Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I will vote ``Present'' on H. Res. 951.

Its stated purpose is ``condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and for other purposes.'' Everyone in this House, including me, condemns these rocket attacks. If that had been all that H. Res. 951 expressed, of course I would vote in favor.

But as so often happens in resolutions that concern matters of bipartisan and overwhelming support, vague and ill-considered ``other purposes'' were added. The United States needs the cooperation and involvement of nations throughout the region, including Syria and Iran, if we are to help bring about a stable and lasting peace to Lebanon, Iraq, and to help crack down on the very smuggling that is enabling these rocket attacks.

The State Department has repeatedly met with representatives of Iran and Syria to engage them, and is pursuing difficult diplomatic tracks with both countries. I applaud these efforts and recognize the difficult job State has. Injecting Congress into this mix, as expressed in this Resolution, at this point in time, is not helpful.

By not simply condemning the rocket attacks coming from Gaza and declaring our solidarity with the Israeli civilians threatened by them, by not simply condemning those in Gaza who are bombarding Israeli civilians, but drawing in the governments of Iran and Syria, we could diminish our diplomatic course and, at the same time, inflame tensions.

Who does this help? How does this contribute to resolving problems in the region? Why did a House vote on what should have been a simple statement turn into a complicated effort to add to difficulties with Iran and Syria?

I strongly condemn these rocket attacks; let there be no doubt about that. At the same time, I strongly support our State Department and its efforts to find a path to a lasting peace in the region. Let's not do anything that might interfere with that difficult yet vital goal.

Mr. Speaker, today is an historic day. Along with others, I have labored for a very long time to produce a comprehensive mental health parity bill. Without a doubt, our actions today will benefit real people in real ways. Many times we come to the floor to debate and vote on legislation that many Americans may wonder what is the relevance or the purpose? No one who has suffered a mental illness or has watched a family member suffer a mental illness will ask what is the relevance?

As a doctor and psychiatrist, I want to emphasize to my colleagues that this bill will make a genuine difference in the lives of the American people we serve. I know the suffering of mental illness. Not only do many patients still face the stigma of mental illness, but they also face discrimination in coverage.

Most Americans would be outraged if they heard that health plans charged higher co-payments for cancer treatments or limited hospitals stays for those with heart diseases or denied care for diabetes. We would all be outraged. But, that is what we allow for mental illness.

We have heard a great deal about the costs of requiring mental health parity. What we hear very little about is the cost of not providing mental health parity. Many untreated mental illnesses can metastasize into serious physical and costly illnesses. Untreated depressions can result in heart disease. An untreated eating disorder can result in kidney failure. Yet, had we treated the mental illness we could have saved millions of dollars in costly care.

The issue of increasing costs of insurance is simply and categorically false. We know from the FEHBP experience that mental health parity has not resulted in significant costs. In fact, CBO has reported that H.R. 1424 would increase premiums by just two tenths of one percent. I would argue the longer term savings would offset any increase in premiums and that we will see a savings.

Access to mental health is simply access to quality primary care. It's key to preventing disease and improving outcomes. It simply makes no sense to treat the brain differently than the kidney or lungs or heart.

We have also heard a great deal about the use of the DSM-IV and scope of coverage. The use of DSM-IV is a tool for diagnosing mental illness and ensures that doctors, not insurance companies, define a mental illness. Some of my colleagues have argued that the use of DSM-IV will mean that plans must cover jet lag. These are not DSM diagnoses and refer to V Codes and not developed for the DSM.

My colleagues also argue that the use of the DSM-IV will prohibit plans from medical management. Again, my colleagues are wrong. As a practitioner, let me assure you that diagnosing and treating illness are very different things. Treatments can and will still be subject to medical necessity, like any other illness.

I think it is important for me to correct the record. Many of the speakers who addressed the House today are not health care professionals and have little understanding of mental illness. Yet, they claim to be experts on diagnosing and treating mental illness.

Finally, let me say a few words about the physician ownership offset. Just a couple of weeks ago, the administration sent to the Congress the Medicare 45 percent trigger recommendations. We have heard over and over again that Medicare spending is not sustainable and we need radical reforms. Yet, when we offer a small reform measure that will save more than $2 billion over 10 years, and protect patients from unnecessary care, some Members come to the floor to oppose. In fact, they argue that this physician ownership issue reduces choice or access. Who chooses to spend $2 billion more?

I understand that there may be some clinics that are providing quality care and we need to work to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries are not denied access. But, let's remember what we are doing. This is about closing a loophole to limit physician ownership of medical facilities to reduce over utilization and protect full service community hospitals. Many of these physician owned facilities do not staff an emergency department or an ICU. This is about protecting the integrity of the Medicare program. This is about controlling Medicare spending.

I strongly support H.R. 1424. Let's end this inhumane practice of discriminating against those with a mental illness. Let's make sure that when families pay premiums for health insurance coverage that they have the right to medically necessary coverage.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of long overdue legislation that would equalize care for the millions of Americans suffering from mental health and substance-related disorders. More than 10 years after passing the Mental Health Parity Act, Congress now has the chance to finish the job it began and ensure that no Americans face discrimination in insurance coverage of mental health care.

