Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, Mr. LaTourette of Ohio, a very fine Congressman, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the picture of Mr. Kashkoush, and all I can say is he exemplifies the thousands of young men and women who have gone to serve their country in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world. And we just can't say enough about young people like that who go out there and risk their lives to protect our freedoms. I am very happy that my colleague from Ohio took the time to introduce this legislation, and I am very happy to support that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks just made by Mr. Royce of California. I think he made the case very well for the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.

Colombia has been a great friend of ours under President Uribe, and we ought to be doing more to make sure that that government down there is stable and that the trade with us improves. Right now we have about a $2.56 billion trade deficit, because they have access to our markets but we don't have access to theirs, like we should, because of the tariffs. If we pass a Colombian Free Trade Agreement, it will be a two- way street that will help them, will help us create more jobs in the United States, as well as more jobs in Colombia.

But there is more to it than that. Right now, there is a threat from the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, and right on the border is Venezuela. President Chavez of Venezuela has recognized the FARC down there and is kind of working with those people, and I think that is a peril that faces Colombia over the long haul. Having a strong free trade agreement that will create jobs and a stronger economy in Colombia I think will be one of the things that will help stop the terrorists down there, the FARC guerrillas, the ELN and those who may be coming out of Venezuela.

So I think this is a very good first step tonight. We are extending the trade preferences for the next 9 or 10 months, and I think that that is all right. But we need to get on with the business of making sure we pass a free trade agreement with Colombia, as we did with Peru. I think it is in our national interests and their national interests. They are a good friend, and we should get the job done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 947, sponsored by my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Royce, which offers the House of Representatives' congratulations to Lee Myung-Bak on his election to the presidency of the Republic of Korea.

Additionally, this resolution recognizes the very special and longstanding relationship between South Korea and the United States; a relationship whose modern day form was first forged in the heat of battle as U.S. and South Korean soldiers fought to defend South Korea from aggression by Communist North Korea. In fact, our history of friendship reaches beyond the past century; and just last year we celebrated the 125th anniversary of the Korean American Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation which was signed in 1882.

In my opinion, it is hard to overestimate the importance of the close bond between the United States and South Korea. The United States and Korea have a mutual defense treaty that dates back to 1953, and Korea has supported U.S. military efforts abroad, as recently as in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Korea has been one of only four partners and allies that stood with us through all four major conflicts since World War II. In addition, South Korea demonstrated her great friendship and generosity in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, pledging over $30 million in aid for relief and recovery efforts--the fourth largest amount donated by any foreign country.

On June 30, 2007, representatives of both governments signed the historic United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. If and when this agreement is approved by Congress I believe it will increase trade and investment flowing through our agriculture, industrial, consumer products, automobile and financial services sectors. I believe this agreement will enhance the strong partnership between two great democratic nations and will open the door wider to the exchange of science and ideas that will cause us both to continue to prosper.

This agreement is a natural extension of the strong affinity between our two countries, marked by extraordinary diplomatic, political, military, and economic cooperation. Although the devil is always in the details, I understand that this agreement could potentially be the most commercially-significant free trade agreement signed by the United States in more than a decade.

As many of my colleagues already know, South Korea is already the United States' seventh largest export market and sixth largest market for U.S. agricultural products. In fact, according to the latest statistics, our annual bilateral trade totals nearly $80 billion. Any agreement that can open up more Korean markets to U.S. goods and services can only have a positive effect on the American economy by creating more and better jobs, enriching consumer choice, and boosting U.S. industry and manufacturing.

Koreans have invested nearly $20 billion in the United States, and have created American jobs through companies like Hyundai Motors, Samsung Electronics, and Kia Motors. And as the largest investor in Korea, the United States already has a leading presence in that country.

As I have said before and will continue to say, I think it is important to note that trade relationships do more than just facilitate economic growth; this FTA recognizes our special relationship with South Korea that I mentioned before and makes the strong statement that we will continue to stand with our allies.

South Korea is the fifth largest tourism-generating country to the United States with over 800,000 Koreans visiting the U.S. every single year. This number is expected to double (at the minimum) when South Korea joins the Visa Waiver Program. According to the Department of Homeland Security, South Korea also has the largest foreign student population in the U.S. Nearly 2 million Americans of Korean descent live in communities all across our Nation, representing all walks of life and making innumerable contributions to the enrichment of our Nation's culture and economy.

South Korea is a strong, unwavering ally in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror, having dispatched the third largest contingent of troops to Iraq, and to Afghanistan (where a South Korean soldier was killed during hostile action), and to Lebanon in support of peacekeeping operations; and South Korea is a key partner in the Six-Party Talks to resolve North Korea's nuclear issue.

I firmly believe that South Korea may be the premier success story of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II period. Having assisted South Korea in transforming itself from a war-torn, impoverished economy into a successful democracy with a free enterprise economy (the world's 11th largest), South Korea is now an indispensable partner with the United States in promoting democracy, a free market economy and respect for the rule of law around the world.

I believe that President-Elect Myung-Bak understands and appreciates the important history behind our bilateral relations. His desire to better relations with the United States through an emphasis on free market solutions encourages me that the work we have begun will continue to grow under his leadership. I look forward to a continuation of the United States-South Korean partnership during the President- Elect's term and for many years beyond.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 947 and join me in congratulating President Lee Myung-Bak, and extending to him the very best wishes of the House of Representatives as he assumes office later this month.

Madam Speaker, while I was back home in Indiana for the recent congressional recess, I came across an excellent op-ed in the Indianapolis Star written by the CEO of Conseco Inc--one of our Nation's premier insurance, annuity and financial security firms--C. James Prieur. The topic of this op-ed was a subject that I have been deeply concerned about for some time, namely, the question of long-term health care. Not since the days of Hillarycare back in the early 1990s has the issue of health care been raised to such prominence in political and civic debates all across the country. However, one aspect of health care that I believe is still not garnering the kind of attention it should is long-term care, LTC, insurance.

