Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Catherine Skivers Currency for All Act.

This bill would finally make the United States' paper currency accessible to blind and visually impaired Americans. Of the more than 180 countries in the world that issue their own banknotes, only the U.S. prints identical bills for every denomination. As a result, millions of Americans with visual impairments cannot recognize various denominations and may have difficulty using paper money. This legislation would, at long last, make our currency accessible to all.

Thanks to a recent court case, the inaccessibility of American currency has received significant national attention. In November, a federal court agreed with the American Council of the Blind that the current size and shape of bills violates the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits the government from discriminating against people with disabilities.

The Treasury Department is appealing the decision. But Congress has the ability to do the right thing before the appeal is heard. I first introduced this bill in 1979 and think it is embarrassing that, more than 25 years later, blind Americans had to sue their government requesting access to their own currency. We should not delay or deny justice any longer.

I propose this particular solution because it is simple, effective, and easy to implement quickly. My legislation requires the U.S. Treasury to trim the corners of all bills in a manner that prevents fraud, with lower value bills having more trimmed corners.

My bill calls for the trimming of four corners on the one dollar bill, three corners on the two dollar bill, two diagonal corners on the five dollar bill, two corners on a long side of the ten dollar bill, two corners on a short side of the 20 dollar bill, one corner on the 50 dollar bill, and no corners on the 100 dollar bill.

I named this bill in honor of Catherine Skivers, a remarkable woman of strength and conviction. Catherine is a constituent of mine, mother of five, longtime advocate for the rights of blind people, and the immediate past president of the California Council of the Blind. It is for Catherine and millions of other blind and vision-impaired Americans that I will work to enact this legislation.

Next to the flag of the United States, our money is perhaps the most widely recognized symbol of our nation. We deserve no less than a currency that serves the needs of all Americans. Let us not let another year pass with our currency in violation of our own laws and commitment to equality.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Peace Action's 50th anniversary. Peace Action has been a seminal part of the peace movement. On the evening of April 12, 2007 at Madison's Lake Merritt Hotel in Oakland, California, Peace Action West, a regional organization of Peace Action, will celebrate their work during the last 50 years as well as their recent victories.

The evening celebration will include reminiscences by Peace Activist Norman Cousins' daughters, Candis Cousins and Shigeko Sasmori. Norman Cousins was an eminent activist and founder of SANE. As a child, Shigeko survived the Hiroshima atomic blast, and soon after was unofficially adopted by the Cousins family. From her experience at the very center and origin of the nonproliferation movement, her lifetime of peace activism is an inspiration to us all. Together they will speak to the memory of their father's work and ideals, which I find new expression in this generation of peace organizers.

In 1957, motivated by the realization that nuclear weapons could put an end to human life on the planet, the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy was born. SANE, as the organization came to be known, later merged with the Nuclear Freeze movement and became Peace Action. For 50 years Peace Action has galvanized a voice for a world where the threat of nuclear weapons is eliminated and where foreign policy is based on international cooperation and respect for human rights. Peace Action has grown into a regional organization nearly 50,000 members strong.

I join the community in celebrating Peace Action's 50-year milestone of waging peace. I thank the members of Peace Action West for their exemplary efforts and deep commitment to peace and human rights and I applaud their five decades of accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read the column below from our former Senate colleague Dave Durenberger from Minnesota. Dave continues to be a leader in health policy, having founded the National Institute of Health Policy which promotes health policy dialogue in the Upper Midwest. He also serves as a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC).

We can all learn from Dave who looks at our health system from a policy perspective, not a purely party perspective.

He is an example for us all.

[National Institute of Health Policy, Mar. 22, 2007]

(By Dave Durenberger)

National Health Policy

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the American Health Insurance Act of 2007. I am joined by various cosponsors in supporting this common sense solution for the U.S. to finally achieve guaranteed, affordable, quality health insurance coverage for all.

I have often spoken before this body about the great need to reform our health care system. For too long, we have been plagued with an inadequate patchwork that today leaves 45 million Americans uninsured. Our complex system requires us to spend more than any other nation on health care--30 percent on administration alone. Health care costs continue to rise, yet year after year hardworking families are faced with less access, more paperwork, and declining quality.

