Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, officials recently participating in a Texas hurricane evacuation drill were shocked to learn that the Border Patrol, CBP, planned to check the citizenship or immigration status of the people that they were helping to evacuate. Such a policy is fraught with problems. One car with a flat tire can back up an evacuation for hundreds of miles. Just think about how disruptive and dangerous immigration checkpoints would be, and how many people would remain in harm's way for fear of arrest.

The outrage in Texas, and across the country, was instantaneous. Other law enforcement agencies, State officials, and the press condemned the announcement, and DHS started backpedaling. But this was not an isolated incident or just a mistake. Rather, this comes on the heels of other evacuations in which DHS' priorities have been confused. Such as the California fires in which undocumented aliens were afraid to risk immigration checkpoints and died in the flames. And the administration's refusal to suspend immigration enforcement in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as had been done after September 11. The immigration enforcement mission must be carried out in the proper context; in the face of a natural disaster or mass casualty event, public safety and humanitarian exigencies must take priority.

We asked for an immediate briefing to get to the bottom of this. Just hours before they were supposed to come brief us, the Border Patrol suddenly said that they had reassessed the policy in light of last week's exercise. They told us that CBP's ``primary role in such events will be the safeguarding of life. No enforcement role will be undertaken that will in any way impede the safe and orderly evacuation of any member of the south Texas population.'' Frankly, I would have been more reassured if the CBP's purported change in policy had not been couched in such equivocal terms.

Later yesterday, Secretary Chertoff stated that ``Priority Number One'' will be ``the safe evacuation of people who are leaving the danger zone.'' He said that clear instructions have been given to the Border Patrol ``to do nothing to impede a safe and speedy evacuation of a danger zone.''

So the message seems to have been heard. Rest assured that we will be watching to make sure that the focus truly is on having all hands on deck for humanitarian and evacuation needs, as opposed to diverting DHS resources into ill-conceived--and dangerous--immigration enforcement.

I am very troubled by this episode. It comes on the heels of revelations in recent weeks about medical abuse of immigration detainees. And it comes in the wake of a massive raid in Iowa that disrupted a Department of Labor investigation and resulted in assembly line arrest and prosecution of workers, but not of those who may have abused them. This cascade of controversy leads me to pose one

overarching question--what kind of agency is DHS that there need to be congressional inquiries on so many of their actions before they take into account basic standards of life, safety, health care, due process, and constitutional rights?

I am inserting into the Record a letter about the ill-conceived evacuation from leading national Latino and Asian-American civil rights groups: the Asian American Justice Center, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the National Council of La Raza. I am also inserting a fact sheet from the United Food and Commercial Workers about the raids in Iowa, where there are disturbing allegations of union-busting and labor exploitation on the part of the factory owners.

I look forward to working with these groups to make sure that DHS remembers its duty to protect the civil rights of everyone on U.S. soil, regardless of their race, natural origin, or immigration status.

May 20, 2008.

Hon. Michael Chertoff,

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Chertoff: We are writing to express our

utter outrage that the Border Patrol would jeopardize the

safety of residents of the Rio Grande Valley in the event of

a hurricane evacuation by checking the documents of evacuees

before they are allowed to board evacuation buses. If you are

interested in undercutting the safety of a large segment of

the community you are charged with protecting, this is

exactly the way to go about it. Indeed, the very news that

such an effort is planned, which was reported by the Rio

Grande Guardian on May 14, has already undercut the ability

of the federal government to protect the population which

could be affected by a hurricane or some other natural

disaster.

To put it quite simply, a substantial segment of the

population--immigrants and U.S. citizens alike--will not

participate in an evacuation effort if they believe it to be

tainted with the goal of immigration enforcement. Americans

with immigrant family members will not participate for fear

of jeopardizing their loved ones. In addition, most American

citizens do not carry documentation that proves their

citizenship. If you proceed with this approach, a great many

U.S. citizens will be kept off of evacuation buses because

they failed to bring their passports and birth certificates

when they fled their homes. To put such people on Border

Patrol buses and subject them to immigration enforcement,

possibly separating them from their family members in a time

of crisis, is foolish and offensive.

