Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jesus Armas, City Manager of Hayward, CA. Mr. Armas is ending his long and distinguished career with the City of Hayward at the end of June 2007. Mr. Armas, who has been associated with the City for nearly 20 years, was initially Assistant City Manager and since 1993 has held the position of City Manager.

During his tenure, Mr. Armas has assisted the City Council in addressing a number of issues that were outstanding at the time of his appointment as City Manager. Among his first tasks was to help the City Council address the financial challenges facing the City. The City was experiencing declining revenues and a reduction in its fund balance. Working with department heads and with the cooperation and assistance of employees and their associations or unions, various cost-saving measures were presented and adopted by the Council, resulting in a balanced budget. This spirit of cooperation among all members of the organization was employed once again a decade later when a downturn in the economy required another belt tightening,

Mr. Armas has initiated and implemented a number of significant changes, which have made Hayward a better place in which to live and work. Under the City Council's direction, he initiated projects that dramatically transformed downtown Hayward. Construction of a new award- winning City Hall served as a catalyst for significant public and private sector investments in the downtown area. Housing and retail development continue at a fast pace. While many communities in the Bay Area talked about the concept of transit-oriented development, Hayward went beyond the talking stage and caused the concept to become a reality. Mr. Armas describes the transformation of downtown as something he is especially proud of.

Jesus Armas has been the force and vision behind many projects that have enhanced the social, financial and environmental well-being of the City of Hayward. In reflecting on his tenure, Mr. Armas said that beyond the bricks and mortar, what is noteworthy has been the opportunity to work in a diverse community, where differences involving race, ethnicity and languages, are embraced and seen as positive rather than negatives aspects of the community.

Mr. Armas states ``I will be eternally grateful to Hayward residents for allowing me to experience a rewarding and enriching professional career,'' I join the City of Hayward, CA in expressing our profound appreciation to Mr. Armas for his exemplary commitment and dedicated public service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Pathways to Positive Aging, a collaborative project between the city of Fremont California's Human Services Department and the Tri-City Elder Coalition. This exciting Robert Wood Johnson funded project is helping seniors and communities to make choices for a healthier future. This community plan enables all older adults living in the Tri-City area of Fremont, Newark and Union City, California to understand, choose and access culturally enriched affordable services and opportunities that enhance their quality of life.

The Tri-City Elder Coalition is comprised of over 60 organizations and individuals including health care and long-term care providers, community and government agencies, faith-based/cultural organizations, senior service organizations, universities, elected officials and older adults.

The city of Fremont and the Tri-City Elder Coalition have identified five initiatives that support the health, well-being and independence of older adults. These include increased access to older adult services, increasing and sustaining older adult mobility, increasing the capacity of community groups to serve all older adults, and fostering cross cultural and intergenerational exchange that create meaningful opportunities for older adults.

Pathways to Positive Aging will focus on older adults who are at increased risk of disability due to poverty, race, ethnicity, chronic illness or advanced age as well as older adults with physical or cognitive impairments who require long-term care and supportive services.

It takes a community to support successful aging. Pathways to Positive Aging is a community partnership focused on improving long- term care and supportive service systems to meet the current and future needs of older adults.

I applaud the city of Fremont Human Services Department and the Tri- City Elder Coalition for meeting the challenge to build a community that is safe and welcoming; one that respects diversity and values senior participation; a place where information is easily available for all seniors; where seniors can be actively involved and where cultures and generations come together to support one another.

Pathways to Positive Aging will bring awareness, acceptance and a call to action that will embrace the aging process for all Tri-City residents. I join the community in thanking the city of Fremont Human Services Department and the Tri-City Elder Coalition for their commitment and dedication to make a positive difference toward successful aging.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2007, legislation to provide universal health coverage to our Nation's children.

In February, I was appalled when the Washington Post reported that 12-year-old Deamonte Driver passed away because his mother could not afford a basic dental procedure. An untreated infection in Deamonte's molar had spread to his brain. By the time he was brought to an emergency room, no amount of money could save him.

Deamonte Driver did not have to die. He would be still alive today if his mother had been insured, if more dentists accepted Medicaid, or if his family had not lost their Medicaid coverage.

