Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 637, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, the Great Lakes Compact before the House today is the result of years of efforts by the Great Lakes governors, other elected officials including state legislators from both sides of the partisan divide, and others who live, work, or recreate in the region to work together to help ensure a set of shared principles and protections for the Great Lakes.

The collaboration that has produced the compact that is before us today was undertaken because of concerns that without a comprehensive and basin wide approach to the current and future threats to these bodies of water, we would lose them.

These threats include a growing demand for water by users--including utilities, agriculture, manufacturers, concerns about the impacts of climate change, declining water levels of the Lakes, and pollution.

While the agreement has widespread support among elected officials, environmental groups, and others, I do understand that some have raised concerns about some aspects of the agreement.

That is to be expected because while this is a good agreement it is by no means a perfect agreement. It wasn't meant to be perfect. If it was, we would still be waiting for an agreement.

But it is a good agreement, especially since we know that simply doing nothing is not an option or solution. This agreement was good enough to bring governors from eight states and both sides of the aisle together. It was good enough to win the approval of legislatures in eight states (with a combined 1,300 legislators.)

Together with companion efforts in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the Compact would place new emphasis on a shared commitment to conservation and set new decision-making standards for Great Lakes water use.

The compact would require each state to use a consistent standard to review proposed uses of basin water, ban new diversions of water from the basin, and calls for the development of regional goals and objectives for water conservation and efficiency.

This legislation before us today would formally give Congress's assent to the compact, as required by law.

The document before us today also is a recognition by the stakeholders who are bound by its terms--and with approval by the House, the Congress as well--that we all have a shared duty ``to act together to protect, conserve, restore, improve, and effectively manage the waters and water dependent natural resources'' of the Great Lakes basin ``for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all citizens, including generations yet to come.''

One of the most effective means to do this is through unified and cooperative policies and programs as outlined in this agreement. It would be a shame if after the hard work and negotiations and compromise that has shaped this process from day one, that Congress would let this opportunity slip away.

The Senate has already approved this bill and I urge my colleagues here in the House to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6950) to establish the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal for organ donors and the family of organ donors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 6950.

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

It is with great humility and respect that I present for favorable consideration H.R. 6950, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008.

Our friend, our respected colleague, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, worked tirelessly for her district, for her community and for people who are underrepresented. As a constant advocate for justice and peace, as a very proud member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, she was a fervent supporter and leader of efforts to reduce health disparities in our Nation.

This legislation directs the Treasury Department to design and produce a commemorative medal that the Department of Health and Human Services will award to organ donors or to a surviving family member, which is especially fitting to be named in honor of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones for a couple of reasons:

Organ donation is an area where dramatic health disparities still exist. She, herself, was an organ donor, and over 50 beneficiaries have benefited from her gift of life.

The number of Americans affected by shortages of suitable organs for donation is considerable. Nearly 100,000 people are currently waiting for organ transplants, and nearly 2,000 of these are children under 18. The national waiting list grows substantially every year. Since the waiting list began, over 80,000 donation-eligible Americans have died while waiting for an organ to become available. In 2007 alone, over 6,500 people died for lack of a suitable organ.

The men and women who elect to become organ donors are heroes and sheroes just like our friend and colleague. They have the opportunity to give the gift of life to thousands of Americans who are suffering from debilitating and lethal diseases.

While the gift of a donor is priceless, the enactment of this bill would have no cost to the Federal Government as funding for the medals would come from charitable donations.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, many thanks are due to Representative Pete Stark, the chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, who quickly organized this bill in honor of our colleague.

Also, many thanks go to former Senate majority leader and transplant surgeon Bill Frist for whom this bill was named in an earlier version in this Congress. Now, while in the Senate, Dr. Frist worked hard on behalf of organ donors and their families. He supported renaming the bill for Representative Tubbs Jones. Earlier versions of this bill have been endorsed by the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, by the American Society of Transplantation, by the American Association of Transplant Surgeons, by the National Kidney Foundation, by the American Association of Kidney Patients, by the Organization of Transplant Professionals, and by the Transplant Recipients International Organization.

I strongly urge passage of this bill.

I would ask the lady if she has any further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3018) to provide for payment of an administrative fee to public housing agencies to cover the costs of administering family self-sufficiency programs in connection with the housing choice voucher program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 3018.