Back in December 2006, the AARP released a shocking survey, which found that a full 59 percent of American adults age 45 and older overestimate Medicare coverage for long-term care. Other studies have shown similar results. Taken together, the implication is clear; far too many Americans do not have a clear perception of long-term care costs or to what extent long-term care is covered by public programs. For example, Medicare pays for care delivered in skilled nursing facilities to patients who require longer term medical treatment, but Medicare does not pay for custodial care needed to assist frail and disabled beneficiaries with eating, bathing and other activities of daily living. Medicaid only covers those types of services if you are impoverished or become impoverished, and it provides far fewer quality care choices than are offered through typical long-term care insurance plans.

With the impending retirement of roughly 76 million baby boomers in the next 10 to 20 years, and the average cost of a private room in a nursing home running about $75,000 a year, in current dollars, we are facing a potential long-term care train wreck. Fortunately, the solution is already in place, and it is not a Government-run insurance program; it is the private insurance industry. As Mr. Prieur clearly says in his op-ed, and I agree with him, long-term care insurance isn't for everyone. But, millions of Americans have already put their trust in LTC insurance, and when 97 percent of long-term care claims submitted to private insurers are being paid out--which is the finding of a survey of the leading LTC insurers done by America's health insurance plans--the facts seem to show that this trust is well placed.

I urge my colleagues to read this op-ed and to talk to your constituents about Medicare and long-term care issues. And I urge my colleagues to come together to enact simple, commonsense changes in Federal policy that can help Americans take an important step towards preparing for their long-term care and retirement security needs. One of the easiest things we could do is to allow long-term care insurance to be offered among employer-sponsored cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, FSAs. Currently, benefits such as medical insurance, disability income, life insurance, and a variety of other voluntary benefits are cafeteria style but long-term care insurance is not. Moreover, long-term care insurance cannot be purchased using FSA dollars. That simply makes no sense.

[From the Indianapolis Star, Dec. 31, 2007]

Let's Work To Avoid Long-Term Care Crisis

(By C. James Prieur)

Here's a question: What percentage of the long-term care

claims submitted to private insurance companies were paid in

2006? 10 percent? 25 percent? 50 percent? The actual answer--

according to a survey of the leading LTC insurers by

America's Health Insurance Plans--is 97 percent. If that high

percentage surprises you, it may be because a small number of

problem LTC insurance cases have been grabbing the headlines.

Public attention is focusing as never before on the

important issue of how Americans will pay for their long-term

care needs. Soaring health care costs, the looming retirement

of millions of baby boomers, and the fear that Medicare and

Medicaid will be dangerously strained are behind this

concern. Unfortunately, misleading media accounts may be

driving away the very people who would benefit most from LTC

insurance.

Far-sighted leaders in Congress who are pushing to broaden

the number of Americans who have LTC insurance are doing so

for good reason. The cost for providing long-term care will

be a major, potentially crippling expense for many

households. Contrary to what many think, government programs

will pay only part of the tab. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa

noted recently that ``preparing for long-term care needs can

make a big difference in both the quality of life for

individuals and the solvency of Medicaid.'' How the success

of these products and their new variations will affect public

programs is a serious issue. Many seniors mistakenly believe

their LTC costs will be covered by Medicare. In fact,

Medicare does not cover home health care, nursing home care

or the type of care one may need for a severe cognitive

impairment like Alzheimer's disease.

This means that most seniors will have to bear a meaningful

share of their own long-term care costs, and that's where

private LTC insurers enter the picture. It is our mission to

provide seniors with the assurance that their long-term care

needs will be covered and their legacy will be preserved.

Millions of Americans have put their trust in LTC

insurance, and the facts show that this trust is well placed.

Overwhelmingly, insurers are meeting their obligations.

Across the country in 2005 (the most recent full-year data

available), the LTC industry paid more than $3 billion of

claims.

LTC insurance isn't for everyone. If you are among the

wealthiest of Americans, you might be able to afford to pay

your own LTC expenses. If you have a very low income or few

assets, Medicaid may help you. If you fall somewhere in

between, LTC insurance may be the smart choice to relieve the

financial strain on your family and help you protect assets.

LTC insurance is getting more expensive. Many LTC insurers

today are asking state insurance departments for authority to

raise their LTC insurance rates. Policyholder premiums are

based on several factors that have changed significantly over

time, and in ways that few anticipated.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank the Black Caucus for taking this Special Order tonight. Julia Carson was a friend of mine and a friend of Steve Buyer. We traveled back and forth on the plane from Indianapolis to Washington on a regular basis and we got to know each other.

Julia was a wonderful person, very highly regarded by the people of Indianapolis. In fact, she is the only woman in the history of the city who was recognized as Woman of the Year by the Indianapolis Star twice. That honor came to her by readers of the paper voting for her. That was quite an honor, an honor that has not been bestowed upon any other woman in the city's history.

The thing I really liked about Julia was that even though she was a Democrat and I was a Republican, we worked together on a lot of issues that were very important to central Indiana and the City of Indianapolis.

I remember one case in particular that dealt with the Children's Museum. I talked to Julia about it, and she took the bull by the horns and worked very hard to make sure that the problems that we had with the Children's Museum were resolved, and I really admired her for that.

Her predecessor and her buddy, Andy Jacobs, to whom you just referred in that article, really loved her like a sister. Andy served here for, I think, 28 or 30 years, and he is a very dear friend of mine, and Andy has told me on a number of occasions the great contributions that Julia made to him and his staff when she worked for him before she became a Congresswoman.