This tragic story speaks to the shortcomings of our fragmented health care system. Millions of children are covered by their parents' health insurance plans. Medicaid and SCHIP provide care to millions of kids in families that meet their eligibility standards. Unfortunately, both programs have unnecessarily complex enrollment and review processes. Nearly 9 million children slip through the cracks of this incomplete system and go without health insurance each year.

Enough is enough. The wealthiest nation in the world can and should guarantee quality health care to all of our children. With insurance costs skyrocketing and employers dropping care, an overwhelming majority of Americans agrees. According to a February 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll, 84 percent favor expanding public programs to cover all uninsured children. If that's not a mandate for Congressional action, I don't know what is.

Rather than reinvent the wheel to provide care to our children, we should build on what works in our health care system. When Congress created Medicare more than 40 years ago, our Nation's seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most senior citizens were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the private market even if they could afford it. Today, as a result of Medicare's success, seniors are much less likely to be shackled by the bonds of poverty or to go without needed health care.

Now it is our Nation's children who are most likely to be poor. Kids in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. This travesty is not only morally reprehensible; it also has grave consequences for the future of our country. Our future rests on our ability to provide our children with the basic conditions to thrive and become healthy, educated, and productive adults.

Poor children are often malnourished and have difficulty succeeding in school. Untreated illnesses only worsen their chance for success. Providing these children with guaranteed health care would help realize their potential as individuals and our potential as a Nation.

The MediKids Health Insurance Act would create a new Federal health insurance program for children called MediKids. Modeled after Medicare, MediKids would provide comprehensive benefits appropriate to children, simplified cost sharing, prescription drug coverage and mental health parity.

Every child in America would be automatically enrolled in MediKids at birth and maintain that eligibility until age 23. Parents would retain the choice to enroll their kids in private plans or government programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP. However, if a lapse in other insurance coverage occurs, MediKids automatically fills in the gap.

MediKids doesn't have complicated enrollment and eligibility hoops. Instead, it assures that families will always have access to affordable health insurance for their children.

I can think of no better use of Congress' time--or our Nation's money--than to enact MediKids and provide health insurance to every child. Providing a simple, stable, and flexible health insurance option will afford millions of parents the peace of mind of knowing that their children will be cared for when they are sick. Our Nation's priorities should be centered on creating a bright future for our children and MediKids helps to achieve this goal.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the many endorsing organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Defense Fund to enact the MediKids Health Insurance Act.

Below is a summary of MediKids that provides additional details.

MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2007 Bill Summary

The MediKids Health Insurance Act provides health insurance

for all children in the United States regardless of family

income level by 2014. The program is modeled after Medicare,

but the benefits are improved and targeted toward children.

MediKids is the ultimate safety net, with maximum

simplicity, stability, and flexibility for families. Parents

may choose to enroll their children in private plans or

government programs such as Medicaid or S-CHIP. However, if a

lapse in other insurance coverage occurs, MediKids

automatically picks up the children's health insurance.

MediKids follows children across State lines when families

move, and fills the gaps when families climbing out of

poverty become ineligible for means-tested programs.

enrollment and eligibility

Every child born after December 31, 2008 is automatically

enrolled in MediKids. Older children are enrolled over a 5-

year phase-in as described below. Children who immigrate to

the U.S. are enrolled when they receive their immigration

cards. Materials describing the program's benefits, along

with a MediKids insurance card, are issued to the parent(s)

or legal guardian(s) of each child. Once enrolled, children

remain enrolled in MediKids until they reach the age of 23.

There are no re-determination hoops to jump through because

MediKids is not means tested.

benefits

The benefit package is based on the Medicare and the

Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and

Treatment (EPSDT) benefits for children, with simplified cost

sharing mechanisms and comprehensive prescription drug

coverage. The benefits will be reviewed annually and updated

by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reflect age-

appropriate benefits as needed with input from the pediatric

community.

premiums, deductibles, and copays

MediKids assures that families will always have access to

affordable health insurance for their children. Families

below 150 percent of poverty pay no premiums or cost sharing.

