Kathy Castor

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. From day one, this new Congress has been working to restore accountability in Washington, including adopting fiscally responsible pay-as-you-go budgeting and fighting for higher ethical standards in government. It is heartening to the American people, I know, that much of this has been done in a bipartisan way. And indeed, on this bill this morning, I anticipate that the House will follow the unanimous and bipartisan votes of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Armed Services Committee. As part of our ongoing effort to fight for fiscally responsible budgeting and higher ethical standards, this week I know, today, we will pass this legislation and this rule that changes the way that Congress and the Federal Government does business. It shines a bright light on how government operates. We will continue to answer the call of the American people for change and reform. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 242 provides for consideration of H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 80 minutes of general debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that in lieu of the substitutes recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. All points of order except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived against the substitute, and the substitute shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order the two amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The amendments are considered as read, are debatable for 10 minutes each, are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All points of order against the amendments except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, this rule and the legislation before us today is the Accountability in Contracting Act. This new act will restore accountability in Federal contracting. It targets conflicts of interest that have become too prevalent over past years. During the first 100 hours of this new Congress, we charted a new direction in response to the American people's call for change and reform. We passed pay-as-you-go budgeting to require greater fiscal responsibility, we passed Medicare part D reform to require the executive branch to negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors and help the Federal bottom line, and we eliminated unnecessary tax subsidies for big oil companies that were making record profits while we paid record prices at the pump. But if you recall, Madam Speaker, the first item of business during the first 100 hours of this new Congress was ethics reform. After the scandals of the past years, our commitment to the American people is to fight for higher ethical standards in the United States Congress and for all of the Federal Government by severing the connection between lobbyists and legislation, by banning gifts and travel from lobbyists, and ending the abuses of privately funded travel. Today, the new Democratic Congress will continue our fight for ethics reform while we are still in the first 100 days through this rule and the Accountability in Contracting Act. This bill targets waste in Federal contracting, limits the use of no-bid contracts, minimizes sole-source contracts, and closes the revolving door between purchasing officers and private contractors. This bill addresses the past problems with wasteful and fraudulent contracts in Iraq, the Defense Department and in relation to Hurricane Katrina. Congressional hearings have already shown that an estimated $10 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds was wasted as a result of overcharging, poor tracking and mismanagement by U.S. contractors, three times more than was estimated just last fall. Unfortunately, these accounts have abounded under the Bush administration. Defense auditors estimate that at least one out of six dollars spent in Iraq is suspect, including $2.7 billion in Halliburton contracts. Almost 19 post-Hurricane Katrina contracts worth a total of $8.75 billion have been plagued by waste, fraud and mismanagement; and only 30 percent of the more than $10 billion in Katrina contracts were awarded with full and open competition. And when it comes down to the small contractors who are actually hauling away the rubble and debris, they were not getting paid properly. This bill will help stop these kinds of wasteful contracts that keep the real work from getting done, that keep our neighbors from recovering from a natural disaster, and that keep the real workers from getting paid. In my Tampa Bay area district, the Federal defense procurement revolving door has been the subject of Federal investigations in Federal district court proceedings in Tampa over the past several years. So it is vital we stand up for the folks we represent and demand their Federal tax dollars are spent correctly, especially when it comes to national security. That means having tough and fair oversight and a transparent system so there are no conflicts of interest. So I commend the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Chair, Mr. Waxman, for his diligent efforts. I also commend the House Armed Services Chair, Ike Skelton, and my fellow members of the Armed Services Committee for their work on this legislation. When we marked this bill up in the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, this effort won bipartisan and unanimous support. It deserves no less by the full House today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 242.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) General Leave

