Mike Ferguson

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FERGUSON. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ferguson-Langevin amendment that will set aside $10 million for implementation and to fund the Lifespan Respite Care Act. I know the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, will be speaking on this amendment as well. I really want to praise him and thank him for his great leadership on this issue over the years. He and I have worked together as friends and partners on this issue in particular. I have great respect and admiration for the work that he has done on this issue. Together, we have worked to pass the Lifespan Respite Care Act. It was unanimously approved by this Chamber and the Senate last Congress. It deserves the funding necessary to launch this critically important program. Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act will, for the first time, establish a national policy to help our Nation's 50 million family caregivers who provide daily care for their loved ones with disabilities or chronic conditions or illnesses. This program allows families to care in home for their loved ones instead of an institutionalized setting. In-home family caregivers provide minute-by-minute special assistance to their loved ones due to disability or critical illness or chronic condition. Family caregivers are remarkable people. They make extraordinary sacrifices to help those who they love so dearly. I saw an example of this firsthand in my own family. Ten years ago my mom was diagnosed with cancer. For 6 years I got to watch my dad as he cared for my mom through this very difficult struggle with cancer. Three years ago yesterday she lost that battle with cancer, but it was a great example to our family and so many others that we know of a great example of a family caregiver who made extraordinary sacrifices. There are some 50 million people just like my dad who provide care for a loved one in their own family. These are folks who may not be blessed with a support structure that we had in our family. We had my siblings and me and others in our family who were able to give my dad a break when he needed a break from that family caregiving. There are many people in our country who are not fortunate enough to have that support structure around them. They are desperately in need of a break from time to time. While the benefits that come from in-home care can be enormous, for caregivers and for that loved one who is ill, the cost for the family caregiver, from emotional to financial, can really be overwhelming. Lifespan Respite Care will provide much-needed breaks for caregivers who are providing intense and exhaustive care 24 hours a day. An occasional break can literally be a lifesaver. I had a conversation with a constituent from my district, Ms. Pinter, who told me that caring for her special-needs child can be a very joyful but also can be a very challenging experience. You know what? She is exactly right. Two-thirds of caregivers report physical or mental health care problems linked to their own caregiving. Recent studies have found that family caregivers suffer poor health or even higher mortality rates than nonfamily caregivers. Currently our Nation lacks a coordinated approach between different levels of government or advocacy groups to aid those who are in need of respite care. Respite care is in short supply or doesn't exist at all in some areas of our country. This legislation and these funds would change that. Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act would improve coordination and access for respite care to recruit and train respite care providers, would aid family caregivers regardless of age or disability or their family situation, help them to find and pay for respite services. Through competitive grants, States would get funding to make quality respite care available and accessible regardless of age or disability or family situation. Respite care improves the health and the well-being of caregivers and reduces the risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, it also delays or even avoids more costly hospitalizations or placements in nursing homes or in foster care. I want to thank all of the family caregivers in our Nation who provide tireless care for their loved ones, and I also want to extend my thanks to the numerous groups and organizations around this country in their exhaustive effort to establish this Lifespan Respite Care program. Providing relief to our Nation's family caregivers is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, I am pleased and honored to have worked with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) on this important legislation. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on the Ferguson amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Commissioner Connie Hughes for a long and distinguished career as she retires July 1, 2007, after more than 30 years of public service to New Jersey and its residents. A commissioner with the New Jersey board of Public Utilities, Commissioner Hughes was appointed to the board in July 2001 by then- Governor Donald T. DiFrancesco. She also has served as board president. She has held numerous senior positions within the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, including serving as its representative to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Government Coordinating Council for the Telecom Sector. Before joining the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Commissioner Hughes served as then-Governor DiFrancesco's Chief of Management and Policy; ex-officio Commissioner of Higher Education; and on the New Jersey State Planning Commission, the New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology, the New Jersey Commission on Environmental Education, the New Jersey State Board of Human Services, and the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission Board of Directors. Known chiefly for her expertise in telecommunications policy, Commissioner Hughes focused her career on issues affecting New Jersey and its consumers. My staff and I, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had the pleasure of working with her on matters of mutual interest to the State. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Connie Hughes on her more than three decades of outstanding public service to my state of New Jersey and its residents.