Floor Statements

I appreciate your giving me a chance to say something. I spoke a little earlier. But one thing I wanted to say. In Seattle they announced that on August 1 the premiums on insurance policies are going up 17 percent.

Now, when people talk about fear and they have to fear the government and fear the government option, this is a real fear. This 17 percent increase in Seattle is going to hurt people badly. Some people are not going to be able to afford continuing their insurance, and that's why it's so important that the Progressive Caucus, led by you and by Ms. Woolsey, are out here making sure that people understand there is an option to these absolutely unacceptable increases in premiums.

Nothing else has gone up 17 percent. Housing prices have dropped. Gasoline prices have dropped. But health insurance? Up 17 percent. The only way we are going to stop that is with a government option that makes competition.

Thank you for the work that you are doing. And I again say thank you to the gentlewoman for letting me speak.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will allow the Federal unemployment trust funds to receive interest-bearing loans from the general Treasury. These loans will be repaid when the unemployment trust funds once again have adequate reserves.

Currently, the single biggest draw on Federal trust funds are loans to States' unemployment programs. Eighteen States already have loan balances exceeding $12 billion, and more are expected to request assistance in the coming weeks and months. This recession, which started in December of 2007, has placed enormous strains on State unemployment programs. But truth be told, too many State programs had inadequate reserves to provide benefits even in a mild downturn. In the future, more should be done to promote long-term solvency for the unemployment system; however, right now, our mandate is to ensure that the States can continue to pay their unemployment benefits to those entitled to them.

When economists and historians look back at this moment in history, I believe one of the things they will agree, what we did right was to reach out and help those Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Last June, we enacted the quickest ever extension of unemployment benefits relative to the start of the recession. In November, we further extended benefits to dislocated workers. And earlier this year, we enacted a historic package of unemployment insurance reforms as part of the Recovery Act, including maintaining the availability of extended benefits, increasing the weekly UI benefit amount, and providing grants to States that modernize their unemployment programs.

Under these reforms, over half the States have enacted improvements to their unemployment programs such as improving coverage for low-wage and part-time workers. In addition, over 9 million UI recipients are receiving $100 more a month as we speak in order to help buy groceries and other necessities, and 3 billion unemployed workers are now receiving extended benefits.

Many of our economists, as well as the stock market, believe our economy is now turning the corner to more prosperous days. Helping the unemployed has been a crucial part of the path to that recovery. But millions of jobs will not be restored overnight. We will continue to ensure a real safety net for the jobless Americans, and I expect Congress will continue this work in the fall.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're being treated today to the mass choir from the insurance industry telling us that we must be afraid and we must go slowly. They've been singing that song since 1935, and we have been trying and trying and the American people are deeper and deeper and deeper in trouble.

Now the insurance choir is really worried, Mr. Speaker, because if we got a public option, they'd have to compete, and they can't stand it.

For the last 12 years or 15 years since Mr. Clinton tried to bring us health care, they have done nothing, not one single thing. They ran the House for 12 years. Not a single proposal, not a single time did they come out here with any way to deal with the people who don't have health insurance. And now we come with a public option and they say, Oh, God, wait, wait, folks, don't be afraid, we will get to it some day.

Now is the day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3325.

The Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program and the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security program play crucial roles in the lives of SSA's beneficiaries with disabilities.

The two programs enable these beneficiaries to make informed choices about work as well as providing them with the necessary services to successfully transition back into the workforce.

For instance, the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Program helps guide them by providing important information about opportunities and resources that help them make an informed decision.

Importantly, these programs provide services, free of charge, to individuals receiving Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income.

A one year reauthorization will ensure that these vulnerable Americans may continue to receive guidance, support, and legal representation.

At a time of increased economic hardship across the country, it is vitally important that we not forget those most in need.

H.R. 3325 has strong bi-partisan support, as it should, and deserves overwhelming support when we vote in order to send a message to SSA beneficiaries with disabilities that they are not forgotten and we stand by their side.