Families between 150 percent and 300 percent of poverty pay

reduced premiums and cost sharing. Parents above 300 percent

of poverty are responsible for a small premium equal to one-

fourth of the average annual cost per child. Premiums are

collected at the time of income tax filing. Premiums are not

assessed during periods of equivalent alternative coverage.

Families will never pay more than 5 percent of their adjusted

gross income (AGI) for premiums.

Cost sharing is similar to the largest plans available to

Members of Congress. There is no cost sharing for preventive

and well childcare for any children. A refundable tax credit

is provided for cost sharing above 5 percent of AGI.

financing

Initial funding to be determined by Congress. In future

years, the Secretary of the Treasury would develop a package

of progressive, gradual tax changes to fund the program, as

the numbers of enrollees grows.

states

Medicaid and S-CHIP are not altered by MediKids. States can

choose to maintain these programs. To the extent that the

States save money from the enrollment of children into

MediKids, States are required to maintain current funding

levels in other programs and services directed toward the

Medicaid population. This can include expanding eligibility

or offering additional services. For example, States could

expand eligibility for parents and single individuals,

increase payment rates to providers, or enhance quality

initiatives in nursing homes.

phase-in

MediKids is phased-in over a 5-year period according to the

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Foster Care Month. Our child welfare system faces severe challenges and this month provides Congress with the opportunity to make needed reforms.

Our society has an obligation to ensure that all children are raised in safe and loving environments. For the 500,000 children in foster care, the State is responsible for providing a stable home, through reunification with their families, permanent placements, or adoption. Tragically, we are not doing a very good job. Half of all foster children have been in care for more than a year. A quarter have been in the system for more than 3 years. For foster children that remain in the system and ``age out'' with no family supports, the future is not very bright. For those children, the odds are that they will end up in jail, homeless, or reliant on public assistance.

The problems that plague our child welfare system are largely the result of poor Federal and State policy decisions. Luckily, we have the power to reform those policies and directly affect the lives of the hundreds of thousands of children who are counting on us to do the right thing.

There are very concrete steps we can take to improve the foster care system. Congress should reform the financing system to make sure that we provide support for every foster child. Currently, the Federal Government supports less than 50 percent of children in care. We can also take steps to improve the child welfare workforce and reduce the number of cases those workers have to handle. A Federal ceiling for the number of cases a worker can handle should be established so that children get the attention needed to keep them safe. In addition, we have to provide better services to the estimated 25,000 children who leave care each year when they turn 18. All of these children should maintain Medicaid eligibility until they are 21 and we should invest further in training, education, and housing assistance for these children.

The resolution before us (H. Res. 263) can serve as a stepping stone for real action to protect our children and help them flourish. I am proud to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Democratic efforts to end the War in Iraq.

We are considering two bills today, both of which are significant improvements over legislation passed by Rubber Stamp Republican Congresses over the last four years. The Iraq Accountability Act provides funding for the war, but only until July. After receiving a report on the progress in Iraq--or lack thereof--Congress would then decide whether or not to extend funding through September. Unlike the legislation President Bush demanded, this bill holds him and his administration accountable for concrete economic, political and security benchmarks in Iraq.

Though I appreciate the attempt to keep President Bush on a ``short leash,'' I cannot vote to continue funding a tragic war that has already taken the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Every time I hear the President lie to the American people about the situation in Iraq and about the patriotism of those who dare criticize his many foreign policy failings, I can't help but think he needs a muzzle, not a leash.

It's past time for us to get out of this mess and for our troops to come home from Iraq.

That's why I'm excited to join my colleagues in supporting the Iraq Redeployment Act. This bill requires the withdrawal of American troops to begin in the next three months and be completed in the next nine. It also prohibits funding for the ``surge'' and permanent United

States military bases in Iraq. My constituents have been calling for withdrawal for years and I'm proud for vote for it on the House floor today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Safe Nursing and Patient Act with Representative Steven LaTourette (R-OH). Our legislation would achieve two vitally important goals. First, it would improve quality of care for patients across our country by assuring that nurses are not forced to work beyond the time they feel safe. Second, it would address our national nursing shortage by improving the working conditions that are causing nurses to leave their profession.