We have written to you on this subject in the past, when

your decision not to suspend immigration enforcement in the

wake of Hurricane Katrina made this the first Administration

of either party to jeopardize the safety of disaster victims

by conducting immigration enforcement during a rescue and

relief operation, We have pointed out publicly that insisting

on immigration enforcement in a time of crisis will

jeopardize the safety of the American public by undercutting

public confidence in vitally important public safety and

public health initiatives. To put it bluntly, if the next

major crisis is a flu epidemic, the actions of your agency

will guarantee that major segments of the population will not

come forward for vaccinations out of fear of immigration

enforcement.

This tactic by the Border Patrol is not simply offensive,

it is dangerous, and we are shocked and outraged that it has

proceeded this far. We urge you in the strongest possible

terms to suspend it immediately, and reassure the public that

the United States will not undercut our security in a time of

crisis by asking for papers before taking people to safety.

Sincerely,

Karen Narasaki,

Asian American Justice Center.

Rosa Rosales,

League of United Latin American Citizens.

John Trasvina,

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Arturo Vargas,

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed

Officials.

Janet Murguia,

National Council of La Raza.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support H. Con. Res. 325, Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Mackinac Island State Park Commission's Historical Preservation and Museum Program, which began on June 15, 1958.

In 1958, the State of Michigan granted authority to the Mackinac Island State Park Commission to restore and interpret Fort Mackinac and other historical properties at the Straits of Mackinac.

The Mackinac State Historic Parks complex is one of the most successful historic site complexes in North America. The Mackinac Island State Park Commission helps bring tourism to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and aids the local economy. This resolution commemorates the restoration and opening of Fort Mackinac to the public in 1958.

As a native Michigander, I have always enjoyed the beautiful and abundant natural resource that is Mackinac Island. All of my visits to Mackinac Island have been rewarding and fulfilling.

I join my fellow colleagues, in honoring the accomplishments and creation of the Mackinac Island State Park Commission's Historical Preservation and Museum Program, and to commemorate the 50th anniversary by supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. This important legislation authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes, including program monitoring, operations research, and impact evaluation research of U.S. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs.

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic began, 20 million men, women, and children have died from the disease. Forty million around the globe are HIV-positive, and each and every day, another 6,000 people become infected with HIV. Tuberculosis and malaria are devastating diseases in their own right, particularly in developing countries. However, tuberculosis (particularly drug-resistant strains) in the immuno- compromised poses a particularly vexing treatment challenge.

HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria are sometimes referred to as the ``diseases of poverty;'' without question, Africans and various peoples of African descent have been hit the hardest by this global epidemic. In three of the larger countries in the Caribbean--the Bahamas, Haiti, and Trinidad and Tobago--more than 2 percent of the adult population is living with HIV. Higher prevalence rates are found only in sub-Saharan Africa, making the Caribbean the second-most affected region in the world.

AIDS is now one of the leading causes of death in some of these countries, with Haiti being the worst affected. An estimated 16,000 lives are lost each year to AIDS in Haiti, and tens of thousands of children have been orphaned by the epidemic. As well, Haiti has the highest per capita tuberculosis burden in the Latin America and Caribbean region. After HIV/AIDS, TB is the country's greatest infectious cause of mortality of both youth and adults, resulting in 6,000 deaths annually.

What must not be overlooked in the gobal pandemic of HIV/AIDS is the need for preventative care. For example, the Act directs the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop a program to facilitate availability of proven microbicides that prevent the transmission of HIV. The Act also creates linkages and requires patient referrals between HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis programs, and creates a new plan to stop tuberculosis by enhancing testing and treatment in countries with high tuberculosis rates. New tactics for attacking drug-resistant tuberculosis are also supported.

Most importantly, the Act provides funding for treatment based on scientific principles and evidence-based practices. It is our duty to battle these life-threatening illnesses, and it is inappropriate to forebear moral judgment or other inherent prejudices upon those suffering from these terrible diseases. The Act's purpose is to help provide treatment and support to those who are unable to provide these services on their own. It implores us to care for one another, for we are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of our Creator.