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago Frank Luntz wrote the speeches for Newt Gingrich to come out here and scare the American people about the Clinton health reform. They succeeded 15 years ago. What have the people gotten since then? Nothing. The number of people have gone up and up and up and up who do not have health insurance. So here they are all arrayed out here again today one at a time. Folks, they are here to scare you again. Mr. Speaker, the people are smarter this time.

In the election of 2008, they elected a President who said he would bring health care reform to this country, and they gave the Democrats an overwhelming majority because they are tired of the fear machine. Now I know you all have your talking points. Frank Luntz pulled them out of the drawer, shined them up for 2008 and said, Hey, boys, here's the speech that worked in 1994. Use it again. It won't work, Mr. Speaker. The people want health care reform, and we're going to give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, we're closing in on a moment in American history that has taken over 70 years to reach. In the mid-1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt considered a proposal that would extend health care coverage to every American. But he withdrew the idea because the political will was not up to the challenge at the time. But times have changed.

President Obama has called on the Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation--and he has the support of the American people behind him, especially the middle class.

There are countless facts and figures to support his effort. There are maps, there are charts, there are all kinds of spread sheets, but there is one fact that stands out above all others: Every American today either faces his or her own health care crisis or knows someone who is.

When Americans play by the rules but see their economic lives threatened and destroyed because of their medical expenses, America must change. We are at the crossroads of providing a fair deal for the American people. But we cannot take progress for granted. Times like this don't come along very often. We cannot afford to let this one fall short.

Offered By: Mr. McDermott

Amendment No. 103: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to offer special recognition of Mimi Gardner Gates on the occasion of her retirement as the Illsley Ball Nordstrom Director of the Seattle Art Museum. During her tenure, the Seattle Art Museum has become the premier art museum in the Pacific Northwest, distinguished by its splendid exhibitions and its commitment to the arts communities of our region. Under Mrs. Gates' leadership, the Seattle Art Museum has increased its endowment, its attendance, and its membership; it has diversified its board, staff, and audience; created a conservation department and studio; and added to its collections more than 6,500 works of art from a wide variety of cultures. And, thanks to Mimi Gates' vision and tireless effort, the Museum has created the Olympic Sculpture Park, a nationally and internationally acclaimed outdoor display that brings an exciting new dimension to Seattle's arts environment. Seattle and the entire Pacific Northwest region have benefited immeasurably from Mimi Gates' talent and dedication to public art, and I am privileged now to acknowledge her outstanding work and to thank her for her many years of exceptional service.

Mrs. Gates also has made considerable contributions to the arts in the classroom, and she has held leadership positions with several arts organizations. She served on the staff of the Yale University Art Gallery, where she currently is a member of the Governing Board, and is a fellow of the Yale Corporation. A past president of the Association of Art Museum Directors, she also chaired the Federal Indemnity panel at The National Endowment for the Arts, and served as a member of the Advisory Board of the Getty Leadership Institute. Mrs. Gates is also an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Art at the University of Washington, and she serves on the boards of directors of the Northwest African American Museum, the Greater Seattle YWCA, the Downtown Seattle Association, and Copper Canyon Press.

Madam Speaker, Mimi Gates has been an enormous asset to the Seattle arts and civic communities. The people of Seattle, including thousands of patrons, students, and professionals, are grateful for the guidance and leadership she has shown, and I join them in thanking Mrs. Gates for her service, and in wishing her the best in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I would like to state for the record that I inadvertently voted against a bill which I had cosponsored and intended to support.

H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act, provides for a new framework for U.S. assistance to Pakistan in a relationship characterized by commitment. It is especially urgent that the United States and Pakistan pull together during these critical times in Pakistan. As co-Chair of the India Caucus, I was pleased to see provisions that would focus American assistance to Pakistan on the threats it faces from various terrorist groups, instead of allowing for military aid that could inflame tensions with India. It is vital that our assistance demonstrates that we support the people of Pakistan and contributes to stability and the rule of law--this will be a help to all the people of the region.