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. I want to thank my friend from Washington and my friend from New Jersey, and others, for supporting this amendment. I also rise in strong support of this amendment today. We can see here a picture of a beautiful polar bear. Recently, the polar bear was listed as threatened under our Endangered Species Act. I don't believe that allowing hunters to obtain permits to hunt these animals and bring them into our country is a responsible environmental policy, with the loss of habitat that these animals are enduring. And with a 30 percent population decline predicted in the next 35 to 50 years, we ought to be doing everything in our power to preserve this species, and this amendment seeks to do just that. It is our responsibility to create responsible environmental policies to protect our planet for future generations, and I think this amendment does exactly that.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the time. And I of course rise in strong support of this amendment. I am delighted to, once again this year, work with Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley and Ms. Berkley. We've offered this amendment in the past. And each year that this Foreign Operations bill includes funding for Saudi Arabia we've offered this amendment, and each year we gain more and more support. Obviously we're disappointed that this bill does include some money for Saudi Arabia, but I'm pleased that offering this bipartisan amendment with broad support on both sides of the aisle, once again we will seek to strip that money. The bill before us provides $115,000 in foreign aid for a country that has time and time and time and again proven that it doesn't deserve one cent of American taxpayers' dollars, not only because Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but also because it's not a partner with the United States and other nations in our efforts to combat terrorism. Saudi Arabia has a pretty poor record on a number of fronts. It's not just a poor record in joining with other allies around the world to combat terrorism. They have a pretty terrible record on human rights, pretty poor record on religious freedom, and they continue to support and participate in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. Now, even recently there was an Arab League boycott meeting in Damascus. The Saudi Government continued to participate in that meeting. All of this despite Saudi Arabia's repeated promises to dismantle the boycott and to support most-favored-nation status for Israel. And Israel, of course, our closest and most important ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia continues to undermine the efforts that we are building in the Middle East. Clearly, Saudi Arabia is not a country that is struggling to make ends meet. Saudi Arabia doesn't need financial support from other nations. And they certainly can't be considered a strong ally of the United States or the global war on terror. Last year, more than 300 Members of the House supported this amendment. I am really looking forward to continued broad bipartisan support for this amendment once again this year. And I'm really delighted, once again, to be working with Mr. Weiner and Mr. Crowley and Ms. Berkley in offering this amendment. I thank you for yielding.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the good work they have done on this bill. I rise to offer this amendment which holds great importance not only to my home State of New Jersey, but really to the entire Nation. My amendment is a simple one and it is one that is a step in acknowledging the dangers that we are still faced with following the attacks of September 11, 2001. My amendment would transfer $50 million from the DHS Office of Under Secretary for Management to grants, contracts and cooperative agreements to State and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities. Specifically, this amendment would increase funding for DHS buffer zone protection grants. These funds can be used to enhance security and protection around sites of national importance. These areas of national importance include not only banking and financial sites, but also government buildings and mass transit systems, such as the PATH in New York and New Jersey, the T in Boston, the BART in San Francisco. However, most importantly, this applies to chemical plants, which pose one of the most dangerous threats to our domestic security today. These funds could be used to provide increased law enforcement patrols around chemical plants and to protect these critical infrastructures, as well as enhance information sharing among Federal, State and local officials and those in the intelligence community. For example, in 2007, the State of California received $4.6 million of these grant funds. My home State of New Jersey received $1.5 million in these grant funds. Other States that have benefited from this grant program include Maryland and South Carolina, which have each received nearly $1 million. States like Illinois have benefited. Even States like Idaho, Delaware and Montana have benefited from this program. They have each received over $180,000 in these funds. In fact, in 2006, all 50 States in America received grants from this important program. New Jersey ranks as one of the leading States for chemical production. Most unsettlingly, New Jersey chemical plans are specifically listed by Federal authorities as ripe targets for potential terrorist attack. Millions of people and essential transportation routes surround these chemical plants. An attack on one of these plants could not only cause tremendous loss of life, but also irreversible environmental damage by unleashing secondary explosions or toxic fumes and substances. Make no any mistake, this amendment wouldn't only benefit New Jersey. Countless states throughout the Nation that are home to high-risk targets also would benefit from this amendment, which would increase DHS funding for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to state and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities. In 2005, 225 members of the House voted in favor of nearly identical amendment, and dozens of lawmakers are on record as supporting increased DHS funding to bolster protections at our Nation's most high- risk targets. I encourage