Our broken health system is a tremendous financial burden on our Nation's families and businesses alike. Half of all bankruptcies can be traced to medical bills. Eighty percent of people who file for bankruptcy because of medical bills have health insurance, but their benefits do not meet their needs. General Motors spends more on health care than on steel; Starbucks spends more on health insurance than on coffee.

These problems have only worsened over time. In years past, special interests have defeated attempts to reform the health system. Today, however, calls for health reform are being heard from unlikely voices and through strange partnerships. Wal-Mart joined SEIU, which has in turn joined AARP and the Business Roundtable, to call for government action. On March 6, the AFL-CIO abandoned its support of employer-based health care and began to push universal coverage through the expansion of Medicare. Even the for-profit hospitals have put forward a proposal.

This month, the New York Times reported that a majority of Americans would like the federal government to guarantee health insurance to every American--especially children. Nearly 80 percent think it is more important to provide universal access to health insurance than it is to extend the tax breaks of recent years. Sixty percent of Americans, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes to guarantee access to all.

These various stakeholders may not agree on exactly which road we should travel. But they do finally all agree on our destination: guaranteed, affordable quality health coverage. The bill I am introducing today is the best way to get us there.

The AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2007 is a practical proposal to ensure that everyone has health coverage in our country. It builds on what works in today's health care system to provide simple, affordable, reliable health insurance. Under AmeriCare, people would continue to obtain health coverage through their employer--as most of us currently do--or they would be covered under the new AmeriCare system.

AmeriCare creates a new Title XXII in the Social Security Act. It uses Medicare's existing administrative infrastructure, but improves upon Medicare's benefits to address some of the current gaps in coverage, such as mental health parity, coverage for children, and family planning and pregnancy-related services for women. State Medicaid programs would remain responsible for long-term care, but AmeriCare would cover low-income children, women, and others who currently receive health care services under Medicaid.

AmeriCare is financed through premiums, paid 20 percent by individuals and families and 80 percent by employers. People with incomes under 200 percent of poverty would be fully subsidized, and premiums and cost-sharing would be phased in for those with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of poverty. General revenues and state funds would help to offset these costs.

AmeriCare limits out-of-pocket spending to ensure that no one spends a disproportionate share of their income on health care. Employers could continue to offer their own coverage, so long as it is at least as good as AmeriCare. Payment of premiums would be reconciled on our annual income tax forms.

Enacting AmeriCare would provide tremendous benefits to our Nation. A recent report by the Commonwealth Fund comparing several proposals by Members of Congress and the Bush Administration concluded that AmeriCare is the only health reform proposal that would provide for truly universal care, covering all of the nearly 45 million currently uninsured Americans.

Expanding insurance coverage to all will end the cost shifting that results from the high number of uninsured we have today. This could reduce premiums for job-based insurance by as much as $1,000 for family coverage, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Because AmeriCare builds on the highly efficient Medicare program, the Commonwealth Fund concluded that it would result in the greatest overall savings to the health system of all health reform plans they modeled. Medicare's per capita costs have grown at a slower rate than private health insurance or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Using Medicare as a model will reduce costs for households, employers, state and local governments.

Our Nation is at a crossroads. Our legacy should be a future where our children are not saddled with debt, where they do not fear financial ruin due to an illness. Whether we build a healthy future for our children or not depends upon the decisions we make today. True compassion means offering real solutions, not empty promises.

Working together, applying common sense approaches that build on what works, we can ensure that no-one risks the loss of insurance coverage. All we need is the will to do it.

As we edge closer to our next discussion on health reform, we need to ask, is medical care a civic and social right like police and fire services, education, and environmental protection?

Or is health care ``you're on your own?''

I hope I can count on my colleagues and our endorsing organizations to advance a shared vision of higher quality, lower costs, and universal coverage through the adoption of AmeriCare.

Attached is a short summary of AmeriCare. More can be found on my website at http://www.house.gov/stark.

AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2007

Overview: The AmeriCare Health Care Act (``AmeriCare'') is

a practical proposal to ensure that everyone has health

coverage in our country. It builds on what works in today's

health care system to provide simple, affordable, reliable

health insurance. People would be covered under the new

AmeriCare system, modeled on Medicare, or they would continue

to obtain health coverage through their employer.