Madam Speaker, there is a moral imperative to combat this epidemic, and the late Congressmen Lantos and Hyde, both dear friends and colleagues, fought long and hard on this important issue. Please honor their efforts by supporting H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act. This important bipartisan bill extends a moratorium until April 1, 2009 on seven Administration-imposed Medicaid regulations that if implemented, would severely reduce federal Medicaid funding.

Without the moratorium, Medicaid funding to states for vital programs and services would be cut by $18 billion over the next 5 years. These cuts include restrictions on Medicaid payments for graduate medical education, GME, rehabilitation services, and outpatient hospital services, among other services.

It would be irresponsible to think about cutting funding to academic medical centers and residency training programs when we currently face a shortage of physicians. If these cuts were allowed to go into effect, we would be unable to provide necessary medical services to many people who depend upon Medicaid.

Constantly cutting funds to the very services which keep our fragmented, nonsystem of health care afloat is inhumane and nonsensical.

The tactic of underfunding federal programs in an attempt to undermine their effectiveness demonstrates the Administration's lack of commitment to the programs that faithfully and effectively serve the American people.

Madam Speaker, passage of H.R. 5613 is simply a necessity. We must halt the underfunding of important Medicaid programs. I wholeheartedly support the passage of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H. Res. 1134, supporting the goals and ideals of Mental Health Month. This legislation applauds the hard work of practitioners and national and community organizations in promoting mental health awareness, and supports improving the overall quality of life for those with mental illness. H. Res. 1134 also supports the findings of the President's Commission on Mental Health that the nation's failure to prioritize mental health is a national tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, mental health is no less important than physical health. In fact, as science is proving, mental health and physical health are intertwined in complex ways that are only beginning to be understood. The relationship between depression and heart disease is just one example of the inherent symbiosis of psychiatric and somatic illnesses.

Just as the heart is the organ upon which heart disease preys, the brain is the organ plagued by diseases of the mind. Likewise, death as a result of suicide is no less tragic than death secondary to a heart attack. Those suffering from severe psychiatric illness should not be held to a lesser standard of care than those suffering from physical illnesses.

Ensuring access to appropriate services is central to improving the quality of life for those with mental illness. The issue of mental health insurance parity, in my opinion, is a civil rights issue. Inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill, and it reinforces the strategy of insurance companies to deny care rather than provide care.

The mental health community scored a victory for its patients earlier this year when the House voted to pass H.R. 1424, the ``Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.''

It has taken courage on the part of Congressmen like my colleague Patrick Kennedy to stand up to special interests and ``do the right thing'' when it comes to ending discrimination against the mentally ill and standing up to health insurance companies. There is still work to be done before a mental health insurance parity bill is signed into law. Hopefully, the bill will soon be reconciled into a form which will benefit psychiatric patients and end discrimination against the mentally ill.

Mr. Speaker, let us applaud the tireless work and unending determination of those fighting to improve the lives of the mentally ill. Let us also be reminded that there is much work to be done before the stigma associated with mental illness is ended, and the lives of those suffering from mental illness are valued as much as those suffering from other medical illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this common sense piece of legislation offered by my dear friend, Representative Charlie Rangel, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. If enacted, his bill will marshal the tremendous economic power of our Nation's physical and human capital and direct it towards solving the twin challenges of energy dependence and global warming. Through $20 billion investment in renewable energy tax incentives, carbon mitigation provisions, transportation efficiency tax credits, and energy efficiency incentives, this bill offers a comprehensive strategy that empowers both individual citizens and the private sector.

The bill empowers everyday Americans by providing tax credits to green citizens who add energy-efficient improvements to their homes and businesses and purchase plug-in electric cars. The bill helps the private sector push the limits of research and development by encouraging the building of carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects. The bill also creates incentives for the energy production sector to invest in nontraditional cutting edge energy production methods. I am particularly excited that this bill will, for the first time, incentivize investment in technologies that will harness the power of the waves and tides found in our Nation's Great Lakes and oceans.

