Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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).

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the original resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action against Iraq. As a Member of the Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses, I have and will continue to call for the immediate withdrawal of American troops. I rise today in strong opposition to the President's proposal to send more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. Today's non-binding resolution is an important first step. After its passage, I will encourage my colleagues in Congress to take further steps to end the War in Iraq. When a scientist uncovers facts that contradict a theory, he or she throws out that theory. But when President Bush learns of facts that contradict his theories, he throws out the facts. As a member of the reality-based community, I continue to be amazed by this President's disregard for objective truths. The President, however, isn't just a scientist experimenting with chemicals in a laboratory. He is an executive whose decision to take us to war under false pretenses has adversely affected the lives of millions of Americans and Iraqis. The costs of the nearly four-year old conflict are grave. More than 3,100 brave American servicemen and women, including at least 325 from my home state of California, have already died in the war. An additional 23,000 plus have been wounded. Estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion run even higher, from 47,000 to 70,000. All at a cost of $379 billion to the American people. That's more than $1250 for every man, woman, and child currently living in the U.S. But these are facts. President Bush is more interested in cockamamy theories. In the run-up to the war, Bush speculated that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. When intelligence officers suggested that might not be the case, he ignored them. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Bush also hypothesized that the attack would turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. When academic scholars wrote that Iraq's history and culture didn't suggest such an outcome was likely, he dismissed them. Today, despite the election of an Iraqi Assembly and formation of an Iraqi government, the country is in a full-fledged civil war. During the past four years, the President has repeatedly theorized that America was making progress in Iraq, and that ``success'' was just around the corner. I remember, in particular, Bush's summer 2003 statement that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended,'' his summer 2004 claim that we were ``turning the corner'' abroad, and Cheney's summer 2005 reference to an insurgency in its ``last throes.'' Despite these promises, the situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year, not better. My favorite declaration came this past summer, when the President said that the formation of a new Iraqi government represented a ``turning point.'' Unfortunately, the body count in Iraq continues to grow. This past July, an average of 110 Iraqi adults died each day, the deadliest month of the war for Iraq. In October, militia attacks spiked 22 percent. In December, more than 100 American troops were killed, the third deadliest month of the war for the United States. But the November elections did represent a turning point--in the United States. The Bush administration no longer has a Republican Congress to lick its boots. What's more, voting on this resolution will soon suggest President Bush doesn't even have the support of his own party. When the President in January suggested sending additional troops to Iraq, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle criticized his foolhardy proposal. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, termed it ``Alice in Wonderland'' thinking that would ``represent the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' Retired military personnel weren't much more enthusiastic. Former General Barry McCaffrey called the surge ``a fool's errand.'' Retired Colonel Paul Hughes said ``sending more troops to Baghdad is like pouring more water in the sands of Al-Anbar. It's just going to disappear without accomplishing anything.'' I couldn't agree more. The President's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq in the naive hope of winning a lasting peace is another cockamamy theory that contradicts all available facts. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and take this important first step to end the War in Iraq and bring all of our troops home.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. 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.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Mayor of Newark, California, David W. Smith. Mayor Smith has served the citizens of Newark, California for 27 years. He has the distinction of being the longest serving Mayor in California and presently the fourth longest serving Mayor in the United States. Mayor Smith is a native of Detroit, Michigan. He has extensive management experience in the private sector and is currently Executive Director for Asset and Enterprise Management Systems at Ohlone College. His government experience is equally impressive. He was elected to the Newark City Council in 1976 and was elected Mayor in 1978. He has served in the United States Conference of Mayors in a myriad of capacities including Trustee on the Executive Committee, Nominating Committee Chair, Membership Committee Chair, member of the Arts Committee and the Education Committee. Mayor Smith is past President of the Alameda Conference of Mayors and former Chairman of the Alameda County Transportation Authority. He is Chairman of the Newark Redevelopment Agency, the Newark Community Development Advisory Committee and the Newark Disaster Council. His awards and honors are noteworthy. He is a life member of the U.S. Jaycees, and had the honor of being selected as one of California's Five Outstanding Young Men, Outstanding Young Alumni at Michigan Technological University and is a former member of Mensa. He is among the Distinguished Alumni of Calumet High School and received the Hometown Hero Award from the Newark National Little League. On March 22, 2007, the Mission Peak District of the Boy Scouts of America will present Mayor Smith with its 2006 ``Good Scout Award'' at a community breakfast in its honor. I join the community expressing appreciation to Mayor David Smith for his commitment to service.