Assuring quality medical care and addressing our nursing shortage should not divide us on partisan lines. That's why I'm especially pleased to be working across the aisle with my friend from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, in this important endeavor. This is legislation we've introduced together for several sessions of Congress. Given our changed environment in Congress, we are hopeful that we'll be able to enact it this time.

There are some 500,000 trained nurses in our country who are not working in their profession. While they leave nursing for many different reasons, nurses consistently cite concerns about the quality of care they feel that are able to provide in many health care settings today. Nurses are also greatly concerned about being forced to work mandatory overtime.

Listen to these words of a nurse in the State of Washington:

I have been a nurse for six years and most of the time I

have worked in the hospital environment. It is difficult to

tell you how terrible it is to ``work scared'' all the time.

A mistake that I might make could easily cost someone their

life and ruin mine. Every night at work we routinely ``face

the clock.'' All of us do without lunch and breaks and work

overtime, often without pay, to ensure continuity of care for

our patients. Yet, we are constantly asked to do more. It has

become the norm for us to have patient assignments two and a

half times greater than the staffing guidelines established

by the hospital itself. I cannot continue to participate in

this unsafe and irresponsible practice. So I am leaving, not

because I don't love being a nurse, but because hospitals are

not safe places: not for patients and not for nurses.

While stories like this are telling, we also have a growing body of research to back up the anecdotes. Premier among these studies is a comprehensive report issued by the Institute of Medicine in November 2003 entitled, ``Keeping Patients Safe, Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses.'' The report finds that, ``limiting the number of hours worked per day and consecutive days of work by nursing staff, as is done in other safety-sensitive industries, is a fundamental safety precaution.'' The report went on to specifically recommend that, ``working more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period and more than 60 hours in any 7-day period be prevented except in case of an emergency, such as a natural disaster.''

Another study published in the July/August 2004 Health Affairs Journal, ``The Working Hours of Hospital Staff Nurses and Patient Safety,'' found that nurses who worked shifts of-twelve-and a half hours or more were three times more likely to commit an error than nurses who worked eight-and-a half hours (a standard shift) or less. The study also found that working overtime increased the odds of making at least one error, regardless of how long the shift was originally scheduled. Finally, this article illustrates how nurses are being forced to work more and more overtime. The majority of nurses surveyed reported working overtime ten or more times in a 28-day period and one- sixth reported working 16 or more consecutive hours at least once during the period. Nurses reported being mandated to work overtime on 360 shifts and on another 143 shifts they described being ``coerced'' into working voluntary overtime.

As these studies show, the widespread practice of requiring nurses to work extended shifts and forgo days off causes nurses to frequently provide care in a state of fatigue, contributing to medical errors and other consequences that compromise patient safety. In addition to endangering patients, studies also point to overtime issues as a prime contributing factor to our Nation's nursing shortage. For example, a 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, Nursing Workforce: Emerging Nurse Shortages Due to Multiple Factors, concluded:

[T]he current high levels of job dissatisfaction among

nurses may also play a crucial role in determining the extent

of current and future nurse shortages. Efforts undertaken to

improve the workplace environment may both reduce the

likelihood of nurses leaving the field and encourage more

young people to enter the nursing profession . . .

We have the voices of nurses and the research evidence to prove that the practice of requiring nurses to work beyond the point they believe is safe is jeopardizing the quality of care patients receive. It is also contributing to the growing nurse shortage. Current projections are that the nurse workforce in 2020 will have fallen 20 percent below the level necessary to meet demand.

We have existing Federal government standards that limit the hours that pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professions can safely work before consumer safety is endangered. However, no similar limitation currently exists for our Nation's nurses who are caring for us at often the most vulnerable times in our lives.

The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act would change that. It would set strict, new Federal limits on the ability of health facilities to require mandatory overtime from nurses. Nurses would be allowed to continue to volunteer for overtime if and when they feel they can continue to provide safe, quality care. But, forced mandatory overtime would only be allowed when an official state of emergency was declared by Federal, State or local government. These limits would be part of Medicare's provider agreements. They would not apply to nursing homes since alternative staffing and quality measures are already moving forward for those facilities.

To assure compliance, the bill provides HHS with the authority to investigate complaints from nurses about violations. It also grants HHS the power to issue civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for violations of the Act and to increase those fines for patterns of violations.