I am also proud of this body's recent efforts to address the global climate change crisis. This bill is a logical and important next step toward this end. For too long, our country lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in recognizing and taking action to address the climate change crisis. Global warming endangers all of us, but threatens to have the most devastating impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable. By encouraging our Nation's citizens and businesses to act in a carbon-conscious way, we protect not only ourselves, but show compassion for our brothers and sisters around the world. At a time when global public opinion regarding our Nation is at an all-time low, the important positive impact this bill will have on our country's public diplomacy efforts should not be downplayed.

Lastly, I believe that this bill serves as a powerful example of the tax policy differences between the 110th Congress and past Congresses. Instead of using the tax code to promote inequality and corporate largess, the American people now know that the tax code can be used to promote personal responsibility, national security, compassion, and global sustainability. I am proud to join with my colleagues here today as we continue to establish a progressive tax policy for the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act,'' legislation that addresses the need to increase legal services for victims of domestic violence by creating a coordinated, nationwide system of attorney referrals to assist domestic violence victims. I am joined in this effort by Representative Poe.

Domestic violence continues to be a problem in our country. Nearly one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime, and between three and ten million children witness acts of domestic violence each year. Domestic violence is not just physical but affects every aspect of a woman's life, including her mental and emotional well-being.

In 2005, Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, continuing programs such as STOP and Legal Assistance for Victims, as well as adding new programs that focus on prevention and services for youth and children.

But there is still a huge gap in services and resources for victims who need help navigating the legal system. Obtaining effective protection orders, initiating divorce proceedings or designing safe child custody arrangements are all key components to stopping the violence, because these are often the first real steps that battered women can take to leave an abusive home.

The problem is not that the resources do not exist; in fact, many lawyers want to volunteer their time to provide legal assistance to victims of domestic violence. The problem is in bridging the gap between these willing and able advocates and the victims seeking access to the justice system.

Our bill, the Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, has several components:

Creates an electronic network of volunteer attorneys. The network will be managed by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, which will solicit and mentor the lawyers and conduct training and provide other technical assistance.

Authorizes new funds to the National Domestic Violence Hotline to update the system and train advocates on how to provide referrals for voluntary attorneys.

Creates a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney network in five states. The program will be administered by the Office of Violence Against Women in DOJ. After these five years, if successful, the program will be rolled out nationally.

Establishes a Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force, which will monitor the program and make recommendations.

Mandates a study by the National Institute of Justice to assess the scope and quality of legal services available to battered women in each state. The GAO will report to Congress within one year.

The legislation is supported by a broad range of interests and experts, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the ABA, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, the National Association for Attorneys General, and the National Center for the Victims of Crime.

This legislation is an important next step in our fight to defeat domestic violence and assist victims. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Biden and Specter. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax (HEART) Act of 2008. This bill provides tax relief to America's heroic servicemembers. As a veteran of the Korean war, it is imperative that we assist the brave men and women who put their lives at risk in defending our Nation in any way we can.

H.R. 6081 will improve tax benefits to members of the armed services. For example, today's legislation permanently extends the Earned Income Tax Credit for combat pay, allows for penalty-free withdrawal from servicemember pension plans, allows access for funds in Flexible Savings Accounts, and lets military death benefits to roll over into a Roth IRA or Education Savings Account. Given the crisis in the housing market, I am particularly heartened that H.R. 6081 permanently establishes mortgage bonds used to finance home purchases by veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also extends the Economic Stimulus rebates that are being delivered as we speak today. H.R. 6081 humanely permits servicemembers who are married to foreigners to receive the full value of their rebate.

Lastly, the bill will restrict government contractors who move offshore to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare benefits. It is shocking that government contractors receive millions, or even billions, of taxpayer dollars and then try to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

We have put our Nation's finest men and women in a senseless war without an end. The least we can do is allow their families to enjoy the same benefits as their neighbors. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Committee on Ways and Means for passing this important legislation, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act. This legislation brings necessary tax relief to members of our armed services, veterans and their families and it also contains important technical corrections to a law that provides tax relief to volunteer emergency first responders.