Using the administrative efficiencies within Medicare and

building on the existing coverage people receive through

their jobs today, we can create an affordable, efficient, and

stable universal health care system in America--and guarantee

access to medical innovation and the world's most advanced

providers and facilities.

Structure and Administration: Creates a new title in the

Social Security Act, ``AmeriCare.'' Provides universal health

care for all U.S. residents, with special eligibility for

children (under 24), pregnant women, and individuals with

limited incomes (<300% FPL). Sets out standards for

supplemental plans with a focus on consumer protection.

Requires the Secretary to negotiate discounts for

prescription drugs.

Benefits: Adults receive Medicare Part A and B benefits;

preventive services, substance abuse treatment, mental health

parity; and prescription drug coverage equivalent to the BC/

BS Standard Option in 2005. Children receive comprehensive

benefits and Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and

Treatment (EPSDT) coverage with no cost-sharing.

Cost Sharing: There is a $350 deductible for individuals,

$500 for families, and 20% coinsurance. Total spending

(premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance) is capped at out-

of-pocket maximum of $2,500 individual/$4,000 family, or 5

percent of income for beneficiaries with income between 200

percent-300 percent FPL and 7.5 percent of income for

beneficiaries with income between 300 percent-500 percent

FPL. There is no cost sharing for children, pregnant women,

low-income (below 200 percent FPL). Sliding scale subsidies

are in place for cost-sharing for individuals between 200

percent and 300 percent FPL.

Financing: At April 15 tax filing each year, individuals

either demonstrate equivalent coverage through their employer

or pay the AmeriCare premium based on cost of coverage and

class of enrollment (individual, couple, unmarried individual

with children, or married couple with children). Employers

may either pay 80 percent of the AmeriCare premium or provide

equivalent benefits through a group health plan (the

contribution for part-time workers is pro-rated). AmeriCare

does not affect contracts or collective bargaining agreements

in effect as of the date of enactment, and employers may

choose to provide additional benefits. Employers with fewer

than 100 employees have until January 1, 2012 to comply

(employees of small businesses would still only pay 20

percent of the premium).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my Subcommittee Ranking Member Mr. Camp in reintroducing the Legal Services Benefit Act.

Many employees and retirees lost access to affordable preventive legal services when the tax-preferred status of qualified group legal plans sunsetted in 1991. This bill corrects that historic wrong and ensures that millions of workers and retirees have access to employer provided group legal service plans.

Group legal service plans provide employees with low cost, basic legal services, including assistance with the purchase of a home, the preparation of a will, probate services and the resolution of domestic conflicts, such as child support collection. With evictions and mortgage foreclosures on the rise, legal plans can also help keep employees in their homes and focused on their jobs.

The Legal Services Benefit Act will restore the historic pre-tax treatment of group legal services under Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code. This change to the tax code will again make legal service plans affordable for both employers and employees, and will provide access to legal services for millions of middle-income Americans who might otherwise let legal troubles get out of hand.

I thank many of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee who have already joined us as original cosponsors of this bill, and I urge all members to support this important legislation that will help workers and businesses across the Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the William H. Frist Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act with my colleague, Mr. Camp of Michigan. This legislation creates a congressional commemorative medal for organ donors and their families, recognizing the brave and selfless act of organ donation. It is an important piece of legislation that I hope will continue to receive bipartisan support. I also want to thank Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley for introducing the companion bill in the Senate.

Former Senate majority leader and transplant surgeon Dr. William H. Frist was a tireless advocate of organ donors and their families during his time in the Senate. Dr. Frist worked on behalf of the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act for years, and I'm pleased to name the bill in his honor.

There is a serious shortage of available and suitable organs for donation. Nearly 100,000 people are currently waiting for organ transplants--over 2,000 of these are children under age 18. The national waiting list has grown substantially every year. Since the waiting list began, at least 75,000 donation-eligible Americans have died waiting for an organ to become available--in 2005 alone, over 6,000 people died for lack of a suitable organ. Donating an organ to someone whose life depends on it is laudable, and should be recognized and encouraged. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act is an important bill which would do just that.