She was a State representative. When Andy was defeated in 1972, he urged her to run for the Indiana House of Representatives, and she did. She was elected, and then she was later elected to the Indiana State Senate. Then she ran for the Center Township Trustee's job in Indianapolis and was elected to that.

The thing I talked about yesterday when we were acknowledging Julia that I didn't know much about until just recently was that when she took over the Center Township Trustee's job, it was in a chaotic situation. And she was able to take care of the needs of the people of Indianapolis that really needed help and at the same time to reduce the budget of the Trustee's office, and that was something that I think all of us, Republican or Democrat, really can admire.

She was a very fine Congresswoman. She was a very fine person. She always had a smile for everybody, and I really appreciated knowing her. She shall be missed. I think that she is probably in heaven looking down on us right now.

Julia, you did a good job.

I yield to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Let me just say that Julia Carson was a friend of mine. I have known Julia for a long, long time. She worked for our former colleague Andy Jacobs when he was in the House, and she did a tremendous job for him.

She started out politically in Indiana as a State representative and became a State senator. And when Andy retired, she ran for and was elected to the Congress of the United States.

She was also a trustee. One of the things she did as a trustee was she reduced the cost to the trustee's office and reduced the number of people who had to be served on the welfare rolls. I think that is very honorable that she did that. She worked so hard. As a Republican, I have to take my hat off to Julia for reducing the cost of that township trustee's office. She did a fantastic job.

She worked here in the Congress for a long, long time. Her health started failing, as you all know, in the last couple of years, but she continued to try to serve her constituents as best she could. Julia was loved, literally loved by all of the people she served in Indianapolis. She worked so hard and so long, and I know everybody in the Indiana delegation and in Indiana will miss her. And I know her good friend, Andy Jacobs, grieves for her as well as we do tonight.

I would just like to say that Julia, we miss you and we wish you Godspeed.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 880) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, you know, we've had probably close to 1,100 votes this session. We've been here since January. In fact, January we had more work scheduled than I've seen in a long, long time because January is usually a light month. But we had all those votes, and here we are with just a few days left in this session and we haven't done a darn thing.

In my opinion, the accomplishments of this Congress under the Democrat leadership has been a big zero. The appropriation bills that the President wanted to sign and get through this process have not been given to him, and now you're going to come up with an omnibus spending bill right here at the end with a lot of pork in it that nobody knows what's in it, and you're going to present that to the American people as a job well done.

Well, it is not a job well done. That omnibus spending bill, if it has all that pork in it that we've heard of, the President's likely to veto, and then we're going to have to come back with a continuing resolution to get us through the end of the year into the middle of January.

So I'd just like to say to my colleagues, whom I respect a great deal, the promises that you made at the beginning of the year when you took charge of this House have not been met. We have not gotten anything done of substance, and we're going to leave here with an omnibus spending bill that may or may not be vetoed, and the American people are going to wonder what in the world's in that bill.

So I'd just like to say to my colleagues, I'd like to say a job well done, but I can't. It's been a total zero this year.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, it's late at night here in the Capitol, and most of my colleagues are in their offices or have gone home. But I want to talk about an issue that's very, very important that we've been talking about now for the last 8 years.

I was chairman of the Government Reform Committee for 6 years, and during that time, my grandson became autistic; and we checked to find out what was the cause, trying to find out, because my daughter and her husband were just extremely upset about it, as we were as grandparents. And we found that he had received nine shots in one day, seven of which had a product called themarasol, a preservative, in it. And the themarasol was 50 percent ethylmercury. And so I decided to have hearings to try to find out if the ethylmercury in those vaccines had anything to do with the autistic problem my grandson had. And we found, by having many, many hearings over a 4-year period, we found that scientists from all over the world and leading doctors and educators here that work with autistic children, that the mercury in the vaccines did contribute to the autistic epidemic that we had.

We used to have one in 10,000 children that were diagnosed as being autistic. One in 10,000. Today the Centers for Disease Control will tell you it's one out of 150. It's an absolute epidemic in this country. And we have been fighting and fighting and fighting to make sure that those families who have been damaged and those children who have been damaged by autism get some kind of compensation. And that's why, and I think in 1986 we passed what was called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, and it took some of the money from the pharmaceutical companies when they sold their vaccine products to put into this fund to take care of people who are damaged by vaccines. And one of the reasons we did that was because of the issue of autism, although at that time I didn't know much about it.

In any event, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund has about $3 billion in it, and the people who's children have been adversely affected by mercury and have autism have not been able to get anything out of that. They have to go through a process and see a special master, and he has to judge whether or not the information that he has and the information they have lead them to believe that the mercury in the vaccines caused autism. And so far the special masters have not been able to ascertain, according to them, that the mercury in the vaccines does cause autism.

Well, last week, 2 years ago, let's see, 4 years ago there was a report, 2004, that said that there was definitely no connection between the mercury and the vaccinations and the children getting autism. Well, this past November, just last month, two doctors, Dr. Catherine DeSoto and Dr. Robert T. Hitlan, both very renowned doctors across this country, they have Ph.D.s in medicine, they wrote an article in the Journal of Child Neurology. And you can't discount this. What they're saying is fact. I want to read to you the summary of what they said. They said: ``The question of what is leading to the apparent increase in autism is of great importance. Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have a major health implication. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stated and that no link occurs.''

Now, get this: ``We have reanalyzed the data set forth originally reported in 2004 and have found that the original P value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that persons with autism may be less efficient and more variable at eliminating mercury from the blood.''