Like our men and women in the armed services, volunteer emergency first responders provide a crucial service to our communities. They are in the front lines in the case of fire, natural disaster or other emergency. The majority of these brave men and women are volunteers and give up their time out of a sense of obligation to their communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their service.

This technical correction clarifies that property tax rebates and other benefits that are made to volunteer emergency first responders and are excluded from gross income are not subject to Social Security tax or unemployment tax. This was the intent of the original legislation and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this through HR. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 5554, the ``Justin Bailey Veterans Substance Use Disorders Prevention and Treatment Act of

2008.'' This legislation grants to our veterans access to a comprehensive continuum of substance abuse treatment services provided by Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. The bill also requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to inform veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom about the availability of such care.

Madam Speaker, we have sent thousands of otherwise healthy young men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight. Many of those who were lucky enough to escape unscathed physically, are suffering agonizing symptoms emotionally. Depression, anxiety, and symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder plague countless veterans returning from the battlefield. Without proper treatment, our veterans turn to self- medicating these psychiatric symptoms by abusing alcohol and other substances.

It would be negligent, if not hypocritical, of us not to offer comprehensive substance abuse treatment for all returning veterans. This legislation ensures that a ``continuum'' of services, including screening for substance use disorders, detoxification and stabilization services, intensive outpatient services, relapse prevention services, counseling services, and other necessary services, are offered to our returning veterans.

Of course, these services require funding. H.R. 5554 ensures that funding for a full continuum of substance abuse treatment is made available to veterans seeking such care. Although H.R. 5554 authorizes a pilot program for Internet-based substance use disorder treatment, let us not sell our veterans short by cutting corners on care. More funding is needed to ensure that enough psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers are available to care for our returning veterans. As well, more research funding is required in order to better understand and treat disorders of substance abuse and dependence which plague our veterans.

Madam Speaker, I find it appalling that we ask our young men and women in the Armed Forces to sacrifice life and limb overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet when those very soldiers return home, we deny them vital mental health and substance abuse treatment services. Let us begin to right this wrong by supporting H.R. 5554, and improve substance abuse treatment services available to our veterans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Congress and to the American people the plight the western hemisphere's second oldest republic, Haiti. The Haitian people are being negatively affected by market forces out of their control that have driven food prices up drastically. Haiti, where about 4 out of 5 people live at or below poverty, is an island nation that consists of approximately 8.7 million people. To put this in perspective, imagine the city of New York; now imagine that same city with 80 percent of its citizens in poverty.

The American people and Congress have already assisted Haiti with the HOPE and HOPE II (Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) Acts. HOPE was the tip of the iceberg. It provided jobs to allow Haitians to overcome poverty. HOPE II will create even more gainful employment and more sustainable jobs for Haitians and create a self-sustaining infrastructure. These acts will provide jobs needed to help more Haitian citizens emerge from poverty and gain employment which will lead to a more prosperous Haiti.

However, there is much more work to be done Madam Speaker. Right now the World Food Program is in need of $755 million to meet immediate demands and USAID also needs an additional $240 million. Increases in these programs will ensure that school food programs in the developing world are not eliminated due to current food price inflation. The food price escalation is also affecting the region as a whole.

Due to escalating market prices, in rural El Salvador, with the same amount of money today, people can purchase 50 percent less food than they did 18 months ago. This means that, in principle, their nutritional intake, on an already poor diet, is being cut by half.

In Nicaragua the price of tortilla went up 54 percent between January 2007 and January 2008.

We cannot let our neighbors suffer due to circumstances out of their control. We have taken small steps but now the government of the United States must be an active agent in the development of the third world. We must follow the lead of our philanthropic and non-profit sectors.

Too often those in government see aid to developing nations as a waste of money, throwing taxpayers dollars down a well. India is a great example of the benefits of foreign aid. In the 1960s American dollars funded fertilizer subsidies and high yield seed varieties led India out of poverty and famine into self-subsistence. India is now entering the developing world, so much so that their demand for processed foods is now decreasing the supply of food aid available to countries such as Haiti.