Patients throughout the country struggle with the enormous financial costs of mental health and substance abuse treatments not covered by insurance. Many go without treatment, creating a burden on families, communities, and even our economy. Over 1.3 billion work days are lost annually due to mental disorders, more than stroke, heart attack, and cancer combined. In addition, employers face $135 billion in lost productivity each year due to untreated alcoholism and $31 billion due to untreated depression.

Enacting H.R. 1424 is important not only as a way to remove barriers to mental health and substance abuse care, however, but also as a way to remove the stigma long associated with these disorders. Equalizing care would send a strong message that the 57 million Americans suffering from mental health disorders and 26 million from chemical addiction should be treated no differently than individuals suffering from other medical conditions. I applaud the leadership and work of Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad for their tireless efforts to bring this important legislation forward, and I am proud to give them my strong support.

In moving forward, it is my hope that the House and Senate can work together to find common ground so that mental health parity can be enacted. as part of this process, I would encourage negotiators to review the offsets used to pay for H.R. 1424, particularly the increase in the base Medicaid drug rebate level. I encourage Congress to consider the

effect this increase would have on small businesses that provide drugs and biologics to the Medicaid program, as well as possible disincentives this increase could create for companies to innovate and develop important new medicines. Although I am not opposed to raising the base rebate amount on principle, I am concerned that it may not be a prudent step to take without a thoughtful and complete review of its possible impacts.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

All Americans deserve access to affordable, comprehensive health care--to meet both their physical and mental needs. I believe that Americans should be provided comprehensive coverage for mental health services. Mental illness and substance abuse are real and treatable health problems--just like hypertension, cancer and heart disease; yet millions of hardworking men and women still find that their health plans place strict limits on coverage for mental health benefits.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1424. This bill will finally provide for equity in coverage of mental health and substance- related disorders.

We know all too well the inequities that currently exist for those seeking mental health care and substance-related care. They are subjected to higher co-payments, higher deductibles, and more restrictive treatment limits.

I have heard hundreds of heart-wrenching stories from my constituents in Wisconsin about the effects that these inequities have had on their families.

One woman's story was especially poignant about the inequities of the current system. In the same year, both her husband and her daughter required major medical care because of life-threatening conditions. One had a disease of the kidneys, and one suffered from severe clinical depression. Both patients required emergency visits and extended treatment. Both patients were compliant and followed their doctor's treatment instructions. Both patients were covered under the same family policy.

But the insurance paid for twice as much of the costs associated with the kidney disease than they did for the severe depression, because depression is a mental illness.

And while her husband underwent multiple treatments for his kidney disease, her daughter was told after a few psychiatric visits that her insurance would not pay anything toward further visits because she had used up her allotted number of visits for the year.

These higher patient costs and treatment limits are unconscionable. I am delighted that H.R. 1424 will require equity in financial commitments and equity in treatment limits for mental health and substance-related disorders as compared to medical and surgical benefits. In addition, it will prohibit discrimination by diagnosis and provide Americans with the same mental health coverage that Members of Congress have.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of

Madam Speaker, over the weekend, the Washington Post carried a thoughtful op-ed that I think

we ought to send down to the White House to make sure the President reads. It's called ``Lessons on Iraq from a Founding Father.'' The author, Brian O'Malley, an adjunct professor at Jones College in Jacksonville, Florida, reminds us that the Nation's first President, George Washington, could offer some good insights into what to do in Iraq.

In the fall of 1775, before the Declaration of Independence, the fledgling Nation prepared to invade Canada, in what the author calls America's first preemptive war. George Washington had misgivings, and he expressed them in his letters to his commander, Colonel Benedict Arnold.

Washington explicitly told Arnold to be sure that the Canadian people wanted America to cross the border. In his words, ``ever bearing in mind that if they are averse to it, and will not cooperate, or at least willingly acquiesce, it must fail of success. In this case you are by no means to prosecute the attempt.''

Washington also understood that the safety of his soldiers depended on how they treated people, and he urged restraint. In his words, ``not only the good of their country and their honor, but their safety depends upon the treatment of these people.''

The first President also worried about treating prisoners properly and with respect. He ordered his commander to restrain his forces, in his words, ``from all acts of cruelty and insult, which will disgrace the American arms, and irritate our fellow subjects against us.''

Washington even warned of consequence against any American found to mistreat a prisoner. And Washington understood the need to respect religion, telling his commander to restrain officers and soldiers from any ridicule or disrespect of religion.

The concerns raised by Washington in 1775 are exactly the concerns that should have been raised in 2002 before the Iraq invasion. It might have been prevented Abu Ghraib. It might have prevented the wholesale dismissal and dismantling of the Iraq army that led to the rise of insurgents. It might have prevented an Iraq quagmire that has needlessly claimed American lives, wastefully drained our Treasury, carelessly tainted American leadership in the world and absolutely harmed our economy here at home. That is the Iraq war record.

History is replete with lessons, but unless we learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. That is what is going on in Iraq today. The latest estimate places the cost of the war at $3 trillion, and that doesn't account for the cost of treating the thousands of U.S. soldiers coming back.

Iraq is like quicksand, and America sinks deeper and deeper every single day. Our military is in shambles, the housing market looks more and more like a house of cards, the U.S. dollar is in free fall against other currencies, and the U.S. economy is in recession.