Providers would be required to post notices explaining these new rights and to post nurse schedules in prominent workplace locations. Nurses would also obtain anti-discrimination protections against employers who continued to force work hours for nurses beyond what a nurse believes is safe for quality care. Providers found to have violated the law would be posted on Medicare's website.

As usual, many States are ahead of the Federal Government when it comes to pinpointing problems that need to be addressed. Numerous States are currently considering bills to strictly limit the use of mandatory nurse overtime. Several States--including California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia--have already passed laws or regulations limiting the practice.

The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is an important first step, but it isn't the complete solution. I believe that standards must be developed to define timeframes for safe nursing care within the wide variety of health settings (whether such overtime is mandatory or voluntary). That is why the legislation also requires the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality to report back to Congress with recommendations for developing overall standards to protect patient safety in nursing care. Once we have better data in that regard, I will support broader limitations on all types of overtime. But, we must not wait to act until that data can be developed. The data collection will take years and the crisis of mandatory overtime is upon us now.

I know that our Nation's hospital trade associations will claim that our solution misses the mark because it is precisely the lack of nurses in the profession today that is necessitating their need to require mandatory overtime. Let me respond directly. Mandatory overtime is dangerous for patients plain and simple. It is also a driving force for nurses leaving the profession. These twin realities make mandatory overtime a dangerous short-term gamble at best. We should join together to end the practice.

Mandatory overtime is a very real problem facing the nursing profession and that is why our bill is endorsed by the American Nurses Association, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, UAN, and UAW-- organizations that speak for millions of America's nurses.

Again, our bill is not the sole solution. For example, I supported the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in August 2002. That legislation authorizes new Federal investment and initiatives to increase the number of people pursuing a nursing education. Such efforts will help in the future, but it will be years before that law's impact is felt in our medical system.

We need to help now. We must take steps to improve the nursing profession immediately so that today's nurses will remain in the field to care for those of us who need such care before new nurses can be trained. We also need today's nurses to be there as mentors for the nurses of tomorrow.

Mandatory nurse overtime is a very real quality of care issue for our health system and I look forward to working with my colleagues, enact the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. It will start us down the right path toward protecting patients and encouraging people to remain in-- and enter--the nursing profession.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of hate crime prevention.

Our laws should reflect the reality that hate crimes are fundamentally different from ordinary crimes. Hate crimes cause entire communities to live in fear of being attacked simply because of who they are. Hate crimes are meant to send a message and terrorize an entire group of people, not just an individual victim.

Hate crimes are a national issue and should be dealt with at the national level. In 2005, more than 7,000 hate crimes were reported to the FBI. Even this high number is certainly lower than the actual numbers of crimes committed all across America, as many go unreported and the FBI does not receive information from all law enforcement agencies.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) recognizes the need for a federal response and allocates the necessary resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when local officials are unable or unwilling to investigate incidents of hate crime. Local authorities, however, would maintain their autonomy and primary authority for these investigations. Federal intervention would be the last resort.

The bill also removes existing barriers that prohibit the FBI and the Department of Justice from fully assisting local law enforcement agencies in addressing hate crimes. This is vital because local governments often lack the resources necessary to properly conduct expensive hate crimes investigations and prosecutions. For example, the investigation of the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming cost over $150,000 and resulted in lay-offs at the local Sheriff's department.

Congress has a moral and constitutional obligation to offer the full protection of our Nation's laws to all individuals. This vital legislation expands existing hate crime protections to those who are targeted because of their gender, disability, or sexual orientation. These groups have been frequent targets of hate crimes. According to the FBI, 14 percent of reported hate crimes are motivated by sexual- orientation bias.

I fully support this bill. But I feel compelled to also note that it fails to address the growing number of hate crimes being committed against homeless individuals. The National Coalition for the Homeless has documented 614 hate crimes against homeless individuals since 1999, including 189 deaths. Some of these crimes against society's most vulnerable have been caught on tape, giving us a glimpse into the violence and fear of violence that many homeless people experience on a daily basis. I hope that this body will work to bring the issue of hate crimes against homeless individuals to light and move toward protections that recognize the value of all of our neighbors, including those lacking shelter.