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of cleaning up the Republicans' mess. The previous Congress failed to pass 9 of 11 appropriations bills, creating the worst budget mess since the Government shut down in 1996. Today's resolution is far from perfect. But while adhering to the spending limit in the Republican budget, it provides significant funding increases to several important programs. First, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007 provides housing assistance to 227,000 people through a $1.4 billion increase for section 8 housing programs. Second, it finances construction of hundreds of new community health centers and improvements to existing facilities. Third, today's bill increases funding for Head Start by $104 million to help prevent a drop in enrollments. Fourth, it raises the maximum Pell grant by $260, which will help more than 5.3 million students afford college. It's time to get to work on the people's business. Cleaning up a mess is never fun, but because Republicans failed to take ``personal responsibility'' for this year's budget, it is necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join Congressmen Ramstad and Kennedy in introducing the bipartisan and bicameral ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This bill is a first step in ending the practice of custody relinquishment, which the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health called ``appalling.'' Every year, families are forced to give up legal custody of their severely mentally ill children to State child welfare agencies in order get these children the health care they need. Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Tom Harkin (IA) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate. Imagine being the parent of a sick child desperately in need of assistance. Your private insurance does not cover mental health care, yet you earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. If you want your child to get treatment you must turn over custody to the child welfare or juvenile justice agency. Now, imagine what affect this awful situation has on the child. The child is already battling mental illness and is now ``abandoned'' by their family and stigmatized as a ``foster child.'' These are horrible decisions that a family should never be forced to make. Yet, a 2003 GAO report, surveying 19 States, found that over 12,700 mentally ill children were placed with child welfare or juvenile justice agencies for the sole purpose of obtaining needed mental health care. The actual number of families torn apart is certainly much higher when all 50 States are taken into account. The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law has further elaborated on the situations that cause parents and guardians to have to give up their mentally ill children to State agencies. These situations include the following: The family has either exhausted private health benefits, or the benefits did not cover the required services, such as residential treatment programs. The family lives in a jurisdiction in which children are deprived of mental health services through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) as a result of a restrictive definition of serious mental illness. For example, the school simply labels these children as ``discipline problems'' and do not properly identify their mental illness. The family resides in a jurisdiction that falsely interprets federal child welfare law (Title IV-E of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program) as requiring custody relinquishment even for temporary out-of-home placements. Whatever the cause may be for the families' desperate situation, their nightmare is certainly real. The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is a first step toward ending this nightmare and ensuring children get the care they need without being torn from their families. This bill does two primary things: It creates $100 million in competitive State grants over 6 years to improve access to State mental health and family support services for families in danger of losing their children because they cannot afford mental health care. States are eligible if they are willing to end the practice of child custody relinquishment and create alternate avenues to getting children needed care while keeping them with their families. It establishes a federal interagency task force, as recommended by the April 2003 GAO report, to monitor and evaluate the family support grants. The task force will make recommendations to Congress for improving mental health services and removing barriers that have caused child custody relinquishment. This will give Congress the information we need to take further action in the future to end custody relinquishment across the country. This bill is a great start, however, the bill is only large enough to provide a handful of States with grants. Therefore, it is critical that we work with the aforementioned task force to examine what is working in the grantee States. We can then begin to implement those solutions in all States. We have known about this problem for many years. Along with my colleagues, Senator Collins and Harkin and Representatives Ramstad and Kennedy, I have worked hard to educate the public and the Congress about this issue. Unfortunately, education and awareness are no longer enough. We first introduced legislation on this issue in 1995. Now is the time to act. The ``Keeping Families Together Act'' is a crucial first step toward ending the barbaric practice of custody relinquishment. I hope my colleagues and I can work together to quickly implement this legislation. This bill will allow many, but not all, States to develop innovative new programs that address the mental health needs of children while keeping families intact. Once we have learned what succeeds at the State level, we must then return to this issue and enact legislation that will end the practice of custody relinquishment in all States.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alameda County Sheriff Charles Plummer who spent his last day on the job as Alameda County's top cop on January 8, 2007. His retirement ceremony included helicopter flyovers, bagpipes and literally hundreds of handshakes. It was a fitting ceremony to a stellar 50-plus years in law enforcement. A native of Fort Bragg, on the Mendocino coast, Charley Plummer worked as a teen in a shingle mill and as a lumberjack. One evening, hitchhiking back to Fort Bragg, a California Highway Patrol officer picked him up. The officer told him he had the right build and a good personality and should become a cop. Soon thereafter he left Santa Rosa Junior College and took an exam to become a Berkeley police officer and joined the force in 1952. In 1973, Charley was named acting chief in Berkeley, a post he held for 9 months. He left Berkeley to become police chief in Hayward. He held this position for 10 years before friends convinced him to run for sheriff. He won the race for sheriff and the rest is history. He changed the Alameda County Sheriff Department's culture by bringing a high level of discipline to the department. Under his leadership, the department has become the only law enforcement agency west of the Mississippi to gain accreditations in five different functions: bomb squad, health care, law enforcement, corrections and crime lab. He also entered the department into lucrative law enforcement contracts with AC Transit and BART. Although Charley Plummer will no longer hold the title of Alameda County Sheriff, he will be known as Sheriff Emeritus and will devote his time to charity. He serves as a director or trustee on numerous boards and will continue his exemplary commitment and devotion to making a difference in the community. Charley has never minced words nor failed to step up to the plate to take responsibility for activities or implementation of programs for the safety and welfare of residents in Alameda County. He leaves a legacy of commitment, straight-talk and no-nonsense service. He has cut to the chase and his accomplishments are beyond measure. I join his friends, colleagues and admirers in thanking Sheriff Emeritus Plummer for his exemplary track record and marathon of service.