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, access to the highest quality health care for our seniors under Medicare is one of the most important issues facing this Congress. Unfortunately, the Bush White House has sought to undermine the great Medicare safety net by privatizing a great deal of health care under the Medicare system, turning it over to HMOs. Just last week the former director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2001 to 2003 spoke at a conference in Tampa and a reporter caught him on record saying that this privatization effort ``was done to prime the pump and to get people to go back to HMOs. But it's a much bigger subsidy than we intended.'' You see, these private plans receive about 11 percent more per beneficiary than the government spends in original Medicare. And this director said that he had meant for the subsidy to be about half that. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do to stand up for our seniors and ensure the Medicare safety net works for everyone.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 229 provides for the consideration of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the substitute reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, modified by the manager's amendment in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule makes in order only those further amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI, are waived. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. And I am pleased to point out, Madam Speaker, that under this structured rule, the six amendments made in order are split equally, three Republican and three Democratic. Madam Speaker, H.R. 720 reauthorizes an important part of the landmark Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act protects our neighborhoods and water bodies from water pollution. Clean water is vital to the health of our citizens and to our country. The bill before us today reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund by providing $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution. We have come a long way in this country. We have the technology and the engineering experience to prevent water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates a huge shortfall in funds available for wastewater improvements across the country. This shortfall is significant because, without considerable improvements to the wastewater treatment infrastructure, much of the progress made in cleaning up the Nation's rivers, creeks and streams and bays since the passage of the Clean Water Act is at risk. Clean water is a top priority for the families in my district and throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership over the past few Congresses has failed to support this part of the Clean Water Act. Although legislation was introduced in the Congress then, it never made it to the House floor. President Bush and the White House also proposed slashing this Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund in his latest budget proposal. But, nevertheless, we are hopeful today that a bipartisan vote in support of this measure will send a signal to the White House that clean and healthy water is absolutely vital to our communities. In fact, in my hometown of Tampa, Florida, the Clean Water Act Loan Funds for wastewater improvements have vastly improved the water quality of Tampa Bay. The expansion in wastewater treatment significantly improved the quality of water running into beautiful Tampa Bay. In past years, Tampa received over $54 million for wastewater treatment plant expansion and thereby improved water quality. It has also played a role in significantly improving the water in our rivers, bays, creeks and streams as we are able to control the pollutants that run off into these vital water bodies. This is the same story across the country for the improved health of our communities, on the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and other water bodies throughout our country. Check with your local governments and your neighbors who live around and who are mindful of the quality of the water in our lakes, rivers and bays in your hometown. Appearing before our Rules Committee, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar said it best: ``This is not just a good bill. It is a necessary one. The good health of our communities depends upon it.'' And as a former county commissioner, I can tell you that the vast majority of costs in cleaning our water falls upon our local communities. And if we don't act now, we will be shifting a greater cost to future generations. So I urge the Congress, Madam Speaker, to enact this rule and this important legislation to keep our communities, rivers, lakes and bays clean and, most importantly, to improve the health of our children, seniors, and all citizens. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague and I note that my colleague, unable to criticize the heart of this legislation, which is reauthorization of an important part of the Clean Water Act, instead reverts to attacking a portion of this legislation that is vital to workers across America, the Davis-Bacon provisions. The Davis-Bacon Act prevents lower-cost out-of-State contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, which protects local interests and construction workers. Unfortunately, it has become all too familiar from the other side of the aisle to attack workers across America. They blocked the minimum wage until this new Congress was elected. We have a White House that has favored outsourcing of jobs over time. But now, through this legislation, we are able to reaffirm again that it is our policy, in fact, it is Congress's longstanding continuing tradition of applying prevailing wage requirements to federally funded construction projects. Studies have shown that by attracting more experienced, better-trained workers, that wage requirements lead to higher productivity and they reduce overall costs, which offset any higher wages. The Davis-Bacon Act protects communities by ensuring that wage determination also for individual counties is based solely on the local workforce costs. Oftentimes, this means that projects come in under budget and on time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he wouldn't mind, prior to my closing, that we allow the distinguished gentleman from the Rules Committee to speak. He arrived as we were completing our dialogue, and I would like to yield him 2 minutes.

Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close on the rule. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't delay any longer and that we take action on this rule and this legislation that reauthorizes an important part of the Clean Water Act. I understand where some of the debate is going to occur today, and I understand that a sizable number of Members on the other side of the aisle oppose the Davis-Bacon requirements for fair wages across the country. But the Rules Committee has made in order an amendment on Davis-Bacon, and Members in this body will have an opportunity to debate and vote on that issue. It is important, however, as we enter that debate, that we recognize that Davis-Bacon ensures a higher- quality work product and ensures that the work is done right the first time as higher-paid workers are the best trained and most experienced. I urge Members to defeat that amendment and continue in the new direction that is being charted by this new Democratic Congress where we stand up for the hard-working men and women across this great country. It is too important to delay any longer this reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It is imperative that Congress now pass the Water Quality Financing Act, H.R. 720, which will provide critically needed funds for clean water infrastructure. It will protect the public health, the environment and our quality of life. It will restore the viability of the Federal, State and local partnership to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. And ultimately, if we take action today, we will protect and improve the health of our citizens across America. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Sutton from Ohio, who has been fighting her whole career for the hardworking families in Ohio and now in the Congress is fighting for American workers throughout our country. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. This legislation serves as tangible evidence of the new direction being charted by this new Congress under Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A few weeks ago, this new Congress voted to raise the minimum wage. Well, like the minimum wage, the Employee Free Choice Act demonstrates our values and our commitment to stand beside hardworking men and women against powerful interests. This bill will restore the balance in the workplace and restore the National Labor Relations Act to its original purpose. It is unfortunate that in the blinding zeal for profits, inordinate profits, for a few, there are unscrupulous employers that stall for time after they learn that employees want to band together to advocate for a better workplace. Let me give you some real life examples from my part of Florida. One very large Central Florida employer used delays and its insistence on a secretive election to put together a highly structured unlawful campaign of coercion and intimidation. Hundreds of supervisors were trained to conduct scripted meetings with small groups of employees and then the employees were forced to attend meetings replete with promises and threats. Day after day, week after week, the company ground down these folks in this illegal psychological war on employees. This must end. In another example, one central Florida company used the time waiting for the election to film employees in the workplace and then produce a film that wove in their pictures, their smiling faces, into a virulent anti-union film. In this illegal activity, the employees were forced to watch the film, which was slanted to give the false impression that those employees who had supported the UAW had switched sides. These are real-life examples, but it should not be this way. The people of America know what has been going on. For too long, powerful special interests have held sway in the halls of Congress. Well, this new Congress in its first 100 days has stood up to these powerful special interests, whether it is raising the minimum wage, standing up to the big drug companies, standing up to the big oil companies. There is a new day in America, and I am proud to stand today with my hard-working neighbors against powerful interests that would like to keep the act of joining a union more of a risk, rather than a right. I am proud to stand today with our Speaker and this new Congress to chart a new direction for our country.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 days Republicans who support the President's troop escalation plan have had two main message points. The first is that the resolution opposing the President's plan is nonbinding and meaningless, and the second is that the resolution will be the ``end of civilization,'' to borrow a term from a columnist. They cannot have it both ways. What we are doing over these 3 days of debate is having a real discussion about changing the course of the war in Iraq. For those who support the Bush-Cheney escalation, this debate serves as a prime opportunity to explain why they think this escalation will work when four other surges have not worked. It is a shame that some have ignored the merits of the resolution and focused on political calculation. In fact, several Republicans sent out a letter saying this debate should not even be about the Iraq war today. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose. Far from it, Mr. Speaker. No one will lose by having a debate. In fact, our great democracy benefits and the American people win by knowing that we are charting a new direction.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Rules Chair. Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this debate to the floor of the Congress. I oppose escalation of the war in Iraq that is being pushed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Their intention to send more young American men and women into what is largely a sectarian civil war is more of the same ``stay the course'' mentality. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that the reckless Bush escalation will undermine our country's readiness and ability to address other global threats to our national security. Indeed, in recent testimony, the Marine Commandant and the Army Chief of Staff testified that America will run a strategic risk by implementing the escalation and staying on the same course in Iraq. The generals confirmed that if our personnel and equipment are tied up in Iraq, then our ability to handle future threats and contingencies is reduced. For example, in my State of Florida, the National Guard does not have all of the equipment it needs to train and deploy soldiers. They are only 28 percent equipped. President Bush in essence confirmed that the escalation will harm our Nation's readiness when he sent over his proposed 2008 budget last week. He requested an additional $235 billion for this war. That is on top of already $350 billion of taxpayer money. In effect, Bush's war in Iraq is swallowing the defense budget and our country's ability to prepare for any other threat to our national security. The Bush plan also sacrifices health care for children and our seniors and investments in our own towns and neighborhoods, while continuing this war without end. We will debate budgets and appropriations in the coming months, but after 4 years of war, over 3,100 deaths of Americans, $350 billion, and the Bush-Cheney failure to aggressively pursue a political solution, it is important that we have this debate in the House of Representatives this week. It is important for Members to go on record, and it is important to demand a new direction on behalf of the American people.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. You all are absolutely right. It is very difficult to understand why the White House wants to sock it to our safety net hospitals. Have you all been to the emergency room lately, tried to get in? The long lines? People are ending up in our emergency rooms for their primary care because they have the flu. They are clogging the emergency rooms. I was a county commissioner before I was elected to Congress, and the brave men and women in fire rescue said they would transport to the emergency room. It would be so busy and so full, they would have to stay with the emergency patient in the EMS truck for hours because the emergency room was clogged. We have a crisis in this country, and it is inexplicable that the Bush administration would say by administrative rule and through this budget that has been sent to the Congress this week that we are going to cut money to those hospitals that provide the charity care in our country. In my district, in the Tampa Bay area, the impact on Tampa General Hospital, which is a level one trauma center, $64 million. The great All Children's Hospital across the bay in Saint Petersburg, $31 million; the great St. Joseph's Hospital, another $20 million. I would like to go back to SCHIP and also talk about the real-world, children's health insurance, because a few months ago, I ran into a friend of mine from high school, haven't seen her since I graduated 20- something years ago, and I saw her at a children's health insurance discussion. She told me her story. Her name is Nan Dorton, and she lives in Tampa. She is married and has three kids. Her husband went through a tough time, and he lost his job, so they lost their health insurance. They didn't know what to do. It was very, very tough times. They didn't know about children's health insurance in Florida called KidCare or Healthy Kids, because the State has cut back under Governor Jeb Bush and the Republican legislature and they don't do any more outreach, so it is hard to find out about it. Fortunately, he got a job. They were provided with health insurance through the employer. But you know how much it costs for that family to have the kids covered, $700 a month. She said it was hard to choose whether to put food on the table or take the kids to the doctor and sign them up for health insurance. She said, you live in constant fear of your child having to go to the hospital. But then she found out about children's health insurance and KidCare, and signed them up. She said it revolutionized their lives because under these health services, they pay a $20-per-month copayment for all three kids, and they don't have any copays for hospital visits or prescriptions. You know how much money that is saving us because they are not showing up in the emergency room, which is passed on to all of us in our health insurance? That is going to save us because that family is healthier today, and we are going to save that money later on down the road.

Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, who has been such a leader for the American people for access to better health care. He is absolutely right, that the President's actions don't match his words. I have also been combing through the Presidential budget proposal. One of my hometown newspapers said that the Presidential budget should begin with these words: ``Once upon a time,'' as in a fairy tale. I am a mom with two young daughters at home. We do a lot of reading at night and try to get the homework done. We will do reading of fairy tales. This, what the White House has sent over, is a political fairy tale. Unfortunately, it is going to hurt a lot of folks. It is going to hurt a lot of our constituents back home. I thought we could explain that a little bit. Oftentimes we talk in such technical terms in government. When we talk of Medicaid and people say Medicaid, sometimes they get Medicaid and Medicare mixed up. Medicaid, these are pregnant women, infants, children in families earning about $25,000 a year, foster kids, medically needy adults, a lot of our senior citizens in nursing homes. So when you hear there are Medicaid cuts, I would like us to really put a face on that and say they are going after the most vulnerable in this country, infants, poor kids, foster kids and seniors in nursing homes. Also the budget sent over from the White House will hurt our seniors. The White House proposes to cut Medicare. Now, I am from Florida, and a lot of folks retire down to Florida. They have worked hard all their lives, and this is really one of the only benefits that we can give them, in addition to Social Security. So what the White House budget is proposing to do is ask them to pay even more. They are asking our hardworking doctors to take a cut as well. What that does in my community in Tampa Bay is it discourages the best doctors from participating in Medicare. You see, I want my seniors to have the best medical care. I want them to see the best doctors, and I want those good doctors to stay in the Medicare system. This would also hurt our children, our kids back home. My colleague from New Jersey knows this very well, that under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, we have a lot of needs. The States, our local communities, the Feds, we have been doing a pretty good job. But, do you know what? We can do a whole lot better. We must do a lot better. So it was very disappointing to receive this budget from the White House that says: Do you know what? Even though we are making such progress, and we have such tremendous needs in this country for children to be able to go in and see a doctor, get their immunizations, get some advice on how to take care of themselves, they say we are not going to do that. Their priorities are out of whack. Instead, I think it is a blatant political statement that we are going to continue these tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and we are going to sock it to the most vulnerable, our seniors and our kids.

Ms. CASTOR. We talked earlier about how the White House budget proposal we received this week is a fairy tale, but its impact on our veterans really is a nightmare. The State of Florida where I am from, we have the second highest number of veterans in the country, and in my district, I have the busiest VA center in the country, the James Haley Center, which saw over 1.5 million vets last year. That is more than the population of the State of Kansas we saw at the Haley Center in Tampa. The Haley Center is specialized for current Iraq war vets injured, coming back, that are suffering the IED blasts, spinal cord injuries, brain injuries. And in Florida, out of all the VA medical centers, Haley, the busiest, we have gone now over the past 10 years from 2 million visits to over 5 million visits. And how can we say this is a reflection of values? How can we say we are going to step back from that responsibility? How can the White House send us a budget that steps back, at a time where they are escalating the war in Iraq, they are going to deescalate the commitment to our veterans? I don't think so. In this Democratic Congress, we are going to take a new direction. There is new leadership in Washington, DC. And I am proud to be joined by some of the new Members, my colleagues, tonight, and also join with the efforts of leaders like my colleague from New Jersey. And I yield back.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my district in the Tampa Bay area to herald the terrific achievement of our hometown hero, Tony Dungy. While Coach Dungy is the first African American coach to win a Super Bowl title, he is also a living testimony to faithful leadership. Since Coach Dungy's 11-year path to the Super Bowl title came through my hometown of Tampa, I think it is fair to say that everyone in the Tampa Bay area feels attached to his win, and we are proud to claim him as a resident. My friends and neighbors back home remember Coach Dungy as the former coach of the Buccaneers, who in that capacity brought a winning spirit and gracious leadership to that team and our community. We watched with pride Sunday when this man showed that nice guys can finish first. His team came from eight points behind, withstood the weather and won the game. Coach Dungy, as the first African American coach to win a Super Bowl, provides the perfect start to the month-long celebration of Black History Month. His victory follows the march of other men and women who have stood up for justice and opened doors for others. Congratulations to him and all that understand that perseverance and teamwork is the best answer to life's obstacles.