you to continue this record of support and show the American people that national security is a top priority for this Congress by supporting my amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I want to thank Congresswoman Boyda for her work on addressing this very important issue and of course Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica and all those who have worked so hard on this legislation. I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the Safe American Roads Act. This legislation takes a reasoned and commonsense approach to dealing with opening our borders to Mexico-domiciled trucks. Instead of providing blanket access to U.S. roads, this bill places important standards and restrictions on the DOT's proposed pilot program, ensuring that our roads remain safe and that our Nation's trucking industry remains competitive. The heart of this legislation centers on establishing a pilot program that employs standards that we in Congress approved, while maintaining an open comment period to ensure that expert opinions are considered with respect to safety and compliance and enforcement. The bill ensures accountability through both the administrative and legislative process, requiring an Inspector General review of the pilot program to determine whether Mexico-domiciled motor carriers participating are in full compliance with U.S. motor carrier safety laws, and requiring a report to Congress within 90 days of completion of the program. The Safe American Roads Act does not aim to close America's roadways to foreign truckers. Instead, it requires the Department of Transportation to tap on the brakes, to slow down and make sure that the road we travel down is one that ensures the highest standards of safety and accountability. Further, the legislation ensures the competitiveness of our Nation's trucking industry by preventing Mexico-domiciled motor carriers from accessing U.S. highways until U.S.-based trucking companies are given comparable access in Mexico. Once again, I want to thank Congresswoman Boyda for introducing this legislation and her work with Mr. Hunter and so many others. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this legislation.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in strong support of House Resolution 300, which commends the significant achievements of the Rutgers University Women's Basketball team. I wholeheartedly join the citizens of our Nation, the people of New Jersey and my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives in congratulating the team for a job well done. I was not able to formally vote for this important measure that I proudly cosponsored yesterday, because I was in Bound Brook, New Jersey working with local, State and federal officials mapping out a plan to respond to the significant destruction many 7th Congressional District Communities sustained as a result of the massive Nor-easter weekend storm. Had I been present, I would have wholeheartedly voted Yes. By advancing to the Final Four of the women's National Collegiate Athletic Association championship--the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team achieved a tremendous success. Each and every member of the team should be proud of their excellent season and their significant accomplishment. The team's 27-9 season record is testament to their hard work and dedication. I am honored and proud to join our Nation and the citizens of New Jersey in commending the team and their coach C. Vivian Stringer for this accomplishment. Each and every member of the team are true heroes and provide a real inspiration to young people across the Nation.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Michael L. Drozd of Hillsborough, New Jersey. He is dedicating his time and efforts to an important cause. On March 31, Michael will be running in the Cooper River 10K Bridge Run to support the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund. This fund provides financial assistance to Marines in combat and training and to their families. Since its inception in May 2004 through the end of last year, the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund has provided more than $8 million to our wounded heroes. At 23 years old, Michael has served in the Army, Navy, and the Marines. Michael is a senior First Classman who will be commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps when he graduates from the Citadel in May. He is the only Marine representative Cadet from New Jersey participating in the run and will be running in battle dress uniform, combat boots, and wearing a 50-pound rucksack. I'd like to commend Michael not only for his selflessness and service to our country but also for his commitment and dedication to such a worthy cause. It is truly inspiring to see a young person like Michael give so much of their time and energy to help others in need.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. I am proud of our troops and the sacrifices they have made in Iraq, their dedication, their perseverance and the love and support of their families here at home. I am disappointed that the strategies employed thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any alternative. Therefore, I will vote against this resolution. I believe most Americans share the same goal for Iraq, a stable government that can serve its people, a strong security force that can protect its people, and a growing economy that can encourage prosperity for its people. We want the Iraqis to succeed, and we want our troops to come home. There is no question and no denying that mistakes in the planning and execution of the war have led us to where we are today. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can all offer suggestions for how things should have been done differently, done better, done more effectively during the past 4 years. But that is not what is going on in this Chamber here today. Members are being cynically asked to vote on a resolution that does not address victory or success. It does not offer a pathway toward the peace and the prosperity that are vital to the region. It simply plays politics with the war and, in so doing, does our troops and their families here at home a terrible disservice. While no one in this Chamber or any general in uniform can guarantee the success of this new initiative in Iraq, we can safely say that not pursuing it and continuing the status quo will lead to failure. Iraq then likely would fall into further chaos and transform itself, much as Afghanistan did a decade ago, into a breeding ground for terrorists, who plot attacks not on our troops in Iraq but upon our civilians here at home. Make no mistake, failure of the U.S. mission in Iraq will not end the war. It will only shift the battlefield. The terrorists are at war with us, whether we fight back or not. The consequences of failure in Iraq would be as dramatic as the fruits of victory. An Iraqi government stable enough to take the lead role in providing for its own internal security will allow us to achieve our collective goal, the return of U.S. troops. Rather than being allied with terrorists, Iraq would be an ally with America and the war on terror. In so doing, it would honor the more than 3,000 American men and women who have died fighting for its freedom and countless more who have been wounded and will bear for their lifetimes the scars of battle. The status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. We need a new strategy, new tactics, new commanders on the ground, and a new and sustained commitment from the Iraqi government that they will do more of their share. We know that the road ahead will be difficult and that the prospects for success are dwindling. But I believe a renewed and amplified effort by U.S. forces and Iraqi troops to retain security in Baghdad may offer the best hope we have for the lasting success of the U.S. mission and for the future stability of Iraq's government. It may also be, I believe, our last chance for victory. The President knows this, and I believe the Iraqi government and its people know this, too. It is in that spirit and with that understanding that I will vote against this resolution. Our collective prayer is for the safety of our troops, for their success, and that they will be reunited with their families here at home as soon as possible.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I thank our friends Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Lampson for their efforts, and I rise in support of this bill; but I think the bill can be better, and I rise in opposition to the second-degree amendment because I frankly think it would weaken the Burgess-Ferguson amendment that would really strengthen this legislation. The amendment that Mr. Burgess and I are offering would help take a significant step forward in advancing fuel technology and helping to secure our Nation's energy independence, but it also is key to stopping a potential environmental problem before it starts. I have been a champion for renewable energy technologies and new developments in alternative fuels, and I really believe that we have to ensure that these new technologies do not contribute to the ongoing environmental problems that we are facing today. While the gentlewoman from California has offered an original amendment and has offered a secondary-degree amendment to our amendment, they sound familiar, but they are very different amendments. I believe this second-degree amendment to our amendment would significantly weaken the improvements that our amendment would make to the bill. I commend her for her commitment to improving this legislation, but our amendment is more comprehensive and frankly just goes one step further. While her amendment would seek to minimize emissions from stationary sources at the end of the process, like at gas pumps, ours would seek to minimize emissions at both mobile and stationary sources. It is more comprehensive, it is a stronger amendment, and it would help to ensure that we are careful to recognize the possible environmental impacts that these fuels have as they move from production to the end product that ends up in your gas tank. So in my home State of New Jersey, we undergo a constant struggle with clean air issues. Our amendment would go so far as to ensure that any new fuels that are added to our market to decrease our dependence on foreign oil do not have an adverse impact on the quality of the air that our citizens are breathing. Let me be clear. This is a good bill. I intend to support the bill. I think it can be better. I think it can be better with the Burgess- Ferguson amendment. I think it would be weakened with this Eshoo second-degree amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, but I also stand to say that the legislation should be expanded to address not only college graduates but also students who are in college now and struggling with the weight of mounting tuition and expenses--or families that are considering college for their high school children. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this month that average tuition and fees at four-year colleges have increased by 38 percent in recent years. ``Tuition inflation'' far exceeds inflation in the general economy, and is pushing the dream of a college education away from too families and students. For too many parents and too many children, college simply isn't an option because it's not affordable. That's wrong. But while H.R. 5 would aid college graduates, it would do nothing to help today's college students or families that are struggling to pay for their children's college expenses. H.R. 5 does not address the growing barrier that restricts access to higher education and new opportunities. That's a missed opportunity--not only for this House but also for the families who cannot afford their children's college tuition and fees. As H.R. 5 is considered in the Senate and later in the legislative process, it is my desire that its scope include not only college graduates but also current and prospective college students--and their families. It is my further desire that the legislation should not hamper competition and restrict access to student loans for future graduates. During the last six years, Congress increased spending on federal student aid by 57 percent. Funding for Pell Grants increased by nearly 50 percent. These programs have helped college graduates and current students. It is my hope that before we vote again on H.R. 5, its scope is expanded to address the urgent needs of prospective and current college students, too.