I encourage the continued progress of H.R. 1886 through the remainder of the legislative process, and I regret losing the opportunity to demonstrate my support for the measure with my vote in the House.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

University of Washington Men's Rowing Team and Honored

Guests,

I write to give my hearty congratulations to the University

of Washington's men's rowing team for earning their 12th

varsity eight national championship, the 107th IRA Regatta,

and sweeping the eights on the way to a historic four golds

and five medals overall.

This astounding overall performance was capped by a

thrilling come-from-behind victory over arch-rival California

and I would like to take this time to commend the varsity

rowers on their fine performance. Heath Allen, Aljosa

Corovic, Will Crothers, Steve Full, Rob Gibson, Jesse

Johnson, Max Lang, Katelin Snyder, and David Worley have

earned my utmost admiration, as have all the members of the

University of Washington's rowing team, down to the last

rower in the boathouse.

What makes this victory so impressive is the volume of

dominance exhibited by this extremely deep team. The varsity

eight winning gold is an impressive feat in itself, but to

sweep the eights is the highest testament to the dedication

of the team and the culture of hard work and determination

established by Coach Bob Ernst.

Since 1903, when the University of Washington first

participated in intercollegiate rowing, our crews have

established themselves as the toughest and most determined

crews in the country. This year's crews have continued that

tradition by emphatically putting the ``gold'' back in the

purple and gold.

I am extremely proud to represent you in Congress and I

know that with the foundation of hard work instilled in these

young rowers by their coach and the University of Washington,

there are no limits to what they will go on to accomplish in

life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Rahall, Mr. Moran, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Scott, Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Kildee for introducing legislation that confers Federal recognition on the Indian tribes of Virginia.

Affirming sovereign recognition first conferred by treaties is a matter of both history and conscience for the United States. Today we are correcting the mistakes of the past that relate to tribes that were among the very first to be in contact with white settlers when they came to these shores in 1607. While this is a great day for the tribes of Virginia, we must not forget that our work is not finished. The Duwamish tribe has lived in Seattle, which I represent, and has been there for centuries, long before there was the United States or a State of Washington. Seattle, in fact, was named after the great Duwamish chief, Chief Seattle.

Despite the treaty of Point Elliot, which the Duwamish signed in good faith with the United States in 1855, Federal recognition has not been extended, and in my belief, this is wrong. It went through the process. It was signed by President Clinton. And in one of his first executive orders, President Bush reversed the decision of recognition of the Duwamish. And it is time to correct that injustice with the Duwamish, just as we are doing here in Virginia.

That is why I am introducing legislation today to confer Federal recognition on the Duwamish tribe. So long as one Native tribe is denied justice and rights to which they are entitled, we all suffer.

It is my hope that the new day dawning across America is bright enough to shine enough light for us to see and correct the injustices endured for too long by the First Americans. I hope that we will have a day like this some time soon for the Duwamish tribe.

Thank you very much, Congressman Ellison.

I think that one of the interesting things about the debate that's going on in Congress right now is that the debate seems to be that we can't have a single-payer system in this country. The people aren't ready for it, or it won't work, or whatever, there's all kinds of myths around that.

And one of the fascinating things about it is that now, as we come to the President's proposal, he's proposing that we have a public option among those choices that people will have when the national health plan is put in place.

Now, everybody immediately says, oh, we don't want a public option. We don't need that. The private industry has--they'll come up with enough options and people will have choices. The problem is people won't have money to pay the premiums.

Well, the fact is that the American health insurance industry has had full chance to do it since 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt took this off the agenda. They've had more than 60, more than 70 years, almost 75 years to come up with a plan to cover all Americans, and they have not done it.

Now, there has to be a public option, and it has to be a good option. There is an interesting book, if people are interested in reading about this whole thing, it's called Do Not Resuscitate, meaning do not resuscitate the health insurance industry that's dying. But that means we've got to have a good public option out there for people to choose.