The fact of the matter is the mercury in the vaccines has autism. It's not the only cause of autism. But now we have scientific evidence by two leading doctors in the Journal of Child Neurology that says without doubt, the mercury in the vaccines does cause autism, is a major contributing factor.

Well, I've written, contacted Congressman Kucinich, who's chairman of the subcommittee that deals with this in the Capitol, and I've also contacted the special masters that decide these cases and have urged them to re-evaluate all of these cases where people who have autistic children have found that the mercury in the vaccines may have been a major cause.

Now we know that it is a cause of autism, and those people who have suffered, and those kids who have suffered need to be compensated out of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.

So I'd like to say to my colleagues, I hope you will join me in making sure that the information I just read gets out to everybody. These kids are going to live to be 50, 60, 70 years old, and unless there's some help for them, they're going to be a real burden on the taxpayers and on society. We have an obligation to make sure they're taken care of.

I hope all of my colleagues will read this statement tonight and help us to change the attitude of our health agencies and the special masters dealing with this problem.

In November 2007, the well-respected scientific journal, the Journal of Child Neurology, published an article authored by Drs. M. Catherine DeSoto and Robert T. Hiltlan (PhDs), detailing their findings on the relationship between mercury and autism spectrum disorders. The article was entitled ``Blood Levels of Mercury are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set.''

To summarize the article, Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan reanalyzed a data set the subject of a 2004 study that found no relationship between mercury and autism. By reexamining the data set, Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan determined that the conclusions of the 2004 study were wrong,

and that a relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.

As Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan noted in their article, there has been a marked increase in the diagnosis of autism in this country over the last 20 years. In fact we have gone from an autism rate of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150. So, answering the question of what is (and is not) a possible contributing cause of autism is crucial, not only to the millions of American families currently affected by autism but to future generations.

We simply cannot dismiss or downplay scientific research, which has the potential to unlock the mysteries surrounding what is causing our Nation's autism crisis. We owe it to the thousands of families living with autism to follow the science wherever it may lead.

That's why in late November, I wrote to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Representative Dennis Kucinich; and the Special Masters assigned to the Congressionally-created Office of Vaccine Program within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alerting them to the findings in Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan's latest research.

Specifically, I asked the Special Masters to take Drs. DeSoto and Hiltlan's latest findings into consideration as they carry out their mandate of managing and adjudicating childhood vaccine claims. I asked Chairman Kucinich to hold a hearing on the environmental risks of mercury in childhood vaccines before the 110th Congress ends.

Given the high stakes involved, scientific reports discussing a connection between blood mercury levels and autism deserve serious consideration and review by the medical and scientific community.

During my tenure as Chairman of the House Committee on Government and Reform, I spent 6 years researching and hearing testimony from the autism advocacy and scientific communities about the autism epidemic sweeping our country. Over and over again, questions of causation, namely the use of thimerosal--the mercury-based vaccine preservative-- in childhood vaccines were raised.

Here's what I learned:

A number of credible national and international scientists testified before the Committee that mercury in vaccines is a contributing factor in developing neurological disorders, including, but not limited to, modest declines in intelligent quotient, autism, and Alzheimer's disease. And the body of evidence to support that conclusion gets larger everyday.

Experience tells us that, as with any other epidemic, while there may be underlying genetic susceptibilities, there usually is also some type of environmental trigger as well--be it exposure to a virus, fungus, heavy metal, or pollutant. There has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a purely genetic epidemic.

Genetics alone cannot explain how we went from 1 in 10,000 children with autism spectrum disorders 20 years ago to 1 in 150 today. The increase happened far too quickly for a genetic shift.

As mercury is a known bio-accumulative neurotoxin, it is biologically plausible that it is a contributing factor to our Nation's autism epidemic.

Autism has no cure, and while it is a life-changing condition, it is not a life-threatening disease. This means that the autistic children of today will be the autistic adults and autistic seniors, 20, 30, 50, even 70 years from now. Our Nation is ill prepared to deal with the complex educational, financial, housing, and health care challenges posed by a generation of autistic individuals.

My only grandson is autistic, so this is an issue that is very close to my heart; and for the last several years I have fought hard to raise awareness of this disease, and increase research into the causes of autism, as well as new treatments for those suffering with autism.

As a Nation, I believe, we have a collective responsibility to do everything we can to not only stop the further spread of this disease but to help the millions of children, adults and families afflicted with it.

Journal of Child Neurology

Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A

Reanalysis of an Important Data Set

(By M. Catherine DeSoto, PhD, and Robert T. Hitlan, PhD)

The question of what is leading to the apparent increase in

autism is of great importance. Like the link between aspirin

and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health

implications. If there is any link between autism and

mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of

the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs. We

have reanalyzed the data set originally reported by Ip et al.

in 2004 and have found that the original p value was in error

and that a significant relation dose exist between the blood

levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum

disorder. Moreover, the hair sample analysis results offer

some support for the idea that persons with autism may be

less efficient and more variable at eliminating mercury from

the blood.

Keywords: autism; mercury; environmental health;

neurotoxin; neurodevelopment; blood.