Ms. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, who has been a leader in this Congress on health care, and, yes, you are joined by a number of new Members tonight that were elected because of our desire to work on health care solutions for the American people. So like my colleague from Wisconsin and my colleague from Pennsylvania, I also listened intently last week to what President Bush had to say on health care, and, unfortunately, I did not hear anything that will help one person go to the doctor's office and get health care. Instead, what he said is, you go to your accountant's office, not your doctor's office. You go to your accountant's office and you get a tax deduction and you work that out on your tax forms. Well, that does not make sense for the vast majority of people, especially in the Tampa Bay area, 20 percent without health insurance today, having to go to the emergency room for their primary care, rather than going to a doctor's office for their primary care. He says take a tax deduction. The problem is that so many people are just getting by. They are right there at the poverty level. That is $9,000 for an individual, about $20,000 for a family of four. Imagine trying to live off $20,000 for a family of four. They do not pay taxes. They do not pay income taxes. They pay sales tax, but that tax deduction that President Bush wants you to get to get your health care is not going to do anything for those hardworking families. The second part of his plan is equally troubling because he wants to sock it to the hospitals in this country that are providing charity care. In Tampa, Tampa General Hospital provides millions of dollars in charity care, and they are able through Federal law to send up some money, match it and bring home some dollars, especially in Hillsboro County, a county of about 1.3 million people. We have an award-winning health care program where the citizens of the county and a lot of our tourists pay a sales tax, and we devote that to a system of clinics throughout our community. We also send up that money to the Federal Government, and they say you are doing such a good job on the local level, taking care of your citizens in a network of clinics and not in the ER, that we will give you further incentives through ``disproportionate share money'' they call it. What the President would do is take those incentives away from local governments like mine, like in Hillsboro County, this network of doctors and hospitals that we have built up, and say, you know what we are going to do with that stream of money, we are going to probably turn it over to the HMOs and privatize the system. This, I think, is another attempt by the Bush administration to embark on a privatization scheme which sounds awfully similar to what he proposed for Social Security. My locals, my hospitals, doctors and, most importantly, the hardworking families in my district are not going to be well-served by the President's health care proposals. What do you think this will do to hospitals in your area?

Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman. There is good news now that we have the new Democratic Congress, and this year we are going to reauthorize that children's health insurance program. The gentleman from New Jersey has been a true leader in this effort, and I look forward to working with you in that effort. But here is a real success story over the years where, under President Clinton, out of a program that grew out of the State of Florida, so I have a bit of pride in that, children of working families, and we are not talking about the low-income, impoverished, we are talking middle-class families that don't have any other way to take their son or daughter to the doctor in an affordable way. Well, this year is our opportunity to look at what has worked across the country. There are programs in many States. Many States have been very aggressive, and they understand how important it is for children to be immunized, for them to make sure that a cold doesn't turn into pneumonia, because ultimately we will pay those higher costs on the back end if we don't treat them on the front end. Unfortunately, in the State of Florida, we are not living up to the initiation of the program and the grant, the pride that comes from that originating in Florida. I am going to have to get one of these nice fancy charts one day. But I have got one here that shows what a success it was in Florida when we started, but because of bureaucratic barriers created under another Bush, under former Governor Bush, we have lost hundreds of thousands of children off the rolls, which doesn't mean that all children in Florida are healthier, we are still a growing State, but they have created such a costly bureaucracy for parents and for doctors and for all health care providers that we are not able to serve kids like we should. So that is one of the critical solutions that I think we have got to work on. Let us cut out this bureaucracy. What is wrong with allowing parents to take their child to the doctor's office, just take them to the doctor's office and get the health care they need without creating all of this paperwork and bean counters in Tallahassee and bean counters in Washington that are having to spend a lot of time and a lot of our resources that could be going into the health care for our kids?

Ms. CASTOR. Well, under the new Democratic Congress, I think we now can show some leadership when it comes to health care solutions. We have such expertise out in our country in the various universities and the medical schools and with the researchers, and it is time for a little leadership on wellness care and preventive medicine. I was listening very intently to President Bush last week, hoping that he would be true to his conservative principles and say we need to conserve energy and you need to be conservative in how you take care of yourself. I think now is the time for Democrats to provide this kind of leadership on diabetes, obesity prevention that is running rampant among our children. How do you prevent heart disease? Show how important it is to exercise, eat well and sleep. These are simple things that if we commit as a country to wellness and preventive care, we are sure to save millions of dollars later when it comes to funding Medicare and those types of programs.