Health and Human Services--HHS--has already implemented initiatives to raise the public awareness of this vital act of giving life. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act is a great opportunity for us to work with HHS to draw attention to this life-saving issue. It sends a clear message that donating one's organs is an act that should receive the profound respect of our Nation.

The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act establishes a nonprofit fund to be used to design, produce, and distribute a congressional commemorative medal to organ donors or to a surviving family member. Enactment of this legislation would have no cost to the Federal Government. Startup costs are provided by the Treasury Department in the form of a loan, which would be fully repaid. Subsequently, the program would be self-sufficient through charitable donations.

This is noncontroversial, nonpartisan legislation to increase the rate of organ donation. I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and recognize the enormous courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation. I urge swift passage of the William H. Frist Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th Anniversary of the Hispanic Community Affairs Council's Scholarship Awards Program. On May 3, 2007, members of the community will gather at Chabot Community College in Hayward, California to honor this milestone achievement.

The Hispanic Community Affairs Council (HCAC) is a community-based organization in Alameda County, California. It was organized in 1978 by a group of individuals interested in providing a forum to debate issues of interest to the Latino/Hispanic communities, to share information regarding employment opportunities and to develop a broad network of concerned individuals. The overall purpose of HCAC is to promote the value of education, cultural diversity, community involvement and political awareness.

A primary focus of the HCAC is the promotion of higher education in the Hispanic community through its annual Scholarship Awards Program. Since the establishment of this program, HCAC has awarded more than one million dollars to over 1,200 students for their pursuit of higher education. Scholarship recipients will attend 4-year colleges and universities, community, colleges, vocational training schools, or engage in graduate studies.

In 1983 HCAC awarded two scholarships. As the program continued to progress, HCAC celebrated its 20th year by awarding 100 scholarships. In 2005 HCAC awarded over 1,000 scholarships and in 2006, the organization reached a milestone of over one million dollars in scholarship awards.

One hundred percent of the money HCAC raises goes into its scholarship program. The organization does not have paid staff and everyone working on the scholarship program is a volunteer. Scholarships of $1,500 to students attending a 4-year college or post graduate program and $750 awards to students attending a community college are based on academic achievement, financial need, and a commitment by the students to give back to their respective communities after completing their education and achieving their career goals.

The Hispanic Community Affairs Council is an exemplary non-profit organization providing invaluable opportunities for Hispanic students to pursue their higher education. I applaud the efforts of the partners of HCAC who contribute

financially to the scholarship program and the volunteers who also work tirelessly to ensure the success of this model scholarship awards program.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Eden Area League of Women Voters celebrating their 50th Anniversary on April 13, 2007. The Eden Area League serves the communities of Castro Valley, Hayward, San Leandro and San Lorenzo, California.

The Hayward Area League joined with the San Leandro League in 1988 to become the Eden Area League of Women Voters.

The Hayward Area League of Women Voters was founded in 1957 by a group of Hayward, California women interested in non-partisan study of local and broader issues, and non-partisan voter education. The Hayward Area League is an expression of the National League of Women Voters founded in 1920. The League is dedicated to enfranchising all voters, educating its members and the public on local, state and national issues, providing non-partisan public forums for candidate interviews and ballot measure discussions.

Members of the Eden Area League have devoted thousands of hours to their communities to improve voter knowledge of local, state and national issues. The members encourage community members to become involved with a special focus on educating voters on state ballot propositions, local issues and understanding governance structures.

The League, at all levels, has a well-deserved reputation for educating themselves and the public about critical public policy issues and events that shape our democratic process.

Over its 50 years of existence, the Eden Area League of Women Voters can point to a number of successful projects with pride. They have become an integral part of the cities they serve and provide an invaluable public service to our communities.

I express my heartiest congratulations to the Eden Area League of Women Voters on reaching a milestone 50th Anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Jim Ramstad of Minnesota and Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to provide mental health parity in Medicare. I have introduced a version of this bill in every Congress since 1994. Perhaps this time we can actually enact it.

Medicare's mental health benefit is fashioned on treatments provided in 1965, but mental health care has changed dramatically over the last 42 years. Medicare limits inpatient coverage at psychiatric hospitals to 190 days over an individual's lifetime. In addition, beneficiaries are charged a discriminatory 50 percent coinsurance for outpatient psychotherapy services, compared to 20 percent for physical health services.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act eliminates this blatant mental health discrimination under Medicare and modernizes the Medicare mental health benefit to meet today's standards of care.