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

I enthusiastically endorse for favorable consideration this bill authored by Mrs. Judy Biggert. This, Mr. Speaker, is much needed legislation to enhance and to improve a program that assists families who hold a section 8 housing voucher with the goal of leading to economic independence.

Under the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, public housing agencies work with welfare agencies, schools and businesses to develop a program that gives participating Family Self-Sufficiency families the skills and experiences necessary for them to obtain employment that pays a living wage.

Now, this is not an expensive program. In my State of Wisconsin, for example, eight public housing authorities have successfully competed for Family Self-Sufficiency Programs with awards ranging from $34,000 up to only $47,000.

But while it is expensive, it's inexpensive. It is very successful.

While my home public housing authorities in Milwaukee do not anticipate the section 8 family self-sufficiency programs, they do have a public housing family self-sufficiency program in its second year, which is very similar to the section 8 self-sufficiency program.

They have linked in really creative way to a ``Make Your Money Talk'' program. It's a wealth-building program that is partnered with the Wisconsin Women's Business Initiative Corporation, and they have 39 families enrolled.

Based on prior outcomes, participants have used their savings generated from family self-sufficiency to start a business or purchase a home. One resident in particular, a resident of the Westlawn housing development, has started her own cleaning business that has become quite successful.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you how moving the gentlelady's story was about Angela, and how encouraged she must be and others who benefit from this program.

This is welfare reform done right, and I want to congratulate her on her compassion, for pushing this bill through.

I certainly urge all of my colleagues to vote unanimously for this great bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle today in expressing my support for H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Although progress has been reported in reducing the discharge of toxic and persistent chemicals into the Great Lakes, high concentrations of contaminants still remain at the bottom of a number of rivers and harbors in the region and continue to pose a risk to aquatic life, wildlife, and humans.

Although many of these chemicals have been banned for a number of years, after decades of industrial and municipal discharges and urban agricultural runoff, they continue to plague our region's water and without continued and strong federal support, I am concerned they may remain long after many of us and our grandchildren are no longer.

The areas targeted by the Legacy Act funding are plagued by chemicals that are known to cause adverse health effects in animals and humans, which do not break down easily, and which tend to persist in the environment and to accumulate in aquatic life, animals and human tissues.

It is not a problem with an easy solution. But we know that the Great Lakes Legacy Act

is part of the solution. Not only has it helped states in the region deal with this insidious threat but it also recognizes and affirms that the continuing protection of the Great Lakes is and must remain a national priority.

Although it has never been funded at its authorized level of $50 billion a year, the Legacy Act has contributed to a number of projects to remove polluted sentiments from these waters and protect the water quality of the Great Lakes as well as the millions of Americans who reside near, recreate in, or depend on the Lakes for their drinking water.

One of the areas of concerns targeted by the Legacy Act is the Milwaukee Estuary in my district which includes the lower portions of several rivers (the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, and Kinnickinnic Rivers) and the inner and outer areas of the Milwaukee harbor and nearshore waters of Lake Michigan.

The rivers that flow through the area were for decades filled with toxic contaminants such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenylshydrocarbons), PAHs (polychlorinated biphenyls and polyaromatic hydrocarbons), and industrial heavy metals.

Recently, the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources announced that they will soon begin a $22 million cleanup project to remove contaminated sediment from the Kinnickinnic River using Great Lakes Act funding ($14 million).

The project would remove about 170,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated with PCBs and PAHs and is expected to be completed in Late 2009.

The project's successful completion will mean the removal of about 1,200 pounds of harmful PCBs and 13,000 pounds of PAHs and lead to the reduction of contaminated sediment being transported downstream to Lake Michigan. It will also improve the habitat for fish and wildlife that live in or near the river, while increasing recreational and commercial boating use of the river by the public, uses that have been strictly discouraged if not prohibited for a number of years.

Even as this project moves forward in my district, I know that many more are needed and remain on the drawing board for possible action and funding.

According to one estimate, seven projects being reviewed for possible funding under the Legacy Act would have a projected cost of about $85 million. The Legacy Act received $35 million in FY 2008 and this grant program is currently authorized at $50 million.

It is clear that the funding needs far outweigh the funding available. Given the high costs of these important projects, it is important that the federal government step up to the plate. This legislation before us does just that as it would triple the authorized levels of funding for Great Lakes Legacy Act programs.