Now, people say, why do we need a public option?

You need the competition of the public option to drive the health insurance industry prices down.

What's happening today--in fact, when Mrs. Clinton tried this effort 15 years ago, in 1993, we had almost 1,800 insurance companies in this country. That industry is rapidly contracting to the point where today we have around 800. And in many States, particularly rural States in this country, they have one choice of an insurance company, not two. So you've got an insurance company, or maybe they'll have two. But there's no competition in that kind of situation. And you need the government plan.

Now, the reason? Why is that? Well, very simply, Medicare has administrative costs of about 3 percent. That means you give a dollar to Medicare, 97 cents goes out in health care benefits to older people in this country. If you give money to a private insurance company, 82 cents, on average, goes out to people. In many companies it's 70 cents is all that gets out to people who are sick.

So we need a Medicare-like, a government option to compete with private industry to drive down those costs, because costs are what are killing our health care system today. Costs are going up much faster than inflation. People are finding their deductible higher. They are finding their co-pays higher. They're spending more money out of their pocket, even though they have health insurance. They think, well, I'm covered. I've got this illness, but I don't have to worry. I'm just going to go and have it taken care of. And suddenly they find out they've got huge bills left after, and that's because the plans are simply not taking care of people's needs. And we need a government option.

Now, there are several things about a government option. First of all, it has to be one in which it takes anybody. You can't give the insurance companies or anybody else the ability to say, I'd like to take that person, but I don't want to take that person. That person's old or that person looks sick, so I don't want to take care of them. I just want to take premiums from people who are healthy.

And the government option has to be one that takes everybody, and so do all the private insurance industry. If we have a health care bill that goes out of this House that does not have insurance changes in it that requires everybody to be taken, then we haven't done what we need.

You heard the disparities in minority communities in this country, and it's also, it's just poor people. It's really not minorities as much as it's poor people who don't have the same kind of health care that people do who have a lot of money. I mean, that's the way it is. And we ought to be honest about this and say if we're going to do a national plan, it takes everybody.

Now, it also has to give the same set of benefits. Whether it's a private plan or a public plan, it ought to have the same benefits.

Now, if the private industry can compete with a government plan, that's fine. But if they can't, they're going to have to find ways to bring their prices down. They're going to either have to squeeze their profits or do something to change the way that goes.

Pre-existing conditions. I had a patient or a woman in my district who was an opera singer. She went to Germany, had a contract in Munich. The minute you go into Germany you're in the German system. You're taken care of.

Her daughter got leukemia. They spent thousands and thousands of dollars treating the child. She came back. The child had remission, and so they came back to the United States. The woman couldn't find an insurance company in the United States that would give her insurance, except at exorbitant rates, $2,000 a month.

Now, why is it that the Germans can figure a way to do that, and we can't in this country?

And my view is that you have to have no pre-existing conditions, you've got to let everybody in, and you've got to give the same set of benefits. And I think that the public option is essential for any bill that goes out of here.

Yes.

You essentially make a decision at the Federal level that we are going to require all insurance companies to take everybody. They cannot use pre-existing conditions.

One of the things that happened back in the Forties was a bill was passed in this House called the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and that said that all insurance decisions should be made at the local level. So we gave it to the States. So you've got 50 different insurance commissioners doing 50 different things all over this country.

When we come to a national health plan that Barack Obama's going to sign, it has to have a national standard that every insurance company has to cover everybody. And you can't say, well, you know, they are this ethnic group or they're a little bit overweight or they smoke. The only thing you can make changes is on age. Obviously, as you get older, there is more likelihood that you're going to have problems. But that's the only kind of rating that there can be in a system that's going to be fair to everyone in this country.

And the insurance companies, they obviously didn't want to take care of this woman's kid because they knew that the chance was she might have a recurrence of her leukemia, and they could see her sitting right there and know she had had the disease, so they said, that's a pre- existing condition. We don't want that family.