The President says he hasn't heard that respected economists are talking about $4 a gallon gasoline next month. He's the only one who's missed the news. Gas is up almost $1 from a year ago. Diesel prices have already climbed to $3.60. But they have a rose garden down at the White House and a President who thinks everything is rosy. And if he says it, then it must be true.

What is true is that Americans are using credit cards just to try and stay afloat. What is true is that a record number of Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure. What is true is that a President fixated on waging a perpetual Iraq war ignored the urgent needs of the American people. He has squandered their money and our leadership. The only signs pointing upward for the President are those that proclaim more bad news--another house foreclosed, another family bankruptcy. Instead of gazing out the window at the rose garden, the President ought to try walking down Main Street and talking to a few people. He is out of touch and America is out of time.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2008]

Lessons on Iraq From a Founding Father

(By Brian O'Malley)

What would George Washington do about Iraq? In a December

Outlook essay, historian Joseph J. Ellis argued that it's not

possible to theorize exact answers because the ``gap between

the founders' time and ours is non-negotiable, and any direct

linkage between them and now is intellectually problematic.''

But Ellis also conceded that this position is ``unacceptable

to many of us, because it suggests that the past is an

eternally lost world that has nothing to teach us.''

History does hold lessons about today's issues, and this is

clear when considering Iraq and U.S. conduct in the war

against terrorism. Consider the 1775-76 invasion of Canada,

America's first preemptive war, which ended just days before

Congress ratified the Declaration of Independence.

On Sept. 14, 1775, Washington wrote two letters to Col.

Benedict Arnold, who led an American force into Canada. Five

of Washington's points for invasion merit particular

attention.

First, if the citizens don't want us there, don't go.

Washington told Arnold, ``You are by every means in your

power to endeavor to discover the real sentiments of the

Canadians towards our cause, and particularly as to this

expedition; ever bearing in mind that if they are averse to

it, and will not co-operate, or at least willingly acquiesce,

it must fail of success. In this case you are by no means to

prosecute the attempt.''

The expense of starting the mission and the disappointment

of not completing it, Washington wrote, ``are not to be put

in competition with the dangerous consequences which may

ensue from irritating them against us.''

Second, the safety of American personnel depended on how

they treated people. Washington wanted Arnold to ``conciliate

the affections'' of the Canadian settlers and Indians and

ordered Arnold to teach the soldiers and officers under his

command ``that not only the Good of their Country and their

Honour, but their Safety depends upon the Treatment of these

People.''

Third, proper treatment of prisoners was necessary. The

prominent British parliamentarian William Pitt, who

championed American grievances, had a son serving in Canada.

John Pitt was never taken into American custody, but in the

event that Pitt was captured, Washington warned Arnold, ``You

cannot err in paying too much Honour to the Son of so

illustrious a Character, and so true a Friend to America.''

This insistence on kind treatment extended beyond Pitt.

Washington wrote, ``Any other Prisoners who may fall into

your Hands, you will treat with as much Humanity and

kindness, as may be consistent with your own Safety and the

publick Interest.''

Washington told Arnold to restrain the Continental troops

and their Indian allies ``from all Acts of Cruelty and

Insult, which will disgrace the American Arms, and irritate

our Fellow Subjects against us.''

Fourth, any Americans who mistreated Canadians should be

punished. ``Should any American Soldier be so base and

infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his Person

or Property,'' Washington wrote, ``I do most earnestly enjoin

you to bring him to such severe and exemplary Punishment as

the Enormity of the Crime may require.'' In an accompanying

letter Washington added, ``Should it extend to Death itself

it will not be disproportional to its Guilt, at such a Time

and in such a Cause.''

Fifth, respect the people's religion. ``As the Contempt of

the Religion of a Country by ridiculing any of its Ceremonies

or affronting its Ministers or Votaries, has ever been deeply

resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain

every Officer and Soldier from such Imprudence and Folly and

to punish every Instance of it.''

American ideals won immediate support from the Canadians,

but American misconduct squandered it. Contrary to

Washington's orders, some American commanders disrespected

Canadians' religion, property and liberty.

Lamenting this American misconduct, Washington wrote to

Gen. Philip Schuyler on April 19, 1776, ``I am afraid proper

measures have not been taken to conciliate their affections,

but rather that they have been insulted and injured, than

which nothing could have a greater tendency to ruin our cause

in that country; for human nature is such that it will adhere

to the side from whence the best treatment is received.''

George Washington is still first in war, first in peace and

first in the hearts of his countrymen. It's too bad he

couldn't have been the first person we asked about how to

proceed in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas brings tears to my eyes. Big Oil has America over the proverbial barrel. Not only are we paying $100 a barrel for oil and over $3.30 a gallon at the pump, and it will soon be $4.00, not only are oil companies piling up record profits at $10 billion a quarter, but the American people are sending truckloads of taxpayer money to fatten Big Oil's wallet every month.

The legislation before us would stop the madness of American people subsidizing oil companies after they got their Republican friends in the White House and the people's House to give them a windfall they didn't earn, didn't deserve, and don't need.