Great Lakes communities have long taken pride in protecting our region's greatest natural resources. That pride has been matched by financial commitment. A study earlier this year by the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Cities initiatives estimated that local governments in the U.S. and Canada invest over $15 billion annually to protect the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin ecosystem.

It is important that the federal government continue to show its commitment to this region as well. The strong reauthorizing legislation before us today would help keep that commitment and help mitigate the risk to the Great Lakes posed by toxic pollutants.

This program has and continues to enjoy strong support from elected officials in the Great Lakes states, the business community, environmental groups, and local communities affected by the legacy of contamination.

As a cosponsor of this bill and a strong supporter of efforts to protect the Great Lakes, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill.

Madam Speaker, in April, over 350 friends, family members, and others in the community inspired by the life of Army Specialist Steven Christofferson gathered at the Cudahy High School Field House in my district to pay their respects to

this remarkable young man whose life was cut tragically short in Iraq last month.

Today, I want to take to the floor to share with my colleagues and with the American people this young man's story and his untimely sacrifice.

So, who was this young man? He was a proud member of Delta Co., 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, Mad Dog 5th Platoon stationed at Fort Campbell, Ky. His awards and decorations include: National Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; and Weapons Qualification, M4, expert. At his memorial service, Wisconsin Army National Guard BG Mark Anderson presented the family four medals, including a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

He was devoted to family and a caring son to his mother, Michell, herself having served in the Air Force. According to Michell Christofferson, he was an older brother who loved his siblings and earned their respect. And, in her words, he deserved it because ``he was kind and he was thoughtful, and he was a caring young man.''

According to his mother, in e-mail exchanges with her, he said he would be her angel. She praised him for being a best friend to his younger brothers--Dakota (17) and Dillon (11)--as well as defending them when needed or taking action to keep them on the straight and narrow if called to do so. He was caring, positive and respectful, a protector of his family.

He grew up too fast and was taken too soon.

He was also a valuable member of a community. Christofferson was a 2006 graduate of Cudahy High School, where he was a member of the football, wrestling and track teams. He will be sorely missed. His Cudahy High School Principal, Christopher Haeger, remembered encountering Steven the day he enlisted in the Army. ``He was very, very excited,'' Haeger said. ``I know it was an important part of his life.'' Or as his brother Dakota put it, ``He felt like he had to do something, go help people.''

He deployed to Iraq in September. But he kept in close touch with his family. According to media reports, he spoke with his mother and brother just hours before his death.

I can find no words more appropriate than those of Steven's own mother to sum up my brief remarks on this remarkable life. At his memorial service earlier this year, his mother closed--expressing the sentiments of a community and a grateful Nation--with these words: ``Fly with the angels, my baby boy. We miss you lots and love you more.''

The Bible says we should give honor to those whom honor are due and respect to those whom respect is due. Today, I rise to honor this young man and to ask that the balance of my time be reserved for a moment of silence as a mark of tribute to Specialist Steven Christofferson and of support for his family.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Boumediene et al. v. Bush has again shown a spotlight on this administration's misguided attempts to rewrite the Constitution to suit its own ends. Once again, the Court has spoken up for the Constitution and against attempts to do an end run around the venerable document.

In this important decision, the Court found that those at Guantanamo Bay ``have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus'' and are ``not barred from seeking the writ . . . because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo'' and struck down attempts by the 109th Congress and the President to prevent detainees from using this historic writ to challenge their detention in court.

In its ruling, the Court again reminds us ``that the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty'' as well as a safeguard of the separation of powers provided in the Constitution.

This decision marks at least the third time in which the Supreme Court has acted to overturn disastrous and controversial Bush Administration policies regarding the treatment of enemy combatants. These policies have helped to make Guantanamo a negative symbol of America around the world.

While I strongly believe that dangerous terrorists should and must be detained, the confusing, conflicting, and sometimes illegal policies at Guantanamo and the actions of the Supreme Court time and again clearly indicate a need for change. These changes must include the closing of the detention facilities at Guantanamo and an end to the torture and detention policies that have tarnished America's image, drawn condemnation from our allies, and done little to help bring to justice those responsible for acts of terrorism against our country.

Prolonged indefinite imprisonment without charges and torture are out of line with the traditions and values of the U.S. While the Supreme Court decision will now ensure that Habeas Corpus will be available so that an independent court can review the facts and make a determination of whether individuals should be detained, the administration's other policies also need to be reformed.