You can't let that happen when we write this national plan. It has to be written right here on the floor. They can't trust it to 50 States because some States will have a good insurance commissioner and some will have people who are not quite so publicly spirited.

And my view is that we have to make that decision, and I think the President will support us in that.

Sure.

Well, in my view, if we have a plan brought out on this floor without a public option in it, it is not universal coverage, because that means the insurance companies have won the whole game. And if they believe in the free enterprise system, then they believe in competition, and they ought to be able to compete with a government plan that's well done, and not given any special advantages, just the fact that it's going to be done without profit, so you're not going to be worrying about--insurance companies worry about profits for stockholders. The government doesn't worry about profits for stockholders. It worries about giving services to human beings. That's why the administrative costs in Medicare are so much less than those of an insurance company.

So I can't imagine myself voting for a plan that does not have a public option in it.

And I'll tell you one of the little tricks that people have to be watching for. In the part D in Medicare, which was the drug benefit, they said, well, if there aren't two plans in an area from the private sector, then they would go to a public option. Guess what? The industry went out there and got involved everywhere, mostly because we gave them such heavy subsidies that they could make a lot of money. So they said, yeah, we'll go in and treat, we'll deliver drugs to people in this country. And it was a false public option. It says public option in the bill, but they knew it would never happen because they subsidized the pharmaceutical industry to such an extent that it just never--they were making money so they stayed and did it, and we didn't need a public option.

Me too.

Could I just say one thing?

Representative Lee raised the question of profits for insurance companies.

Between 2000 and 2007, the insurance companies profits in this country went from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion.

$2.4 billion to $12.9 billion. That's an increase of 428 percent.

Now, you're going to see ads on television saying, oh, this government option is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country and that we need to save the poor, struggling insurance companies. Just remember those figures.

The average collective salary of the executives, the CEOs, is $118 million. That's an average of $11.9 million a piece. If you're running an insurance company and you're making $11.9 million, what do you think your real interest is in taking care of people? Your interest is in getting as much money as you can. Give it to the stockholders and keep it for yourself. That's why we have to have a public option where the public good is the driver in what we try to do.

Yes.

Of course.

I mean the answer is so obvious that I know you're not asking me a question, because it's clear that the money that people are paying in premiums is not going to pay for health care. It's going to pay for a whole lot of other things. That's why we want a strong public option that takes the money that people pay and has it pay for health care.

Well, first of all, the American people would be offered a plan from the United States Congress. Yet, as the President has said, if you have insurance, you can stay right where you are. If you're satisfied with it, stay right there. Don't worry. You're not going to be made to do anything, but we are going to offer you a choice of a public option. Now, if you don't like what you're in now and you want to move over to the government program, you can do it.

That is not socialism. That is not forcing everybody to do the same thing. That's saying, if you want to stay where you are, fine, that's all right, but if we put together a good public option and it looks better to you, it's your free choice.

I'm saying that you're going to see a big campaign of

fear mongering, of trying to make people afraid by using all kinds of words. The fact is that they are simply deceptive in the worst sort of way when people are vulnerable and when they're sick. Then somebody tells them, ``Oh, you don't want that because--''

In 1993, there were some ads on there called ``Harry and Louise.'' They're sitting at the kitchen table, and Harry says to Louise, Do you know that the plan that Mrs. Clinton is putting together is going to take away your health care?

Well, that was simply to scare people, and people, since they weren't sure, decided they didn't like her plan, but we could have had this 15 years ago. We could have had a change in this country 15 years ago. Now we get a second chance. This time, the people are in much worse shape than they were then. Business wants it. Labor unions want it. Even doctors today who were sort of against Mrs. Clinton's plan now are saying, you know, you can't deal with insurance companies. So you've got a whole bunch of different people this time who are saying we need a public option that can make the system fairer and that can work for everybody in the country.