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today we are hearing a lot from the proponents of H.R. 4. We are hearing a lot of misinformation and lot of rhetoric, and I think some of these things need to be corrected for the record. The biggest misconception is that the buying power of Medicare patients is currently unused, and that somehow this new plan is the only way to leverage lower prices for prescription drugs. In fact, prescription drug plans under Medicare part D right now are aggressively negotiating discounts; they have been before part D, and they continue to do so very well since the program's inception and they are going to continue to look to negotiate lower prices. They have been negotiating and giving beneficiaries choices and access to the newest breakthrough therapies. Through Medicare part D, in its current form, beneficiaries have access to over 4,000 prescription medications at a much lower cost than previously estimated when we passed this legislation a few years ago. CMS has indicated that beneficiaries are saving an average of $1,200 annually on their drug costs. Program costs are an estimated 30 percent less in 2006 and 21 percent less over the next 10 years due in large part to competition and negotiating of lower drug costs. Currently, Medicare prescription plans have the discretion to use cost-containment tools. They can use formularies, and many of them do. Unlike Medicaid and the VA, Medicare beneficiaries actually have the power to choose which plan they want. If they see a plan with a formulary they like or don't like, they can choose or not choose that based on their own discretion; but if Medicare or the government, as prescribed under this bill, under H.R. 4 and its required mandatory negotiations, it will have to impose a uniform restriction on medicines, patients will lose their choices, and they will be stuck in a one-size-fits-all plan. They will be stuck with a restrictive national formulary and no choices whatsoever. You have to be hiding under a rock recently if you have missed the numerous experts that are telling us that this brand of negotiation will limit choice and will not save money. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4.

Mr. FERGUSON

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3248, the Lifespan Respite Care Act. For over 2 years I have been working diligently with many of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to bring this bill to the floor. Over 180 national, State and local organizations under the direction of the National Respite Coalition have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Nation's family caregivers to help us get to this point. This legislation will for the first time establish respite as a policy priority for the Nation's estimated 50 million family caregivers, who daily provide care for their loved ones with disabling or chronic conditions or illnesses. Most caregivers freely and willingly provide this care out of love and commitment, but often at great cost to themselves physically, emotionally, and financially. One in five caregivers report that they are in fair or poor health; 43 percent report having a chronic health condition that requires ongoing medical care, putting themselves at great risk and jeopardizing their ability to provide continued care to their dependent loved ones. An estimated 46 percent to 59 percent of family caregivers are clinically depressed. A recent medical study found that older caregivers who were providing care for an elderly individual with a disability and experiencing caregiver strain had mortality rates that were 63 percent higher than non-caregiving controls. Caregivers are stretched thin in others ways as well, often with lost income and multiple family responsibilities. Nearly half of caregivers--48 percent--providing care to child, adult or elderly family members who have chronic or disabling conditions, have other children under age 18. Forty-two percent have family incomes below 200 percent of poverty compared to 34 percent of women without family caregiving responsibilities. While most caregivers are employed, many are forced to make extreme financial sacrifices in order to continue to provide care. In an Iowa survey of parents of children with disabilities, a significant relationship was demonstrated between the severity of a child's disability and their parents missing more work hours than other employees. They also found that the lack of available respite care interfered with parents accepting job opportunities. Over the course of a caregiving ``career,'' family caregivers providing intense personal care can lose as much as $659,000 in wages, pensions and Social Security. The cost to U.S. businesses is even more staggering. A new study by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the National Alliance for Caregivers found that U.S. businesses lose from $17.1 billion to $33.6 billion per year in lost productivity of family caregivers. Offering respite to working family caregivers could help improve job performance and employers could potentially save billions. Still, many barriers exist to accessing respite--including a reluctance to ask for help, fragmented and narrowly targeted services, cost, and the lack of information about how to find or choose a provider. Even when respite is an allowable funded service and resources are available to pay, a critically short supply of well- trained respite providers may prohibit a family from making use of a service they so desperately need. Restrictive eligibility criteria also preclude many families from receiving services or continuing to receive services they once were eligible for. A New Jersey mother of a 12 year old with autism was denied additional respite because she was not a single mother, was not at poverty level, and was not exhibiting any emotional or physical conditions herself. As she told us, ``Do I have to endure a failed marriage or serious health consequences for myself or my family before I can qualify for respite? Respite is supposed to be a preventive service.'' Respite, the most frequently requested service among family caregivers, offers a temporary break from the rigors of continuous care and helps sustain their own health and well-being. Others are able to tend to an emergency situation or personal health crisis. For a caregiver providing intense and exhausting care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, an occasional short break can literally be a life saver. Respite reduces stress, enhances caregiver health