Last year, in the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill, Congress urged the administration to ensure that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, to the maximum extent possible, are charged and expeditiously prosecuted for crimes committed against the U.S. The bill also urged the administration to carry out operations at Guantanamo Bay ``in a way that upholds the national interest and core values of the American people'' and called for the Defense Department to provide Congress with its plan for each detainee--whether they have or will be charged, whether they will be released or transferred, or whether they will be detained.

In light of the recent ruling and continuing controversy regarding this facility, Congress can and must go further to ensure that this facility is closed.

Closing Guantanamo won't immediately repair the damage done by the detention and other policies that have undermined America's image even among some of our allies. Such a move may open up a host of new questions of what to do about those detained there. However, rather than putting that important question to an administration which our courts have repeatedly had to check, the Court's ruling creates another opportunity for Congress to Act.

And one of its first steps should be putting Guantanamo out of business while holding accountable those prisoners at Guantanamo who represent real danger to the U.S. We can and should do so in a way that does not require us to switch off the Constitution, our values, or our Nation's strong tradition of ensuring access to the courts and justice.

In the decision, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, warned of the dangers of allowing either the legislative or executive branch to ``switch the Constitution on or off at will.''

In pursuing terrorists, we cannot undermine the very freedoms and rights that are the basis for our democracy. Our national security interests are best served when we interrogate and try terrorist suspects in a manner that comports with our values, produces convictions that will withstand appeals, and honors longstanding international commitments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carol Sample, a compassionate community leader who is retiring after many years of working in the Fourth Congressional District. Carol's involvement in the nonprofit and economic development arena on behalf of all people, but especially for the needs of Native people, is truly impressive.

Carol Sample is originally from a remote Ojibwe Indian Reservation called Turtle Mountain in northern North Dakota, near the Canadian border. She attended Indian boarding school in South Dakota, undergraduate studies at Howard, a historically black university in Washington, DC, and completed her graduate studies at Loretto Heights College in Denver, Colorado.

Carol has worked both within and outside the system to achieve change, including marching with the American Indian Movement, AIM. Carol's employment history demonstrates her ability to successfully navigate within the system as well. In the over two decades that Carol has resided in Milwaukee, she has accomplished much. She has developed several programs that have become national models to address the unique needs of urban Indians. She sits on numerous national committees for the U.S. Department of Labor and is often asked to testify before national and local committees on the problems confronting Indians not residing on reservations. In addition, Carol serves on local boards such as the Milwaukee Area Technical College and the Milwaukee Area Workforce Board.

On July 9, 2008, Carol Sample will retire from her dual role as executive director for the corporate agency Spotted Eagle, Inc., and as principal for Spotted Eagle High School. Spotted Eagle was an early recipient of the best practices' School-to-Work Program of the Department of Labor. Her well-honed management ability, program development, and administration skills were utilized to ensure that a high school based on traditional Indian values was provided for Indian youth in Milwaukee. As a member of the First People, she opened the doors of Spotted Eagle to all youth in the community and we are all better for it.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Ms. Carol Sample's contributions to the Fourth Congressional District. She has helped transform the lives of many people in our community.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have put children in single-parent homes in an untenable situation. On the one hand, we demand that their parents move off welfare and take financial responsibility for these families and that absent parents, fathers typically, work and pay child support, but on the other hand, government bureaucracies continue to skim dollars off child support repayments intended for these needy children because of administrative costs.

Child support payments are often the only safety net still available for kids in single-parent families. Congress should make every effort to ensure that child support is collected and that all of it goes to families to whom they are owed and who are working so hard to succeed.

That's why I am absolutely delighted that a provision that I introduced, along with my good friend from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, was included in this budget resolution. It restores the ability of States to pass along every cent of child support collected, ensuring that the dollars get to where they're intended and not into government pocketbooks. This is a commonsense provision that will help parents as the cost of living continues to rise.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important budget agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concerns of the proponents of this resolution regarding the need to bring peace to Lebanon. I also add my voice in opposition to the use of violence against innocent civilians for any reason. It is wrong. I have always condemned such acts and certainly want to express my condolences to those killed, injured, or otherwise affected by the recent fighting.

I have been to Lebanon. I have talked to Parliamentarians in that country about the needs of that country. I have also supported a series of resolutions since coming to Congress expressing strong support for restoring and respecting Lebanon's sovereignty, disarming militias, and allowing the Lebanese people and their representatives to direct the affairs of the country without outside influence from any quarter.