This bill is long overdue. One in five members of our senior population displays mental difficulties that are not part of the normal aging process. In primary care settings, more than a third of senior citizens demonstrate symptoms of depression and impaired social functioning. Yet only one out of every three mentally ill seniors receives the mental health services he/she needs. Older adults also have one of the highest rates of suicide of any segment of our population. In addition, mental illness is the single largest diagnostic category for Medicare beneficiaries who qualify as disabled.

There is a critical need for effective and accessible mental health care for our Medicare population. Recent research has found a direct relationship between treating depression in older adults and improved physical functioning associated with independent living. Unfortunately, the current structure of Medicare mental health benefits is inadequate and presents multiple barriers to access of essential treatment. This bill addresses these problems.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act is a straightforward bill that improves Medicare's mental health benefits as follows:

It reduces the discriminatory co-payment for outpatient mental health services from 50 percent to the 20 percent level charged for most other Part B medical services.

It eliminates the arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

It improves beneficiary access to mental health services by including within Medicare a number of community-based residential and intensive outpatient mental health services that characterize today's state-of- the-art clinical practices.

It further improves access to needed mental health services by addressing the shortage of qualified mental health professionals serving older and disabled Americans in rural and other medically underserved areas by allowing state licensed marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors to provide Medicare-covered services.

Similarly, it corrects a legislative oversight that will facilitate the provision of mental health services by clinical social workers within skilled nursing facilities.

It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study to examine whether the Medicare criteria to cover therapeutic services to beneficiaries with Alzheimer's and related cognitive disorders discriminates by being too restrictive.

In April 2002, President Bush identified unfair treatment limitations placed on mental health benefits as a major barrier to mental health care and urged Congress to enact legislation that would provide full parity in the health insurance coverage of mental and physical illnesses. We've made important strides forward for the under-65 population. Twenty-six states have enacted full mental health parity. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) was improved in 2001 to assure that all federal employees and members of Congress are provided parity for mental health and substance abuse treatment. This month, Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad intoroduced H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, to provide full parity for mental health and substance abuse in the private insurance market nationwide. I'm proud to join them in support of this legislation, which was introduced with 256 cosponsors--well more than the 218 majority needed to pass the House of Representatives.

While some in the business community are concerned about increased costs associated with providing these benefits, a recent study of the FEHBP mental health coverage concluded that implementation of parity benefits led to negligible cost increases. In fact, some businesses are now embracing parity because they recognize the increased productivity from workers over the long run and how improving access to mental health services has the potential to avoid other additional costly care.

I am similarly sure that modernizing the Medicare mental health benefit will reduce unnecessary spending. Medicare mental health expenses have historically been heavily skewed toward more expensive inpatient services, with 56 percent of the total going to inpatient care and only 30 percent toward outpatient services in 2001. This relationship is in contrast to national trends showing a reversal in inpatient and outpatient spending over the past decade. In the last 10 years, inpatient spending declined from 40 percent to 24 percent, while outpatient spending increased from 36 percent to 50 percent of all mental health spending. In addition, improving beneficiary access to timely mental health care could well yield savings by minimizing the need for other services.

Science has demonstrated that mental illness and substance abuse are manifestations of biological diseases. It is long past time for

us to take action with regard to Medicare's inadequate mental health benefits and structure. Over the years, Congress has updated Medicare's benefits for treatment of physical illnesses as the practice of medicine has changed. The mental health field has undergone many advances over the past several decades. Effective research-validated interventions have been developed for many mental conditions that affect stricken beneficiaries. Most mental conditions no longer require long-term hospitalizations, and can be effectively treated in less restrictive community settings. This bill recognizes these advances in clinical treatment practices and adjusts Medicare's mental health coverage to account for them.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act removes discriminatory features from the Medicare mental health benefits while facilitating access to up-to-date and affordable mental health services for our senior citizens and people with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Kennedy, and myself in support of this important legislation and to work with us to improve mental health coverage for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is very difficult for me.