and well-being, and ensures the safety and health of the loved ones in our care. Studies have shown that respite care for family caregivers has resulted in fewer hospitalizations for the children and elderly family members in care. Respite has also been shown to help reduce the likelihood of abuse and neglect and foster care placements. Research conducted by the ARCH National Respite Resource Center has also shown that respite can help keep marriages intact and enhance family stability. Another study found that if respite care delays institutionalization of a person with Alzheimer's disease by as little as a month, $1.12 billion is saved annually. The bill authorizes $289 million over 5 years for competitive grants to States through Aging and Disability Resource Centers working in collaboration with State respite coalitions or other State organizations. These organizations provide or have expertise in respite to make respite available and accessible to family caregivers, regardless of age or disability, through coordinated lifespan respite systems. This legislation would help States maximize the use of existing resources and leverage new dollars by building on current services and systems that States already have in place. The bill would help support planned and emergency respite, respite workers and volunteer training and recruitment, caregiver training, and program evaluation. The congressional intent of the legislation is to ensure that respite becomes more accessible to all family caregivers in need, especially to those who currently do not qualify for any respite programs, who have no respite programs or providers in their areas, and those who do not know where to turn to find information on how to find and pay for respite. By using the broad term child or adult with special needs, Congress intended for the State to be highly inclusive and ensure that family caregivers of children and adults with developmental disabilities, cognitive, neurological, physical and mental health conditions and illnesses be equitably served. The focus for direct service delivery should be on those who currently may not qualify for respite under any State or Federal program or who have no service available, such as individuals under age 60 with multiple sclerosis, cancer, ALS, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, or children, adolescents or adults with behavioral, emotional or mental health conditions. Just as importantly, Congress intended that States focus immediately on establishing coordinated lifespan respite systems that will serve all age groups equally. The Secretary should ensure that State agencies and ADRCs use the funds provided by this act to serve all age groups and disability categories equally and without preference. The Aging and Disability Resource Centers were established by the administration with the intention of being one-stop shops for all individuals with long- term care needs, making them logically a good place to administer lifespan respite systems, which are meant to be one-stop shops for respite services. However, many centers are still focusing on the elderly population or adults with physical disabilities and phasing in others at a later date. For the lifespan respite care effort to work most efficiently to coordinate all respite resources in the State, share and pool providers across age and disability groups, and to maximize use of current State respite resources, the ADRCs, in implementing this particular program, must start out with the goal of establishing coordinated respite systems of community-based agencies that will serve all age groups, including children. Congress also intended lifespan respite to be coordinated at the State level. Many of the ADRCs in the States are serving only one county or region in the State. However, this legislation mandates the establishment of state lifespan respite programs, meaning that at least one ADRC in the State must function statewide, at least for the purposes of this legislation, with the assistance of a State respite coalition or other State respite agency to ensure coordination of resources at the State level, again for maximum efficiency and cost savings. Legislative language is also clear in mandating a Federal coordinated approach. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in implanting the program to have all agencies in HHS with respite programs or resources work collaboratively at every level, from developing program guidance and awarding grants and cooperative agreements, to monitoring and evaluation. Congress intends the following agencies to work together: the Administration on Aging, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Administration on Children and Families, including the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Centers for Disease Control's Family Caregiving Initiative, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, and other appropriate public health agencies in the Health Resources and Services Administration. When considering a Federal agency to take the lead in implementation of this program, the Secretary of HHS should select an agency that is not limited in scope or mission by any age or disability category, has experience in serving all populations across disability and age groups, and will ensure that the ADRC is collaborating fully and sharing joint responsibility with a private or public nonprofit State respite coalition or organization in implementing a state lifespan respite program. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. With 80 percent of long-term care provided by family caregivers, too many are shouldering the responsibility alone. At a minimum, they need respite to continue serving their loved ones at home where they belong.