The legislation before us today will keep America on course to a sustainable renewable energy future. We can dramatically reduce the energy consumption by dramatically increasing energy efficiency, and this bill does that, using tax credits and interest-free financing to partner with the American people to enable them to renovate their homes, to reduce consumption, and to install efficient appliances.

We can dramatically increase the development and deployment of alternative fuels like biodiesel and produce advanced biodiesel fuels with an even lower carbon footprint. And this bill goes in the right direction. We can dramatically increase the development of clean and renewable sources like solar, and this bill does that. Extending the investment tax credit for solar energy production will keep 240 million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is like parking 52 million cars.

Today we declare that America will not permit corporate greed to force the American people to choose between food on the table and fuel to heat their house or get to work. Today we declare that America will put Americans ahead of Big Oil. Today we declare that America will power tomorrow with clean, renewable, and sustainable resources. And today we declare we will consume less power tomorrow.

I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and declare the dawn of a new day in America, when the rising sun not only symbolizes the hope for a new day, but delivers the energy for a tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of shaping globalization to ensure that its benefits are shared more broadly, particularly for the vulnerable living in America or in developing countries.

President Kennedy said that American apathy ``would be disastrous to our national security, harmful to our comparative prosperity, and offensive to our conscience.'' His observation rings true today perhaps more than yesterday. Globalization is not helping the poor around the world as much as it is helping the rich. We have a moral obligation to adjust our trade and development policies to reverse this situation.

The bill before us would extend a program that's enabling developing countries within our own hemisphere to diversify and grow their own economies. The Andean trade preference program has enabled the creation of jobs in Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador by reducing import tariffs on American-bound products from these countries.

These economies are doing well in part because of the partnership achieved through ATPA, so it's important that we extend this program in order to not undo the progress that has been achieved in what can be a very economically and politically fragile region of our hemisphere.

This extension, while important, is a baby step. It is imperative that this Congress this year examine the need to reform our trade policies to ensure we provide maximum opportunity to the poorest of the world's poor.

One of six children in Africa, where the majority of the world's poor live, will die before reaching age 5, on a continent where hunger is a key factor in more deaths than those caused by all infectious disease.

The United States, in agreeing to the Millennium Development Goals in 2000, committed to fully opening our markets to the least developed countries. It's been 8 years. It's time to act.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Generalized System of Preferences continues to fall short. I'm really disappointed that we could not achieve bipartisan consensus on making some modest improvements in GSP and AGOA within this bill, but I am confident we will reach consensus in the future.

Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter from the Catholic Bishops. This letter encourages us to pass the bill before us and pass legislation to improve our trade policies with the least developed countries.

Department of Justice, Peace,

and Human Development,

Washington, DC, February 25, 2008.

Hon. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,

Secretary of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Ambassador Susan Schwab,

U.S. Trade Representative,

Washington, DC.

Senator Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Senator Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Paulson, Ambassador Schwab, Senator Reid,

Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Congressman Boehner: I

am writing on behalf of the United States Conference of

Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to offer reflections on several key

trade measures that Congress may act on this year.

USCCB takes a particular interest in trade policy and

legislation because of its potential to promote integral

human development in the poorest countries and among the

poorest communities around the world. Much more than

fostering economic growth, trade should play an essential

role in reducing poverty by helping to shape domestic and

international legal frameworks to protect workers and the

environment, ensure opportunities for decent work at a just

wage for struggling families and provide access to technology

and knowledge for those at the margins of society.

In the Church's vision, economic life should be guided by a

moral framework that respects the life and dignity of every

person. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: ``The

human being is the author, center

and goal of all economic and social life. The decisive point

of the social question is that goods created by God for

everyone should in fact reach everyone in accordance with

justice and with the help of charity.'' (# 2459)

Trade policy should include complementary policies and

initiatives that promote equitable development for all

people. Increased trade should leave no one behind,

particularly the least among us. For this reason, the United

States has an obligation to ensure that trade agreements

reach beyond merely economic considerations to wider concerns

of the common good of all and the well-being of the poorest

in particular.

Some steps have been taken over the past year to improve

current trade policies so that they foster genuine

development. Last year, our Conference welcomed the

bipartisan trade framework agreed to by Congressional leaders

and the Administration. In 2008, there are several ways to

build upon work already done to help make trade work for all:

Haiti Trade Preferences: USCCB actively worked for

enactment of trade preference legislation for Haiti in 2006.

The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership

Encouragement (HHOPE) Act was an initial step in building

trade capacity that offered some Haitians a chance to escape

poverty and build a future for themselves and their families.

HHOPE's successes are modest but real. USCCB urges you to

work to improve the existing legislation in ways that lead to

longer-term development. The United States should seize the

earliest opportunity to make a significant improvement in the

lives of Haitians.

Andean Trade Preferences (ATPDEA): USCCB supports long-term

renewal of trade preferences for Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia

and Peru. The Andean countries continue to have high levels

of poverty. The original intention of this program was to

help poor countries in the hemisphere diversify their

economies in ways that would offer alternatives to illicit

drug crop production. Weakening these export opportunities

may also weaken counter-narcotics efforts in the Andean

region. The recent practice of short- term extensions of

these trade preferences is damaging to economic development.