My concern with this resolution is that it does nothing to bring the fighting to an end or to achieve any of its goals that it intends to advance, especially in light of recent events. Instead of writing resolutions that make Congress feel good, at this time the U.S. should be supporting and cooperating with countries in the region working to actually bring an end to the violence and putting Lebanon on track to resolve the political paralysis that has gripped the country.

I did not vote for this measure because I believe it does not move us forward in helping to bring peace to the region, especially in light of recent events that saw the Arab League and Qatar in particular take leading roles in actively working diplomatically to end the violence. While this resolution was pending a vote before the House, the Lebanese parties including the Lebanese government and its Arab neighbors were hammering out an agreement to resolve the political crisis fueling the recent violence which has crippled the country.

I have included a copy of New York Times articles on these regional efforts well as another article outlining the announcement by Israel of its negotiations with Syria using Turkey as a mediator. Nothing guarantees that these talks will succeed but it certainly shows that some of the parties most affected by violence in the region are tired of empty rhetoric and are willing to sit down and engage in diplomacy to prevent there country from returning to civil war.

Now is an opportunity to encourage the Lebanese and others in the region to build on these efforts to defuse tensions and begin to take a positive way forward. According to the reports, the Lebanon agreement was reached--not because of the Congressional resolution--but because the Lebanese parties, with the help of their neighbors in the region, sat down at the negotiating table to try and save their country from civil war.

According to these reports, the agreement addresses some of the issues that have polarized and paralyzed Lebanon and also makes clear that all parties ``commit themselves not to use weapons or violence in order to achieve political gains under any circumstances.''

While the agreement is not perfect and it remains to be seen whether it will change the situation on the ground, it has received the endorsement of all parties, Saudi Arabia, the U.N, and even the Bush Administration. The agreement will not resolve all the pressing problems in Lebanon but it helped check the most pressing of the moment: a slow march back to civil war.

While many Lebanese were expressing relief at this news and returning to deserted streets in Beirut, the House was voting on a resolution which had been eclipsed by events

on the ground. Rather than amending the resolution to reflect new developments in the region and to support diplomatic to put an end to the violence, the only option presented to the House was a vote on a resolution that proposed no new solutions. Given the opportunity to vote on an amended resolution supporting the work of regional actors and the Lebanese government to find a solution, I would have gladly joined my colleagues.

Because of the diplomatic intervention by Qatar and others, we now have a ``ceasefire'' and a possible way out of the cycle of violence that has torn this nation apart.

The U.S. should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and can do so by supporting diplomatic efforts by all parties to end the political crisis underlying the violence.

The head of Lebanon's U.S.-backed Army is Michel Suleiman--who oversaw the Army's deployment in the south under the U.N. resolution which halted the Hezbollah-Israel war in 2006. Suleiman, who will become the country's President under the agreement, recently stated that ``I cannot save the country alone. This mission requires the efforts of all.'' I hope rather than passing outdated resolutions, the Administration and Congress will rally along with others to provide the diplomatic and other support needed by President Suleiman and the Lebanese people to make the most of this opportunity.

Now Lebanon has another chance to repair itself. Let's not waste it.

[From the New York Times, May 22, 2008]

Israel Holds Peace Talks With Syria

(By Ethan Bronner)

Jerusalem.--Israel and Syria announced on Wednesday that

they were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive peace

treaty through Turkish mediators, a sign that Israel is

hoping to halt the growing influence of Iran, Syria's most

important ally, which sponsors the anti-Israel groups

Hezbollah and Hamas.

Senior Israeli officials from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's

office and their Syrian counterparts were in Istanbul on

Wednesday, where both groups had been staying separately, at

undisclosed locations, since Monday. The mediators shuttled

between the two. Syria and Israel have not negotiated this

seriously in eight years.

Syria's motives are clear: it wants to regain the Golan

Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and to re-

establish a relationship with the United States, something it

figures it can do through talks with Jerusalem.

For Israel--which has watched the Palestinian group Hamas

take over Gaza and gain ground in the West Bank, and the

Lebanese group Hezbollah display raw power in Beirut--an

effort to pull Syria away from Iran could produce enormous

benefits. An announcement on Wednesday of a peace deal that

gives Hezbollah the upper hand in Lebanon's government

probably added to Israel's sense of urgency.