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act. This bill eliminates $7.7 billion in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and raises another $6.3 billion for the Federal Treasury from new royalties on oil and gas removed from Federal waters. This $14 billion is a good down payment on future energy policies that can help eliminate our oil addiction and stop global warming. This bill is a good first step, but I will work with my colleagues to eliminate many of the other unnecessary tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Oil companies are enjoying record profits. Every time the price of gas increases, the value of existing tax subsidies increases and they make even more money. At a time of record gas prices and record profits we should not provide tax incentives for exploring, extracting or refining oil and gas. The best ways to eliminate our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to lower demand and reduce emissions from power plants and vehicles. For example, fuel economy standards for passenger cars have not been raised since 1985, and even lower ``light truck'' standards encourage manufacturers to produce gas-guzzling SUVs. I support raising fuel economy standards to at least 33 miles per gallon, which would save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 and 2.6 million barrels by 2025. Those who say that we can't do any better than 20-year-old technology might also like to trade their DVDs for VHS tapes, cell phones for pay phones, ipods for boomboxes, and then see just how advanced 1980s technology seems today. Eliminating tax subsidies will increase revenues, but we must spend those revenues wisely in our quest for clean renewable energy sources. Incentives for clean coal, ethanol and nuclear are not the answer. We must focus our efforts on promoting advancements in wind, hydrogen, solar and thermal power. These renewable sources can provide significant energy output with minimal environmental impact. I support H.R. 6 and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for a cleaner America.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of making higher education more affordable. Access to college is absolutely necessary if our country is to fulfill its promise of economic, social, and political inclusiveness for all individuals. By cutting interest rates in half on needs-based student loans, we will make college more accessible to hundreds of thousands of students from low- and middle- income families. Last November, the American people sent a clear and powerful message. They are tired of business as usual in Washington. Instead of economic policies that help the rich get richer, they want education policies that will help their children to realize an American dream that is increasingly difficult to come by. Since 2001, college costs have risen by 41 percent. According to the Department of Education, such increases put college out of reach for as many as 200,000 would-be students a year. Rising costs have also forced more and more students to rely on loans to pay for college, which now saddle the average graduate with $17,500 in Federal student loan debt. The College Student Relief Act, H.R. 5, offers real relief to students priced out of college and burdened by debt. According to USPIRG, my home State of California has 228,500 subsidized loan borrowers. This bill will save the average California student enrolling in college this fall $2,490. When fully implemented, it will save the average student who starts college in 2011 $4,830. Today's legislation is an important first step in what I hope will be an ongoing effort to make college more affordable. This effort should include raising the maximum Pell Grant amount and exploring other policies to open the doors to college to a larger slice of our society. Our guiding principle should be ensuring that all students who meet academic requirements for undergraduate study can afford to attend college, not just those from wealthy families. I urge my colleagues to heed the voice of the American people and take this initial step toward making higher education accessible to all.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, this week, President Bush confirmed what I have known for some time: He is delusional. Twenty-thousand more troops in Iraq? No one supports this escalation: not the Join Chiefs of Staff, not the Iraq Study Group and certalnly not the American people. This administration has made mistake after mistake in an unnecessary war of its choosing. Now the President insists on sacrificing more lives, more money, and more goodwill on an increasingly lost cause. If God really does talk to this President, I wish God would tell the President to ``Bring the troops home now!'' This is what the Iraqis need and it's what the American people overwhelmingly declared they wanted in November. President Bush is incapable of managing the debacle in Iraq. Congress must therefore take matters into its own hands, blocking funding for the ``surge'' in particular and stopping all funding for the war in Iraq in general. Let's bring our troops home.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) for a unanimous-consent request. (Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, who agrees with AARP that the Secretary can achieve additional savings for beneficiaries under H.R. 4.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield our remaining 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) to close for our side. She recognizes that the Center for Diabetes is a front group for PhRMA.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who agrees with AIDS Action that an effort to ensure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to negotiate drug prices is important to the continuing success of part D. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who agrees with the Reliance for Retired Americans that, by harnessing the bargaining power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, H.R. 4 will bring relief to older and disabled Americans.