The people can choose. The American people are not stupid. They're not going to fall for this kind of advertising that they used the last time.

Well, you know, the Republicans didn't do anything in 8 years on this issue. Nothing. Not one more person was covered than was before. In fact, the number of uninsured went from 35 million to almost 50 million during the period that George Bush and his cohorts were running this place.

The American people in November of 2008 made a decision: we want change. We want something different. And President Barack Obama has offered the leadership and has said this is the way we ought to go and has laid it out and the Congress is working on it. Anybody who opposes this in the long run is going to be taking a real risk in the next election saying, Oh, I was against that because--because why? Because you wanted to give the insurance companies everything? Is that what it was you were after? Or is it because you don't think that we can make any changes in the system; the system is perfect?

One of the things I was going to quote for you, there is a man named Zeke Emanuel. He's the brother of our President's administrative assistant. He's the head of the department of clinical bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, and he says this: the U.S. health care system is considered a dysfunctional mess. Conventional wisdom has been turned on its head. If a politician declares that the United States has the best health care system in the world today, he or she looks clueless rather than patriotic or authoritative and they run the risk of opposing--if they oppose this, they are going to look like they are out to lunch.

And I think that's not a good situation to be in when you're running for re-election.

Let me give you just one figure out of that.

When we looked at that in 1993, the administrative costs were--we could save $140 billion by going to a single-payer system. The administrative costs in that system are totally out of control.

I'll give you another way to look at it, to really think about it. France has been judged to have the best health care system in the world by the World Health Organization. They spend one-half as much per person as we spend in the United States, and they have one doctor for every 430 people. And in the United States, we have one doctor for every 1,230 people.

Now, you can't tell me that the French are that much smarter than us, that they could figure out how to get the best health care system-- we're rated 37 when you look at infant mortality and maternal mortality and longevity and morbidity for hypertension and for diabetes and all of these other things. We are not in the best health care system in the world despite of what we're spending.

We're number one in how much money we spend.

And my view is there's plenty of money in this system if we were more efficient and had more primary care physicians. I put in a bill that would make medical school in public medical schools free. In exchange for that, a medical student coming out would serve 4 years in primary care in underserved areas or inner-city areas--areas where people are underserved, whether it's the urban or the rural area. And we would take the debt load off our students. That would cut down the costs of medical care in this country.

We can do some things that would be real game changers if we were to change. Right now, most medical students go through and go into a specialty because they have to pay off their debts. And we can stop that. There are a lot of ways we can cut costs if we start thinking about those issues.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend Amy Isaacs, National Director of Americans for Democratic Action, on the occasion of her retirement.

For 20 years Amy has led ADA, the nation's most experienced organization dedicated to

liberal policies, liberal politics and a liberal future. ADA was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Reuther, Arthur Schlesinger, and Reinhold Niebuhr shortly after FDR died. Its goal then was to keep the New Deal dream--its vision and its values of an America that works fairly for all--alive for generations to come.

Under Amy's leadership, ADA has never forgotten its long history and never wavered from those core liberal values. She began her career at ADA as an intern in 1969 and has moved through the ranks serving as Director of Organization, Executive Assistant to the Director and Deputy National Director, before becoming National Director in 1989.

Amy brought to ADA a strong sense that protecting and enhancing the rights of working men and women was a critical ingredient in maintaining a healthy democratic society. Allying ADA with the labor movement's efforts to improve wages and working conditions for America's workers became a key part of ADA's mission under Amy's direction. She recognized that the efforts to increase the federal minimum wage needed non-labor allies. And she enthusiastically threw ADA into the forefront of that fight, by directing the formation of the Coalition for a Fair Minimum Wage which brought together progressive groups of all stripes: religious, economic, social, youth, labor, business and others. Amy's belief that a strong labor movement united with strong allied organizations not only led to an increase in the minimum wage in 2007 but to countless other victories for working men and women.