The American government opposed Israeli-Syrian negotiations

because they feared that such a negotiation would reward

Syria at a time when the United States is seeking to isolate

it for its backing of Hezbollah and its meddling in Lebanon,

Bush administration and Israeli officials said. The United

States yielded when it became clear that Israel was

determined to go ahead, they said.

The talks come less than a week after President Bush,

speaking to the Israeli Parliament, created a stir by

criticizing those who would negotiate with ``terrorists and

radicals.'' Mr. Bush's remarks have become an issue in the

American presidential campaign because they were widely

perceived as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic

front-runner.

Turkey, a Muslim country and member of NATO, is a close

ally of the United States. It is also Syria's neighbor and

has an interest in securing regional peace.

The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been

working on convening negotiations for some time, an official

in his office said, including holding phone conversations

with leaders on both sides, and assigning a special envoy to

handle the diplomatic back-and-forth. The fact that messages

were being exchanged has been public for a couple of months,

because of official Syrian statements.

The senior Israeli official said that shortly after Mr.

Olmert became prime minister more than a year ago, he went to

Turkey and held a long one-on-one meeting with Mr. Erdogan in

which it was decided that Turkey would mediate between Israel

and Syria.

Efforts to sign a treaty with Syria have often competed

with those to build a comprehensive peace with the

Palestinians. On Wednesday, Israeli officials tried to make

clear that they were not seeking to upstage an important

conference opening in Bethlehem--an attempt to make stability

easier in the West Bank through economic investment--by

saying that both tracks remained vital to them.

While Wednesday's announcement indicated the first real

progress on the Israeli-Syrian front in years, and while both

sides have clear goals and motivation for success, there is

equally good reason for skepticism about the possibility of

success.

Mr. Olmert is politically weak, with a thin parliamentary

majority partly dependent on the right-wing religious Shas

party. He faces a criminal investigation that many Israelis

believe should lead him to step down or refrain from

undertaking negotiations with the country's enemies.

Moreover, twice before, under Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin

and Ehud Barak, similar efforts to sign a deal with Syria

failed.

In Israel, two-thirds of the public oppose a return of the

Golan Heights to Syria, according to numerous opinion polls,

and many strategists and generals have said that giving up

the strategic advantage of the Heights in exchange for

promises or even written treaties makes no sense.

``In a period in which Iran is on the march and extending

its influence from Lebanon to Iraq, for Israel to consider

giving up the Golan barrier would be a strategic error of the

highest order,'' said Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem

Center for Public Affairs and a former official and adviser

to conservative governments under the Likud Party, which is

now the opposition.

``You have to make a cold assessment whether Israel could

drive a wedge between Syria and Iran,'' Mr. Gold said.

``Unfortunately, in the present period, Iran has Syria within

its grip to a far greater extent than it did in the 1990s

when previous negotiations with the Syrians were held.''

On the other hand, many other Israeli officials and

analysts see great benefits for Israel. Syria is a prime

sponsor of Hezbollah and provides it with rockets and arms,

many from Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have headquarters in

Damascus, and Israel will seek, in these negotiations, to

have them closed.

To pull Syria out of the orbit of Iran and return it to the

more pro-Western world of Egypt, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia

would be a major victory for Israel.

A real peace treaty with Syria would bring Israel

significant advantages in Lebanon and the Palestinian

territories.

After the midday announcement here of the existence of the

talks, the Israeli airwaves were filled with officials of the

right and center expressing skepticism about the outcome and

saying that Israel should not leave the Golan Heights.

Politicians of the left, though, expressed hope.

Ran Cohen, a member of Parliament from the dovish Meretz

Party, told Israel Radio: ``I think this move is very

important, very positive. It's too bad it did not begin a

long time ago.''

Others said they feared that the announcement was an

attempt to divert attention from Mr. Olmert's legal troubles.

``I very much welcome any process that can advance peace

between us and our neighbors, first and foremost with

Syria,'' said Eitan Kabel, secretary general of the Labor

Party, which is in the government with Mr. Olmert's Kadima

Party. ``I very much hope this isn't some sort of spin whose

goal is pull a screen over the situation that the prime

minister is in.''

In the past, the sticking point in negotiations has been

whether yielding the Golan to the Syrians gave them

sovereignty all the way to the waterline of the Sea of

Galilee. The Syrians say yes, but the Israelis have said no,

fearing the loss of water rights and full access to the lake.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about an important topic relevant to this legislation.