There is a marked increase in the diagnosis of autism. The

question of what is (and is not) related to this increase is

crucial to millions of persons affected by the disorder. This

article reanalyzes an original data set regarding the

relation between blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an

autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by Ip et al. based on our

finding of discrepancies in the original article.\1\

A review of what is known about the neurotoxic effects of

mercury is beyond the scope of this paper,\2\ but the

observable symptoms of acute mercury poisoning have been

reported to match up with many of the problems observed in

autism.\4\ Furthermore, mercury poisoning has sometimes been

presumptively diagnosed as autism of unknown etiology until

the mercury poisoning has been uncovered.\4\ Because there

has been a several-fold increase in environmental mercury

exposure, the hypothesis that the rise in autism could be

related to an environmental increase in mercury levels is a

reasonable one to pursue. Autism may result from a

combination of genetic susceptibility (perhaps in the form of

reduced ability to remove mercury or other neurotoxins from

the system) and environmental exposure at key times in

development.5,7 This would mean a generalized

increase in mercury levels would be expected to co-occur with

a generalized increase in autism. but some people exposed to

relatively high mercury would not be affected if, for

example, their bodies were very efficient eliminators of such

toxins. Only if an exposed infant or fetus also had a genetic

susceptibility that makes one less able to remove mercury (or

other heavy metals) would normal levels of mercury exposure

lead to problems. Alternatively, it could be that genes that

help detoxify get switched on and start to express themselves

a little later than normal in those genetically predisposed

to autism; or perhaps. autism results from some combination

of these theories.

Nevertheless, if mercury does play any causal role in

facilitating a diagnosis of autism, there would likely be at

least some relation between high mercury measured in the

blood and symptoms of autism even if ability to metabolize

mediates the relationship between exposure and neural

toxicity. This is because even if exposure is identical,

those who remove mercury less effectively should still have

higher levels in the blood. Interestingly, results of hair

samples could be expected to be somewhat mixed. The level of

mercury in hair may be better understood as an indication of

how much mercury has been removed by the body as opposed to

the level in the body.\6\ If people are approximately equal

in their ability to remove circulating mercury from the

bloodstream, then these 2 indicators should match up closely,

but if a person's ability to excrete is low, their hair

samples might not be elevated even when their blood levels

are high.

Fido and Al-Saad found that mercury levels in hair samples

were higher in children diagnosed with autism.\8\ These

children were aged 4 to 7. In contrast, Kern et al. reported

that mercury hair levels were not significantly different,

but were lower at a marginally significant level.\9\ Kern et

al. used younger children, ages 1 to 6. Holmes et al.

performed the most direct test of the hypothesis that

autistic children may be deficient in terms of ability to

remove mercury from circulation.\6\ This study estimated

mercury exposure of the mothers via a mercury exposure survey

questionnaire. They then analyzed the first haircuts of the

autistic children and a group of controls (the first haircuts

would reflect mercury excretion in utero and very early

life). In the autistic group, severity of autism was

inversely related to hair mercury levels. This means that the

more severe autistic cases actually had less excretion of

mercury. Furthermore, among the normal children, hair levels

of mercury were correlated to the mother's mercury exposure

(as would of course be expected). But among the autistic

children, there was no linear relation between the mother's

mercury exposure and excretion of mercury in the hair. As the

authors state, this pattern of results is easily understood

if one considers ``detoxification capacity of a subset of

infants,'' \6\ such that the bodies of those diagnosed with

autism appeared to be less able to excrete and/or metabolize

the mercury they were exposed to.

As the rise in autism is relatively recent, it is not

surprising that research into the etiology has not kept pace.

Indeed, there are few published articles that consider blood

levels of children with mercury that utilize a control group;

a psycInfo search using the words ``autism,'' ``mercury,''

and ``blood'' yields only one hit.\1\ Given the high stakes

involved, it is crucial that early reports of the connection

between blood mercury levels and autism not be misstated.

Even a small effect size would be of great theoretical and

practical consequence.

In 2004, Ip et al. reported that no relationship existed

between mercury blood levels and diagnosis of autistic

spectrum disorder among a group of children with an average

age of approximately 7 years. While attempting to estimate

the effect size based on the Ip et al. statistics, we

realized that the numbers reported by Ip et at could not be

correct. The means and standard deviations reported in the

2004 article yielded an easily

Madam Speaker, one of the great things that has happened in my political life and serving in Congress is to have known Henry Hyde. Henry Hyde I think was one of the greatest Congressmen to ever serve in this Chamber. He was a man of integrity. He was honest. When he gave you his word, it was his bond. He was loved by everybody. Even during the controversial impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, he did it with honor, and he did it in a way that everybody respected him even though it was very, very controversial.

He was a great chairman. He was the chairman of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he did a great job in both areas. I served with him on the Foreign Affairs Committee and I was one of his subcommittee chairman, and I want to tell you, he was a chairman you could be proud of. He was a man who was always ready to listen and work with his subcommittee chairmen and anybody in the Congress to solve problems facing this Nation.

He was known best, I think, for the Hyde Amendment, which stopped Federal funding for abortions, and it has been known throughout the time since that bill passed as one of the great human life amendments ever presented in this body or in the other body as well. He was a fighter. He was the kind of man who was very strong-willed, who would fight like the dickens. But he had a heart that was very, very soft where his fellow man was concerned. When he was on an issue, however, he had a heart that was very, very tough, and everybody that dealt with him knew that.

He was probably one of the greatest orators who ever served in the Congress of the United States in either body. When he came down to speak, everybody listened. You could hear a pin drop. I know when a lot of my colleagues speak today they have to bring the gavel down several times to bring the House to order and ask for regular order, but when Henry Hyde came down on a great cause and spoke, you could hear a pin drop in this place because people knew he had something to say and they wanted to hear what he had to say.

I am very proud to have known Henry. I knew him for over 20 years in this body. I can't tell you or any of my colleagues how great he was and how much I held him in high esteem. He will be missed not only because he was a great Congressman, he will be missed not only because he was a great chairman, he will be missed because he was a great American.

And before I leave, I have to tell you one little story about Henry that he was so proud of. When he went to college at Georgetown University, he played on the basketball team. And one of the greatest players, if not the greatest player of that era, was a man named George Mikan, and Henry used to smile and with great pride tell everybody that when he played against George Mikan, in the second half he held him to one point. And there aren't many people who could do that.