Our nation should not hold some of the poorest people in the

Hemisphere in economic limbo in the hope of gaining leverage

in efforts to pass other bilateral agreements. The poor must

not be made to compete for trade preferences that are a vital

part of reducing deprivation.

New Partnership for Development Act (NPDA) H.R. 3905: H.R.

3905 would create a mutually beneficial trade relationship

between the world's richest economy and the world's least

developed countries. NPDA would help ensure that the poorest

countries can benefit from appropriate trade preferences by

including significant trade capacity building assistance. The

poor should have ``preference'' as the Church teaches. NPDA

makes this preference concrete; showing that U.S. trade

policy can become more effective and fair.

United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreements: The May 2007

bipartisan trade policy framework led to some improvements in

the trade agreement between the United States and Peru. The

United States-Colombia trade agreement reflects these

changes. The changes made to the intellectual property

provisions within the agreement that would more readily

ensure access to life-saving medicines are particularly

important. However, the likely negative impact of the

agreement on Colombia's small farmers and rural communities

is troubling. There must be more effective mechanisms to

alleviate the adverse effects on Colombia's rural

communities. Rural desperation could lead to increased coca

production with dire consequences not only for Colombia, but

for the United States and the entire region. Given its

multifaceted provisions, USCCB does not take an overall

position on the agreement, but it is our hope that the debate

and decisions on the proposed U.S.-Colombia FTA lead to

improved and meaningful steps forward in advancing fair trade

relations between the countries.

With good wishes for your efforts to make trade work for

all and for poor people in particular, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Wenski,

Bishop of Orlando, Chairman, Committee on International

Justice and Peace.

In conclusion, the contrast between the lives led by those enriched countries and those in poor countries is only less scandalous than this Congress's apathy if we fail to act. I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues on renewing America's leadership and promoting development around the world. The first step in this process is passing H.R. 5264, which is before us today.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Congresswoman Kay Granger. This legislation will strengthen our commitment to preventing the new transmission of HIV infections in children. The legislation builds on the successful PEPFAR programs aimed at reducing mother to child transmission of HIV and AIDS.

The legislation provides a comprehensive, five year strategy to prevent new HIV infections in children and ensure that the treatment of children infected with HIV keeps pace with their infection rate. We can achieve the birth of an HIV-free generation.

Reducing mother to child transmission and providing treatment to HIV positive children was one of the goals of the original PEPFAR legislation. The PMTCT or the Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission services were a critically important prevention effort included in the PEPFAR legislation. As we begin the process to reauthorize these programs we must use this opportunity to strengthen the original goals and mission of PEPFAR.

Every day more than 1,000 children around the world are infected with HIV; approximately 90 percent of those infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV positive mothers have a 25 percent to 30 percent chance of passing the virus on to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet just one dose of an ARV drug given to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three hours of life reduces transmission of HIV by almost 50 percent. We know what works and we now how to reduce HIV babies. We just need to provide the commitment and resources to achieving this goal.

Children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections but represent only 9 percent of those receiving treatment under PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of all newly infected children will die before their 2nd birthday and 75 percent will not see their 5th birthday.

The bill establishes a target requiring that by 2013 15 percent of those receiving treatment under PEPFAR be children. This target simply keeps pace with the rate of infection.

In addition, it establishes a 5 year target for Preventing Mother to Child Transmission efforts. By 2013, 80 percent of pregnant women receive HIV counseling and testing, with all of HIV positive mothers receiving ARV medication.

The legislation also requires integration of prevention, care and treatment with PMTCT services in order to improve outcomes for HIV affected women and families and to improve the continuity of care.

Prevention is our greatest tool in fighting this pandemic. We have no vaccine or cure. But we can work to achieve an HIV free generation.

I want to thank the work of the Elizabeth Glaser Foundation who have worked to further the cause of preventing mother to child transmission. The Foundation is also a leader in the global effort to provide care and treatment to millions of HIV positive children. The Foundation's recommendations for strengthening PEPFAR are the basis for this legislation. I also want to thank Senators Dodd and Smith who have introduced the Senate version of this legislation. Finally, I want to thank Congresswoman Granger for her willingness to work with me on this legislation and for her continued commitment to addressing the global pediatric HIV/AIDS crisis.

I know that my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee are working to develop a strong PEPFAR reauthorization and I look forward to working with them to ensure that the final bill includes strong PMTCT provisions.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this time to congratulate Mr. Thierry Porte for his recent appointment as the new Chairman of the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission (JUSFC) and the U.S.- Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational Interchange (CULCON).

Mr. Porte, who is the President and CEO of Shinsei Bank, Ltd. has a long and established history as an advocate for exchanges of ideas and culture between the U.S. and Japan. His distinguished experience in the business community as the first American to head a major Japanese bank combined with his work as Chairman of the U.S.-Japan Bridging Foundation's Tokyo Advisory Board in promoting better educational and cultural relations between the two countries make him uniquely qualified for this position.

As a member of the JUSFC, which was established as an independent Federal agency by Congress in 1975 to administer a trust fund and makes grant to promote scholarly, cultural and public affairs activities between Japan and the U.S., I look forward to working with Mr. Porte over the next few years on coordinating the goals of the Commission and moving the bilateral relationship forward.