It's distressing that a rising number of our brave service men and women are coming back from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from the ``signature injuries of these conflicts''--Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.

I believe that PTSD is a critically important issue and as a Congress we need to continue to do all we can to get our military leaders, commanders, and medical professionals to focus on this problem for our newest generation of veterans.

In the past few years and even weeks, a number of studies have pointed out the gaps in our military health care system into which may be falling a growing number of our servicemembers who may be suffering from PTSD.

I am sure that my colleagues are very aware of the recent RAND report that up to 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may be suffering from PTSD and/or depression.

This issue was brought to my attention most vividly by a constituent who served 10 months in Iraq. After he came home, he began to self- medicate--as a number of soldiers who may be suffering from this deadly disease do-- using alcohol and engaging in misconduct that ultimately got him discharged from the service.

Unfortunately, this discharge not only prevented him from continuing to receive needed mental health care from the DOD but also from going to the VA to get treated for PTSD.

My constituent ultimately took his life and left many, including his family, to wonder if he had been able to get needed help after his return from Iraq, or if he could have accessed the number of mental health services that are available from the VA, whether the outcome could have been different.

What is clear from the DoD's mental health task force and other reports is that the outcome can be different for the thousands of our soldiers who may be suffering.

I am pleased by the hard work and focus on this issue that the Armed Services Committee has taken in the past few years. I commend the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and others who have worked and continue to do so to ensure that the ``signature injuries'' of our ongoing conflicts receive the highest level of attention from this Congress.

I also want to commend the Services on the changes and improvements they've made thus far.

However, let's be clear: more can be done. I offered three amendments to this bill to highlight the need to continue to try and make those improvements.

The amendment made in order today would ensure that recommendations that have been put forward to close identified gaps are actually implemented and that our servicemembers see actual improvements in terms of their ability to receive help when they need it.

That is the purpose of the amendment which the Chairman has graciously included in this En Bloc package that would require the GAO to assess the DoD's progress in implementing the June 2007 recommendations of the Congressionally created DoD Mental Health Task Force.

It is my expectation that the GAO will examine and assess the implementation of all the recommendations with a focus on those related to:

Developing a comprehensive public education campaign to reduce the stigma associated with mental health problems;

Changing Department of Defense policies to ``Guarantee a Thorough Assessment of Behavioral Symptoms When Evaluating Combat Veterans for Administrative/Legal Dismissal from the Military'' including ``carefully assessing a soldier's history of exposure to conditions that could cause PTSD, or traumatic brain injury, or related diagnoses for those facing administrative or medical discharge'';

Appointment of a psychological director of health in each military department, military treatment facility, the National Guard, and the Reserves;

Enhancing TRICARE benefits and care for mental health problems;

Implementing an annual psychological health assessment addressing cognition, psychological functioning, and overall psychological readiness for each member of the Armed Forces, including members of the National Guard and reserve components;

Developing a model for allocating resources to military mental health facilities, and services embedded in line units, based on an assessment of the needs of and risks faced by the populations served by such facilities and services;

Maintaining adequate family support programs for families of deployed members of the Armed Forces.

It is my desire that GAO report on the dates on which recommendations are expected to be fully implemented and progress on implementing the recommendations throughout the year covered by the report, including barriers.

We must never lose sight of the fact that the goal is not just for DoD to have a plan, although that is helpful, but to actually make these changes and do it in a timely way.

I thank the Chairman for his support of this simple amendment and look forward to working with him in the future to ascertain what additional steps, if any, that are needed and which can be taken to help our servicemembers who may be suffering from PTSD.

Again, I thank you for your efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the time.

I believe that the prevalence of PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, among our servicemembers is a critically important issue that we must continue to focus on.

It is distressing that a rising number of our brave service men and women are coming back from conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from the signature injuries of this conflict, PTSD and traumatic brain injury.

I'm sure that my colleagues are aware of the recent Rand report that up to 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may currently be suffering from PTSD or depression. My amendment would ensure that recommendations have been put forward to close identified gaps in access to care, to fight stigma and improve treatment are actually implemented.

Unfortunately, an Iraqi veteran in my district lost his battle with the PTSD, despite his parents' frenetic and futile efforts to get the desperately needed services.