In addition to all of this, he authored the staunchest pro-life legislation in Congress in 30 years, and headed the impeachment hearings against President Clinton. Either of those efforts would naturally incite a whole camp of enemies.

``Henry Hyde spoke of controversial matters with intellectual honesty and without rancor,'' said President Bush.

``He was gifted as a legislator. There was a time when the Illinois House was divided evenly and needed 89 votes to pass a bill, and nothing was getting done because of partisan wrangling. People were angry and debilitated.

``Henry stood up and said he had voted against something just because he was on the other side of the aisle, and asked the House to reconsider the last bill on its merits. They wound up going back to the last 32 bills that had failed, and he brought people back into an atmosphere of wanting to work together.''

``Congressman Hyde played a big role in crystallizing the issue of abortion as central to politics and the culture,'' said Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life. ``He has always been a driving force in making it clear that abortion is not one among many issues.'' Hyde, a Catholic, was a vocal opponent of abortion. In 1976 Hyde attached an amendment to a spending bill that banned Federal funding for abortions.

The amendment later become known as the ``Hyde Amendment'' and has been at the center of the political fight over abortion since its passage.

``This erudite, scholarly man has walked with kings and kept the common touch,'' Bush stated. ``They're quick to say it's not the same Congress without him--but that we're a better country because he was there. And colleagues will always admire and look up to the gentleman from Illinois, Henry J. Hyde.''

Born in 1924, Hyde served in the House from 1975 to 2006 and retired at end of the last session. Hyde served as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001.

In a written statement, Boehner called Hyde ``a constitutional scholar, a thoughtful legislator, and a passionate orator.''

``But above all, he will be remembered as a gentleman who stood as a beacon for the bedrock principles of liberty, justice, and, above all, respect for life,'' Boehner said.

On November 5, President Bush awarded Hyde the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor the president can bestow on an American citizen.

Henry, we miss you, buddy. Godspeed.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize an often overlooked

chapter in American history. The tiny island of Sint (St.) Eustatius, known locally as ``Statia'', is a quiet and peaceful island with pristine coral reefs located in the Dutch Antilles, which is part of the Leeward Islands of the Caribbean. As the story goes, on November 16, 1776, the American Brigantine ``Andrew Doria'', under the command of Captain Isaiah Robinson sailed into the harbor of Statia--at the time a Dutch Colony--on a mission to obtain a cargo of munitions and military supplies. Nearing Fort Oranje, the Andrew Doria fired off a 13-gun salute. The cannons of Fort Oranje under the command of Governor Johannes de Graaff answered with an 11-gun volley. This volley is regarded as the first salute to an American flag on board an American warship in a foreign port. Or more simply put, the first recognition of America's newly declared independence from Great Britain by a foreign power.

It is unfortunate that down through the years the importance of St. Eustatius to the American Revolution has faded into relative obscurity. The truth, however, is that a good part of the weapons, ammunition and ordinary supplies needed by the Continental Army was imported via St. Eustatius. In addition, because of its geographic location and vibrant shipping industry, St. Eustatius provided the fastest and, more importantly, the safest connection between the Continental Congress and America's political supporters overseas. It has been said that Benjamin Franklin in particular was known for shipping his mail to Europe through St. Eustatius. And John Adams held the commercial connection between the fledgling United States and St. Eustatius is such high regard that it formed the foundation for his argument that the United States should enter into diplomatic relations with the Netherlands.

Regrettably, it was the impending American-Dutch commercial treaty that finally compelled the British to act against St. Eustatius. In February 1781, British Admiral George Rodney attacked and captured the island, sacking the storehouse and homes in the process. For a time after the island surrender the British continued to fly the Dutch flag; a ruse which successfully lured many American and other enemy ships into captivity. Despite their island being reduced to ruins the people of St. Eustatius never lost their love and affection for the people of America. And today, November 16th is a national holiday on the Island of Sint Eustatius known as Statia America Day. As St. Eustatius prepares to celebrate the 231st anniversary of the salute to the Andrew Doria, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and saluting the people of St. Eustatius and the important role their tiny island played in the fight to win our independence.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1118, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, everybody in America, at least the vast majority of Americans, are very concerned about illegal immigration. And they want it stopped.

Back in the early 1980s, we passed a bill called the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. It was in about 1986, and it was supposed to stop illegal immigration. And what it ended up being was a magnet for more illegal immigration. It just simply didn't work. So today, instead of 2 or 3 million illegals in this country, we have got maybe 14, 15, 16 million. And we really need to deal with the problem.

One of the problems we have is that we are not enforcing our laws. Here in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, a person can acquire an illegal driver's license, a fake, a fake Social Security card, a fake green card, and all they have to do is talk to somebody on the street.

My chief of staff lives over near a place here in Washington, D.C. called Adams Morgan. It's a very popular place, especially for young people. And the ABC News affiliate here in Washington, D.C., recently went down there with a camera and did an interview and watched what was going on as far as giving phony IDs to illegal aliens. And I want to read to you what happened. Here's what they said:

``On any given day, you see them walking up and down Columbia Road in Adams Morgan. As soon as you make eye contact with them, they try to offer you freedom as best they can.

``Seller: `Green card or security card?'

``Buyer: `Yes. What will that cost me?'