I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act is a significant improvement over the President's failed Iraq policies. For years, Bush has sent our troops into harms way without the proper equipment. Today's legislation aims to hold the Administration accountable for its own readiness standards--and for the benchmarks President Bush himself proposed for Iraqi government performance. This bill also goes farther toward providing an actual end date for this war than any other legislation that has reached the House floor.

I applaud Speaker Pelosi, Jack Murtha, and Dave Obey for this significant achievement. I wish I could support my Speaker today and vote with the overwhelming majority of my Democratic colleagues. But, I can't vote ``yes.''

I ran for Congress because of my strong opposition to our government's unyielding commitment to the Vietnam War. I didn't think it made sense for American men and women to die for the half-truths of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Today, I don't think it makes any more sense for lives to be lost for the outright lies of the Bush regime.

I voted against the original resolution authorizing the President to take military action against Iraq. At the time, I said I didn't trust this president and his advisors.

During the war's four long years, nothing has happened to convince me otherwise. On the contrary, the Bush Administration has repeatedly misled the American people about Iraq. They lied to Congress about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, about the cost and length of the war, and about meeting arbitrary benchmarks.

Their goalposts keep moving. The amount of money they requested for this supplemental alone is nearly twice the amount they initially projected the war would cost in its entirety.

Throughout my career in Congress, I've voted against defense spending and against war. Building new weapons systems and waging war doesn't solve problems. If the last four years are any indication, it actually makes them worse.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the higher the cost of this senseless war. Unless we withdraw immediately, the Shiite-Sunni civil war will continue taking the lives of additional American troops and Iraqi civilians. Education, health care, and other domestic needs will go under-funded in America while additional billions are spent in Iraq. And our international allies will further doubt our actions and intentions around the world.

Despite my utmost respect for my colleagues who crafted this bill, I can't in good conscience vote to continue this war. Nor, however, can I vote ``no'' and join those who think today's legislation goes too far toward withdrawal.

That's why I'm making the difficult decision to vote ``present.'' My vote should be interpreted as opposing the war's continuation while permitting this Congress--under Speaker Pelosi's leadership--to deliver a strong message to President Bush that his blank check to wage war has been canceled.

I urge my colleagues to vote their consciences and help end the war in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks in memory of Dr. Thomas Curtis DDS who passed away on February 17, 2007. Dr. Curtis was a World War II veteran who led a life of service to both his country and the bay area community in which he lived. During the war, Dr. Curtis served in the Army's 10th Mountain Division and fought in the Italian theatre. He was awarded two Purple hearts, the Bronze Star, and the Silver Star for his heroic actions.

After the war, Dr. Curtis enrolled at UC Berkeley and eventually graduated from UC San Francisco's dentistry school. He joined his father's dental practice and was a professor at UCSF until he retired in 1991. As an expert in maxillofacial prosthodontics, the reconstruction of the upper jaw, Dr. Curtis worked with surgeons to design replacements for trauma and cancer patients, allowing them to eat and speak again. Dr. Curtis had a passion for helping those in need and never turned away a patient that was referred to him even when some of those patients could not pay for his services. During the Vietnam War, Dr. Curtis volunteered regularly at the Letterman Army

Hospital treating injured soldiers. He also served on the board of directors of the Bay Area Tumor Institute. As chairman of a voluntary organization that helped East Bay cancer patients consult with specialists prior to surgery to develop strategies for reconstruction before their tumors were removed.

Dr. Thomas Curtis was a healer and a teacher. He defended his country in battle, helped heal those in need in his community, and passed down his knowledge and experience to his students at the University of California, San Francisco. His passing shall be mourned and his exemplary service to our country and community remembered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory Claude Moose. Claude was a longtime resident of San Lorenzo, California and died on February 17, 2007, a day before his 93rd birthday.

He was committed to his family of five children and his wife Betty, a former member of the San Lorenzo School Board. His commitment to making a positive difference in the lives of others also extended to the community in which he lived.

Claude Moose was very active in his community as a Scout leader and was also appreciated for his corny sense of humor. He was an avid golfer into his late 80s and won a hole-in-one contest and many trophies. He taught his daughter, Claudia, to play when she was nine years old and they enjoyed courses from Alameda to Skywest.

Claudia describes her father's golf game--``He may not have hit long, but he hit straight. He was a dead eye on the game, no short games with him.''