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3248, the Lifespan Respite Care Act. This important bipartisan legislation will for the first time establish a national policy to help our Nation's 50 million family caregivers, including 900,000 New Jersey family caregivers who provide daily care for their loved ones with disabilities and chronic conditions or illnesses. Instead of an institutionalized setting, in-home family caregivers provide minute-by-minute special assistance to a loved one with a disability or a critical illness or a chronic condition. Mr. Speaker, family caregivers are remarkable people. They make extraordinary sacrifices to help those whom they love so dearly. I saw one such example firsthand almost 10 years ago when my mom was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. For 6 years, my dad cared for her as she battled cancer. She lived longer than any of her doctors thought she would, and since she went to heaven 3\1/2\ years ago, our family has looked back on those extra monuments we had with our mom, and we treasured them, knowing that it was my dad's love and care which helped to make them possible. There are tens of millions of family caregivers in this country who provide the same loving and compassionate care that we saw my dad provide for my mom near the end of her life. In our family we were fortunate to have a support structure of relatives and friends who were able to provide a break for my dad when he really needed one. That respite was crucial for him. For him to stay healthy himself, it enabled him to provide better care for my mom. But there are countless caregivers around this country who are not blessed with that built-in support structure, and they are desperately in need of a break from time to time. Because while the benefits of in- home care can be significant for the family, compared with institutionalized care, the cost for the family caregiver, from emotional to financial, can be enormous. All across the country there are people like Karen Pinter of Hillsborough, New Jersey, providing in-home care. Karen provides round the clock care for her 10-year-old autistic daughter, Jessica. For Mrs. Pinter, respite means receiving $40 once a week from the New Jersey Family Support Center so that she can hire a tutor for her daughter. With a tutor, Karen Pinter can take a much-needed break so she can do simple things for herself and for her family that many of us take for granted, like writing out that week's grocery list or preparing dinner or paying bills or simply taking a break for herself. Respite for Eugenia and Roger Gore of Scotch Plains, New Jersey, helps their family to make ends meet. Their family uses respite hours so their 13-year-old autistic son can attend an extended-day program at school so Mrs. Gore can work outside the home to help further support their family. Now the Gore family uses their respite funds to enable Mrs. Gore to work outside the home. This helps alleviate a financial burden, but it does not allow their family the break that respite oftentimes would. Even as they applied to the State of New Jersey for support for some respite hours on a weekend so they could get that much-needed break for grocery shopping or to attend one of their other son's athletic games, unfortunately they were denied. For caregivers providing intense and exhausting care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, the occasional short break can literally be a lifesaver. That is what respite care is. It is providing a break for caregivers. Mrs. Pinter has told me that caring for a special needs child can be very joyful. It can also be very challenging, and she is right. Family caregivers suffer poor health and even higher mortality rates than non- family caregivers, according to some recent studies. For example, mortality rates among older caregivers are 63 percent higher than among older non-caregivers. Two-thirds of family caregivers report physical or mental health problems that are linked to their care giving. Nationally, there is no coordinated approach that exists among different levels of government or advocacy groups to help those who need respite care to find it and to qualify for it and to pay for it. The problem is that respite care is in short supply or it doesn't exist at all in some areas. This legislation that we are considering today would change that. The Lifespan Respite Care Act would improve coordination and access for respite care and recruit and train respite care providers. With $289 million over the next 5 years, the bill would also aid family caregivers in finding and paying for respite services through competitive grants to States to make quality respite care available and accessible, regardless of age or disability or family situation. National and grassroots advocacy groups, including the AARP, Alzheimer's Association, Epilepsy Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Arc of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy, they all support this legislation. Why does this legislative effort have such strong support from such reputable organizations and many others? Because we know respite care works. Respite care improves the health and well-being of caregivers and reduces the risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, it also delays or even avoids more costly hospitalizations or placements in nursing homes or foster care. Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years I have been working tirelessly with many of our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Chairman Barton for his support and the ranking member of our committee, Mr. Dingell. I want to offer a special word of thanks to Chairman Nathan Deal for his support of this bill. I know his heart is very close to this effort. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, as well for his strong support of this legislation. I also want to thank the over 180 national and State and local organizations who, under the direction of the National Respite Coalition and its chair, Jill Kagan, who is here in our Chamber today with us, we have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Nation's family caregivers on this issue. I want to thank Tom Fussaro from our staff in our office, and Eric Joyce from the Family Resource Network and the Epilepsy Foundation of New Jersey. And I particularly want to thank Mr. Langevin, the gentleman from Rhode Island, who has been such a strong supporter and my partner in this legislation all along the way. Finally, I want to thank my dad, who has provided our family and many others with a remarkable example of the loving care that a family caregiver can provide. Providing relief to our Nation's family caregivers is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Today's action by this House will represent not only an important victory for family caregivers nationwide but also sends America's caregivers a very clear message: Your selfless sacrifice is appreciated, and help is on the way.