Hate crimes impact all of us and it is our collective responsibility to actively confront the terror they cause. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 (H.R. 1429).

Since 1965, Head Start has served millions of low-income families and helped children prepare for school. It is an essential program and one whose success has a major impact on children, their families, their community, and ultimately the future of our country. We owe it to our children to pass this bill and make improvements that strengthen and grow the Head Start program.

Scientific research shows us that 80 percent of brain development occurs by age 3 and 90 percent by age 5. Studies also show that education achievement gaps between poor and minority students and affluent and non-minority students are already in place when children begin elementary school. These achievement gaps, once in place, tend to persist and are exceedingly difficult to remedy. Head Start and Early Head Start are effective in closing achievement gaps and foster both short and long-term success in participating children.

In addition to preparing children for success in school, recent research clearly demonstrates that children enrolled in Early Head Start and their parents realize other very significant gains. Early Head Start children show better approaches to learning, demonstrate more appropriate language acquisition, and exhibit less aggressive behavior. Early Head Start parents create a stronger home environment with more parent-child reading and a greater repertoire of discipline strategies. Early Head Start parents also show significant progress toward economic self-sufficiency. These impacts are significant and result in children with increased linguistic, cognitive, social and emotional competence. What better investment could we be making for our children?

Unlike programs dreamed up by ideologues in the Bush Administration like ``abstinence only education'' and ``marriage promotion,'' we know that Head Start works. Unfortunately, less than half of eligible children are enrolled in Head Start. Even worse, less than 5 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are enrolled in Early Head Start.

If we are serious about providing all children with an opportunity to succeed in school and in life, we must expand Head Start and particularly Early Head Start. This bill is a step in that direction. It will more than double the amount of money available to Early Head Start programs. The bill will also expand services to infants and toddlers that are so crucial to child development, but often difficult for parents to access. In addition, the Improving Head Start Act will increase eligibility levels so that children from families making up to 130 percent of the Federal poverty level can participate. This change is especially important in areas of the country with high costs of living, including my district where the poverty threshold is well below what it actually costs a family to live.

This bill's expansion of Early Head Start and Head Start should be applauded. We cannot lose sight, however, that these programs only address the tip of the iceberg. This Congress must focus more of our attention on all children birth to age 5 and guarantee that all families have access to high quality comprehensive early care and education programs. This is an investment that our country must make if we are serious about giving all of our children a chance at the American dream.

Despite the strong bipartisan support for this legislation, the White House has indicated that the President does not support this legislation as written unless we insert a special interest provision for the religious right. The President and many Republicans want to allow religious organizations to discriminate in their hiring practices. Religious organizations have been Head Start providers since the program was established and have done quite well playing by the same rules that prohibit all employers from discriminating. Pandering rhetoric and veiled threats from the White House will not improve the life of a single family.

In closing, I hope that all of my colleagues will see the importance of investing in our children and supporting families. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation and a ``no'' vote on Republican attempts to turn this into a vehicle for religious discrimination.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of NIH funding for research to better understand the causes and treatments for dystonia.

My longtime friend Howard Thiel visited last week to tell me more about the problem of dystonia; Howard experienced severe pain and disability from this condition for nine years.

Although he is now benefiting from effective treatment, he helped me better understand the problems of the many Americans who suffer from conditions of abnormal muscle tone. In compelling terms, he described the pain, disability and suffering they experience. From spasmodic dystonia of the neck, to spasmodic dysphonia of the vocal cords, and generalized whole body dystonia, these various conditions all involve distressing, often exquisitely painful difficulties with muscle tone.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has noted, ``Dystonia is the third most common neurological movement disorder behind Parkinson's and Tremors.'' Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer with this little known disorder. As we consider the difficult budget priorities confronting us in 2007, I ask you to give serious consideration to increased NIH support for research on neurological conditions like dystonia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a simple solution to the global warming problem, a carbon tax.

This past Sunday, we celebrated Earth Day. Today, in Earth Day's honor, I propose the Save Our Climate Act. The first Earth Day in 1970 led to new laws to improve air and water quality, and was an important impetus for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. On Earth Day 2007, climate change is the preeminent environmental concern. I hope 2007 will be remembered as the year we addressed global warming by passing the Save Our Climate Act.