Retired for many years, Claude was active in the Friends of the Library-San Lorenzo, serving as the hospitality chair and book sale volunteer. He was a volunteer and active member of the Gray Panthers of Alameda County, Hayward Demos Democratic Club, Fairmont Service League Senior Meals Program, and San Lorenzo Heritage Society and was chaplain of Disabled Veterans Chapter 51 of San Lorenzo.

Claude worked 37 years as a mail carrier and postal clerk at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. He served in the U.S. Army in World War II for five years in the South Pacific, with his last tour in New Guinea. He received many medals and was a staff sergeant in the 143rd Ordinance-Maintenance Company 77th Division.

The Mooses lived in the same San Lorenzo house for 56 years and have been members of Christ Lutheran Church since its inception 56 years ago. A memorial service will be held on March 1st at Christ Lutheran Church. A military service will be held on March 9th.

My family and staff join the community in paying tribute to Claude Moose and expressing sympathy to Betty and her family on the tremendous loss of this proud father, avid golfer and community activist. He is a model to follow.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Passage of this seminal workers' rights legislation is long overdue.

During the past decade, union busting efforts have reached new heights. Greedy corporations hire high-priced lawyers and consultants to thwart organization drives and force existing unions out of the workplace. Employees are chastised, threatened and in the worst cases fired for exercising the freedom to form unions and bargain.

Business Week called the recent wave of union busting ``one of the most successful anti-union wars ever.'' Their statement is borne out by the fact that only 7.9 percent of the private workforce is unionized, the lowest level since the 1920s.

Estimates suggest that 75 percent of all union organizing drives confront hired anti-union consultants. Here's the guarantee offered on one consultant Web site:

You don't win, you don't pay. Here is bottom-line proof of

our confidence in the persuasiveness of the NLRB Election

Campaign Program. If your organization purchases an LRI

Guaranteed Winner Package and the union becomes certified,

Labor Relation Institute will refund the full cost of the

package.

Why is collective bargaining so important? Wages for union employees are nearly 30 percent higher than for non-union workers. This wage difference often brings employees into the middle class, ending their struggle to stay above the poverty line. This is especially the case in construction and service jobs where employees in unions have 52 percent and 68 percent higher wages than their non-union counterparts. Unionized workers also enjoy better health care, pension and disability benefits.

The Employee Free Choice Act will level the playing field for workers who want to organize, but can't overcome corporate anti-union efforts. This bill provides a majority sign up process to authorize union representation, giving employees the confidence to choose representation without fear of reprisal. The bill also strengthens penalties against employers who engage in union busting activities.

While the days of union busting by physical violence may be behind us, the corporate greed that drives union avoidance is clearly alive and well. Our workers deserve better. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Alameda County Library. The Library's Write to Read Youth Literacy program at Juvenile Hall in San Leandro, CA, was honored on January 22, 2007 at a White House Ceremony in conjunction with the 2006 Coming Up Taller Awards. The Library's 8-year effort to help incarcerated youths read and write won a $10,000 Federal grant, the Coming Up Taller award, and plaudits at the White House Ceremony.

The Coming Up Taller Awards recognize and support outstanding community arts and humanities programs that celebrate the creativity of America's young people, and provide them with new learning opportunities and a chance to contribute to their communities. The awards also highlight the contributions that historians, scholars, librarians, and visual and performing arts make to families and communities by mentoring children.

The Alameda County Library's Write to Read Youth Literacy program at Juvenile Hall has introduced the joy of reading to more than 4,000 incarcerated youths. Founded in 1999, Write to Read motivates and inspires young people housed in the Alameda County Juvenile Hall to strengthen their reading skills and make meaningful connections to authors and books that can positively influence the choices they make in their own lives.

Offered 3 days a week, the Write to Read program enables youths to take books to their rooms, meet with authors, and engage in tutoring and book discussions.

Alameda County Librarian Jean Hofacket was present at the White House ceremony to receive the library award along with Amy Cheney, juvenile hall librarian, and Hannah Kefala of Alameda, a former juvenile hall resident who now attends Chabot College in Hayward.

Ms. Kefala said meeting authors through the program helped her learn ``my human rights'' and gave her pointers ``on how to improve my future.'' Her comments are a testament to the success of the Alameda County Library's Write to Read Youth Literacy program at Juvenile Hall.