We must never lose sight of the fact that it's our goal not just for DOD to have a plan, but to actually make the changes and do it in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enthusiastically support House Resolution 1022, a resolution recognizing maternal health as a basic human right of all women. How appropriate it is to stand here a week after Mother's Day in support of this commonsense initiative.

One in eight women in Afghanistan die due to complications resulting from pregnancy in childbirth. One in eight. And it's the same story in many countries around the world.

But, unfortunately, this is not just a Third World problem. Although the United States is a leader in medical technology and innovation, it has one of the worst rankings for maternal mortality in all the industrialized nations. We come in at a dismal 41st place, which means that a mother and her baby have a greater chance of survival in Kuwait or Croatia than they do in the United States.

In a relatively wealthy country, pregnancy should not be a death sentence. There are inexpensive and effective solutions that can significantly reduce the rates of maternal mortality, and I look forward to working with the Women's Caucus.

Madam Speaker, this op-ed, written by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, appeared in the Baltimore Sun last week. Archbishop Tutu's words bring attention to our efforts to promote debt relief here in the House, such as passage of the Jubilee Act last month, and underscore the need for this bill to be passed into law.

[From the Baltimore Sun, May 7, 2008]

Debt Cancellation a Victory for the World

(By Desmond Tutu)

Last month, the House of Representatives showed leadership

in the fight against global poverty by passing the Jubilee

Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation,

which would extend lifesaving debt cancellation to more poor

nations around the globe.

Too many of the world's poor children needlessly starve or

go without education because too many impoverished nations--

even after the laudable debt relief provided to date--are

still funneling scarce resources to multilateral banks

instead of paying for needs at home.

The world community has found crushing debt to be akin to a

modern-day apartheid, and has responded with debt

cancellation. Unjust debt leaves developing nations at the

behest of the powerful. Shall we let the children of Africa

and Asia die of curable disease, prevent them from going to

school and limit their opportunities for meaningful work--all

to payoff unjust and illegitimate loans made to their

forefathers?

When I think of the crisis of international debt, I think

of my African neighbor, Lesotho. Many of Lesotho's people

cannot afford basic nourishment. The AIDS epidemic has

plagued the nation, but needed medicine is out of reach for

too many.

Lesotho's situation shows how debt and extreme poverty

create a crisis for children. Children's wards in that

nation's hospitals are filled with anxious mothers 24 hours a

day, administering medicine and caring for their children as

a nurse or doctor might do in my country of South Africa.

They have no choice. Lesotho has only 6 pediatricians looking

after its 800,000 children.

One-third of Lesotho's children are not in school.

Meanwhile, Lesotho's debt repayments equal its entire

education budget. Instead of investing in its people, health

and development, Lesotho--a nation of 2 million people with

external debt of $647 million--sends debt payments to the

developed world.

Millions of the world's poorest people suffer hunger and

illness as desperately needed resources flow out of their

countries in the form of debt payments. Yet many countries,

like Lesotho, are not eligible for debt relief because

current initiatives are not based on a country's level of

poverty or need.

Much of this debt originates from loans made to corrupt and

oppressive regimes that did not benefit the population. As a

South African, I know firsthand the injustice of this

situation as our country continues to repay money that was

used to sustain the apartheid system and suppress the

movement for racial justice. The Jubilee Act calls for an

audit of the odious debts of countries such as South Africa

so that the question of whether this money is truly ``owed''

can finally be addressed.

The movement to cancel debt is an ongoing moral campaign

that joins religious leaders around the globe under the

biblical principle of Jubilee, which says that everything

belongs to God. My own Anglican communion has long supported

debt relief, calling the continued burden of debt upon the

poorest people of the world ``a moral scandal.''

Christian evangelical organizations, including Baptist

World Alliance and the Salvation Army, have called on

President Bush to support the Jubilee Act. Pope Benedict XVI,

who made his first visit to the United States last month as

Congress voted on the Jubilee Act, has called for debt

cancellation for the poorest countries to be ``continued and

accelerated.''

As the Senate now considers the Jubilee Act, it can do its

part to help ensure that Africans and Asians are able to use

their own resources for their own development. When success

comes on expanded debt cancellation, as it did with an end to

apartheid, this victory will not be ours alone but will

belong to the whole world.

Desmond Tutu is archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, South

Africa.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 8, I missed the vote on rollcall No. 302. Had I voted I would have voted ``aye.''