Amy's work did not stop with the fight to end income inequality. Her career is defined by her commitment to erase the evils of discrimination so that everyone can be truly free to pursue their dreams. Not only is she a trailblazer in her own right, but she worked tirelessly as an advocate for all women. From fair pay to reproductive choice, from education to the workplace, Amy never tolerated an injustice against women or any other group striving for equal treatment.

It is a rare thing to find someone willing to devote their life to advancing the causes in which they believe. I commend Amy for her dedication and service and wish her all the best as she starts the next chapter of her life.

Amy once said to me, ``I've walked with giants'' when I asked for her thoughts about the extraordinary people associated with ADA's history. I say today, she is one of them.

Madam Speaker, immediately after the President announced his intention to turn America into a 21st century green economy, the special interests began lobbying to keep America addicted to oil.

We were told there's no urgency to change, no threat to the planet from the ongoing and massive releases of carbon into the atmosphere, and that we should pump every drop of oil out of every foreign country regardless of how many wars we need to wage to satisfy our addiction.

Just remember this: The special interests want to keep us addicted to oil because that is in their interests, not ours, not America's best interests.

We have an Administration that recognizes and is responding to the global crisis, and Congress needs to support the President with legislation that will cure America of its addiction to oil and save the planet in the process.

Time indeed is running out, and we have before us the evidence and the legislative proposals to remake America into a clean and energy- independent economy. It's time to act while there's still time to have air to breathe.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 391) recognizing May as ``National Foster Care Month'' and acknowledging that the House of Representatives should continue to work to improve the Nation's foster care system.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

The month of May marks National Foster Care Month, which provides Congress with an opportunity to recognize the contributions of the unsung heroes who commit their lives to children in foster care, including foster parents who unselfishly open their homes to our most vulnerable children. On any given day, half a million children seek safety, comfort and assistance through our Nation's foster care system. Roughly 130,000 of those children in foster care are unable to return safely to their parents and are now waiting for an adoptive home.

Sadly, in 2007, a record 28,000 of those children ``aged out'' of the foster care system at the age of 18 without finding a permanent home to call their own.

As the de facto parents or the real-life parents of the Nation's foster children, we, the Congress, have a responsibility to ensure that they have the same opportunity to succeed that our children and our grandchildren have.

Congress recently passed landmark bipartisan legislation which represented the most significant reform in the child welfare system in more than a decade. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act

included numerous provisions that were designed to significantly improve the outcomes of all children and their families who are in the foster care system.

As a result of this bipartisan legislation, grandparents and other relatives who became the legal guardian of a child for whom they cared for as a foster parent now receive greater assistance in caring for these children. The legislation also provides additional support to older foster children, up to the age of 21, who are engaged in school, work or other productive activities. The new law also requires much greater oversight of the health care system and education needs of each of these children in the foster care system.

Mr. Speaker, while last year's bipartisan child welfare legislation provided greater resources and services aimed at improving the outcomes of children and families in the foster care system, additional investments and reform are still needed. The job is not done.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating National Foster Care Month by recommitting themselves to continuing our bipartisan work to further improve the foster care system.

Finally, I want to recognize the children in the system that are waiting to be reunified with their families or waiting for an adoptive home. Many of these children have endured great pain and suffering at a very young age, but are able to overcome their grief and turmoil, and go on to succeed beyond anyone's expectation. I applaud these young children for the bravery and determination that they have shown. Behind each number is the face of a foster child who has the same hopes and aspirations as our very own children. We need to make these hopes and aspirations a reality.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have has any further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I only would like to add that when you meet these youngsters, Lupe, Chris and Nichole, and get to know them, you realize what they have gone through and why we should have a month that helps people think about this, and we realize that these youngsters have tremendous potential.

Many of the youngsters I met yesterday are going to college. They went through the system, many of them with a dozen or more placements, and still were able to put it together and carry on their lives.

We need to have this month to make us aware of the needs of foster kids in this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.