``Seller: `The green card and Social Security card will cost you $140. The driver's license alone will cost you $120.' ''

Now, they are selling fake IDs. And the people that attacked us on 9/ 11 had phony driver's licenses and had regular driver's licenses and they used them as ID to get on planes. And here in Washington, D.C., we have these people making phony ID cards, driver's licenses, green cards, Social Security cards, and they're selling them in broad daylight and we are not doing

anything about it. And these people may very well be terrorists and a threat to the United States of America. I'll go on:

``After jotting down a fake name, using our subject's photo . . . the card sharks put it all together in a private office. Two hundred dollars and a couple of hours later, our subject picks up his documents . . . documents so real looking it's almost impossible to detect anything suspicious . . . identical seals, a new Social Security number, and even affirmation that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has given its okay. It's easy to get a good fake ID that can legitimately fool employers. And the Federal employment verification ``Basic Pilot'' cannot detect fraud, which means employers must fend for themselves when determining if a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. What's the point of a system if it doesn't work?''

And that's my question tonight. What are we going to do? We have a system that invites illegal aliens to come into this country. They get education, they get health care, and we have even had legislation passed that would give them an apartment or a home to live in. It's just amazing.

And now we are not enforcing the laws that would stop these people from selling fake IDs, which could give a terrorist the ability to move about in a very easy way here in the United States of America.

This is tragic. Our FBI, our Homeland Security, the State police and the local police in this country need to enforce the laws against creating these fake IDs. It is absolutely essential to keep this country protected and to stop the flow of illegal aliens coming into this country. What's to stop them? Nothing. Right now they get fake ID and they can go anywhere they want, and the American people are sick and tired of it. You talk to any congressman and go to any congressman's district and they will tell you that the American people want this illegal immigration stopped. And we are not even enforcing the law and stopping the manufacture of fake IDs. We have to do something about it.

Madam Speaker, I was extremely disappointed today to see the Human Rights Watch had to issue a statement calling on the Government of India to finally take concrete steps to hold accountable members of its security forces who killed, ``disappeared,'' and tortured thousands of Sikhs during its military campaign in the Punjab. I was disappointed because India should already be doing this. I was disappointed because this call to action is simply further proof that India--which prides itself on being the

world's most populous democracy--is in reality a highly deficient democracy; and that it has yet to do what it legally and morally must do; which is to clean up its atrocious human rights record.

The massive human rights violations of the Indian Government have been well documented. In fact, according to the Department of State's 2006 Human Rights Report for India: ``Major problems included extrajudicial killings of persons in custody, disappearances, torture and rape by police and security forces. The lack of accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were rare.'' Again, these are not my words; this is from the State Department's official report on Human Rights.

Although relations between India and the United States have been rocky in the past, since 2004 Washington and New Delhi have been pursuing a ``strategic partnership'' based on shared values such as democracy, multi-culturalism, and rule of law. In addition, numerous economic, security and globally focused initiatives, including plans for ``full civilian nuclear energy cooperation,'' are currently underway. I support these initiatives but I remain deeply concerned about the numerous serious problems that remain when it comes to India's respect for the rights of all of her citizens.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place a copy of the Human Rights press release into the Record at this time. I urge my colleagues to read it and remember it and as the United States and India move towards greater cooperation in numerous endeavors to insist that India live up to its moniker and adhere to the full expression of democracy and basic human rights; especially for members of ethnic or religious minorities.

India: Time To Deliver Justice for Atrocities in Punjab

Delhi.--The Indian government must take concrete steps to

hold accountable members of its security forces who killed,

``disappeared,'' and tortured thousands of Sikhs during its

counterinsurgency campaign in the Punjab, Human Rights Watch

and Ensaaf said in a new report released today.

In order to end the institutional defects that foster

impunity in Punjab and elsewhere in the country, the

government should take new legal and practical steps,

including the establishment of a commission of inquiry, a

special prosecutor's office, and an extensive reparations

program.

The 123-page report, ``Protecting the Killers: A Policy of

Impunity in Punjab, India,'' examines the challenges faced by

victims and their relatives in pursuing legal avenues for

accountability for the human rights abuses perpetrated during

the government's counterinsurgency campaign. The report

describes the impunity enjoyed by officials responsible for

violations and the near total failure of India's judicial and

state institutions, from the National Human Rights Commission

to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to provide

justice for victims' families.

Beginning in the 1980s, Sikh separatists in Punjab

committed serious human rights abuses, including the massacre

of civilians, attacks upon Hindu minorities in the state, and

indiscriminate bomb attacks in crowded places. In its

counterinsurgency operations in Punjab from 1984 to 1995.

Indian security forces committed serious human rights abuses

against tens of thousands of Sikhs. None of the key

architects of this counterinsurgency strategy who bear

substantial responsibility for these atrocities have been

brought to justice.

``Impunity in India has been rampant in Punjab, where

security forces committed large-scale human rights violations

without any accountability,'' said Brad Adams, Asia director

at Human Rights Watch. ``No one disputes that the militants

were guilty of numerous human rights abuses, but the

government should have acted within the law instead of

sanctioning the killing, `disappearance,' and torture of

individuals accused of supporting the militants.''

A key case discussed in detail in the report is the Punjab

``mass cremations case,'' in which the security services are

implicated in thousands of killings and secret cremations

throughout Punjab to hide the evidence of wrongdoing. The

case is currently before the National Human Rights

Commission, a body specially empowered by the Supreme Court

to address this case. However, the commission has narrowed

its efforts to merely establishing the identity of the

individuals who were secretly cremated in three crematoria in

just one district of Punjab. It has rejected cases from other

districts and has ignored the intentional violations of human

rights perpetrated by India's security forces. For more than

a decade, the commission has failed to independently

investigate a single case and explicitly refuses to identify

any responsible officials.

``The National Human Rights Commission has inexplicably

failed in its duties to investigate and establish exactly

what happened in Punjab,'' said Adams. ``We still hold out

hope that it will change course and bring justice to victims

and their families.''

