--truly ensuring that the whole child's health is provided for.

The CHIP Reauthorization Act does this without increasing the deficit, primarily by increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. In my view as Chairman of the Congressional Prevention Caucus, an increase in the Federal tobacco tax is sound public health policy. It provides a reliable revenue source to offset the costs of expanding coverage to low-income children and it will reduce health care costs in this country by reducing the prevalence of chronic disease.

In the past, there has been misleading and false information regarding the bill's treatment of illegal aliens. Critics of the legislation seem to ignore existing Federal law and provisions in the CHIP Reauthorization Act that prevent federal funds from being spent to provide benefits for illegal immigrants. What H.R. 2 does do is offer an opportunity for States to waive a five year waiting period on legal non citizens. Current law requires a five-year waiting period before legal immigrants are eligible for CHIP. Allowing State flexibility in this regard is sound public health policy that would enable thousands of American children access to vital health services to help them live better, healthier, and more productive lives. The bill does not mandate the change, but leaves it to the states to make their own decisions.

Reauthorizing SCHIP is sound public health policy--research shows that children who have access to health insurance are substantially more likely to access key preventative services, miss fewer days of school due to illness, get better grades, and grow to become healthy and productive adults. Moreover, the financial benefits of covering children vastly outweigh the costs--one need only compare the cost of a visit to a primary care provider to the cost of a night spent in the emergency room. Ultimately, covering all our children is a moral imperative--it is the only possible humane, responsible course of action. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 2.

Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 11, The Lilly Ledbetter Act. This legislation was passed by the House in the 110th Congress and we should pass it again today so the Senate can act swiftly and get this important initiative signed into law.

Mrs. Ledbetter was a victim of a system gone awry. When she was hired as a supervisor at Goodyear's tire assembly department in Gadsden, Alabama, her wages were exactly on par with those of a male employee working by her side. Mrs. Ledbetter didn't know her first paychecks matched her co-workers' paychecks. She just assumed they did.

Then, in 1998, an anonymous note informed her that her annual salary was lagging $15,000 behind a certain male co-worker. In fact, she was being paid less than all her male counterparts in the tire assembly department, even recent hires.

Within a month after receiving the note, Ledbetter filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes a six-month limitation period on discriminatory acts; Ledbetter's evidence was limited to events that took place after Sept. 26, 1997, or 180 days prior to her EEOC charge.

In November of 1998, she filed suit to determine and recoup her losses. Goodyear said Ledbetter's poor job performance was to blame. But she prevailed and was awarded nearly $4 million in pay and punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $360,000. Of course, Goodyear appealed, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' unanimous opinion tossed out the award and dismissed Ledbetter's complaint altogether.

In 2007, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit's decision, finding that the limitations period for a disparate pay claim cannot be extended or disregarded. But how can a claim be filed if there is no knowledge of the discriminatory act?

Congress must now act on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting comment that she read from the bench: ``the ball is in Congress's court,'' and ``correct this parsimonious reading of Title VII.'' I agree with Justice Ginsburg; this court ``does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.''

Colleagues, let us pass this bill and correct this gross inequity.