Climate change is a worldwide problem requiring each nation to do its part. The International Panel on Climate Change--600 of the world's leading scientists--suggests that temperatures may increase three to seven degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. Al Gore's ``Inconvenient Truth'' may have seemed like a scare tactic, but if we don't wake up to the realities presented in his documentary, we will soon wake up to flooded coastlines, unfarmable plains, and species extinction.

To date, the United States has failed to take necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Though the U.S. emits approximately six billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year--comprising nearly 24 percent of the world's total emissions--we have failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. If we continue our refusal to act, we cannot expect other countries to do their part.

The vast majority of environmentalists and climate change experts agree that we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 in order to stop the current pace of climate change. Every year we delay enacting legislation to slow climate change makes it that much more difficult to stop global warming.

Economists widely agree that a carbon tax is the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save our planet from catastrophic climate change. The Save Our Climate Act is just that, a simple tax on fossil fuels that will decrease emissions and create immediate incentives for green energy. Under this legislation, carbon based fuels--coal, petroleum and natural gas--will be taxed at a rate of $10 per ton of carbon content. That means coal, which has higher carbon content than natural gas, will be taxed at a higher rate. This tax structure promotes the use of less carbon intensive fossil fuels and creates an incentive to use other non-carbon-based fuels.

The tax will increase by $10 per ton of carbon every year, making it less affordable to burn fossil fuels as time goes on. When the U.S. reduces its CO2 emissions by 80 percent, the tax will be frozen at that level. The Save Our Climate Act will generate a small energy price increase each year, equal to about 2 cents per gallon of gas annually. As the tax rate increases, fossil fuel prices will increase, producers will have an incentive to invest in cleaner alternative energies, and those alternative energy sources will become more competitive.

While economists agree that a carbon tax is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions, few agree on what to do with the revenues raised from the tax. The Save Our Climate Act does not prescribe how we should spend carbon tax revenue, but recognizes the many competing interests for this revenue. Low and middle-income consumers who may face modestly higher energy prices under this system could receive some of the revenue in the form of reduced income taxes or increased tax deductions or credits. We could also spend the money on alternative energy sources, health care, education, or a myriad other domestic environmental and social priorities.

The Save Our Climate Act is a simple solution to a very difficult problem. Some have suggested a system of CO2 emission caps and a market to buy and sell emissions credits, often referred to as ``cap and trade.'' I

worry that industry will thwart any attempt to set a real emissions cap. I also worry about the bureaucratic costs of effectively enforcing such a system. In contrast, a carbon tax is easy to administer and reduces CO2 emissions by raising the price of fossil fuels, thereby reducing demand for those fuels. It's Economics 101, but unlike most school lectures, this econ lesson could save our planet.

Global climate change is too important for us to continue our inaction because of industry stakeholders or the worry over political consequences of raising taxes. A carbon tax is the best way to address the problem of global warming. I urge all my colleagues to do what's right for our country and the world by supporting the Save Our Climate Act.

Madame Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally passing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

This is a bill that has languished in Congress more than a decade. The Senate has twice passed earlier versions of this bill with unanimous votes, but the House has always blocked action.

It's good to see that times have changed. Members from both sides of the aisle--as well as the President support the bill before us.

As I hope most of you know, this bill does something very simple, but something very important as well. It protects people's genetic information and family history from being used by health plans or employers to discriminate against them. Enactment of this law is critical to protect patients and for genetic science to advance.

Recent breakthroughs in medical science have made genetic testing available to more patients, but with these breakthroughs comes the fear that patients may be discriminated against by insurance companies and/ or employers if they are pre-disposed to suffer from a disease or other condition.

We are here today to make sure that patients can undergo genetic tests which could help with treatments or cures without fear that the results will keep them from affordable, reliable health care.

This legislation is an overdue and important step toward ensuring that our laws governing patient rights are as current as the latest medical technology.

I urge strong support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I must again make the difficult decision to vote ``present'' on the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.