Madam Speaker, a recent Op-Ed written by the Honorable Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, appeared in the Financial Times. Mr. Frank, I believe, succinctly describes the challenges that face Federal policy makers and a new American president. Too often these days, the market fails to protect the interests of the common good. I look forward to working with a president and a Congress that understands the vital role of a little government regulation and intervention. I am entering Mr. Frank's Op-Ed into the Record so that our colleagues, and interested Americans, can consider what lies ahead for our country if we do not carefully examine how we arrived in the current situation.

[From the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2008]

Why America Needs a Little Less Laissez-Faire

(By Barney Frank)

As we prepare for this autumn's election, the results are

in on America's 30-year experiment with radical economic

deregulation. Income inequality has risen to levels not seen

since the 1920s and the collapse of the unregulated portion

of the mortgage and secondary markets threatens the health of

the overall economy.

These two economic failures will be major issues in the

forthcoming presidential election and, importantly, there is

an emerging Democratic consensus standing in sharp contrast

to the laisser faire Republican approach.

There are two central elements of this consensus. Democrats

believe that government's role as regulator is essential in

maintaining confidence in the integrity and fairness of

markets, and we believe that economic growth alone is not

enough to reverse unacceptable levels of income inequality.

In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, credit markets

round the world contracted sharply in response to concerns

among market participants about the value of exotic and

opaque securities being offered in largely unregulated

secondary markets. This staggering implosion and its damaging

and widespread reverberations make it clear that a mature

capitalist economy is as likely to suffer from too little

regulation as from too much.

With respect to income inequality, since the end of the

last recession--a period of steady economic growth--average

earnings for the vast majority of workers have fallen in real

terms. During this period, after-tax incomes of the top 1 per

cent nearly doubled.

Whether because of globalisation, technology or other

factors, it is clear that market forces have produced too

much inequality and government has not adequately used its

capacity to mitigate the impact of these forces.

Conservatives have long argued that government efforts to

address these issues would damage the economy. They are, of

course, the same people who predicted that there would be an

economic disaster after Bill Clinton and the Democratic

Congress raised marginal tax rates in 1993, and who opposed

other tax increases on upper-income people. Economic growth

in the ensuing years was among the strongest in the postwar

era. It is now clear that growth in the private sector is

consistent with a far greater variation in many aspects of

public policy--including taxation and regulation--than

conservatives claim. In fact, appropriate intervention with

respect to prudential market regulation is necessary to

promote growth, and its absence--as we have learned--can

retard it.

As recently as a year ago, one often heard the argument

that U.S. financial activity would migrate offshore unless we

moved to further deregulate markets. There is little evidence

to support this claim. In fact, it is now clear that what has

been migrating to the rest of the world are the problems

associated with securities based on bad loans--often

originated by unregulated institutions in the U.S. Banks in

the UK and Germany were forced to close, either as a result

of

holding large portfolios of these securities or because they

could not roll over debt backed by them.

Widespread securitisation, and use of the ``originate to

distribute'' model, has turned out to be far less than the

unmitigated boon it had once appeared.

The market did its job with great efficiency in exploiting

the benefits of securitisation but government failed to make

good on its responsibilities. The failure of regulation to

keep pace with innovation left us with no replacement for the

discipline provided by the lender-borrower relationship that

securitisation dissolves. Increasing and largely unregulated

leverage multiplies the corrosive effect of this change.

In response to the current crisis, it appears that the

regulatory tide may, at long last, be turning.

In 1994 a Democratic Congress--the last before the

Republican takeover marked the arrival of the deregulators--

passed the homeowners equity protection act, giving the

Federal Reserve the power to regulate all home mortgage

loans. The avatar of deregulation, Alan Greenspan, then Fed

chairman, flatly refused to use any of that authority.

In contrast, today's Fed will soon issue rules using that

authority. That represents a significant repudiation of the

previous view. While the proposals made by the Democratic

presidential candidates differ in detail, they are to a

substantial extent consistent with the argument I have made

here. Their Republican counterparts continue to advocate the

hands-off approach pursued by the Bush administration. As a

result, we are likely to have a healthy debate about the role

of government in supporting a robust capitalist economy in

the 21st century. It is important to note that this debate is

not about policy details but represents fundamentally

different views about the nature of our modern economy.

I believe the American people will decide that we should

enact policies that seek to curb growing inequality and

provide some check on market excesses.

Mr. Speaker, the stimulus package before us today is a call to arms for Congress to act on behalf of the American people. The President waited too long and offered too little. While he spent months pretending the economy was just fine, Americans were losing their jobs, their homes, and their confidence.

Last week, he apparently woke up, noticed the problem, and, to her credit, Speaker Pelosi negotiated a stimulus package that, for the first time in 7 years, recognized our first responsibility to the middle class and America's vulnerable families. People earning $200,000 a year don't need a rebate to weather the economic storm, but people earning $20,000 do need one.

But, for all the stimulus package does, we must recognize it is a work in progress, because there is unfinished business we must address in the coming months. This package falls silent on the plight of Americans who have already lost their jobs in the economy, and this package does not address the reforms needed to our unemployment insurance programs to deal with the reality of the modern-day workforce competing in a global economy.