I join the community in applauding the Alameda County Library's success and contributions to make a positive difference in the lives of youth incarcerated at the Juvenile Hall.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Foster Children Self Support Act.'' This bill will codify into federal law what should be common sense: abused and neglected children should not be used as a funding stream for states that should be acting in the best interests of these extremely vulnerable children.

In nearly every state in the country, foster children eligible for Social Security benefits because of a disability or the loss of a parent are having those benefits taken by the very state agencies charged with providing for them. The ``Foster Children Self Support Act'' would end that practice. Instead, it would require states to use a child's Social Security benefits to meet the immediate needs of that child or set aside those benefits to assist the child with transitioning to adulthood when that child emancipates from care.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that approximately 30,000 foster children (out of 500,000 nationwide) receive either Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) benefits each month. Unfortunately, hardly any of these children will benefit from these funds. Nor will the children have the option to save the money as a nest egg for when they leave care. This is because state child welfare agencies routinely make themselves the representative payee so that they have control over the child's benefits. Often, neither the child nor the child's advocate knows that Social Security benefits are being sent to the agency. Once the welfare agency controls the benefits they are free to use them however they please.

In this manner, state welfare agencies take an estimated $156 million per year from foster children. The practice has devastating consequences, as evidenced by the case of ``John G.,'' a foster child in North Carolina. John was willed a house when his adoptive father died of cancer. The house had a $221 monthly mortgage. Luckily for John he was entitled to approximately $560 in Social Security OASDI benefits. However, the child welfare agency, who had made themselves John's representative payee, decided they would rather keep the money than ensure John had a place to live when he left foster care. Just as his house was about to be foreclosed on, John went to court. Currently, the welfare agency is making the payments under a court order. The future of John's house is still very much in doubt because the agency has appealed and the law may not be on John's side.

Although John G.'s case is particularly egregious, all foster children and former foster children face tremendous challenges. Foster children often enter care having suffered from serious emotional, mental, and/or physical

abuse. For example, they suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at a rate twice as high as Iraq War veterans. Then, when children emancipate from care they are dependent on public assistance, become incarcerated or homeless, and are unemployed at rates higher than nearly any other group of Americans. The ``Foster Children Self Support Act'' is especially important since it is safe to assume that those children who have lost their parents or are receiving SSI due to severe mental or physical disabilities are among the most needy.

The ``Foster Children Self Support Act'' provides a way to help these children. It does so by mandating that states develop a plan for foster children with Social Security benefits. The plan would layout how to best use a child's Social Security benefits as a resource to best meet the current and future needs of that child. The plan must be specific to each child receiving Social Security benefits and made in partnership with the child and the child's advocate. If this bill were law, states would no longer be allowed to simply use children's Social Security money as they see fit. Instead, this money would have to be used as any parent would use it: to provide for the child's particular needs and help plan for the child's future.

The bill will:

Require that states screen all foster children for Social Security eligibility and assist them in application;

Require states to identify other appropriate representative payees for eligible children, such as family members, before becoming the payee themselves;

Prohibit states who are payees from using a child's Social Security benefits to reimburse themselves for the cost of foster care;

Require states to develop a plan, with a child and that child's advocate( s), on how to best use the Social Security benefits to provide for the current and future needs of the child;

Provide for the conservation of Social Security funds in dedicated accounts that a child can access when they leave care to pay for things like housing, education, transportation, and other life expenses;

Increase the Social Security resource limit to $10,000 (currently it is $2,000), so that children can conserve up to that amount and still maintain their Social Security eligibility;

Require the GAO to report back to Congress on states' progress in screening all foster children for Social Security eligibility.

Improving our child welfare system has repercussions throughout our society. Foster children who age out of the child welfare system without having developed family supports or skills that can lead to employment create a large societal cost. In the next 15 years 300,000 foster children will age out of care without any transition supports. Congress has a moral obligation to provide foster children with the resources they need to become independent adults. The ``Foster Children Self Support Act'' is a small part of fulfilling this obligation and a large step toward helping one of the most vulnerable groups of foster children.

Attached are two news articles for the Record that illustrate the consequences of our current policy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.