I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

I can't in good conscience vote to fund President Bush's War in Iraq. This senseless conflict has already taken the lives of more than 3300 American and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has undermined the United States' prestige in the world, led to the outbreak of a Shiite-Sunni civil war, and cost us $379 billion. Those funds--and the tens of billions of dollars for the war in today's legislation--would be better spent on education, healthcare and other unmet domestic priorities.

Nor can I can vote, however, against a Democratic majority intent on taking America's Iraq policy in a new direction. I applaud Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership for working toward the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. My Republican colleagues voting against today's legislation are doing a disservice to both our troops and our security by supporting an open-ended commitment in Iraq. I cannot join their opposition to holding President Bush accountable.

My ``present'' vote is therefore an expression of strong opposition to the war's continuation for even one more day and strong support for the Democratic Congress' attempt to get an arrogant and stubborn President to change course in Iraq.

I urge the President to reconsider both his threat to veto this bill and his insistence on keeping our troops in harm's way. It is long past time for Bush to end a war he should never have begun.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of increasing public awareness of child abuse and neglect. Nearly 900,000 children were found to be victims of abuse and neglect in 2005. This is unacceptable. Congress must take bold action to protect our Nation's children.

Abused and neglected children face a trauma that does not end when the abuse stops. They must also contend with numerous future problems stemming from their abuse and neglect, including mental illness, poor academic achievement, and criminal behavior. In addition, abuse and neglect often starts or continues a cycle of abuse where a third of victimized children go on to become abusers themselves.

Congress has taken steps to prevent and ameliorate child abuse and neglect through programs such as the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, Child Welfare Services, and the Community Based Child Abuse Prevention program. These are all good programs, but Congress and the President have consistently under funded them. For example, in fiscal year 2006, the Community Based Child Abuse Prevention program was under funded by $38 million. Congress must fully fund these programs at their authorized levels. The fraudulent war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich has placed us in a difficult fiscal situation. Even so, we must fund the services that protect our most vulnerable children.

By increasing public awareness of child abuse and neglect, we also have an opportunity to implement new policies that address the health and safety of our children. There are 8 million uninsured children in this country. Continuing to deny health care to all children is simply another form of child neglect. We should work to provide health coverage to every child.

I hope that the resolution before us will help to galvanize this body to push for policies that protect and nurture children. The thousands of abused children and the millions of uninsured children deserve our attention and commitment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of establishing a National Foster Parents Day. Individuals and families that open their homes and their hearts to vulnerable children are truly deserving of our recognition.

Of the over 500,000 foster children in the United States, 380,000 live with foster parents. Without the compassion of thousands of foster parents, our foster care system would fall apart. Foster parents are the glue that holds the child welfare system together.

Every day, abused and neglected children enter the child welfare system and become the responsibility of our society. As the collective caretakers of vulnerable children, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that foster children receive the same love and opportunities that we want our own children to receive. Foster parents are the individuals that take on the immense responsibility of providing abused and neglected children with loving homes, often with very little government support.

Too often our society and this body ignore the plight of foster children. We do so at our own peril, because foster children who are not provided with the supports they need to mature and grow do not transition into self-sufficient adults. Society bears responsibility for this failure and we also bear the costs of incarceration, homeless services, and medical care of former foster children who do not become independent. A National Foster Parent's Day will shed much needed light on the struggles of our foster children as well as the sacrifices made by the families that welcome those children into their homes and move them toward brighter futures. It will also provide a forum to discuss the improvements that must be made to our foster care system. Finally, we will encourage more families to become foster parents by recognizing the vital role that foster parents play in lives of children.

The thousands of foster parents around the country are the heroes of our child welfare system. We should provide them with every possible support, including the special recognition of a National Foster Parents Day.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise to announce the death of our friend and colleague, Juanita Millender- McDonald of California. She died, we are informed, peacefully at home with her family on Sunday after a battle with cancer.

Juanita holds a special place in history. She is the first African American woman to chair a full committee in the United States House. She also worked tirelessly against genocide, human trafficking, and she worked for women's rights. Prior to coming to Congress, she exemplified a leadership role as a teacher, city council member, and California State Assemblywoman.

She was only 68 years young, a vibrant Member of Congress, and a good friend. Our sympathy goes to her husband James, five adult children, and five grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence to honor her at this time.