Two-thirds of the people who pay unemployment insurance can't draw benefits. People with part-time jobs can't draw benefits. Spouses whose husbands are transferred elsewhere and lose the second job the family has been depending on can't draw benefits. Those are the kinds of things that need to be done. But there's nothing new today.

The gentleman from Indiana was a wonderful counterpoint. In 1935, when we passed the Social Security Act in Congress, during the middle of the Depression, and unemployment insurance was right in the middle of it, the last issue the Republicans fought in the United States Senate at the very end of the bill was whether or not they should have unemployment insurance. The gentleman from Indiana would have fit beautifully in the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate in 1935. And that is why we got rid of them.

This is not a day for a victory lap. It's a day when we begin to restore the faith of the American people in the ability of their government to act as an agent for positive change. This is the first day, but it must not be the last day, or we will fail the American people when they need us most. But I don't want to see unemployment brought out here, married to the war funding, like we had to accept when we had the raise in the minimum wage. This ought to stand on its own. We should stand behind the American workers in their time of need. It shouldn't be mixed with a lot of other things.

Madam Speaker, Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced legislation today to amend the dark chapter of American history by providing a fair and just settlement for our African American soldiers who were wrongly convicted after an incident at Fort Lawton during World War II.

Last Saturday, I stood with the family of Booker Townsell at his gravesite in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At long last, Private Booker Townsell received a burial with full honors, in a ceremony filled with emotion and symbolism. At long last, Booker Townsell received the military honors he deserved.

I want to read into the Record the remarks I read last Saturday because Booker and his family deserve to have his long overdue military honors permanently etched into the Congressional Record.

In the House, I represent Seattle in King County, Washington, home to Fort Lawton and home to author Jack Hamann. He exposed what Booker Townsell, his family and others have often lived and known for a long time, that the color of their skin determined their fate and denied them due process.

And on behalf of the people in my Seventh District, who live in a county proudly named in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, let me sum up our feelings by quoting Dr. King: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

That's why I got into this fight. America cannot and must not permit

racial injustice to breathe the same air that we breathe, or to live among us as a plague upon our Nation, or to poison the sweet light of day with its grim darkness of evil.

We come here today in the name of justice, to fully and finally honor Private Booker Townsell, a soldier, a hero, an African American who served his country in a time of war, only to be deserted by his country in his time of need.

Racial injustice struck down this innocent man, and others, who were denied the opportunity to live their lives with a full measure of honor for their military service and who were denied all their rightful benefits for their military service, including the right of their family to receive an American flag when they passed.

The American flag is a powerful symbol of our Nation's strength, unity and commitment to core values like equal justice under the law and equal rights. Today our flag also represents the courage of an Army private and the dignity of his family to accept justice delayed after being denied so long, and it represents the ability of a great Nation to look inward and admit a grave injustice.

This is a proud day for Private Booker Townsell and his family. He has been promoted from Army private to American role model, and his life, service and this day teaches us a lot about ourselves and our Nation.

Dr. King said: The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

Booker Townsell, and his family and others like Sam Snow who lives in Florida, stood up to the challenge and, in so doing, stood up for us all. Today, on their behalf, America renews its vow to fight racial injustice, to acknowledge the deep and tragic mistakes of the past and to restore hope in the future.

Here in Washington the work is not finished. The legislation Senator Nelson and I introduced today will, along with others, including Congresswoman Moore from Milwaukee, direct the Army to provide the Fort Lawton survivors like Sam Snow in Florida and families like Booker Townsell with the economic benefits to which they're entitled. It's the least we can do. I also hope that we can put a memorial on the Fort Lawton site to teach future generations about the sacrifices made by Booker Townsell, Sam Snow, and others, and to remind us that we must never forget that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Today, we salute Private Booker Townsell and his loved ones on behalf of this grateful Nation. We are grateful for his military service, his courage, and his dignity, and grateful that America is strong enough to admit its mistakes and provide justice and honor at long last.

I would like to enter into the Record an article from the Milwaukee Sentinel dated 19 January 2008, entitled, ``Injustice Undone.''

[From the Milwaukee Sentinel, Jan. 19, 2008]

Injustice Undone: Soldier Honored More Than 20 Years After Death

(By Meg Kissinger)

Carol Blalock closed her eyes and smiled as the sound of

gunshots rang through the bitter cold morning air on

Saturday.

At long last, justice had been served.

Her father, Booker Townsell, who died in 1984, had finally

been granted full military honors, a proper military burial

at Graceland Cemetery on Milwaukee's northwest side. An Army

contingent, including Ronald James, Assistant Secretary of

the Army, traveled to Milwaukee to correct an injustice begun

more than 63 years ago.

In August 1944, Townsell and 42 other African-American

soldiers were blamed for the lynching death of an Italian

prisoner of war at Fort Lawton, an Army base outside Seattle.

Many of them, including Townsell, were convicted of rioting.

Two others were convicted of manslaughter.

The story might have ended there, had it not been for

curiosity of a television reporter named Jack Hamann, who,

along with his wife, Leslie, spent 20 years uncovering the

facts of the case. Their account, in the book ``On American

Soil: How Justice Became a Casualty of World War II,''

prompted a bipartisan call for the convictions to be

overturned and full military honors to be restored. In

October, the Army reversed the conviction of Townsell and the

others.