The report discusses the case of Jaswant Singh Khalra, a

leading human rights defender in Punjab who was abducted and

then murdered in October 1995 by government officials after

being held in illegal detention for almost two months.

Despite credible eyewitness testimony that police chief KPS

Gill was directly involved in interrogating Khalra in illegal

detention just days prior to Khalra's murder, the Central

Bureau of Investigation has thus far refused to investigate

or prosecute Gill. In September 2006, Khalra's widow,

Paramjit Kaur, filed a petition in the Punjab & Haryana High

Court calling on the CBI to take action against Gill. More

than a year later, she is still waiting for a hearing on the

merits.

``Delivering justice in Punjab could set precedents

throughout India for the redress of mass state crimes and

superior responsibility,'' said Jaskaran Kaur, co-director of

Ensaaf. ``Indians and the rest of the world are watching to

see if the current Indian government can muster the political

will to do the right thing. It if fails, then the only

conclusion that can be reached is that the state's

institutions cannot or will not take on the security

establishment. This has grave implications for Indian

democracy.''

Victims and their families seeking justice face severe

challenges, including prolonged trials, biased prosecutors,

an unresponsive judiciary, police intimidation and harassment

of witnesses, and the failure to charge senior government

officials despite evidence of their role in the abuses.

Tarloehan Singh described the hurdles he has faced in his

now 18-year struggle before Indian courts for justice for the

killing of his son, Kulwinder Singh:

``I used to receive threatening phone calls. The caller

would say that they had killed thousands of boys and thrown

them into canals, and they would also do that to Kulwinder

Singh's wife, kid, or me and my wife . . .

``The trial has been proceeding . . . with very little

evidence being recorded at each hearing, and with two to

three months between hearings. During this time, key

witnesses have died.''

After Mohinder Singh's son Jugraj Singh was killed in an

alleged faked armed encounter between security forces and

separatists in January 1995, he pursued numerous avenues of

justice. He brought his case before the Punjab & Haryana High

Court and the CBI Special Court, but no police officer was

charged. A CBI investigation found that Jugraj Singh had been

killed and cremated by the police. However, 11 years and a

few inquiry reports later, the CBI court ended Mohinder

Singh's pursuit for accountability by dismissing his case in

2006. Mohinder Singh describes his interactions with the CBI:

``On one occasion when [the officer] from the CBI came to

my house, he told me that I wasn't going to get anything out

of this. Not justice and not even compensation. He further

said that: `I see you running around pursuing your case. But

you shouldn't get into a confrontation with the police. You

have to live here and they can pick you up at any time.' He

was indirectly threatening me.''

Human Rights Watch and Ensaaf expressed concern that the

Indian government continues to cite the counterinsurgency

operations in Punjab as a model for preserving national

integrity.

``The government's illegal and inhuman policies in the name

of security have allowed a culture of impunity to prevail

that has brutalized its police and security forces,'' said

Kaur.

The report suggests a comprehensive framework to address

the institutionalized impunity that has prevented

accountability in Punjab. The detailed recommendations

include establishing a commission of inquiry, a special

prosecutor's office, and an extensive reparations program.

``The Indian government needs to send a clear message to

its security services, courts, prosecutors, and civil

servants that it neither tolerates nor condones gross human

rights violations under any circumstances,'' said Adams.

``This requires a comprehensive and credible process of

accountability that delivers truth, justice, and reparations

to its victims, who demand nothing more than their rights

guaranteed by India's constitution and international law.''

Thank you, Mr. Davis, for yielding the time.

You know, I get such a kick out of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in particular the chairman of the committee. He was my ranking Democrat for 6 years. And during those 6 years we investigated the illegalities of the Clinton administration that took place, and he blocked and defended the administration, as I would expect him to do because he is a Democrat, every single time. But the thing that interests me is he's talking about corruption in our State Department. We sent out over 1,000 subpoenas, and he and his side tried to stop us at every turn in the road to get to the bottom of corruption during the Clinton years. We had over 100 people in the administration and associated with the administration either take the fifth amendment or flee the country. We have pictures of them up on the wall, people that would not testify, that had memory loss. We said there was an epidemic of memory loss at the White House. People were leaving the country. People were taking the fifth amendment. They wouldn't give us any information. They blocked us time after time after time for 4 years.

And so today, here they are on the floor talking about corruption and being blocked by the State Department when they are the authors of this process. They're the ones who did it for 4 straight years to protect Bill Clinton and his administration when there was no question about corruption in that administration.

We sent five criminal referrals to the Justice Department during the time I was chairman, and they and their colleagues in the Justice Department, the head of the Justice Department blocked us at every step of the way, every turn in the road. And here they are today complaining about our State Department, during a time of war, trying to deal with the problems over there, and they're alleging a cover-up, blockage and everything else. You know, there is nothing so righteous as a lady of the evening who is reformed. And so I just want to say to my colleagues tonight that this is another example of you coming to this floor complaining about the administration blocking you when you did it for 4 straight years. You did it every day, you did it every night, and now you're complaining because we're trying to do something about the war in Iraq and we're stopping you from getting some information that you think is absolutely essential. Where were you when we were investigating Clinton? Why didn't you want that stuff to come out?

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I will direct this to you, Mr. Speaker.

For 4 years, they did exactly what they're accusing this administration of doing, and they did it in spades. When people wouldn't testify, they stuck up for them. When people took the fifth amendment, they stuck up for them.

When people from the administration came down here to testify and couldn't remember anything, they helped block the testimony coming before the committee. So today, they are complaining about the very things that they did for four straight years and during a time of war.

Mr. Waxman, I just want to say to you one more time I appreciate your reformation. I appreciate your changing. I am happy you are seeing the light. But I don't know why you didn't do it when I was chairman.