Hamann stood at the front of the chapel at Graceland on

Saturday, fighting back tears as the Army color guard played

taps.

``Reporters are trained to check out emotionally,'' he

said. ``But this one is tough.''

Also standing in the crowd was Ronald Hayes, a retired

master sergeant and Townsell family friend, who likewise

swallowed hard when Wisconsin Army National Guard Brig. Gen.

Roger Lalich presented the U.S. flag to Townsell's oldest

daughter, Marion Williamson.

``This is good,'' Hayes said.

Later in the day, nearly 200 people gathered at the

Milwaukee County War Memorial Center to pay tribute to

Townsell and to celebrate his ultimate exoneration.

``He wouldn't have wanted this attention,'' Williamson told

the crowd. ``But he deserves it. I hope my father's soul can

finally rest in peace.''

Speakers included Jim McDermott, Democratic congressman

from the state of Washington who pushed to have the Army

reverse the convictions.

``Too often the color of skin defined fate and denied due

process,'' McDermott said.

Quoting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., McDermott talked

of why this decision is so important and the need to

celebrate it so urgent.

``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,''

he said. McDermott complimented the Army for admitting a

grave mistake. He recalled the images of Townsell as a

dedicated family man and factory worker, who danced with his

children and cheered his granddaughter at her track meet.

It would have been easy for Townsell to wallow in the

bitterness of this dark chapter of his life, McDermott said.

Instead, he chose to persevere. Again invoking King's words,

McDermott said, ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where

he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he

stands at times of challenge and controversy.''

As far as Blalock and the other members of Townsell's

family were concerned, Saturday's ceremony was no less

precious because of the time it took to make things right.

``I loved my father's laugh,'' Blalock said. ``When they

had that 21-gun salute and played taps, it was like I could

hear him laugh again.''

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the best way is to recite a

poem, maybe to lower the temper in here.

`Twas the night before Christmas,

When all through the House,

Every tax lawyer was stirring,

Even the hedge fund's spouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that AMT relief soon would be there.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds

While visions of health care and surplus danced in their

heads.

The Speaker with gavel and Bush with his pen,

And Republican Visa cards on the mend,

Blue Dogs, debt and dollar in decline,

Our fiscal sanity all on the line,

``Away with PAYGO'' the Republicans cheer,

Sack the children with debt, year after year.

Our majority too slim to beat a veto,

The luster of debt is all the minority know.

When what to my dismayed eyes should appear,

The upcoming election year.

New Hampshire is close and the caucuses near,

It won't be long before the voters make clear.

We only have 397 more days of this administration.

Thank you, Mr. Larson.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the importance of two provisions in the bill before us, which relate to how the Supplemental Security Income program, or SSI program, treats military families and others who desire to serve this Nation. Under current law, some military families lose part of their SSI benefits because a portion of their compensation is counted as unearned income. Under current rules, the amount of unearned income a disabled person receives reduces their SSI benefits. H.R. 3997 would stop treating military families this way, which occurs because of a kink in the law.

A similar inequity occurs with respect to AmeriCorps volunteers. For purposes of determining SSI benefits, current law provides disparate treatment to volunteers who are disabled. In some cases, these would-be volunteers would experience a loss or reduction of their SSI benefits if they choose to serve their community, despite their disability, through AmeriCorps. This only occurs because of an oversight in the statute, and the HEART Act corrects it, removing an important barrier to service.

In short, Mr. Speaker, it's important that the bill that the President signs includes these provisions. With the SSI corrections included, H.R. 3997 says to American families that a Nation blessed by your service and sacrifice is one that will treat you fairly and justly.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I saw a couple of movies that everybody in this House ought to see: One is ``Charlie Wilson's War,'' which is about the Afghan war and driving the Russians out; and the second is ``Kite Runner,'' which is a movie about trying to rescue one orphan in the Afghan situation.

On the 15th of December, on Saturday, in a conference in Baghdad, it was announced that there are 5 million orphans created by the United States of America's war on Iraq. Maybe they are off by a million; maybe it's only 4 million. But when you see that movie ``Kite Runner,'' just imagine that being 4 million kids that are our responsibility because we invaded a country under false pretenses and we are continuing to leave a mess. Five million orphans at Christmastime.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4118) to exclude from gross income payments from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to the victims of the tragic event, loss of life and limb, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, as amended.

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

Today, we stand united in this House as Americans without regard to political party so that we may honor the memory of the 32 people who lost their lives last year in the tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Nation mourned the loss of these innocent young people, and people across America responded generously in every way they could, including sending financial donations.

In a time of need, you can always count on the American people to open their hearts and their wallets and to show the world what it means to practice the common good. The Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund was established, and the American people collected and sent over $7 million to aid the families, establish scholarships, and help the Virginia Tech community through this tragedy.

Today, our role in the people's House is a legislative one. We can make a difference by passing H.R. 4118, which will ensure that all the money received from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund is not subjected to Federal income taxes. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill and, in so doing, rededicate themselves to strengthening our collective will to create a more just and civil Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Boucher.

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

Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to hold and manage the bill.