This can happen in Haiti if the United States focuses on delivering basic goods to the hemisphere's poorest people. By increasing vaccines, textbooks, water pipes, and medical care we will not make countries dependent, we will be giving Haitians the basic inputs they need to improve their lives. We must invest in high-yield, proven, and scalable strategies to empower the Haitian people and those suffering throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this most recent war funding appropriation brought before the Congress. While I cannot in good conscience provide the President with any additional funds that would continue this disastrous war well into the next president's administration, I do support Amendment #2, which attaches conditions to the war funding and would hold the President accountable. I also support Amendment #3, which would honor our veterans and provide desperately needed humanitarian funds to people both here and abroad.

As I have said before, the American people sent a clear message to the Congress on November 7, 2006: We must end the war in Iraq. In the ensuing months, the calls for withdrawal have only increased. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 57 percent of Americans believe that the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if it means that civil order is not restored there.

Unfortunately, we stand here today, no closer to responding to the demands of the American people. This development frustrates me to no end and I know it frustrates the American people. Yet, it also strengthens my resolve to press harder for the outcome this country needs.

The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of the purse. We must use it. The only way to truly support our troops is take them out of harm's way. The American people understand that marching ahead blindly into oblivion is anything but supporting our troops.

The longer this war drags on, the more its effects are felt in our communities and homes. Last year, the citizens of Detroit spent $231.3 million to fund the war in Iraq. With those same funds, the Congress could have provided healthcare for 172,984 children. Even when faced with historically high food prices, a crumbling infrastructure, and the subprime mortgage crisis, the Administration continues to demand that the American people continue to pour billions of their taxpayer dollars into an unwinnable war. The priorities of this Administration could not be any more misplaced.

Of course, appeals to reason fall on deaf ears with this President. In an interview this week, President Bush was asked about the worst that could happen if the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq next year. The President responded: ``The doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.''

The President's overreliance on the tired rhetoric of fear, unchanged after five years of bloody occupation, exemplifies how intellectually bankrupt the justifications for his war policies have become.

Mr. Speaker, this lame duck President cannot scare the Congress and the American people into continuing his war. We know that it is the presence of our troops on the street corners of Basra and Fallujah that lures extremists to Iraq. We know that it is the unintentional desecration of holy sites, like the Golden Dome of Samarra, that inspires outrage in the hearts of young men throughout the Middle East and makes America more susceptible to another terrorist attack.

There is only one sensible way forward in Iraq. If the Congress acts this day to cut off funding for the war or to impose a timetable for withdrawal, we can begin the immediate phased drawdown of American troops and conclude it within 18 months. Such redeployment does not constitute ``cutting and running.'' Instead, it offers the only hope for a diplomatic solution to the civil war raging inside of Iraq. With 160,000 troops in Iraq, Washington lacks the leverage on its own to push the Maliki government to take meaningful steps to accommodate Sunni concerns and thereby empower Sunni moderates. Similarly, the U.S. presence in Iraq allows the rest of the world to avoid responsibility for stability in and around Iraq, even as everyone realizes the stakes involved. Only a plan to draw down U.S. forces, coupled with a robust diplomatic surge, will prompt Middle Eastern states, European governments, and the United Nations to be more constructive and proactive in working to salvage stability in the Persian Gulf.

I came to Washington 43 years ago on a platform of Jobs, Justice, and Peace. Because it is my firm belief that we will never achieve peace in Iraq as long as this war continues, I cannot support a supplemental funding bill that allows a politically unaccountable President to continue an unwinnable conflict. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H. Res. 1134, supporting the goals and ideals of Mental Health Month. This legislation applauds the hard work of practitioners and national and community organizations in promoting mental health awareness, and supports improving the overall quality of life for those with mental illness. H. Res. 1134 also supports the findings of the President's Commission on Mental Health that the nation's failure to prioritize mental health is a national tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, mental health is no less important than physical health. In fact, as science is proving, mental health and physical health are intertwined in complex ways that are only beginning to be understood. The relationship between depression and heart disease is just one example of the inherent symbiosis of psychiatric and somatic illnesses.

Just as the heart is the organ upon which heart disease preys, the brain is the organ plagued by diseases of the mind. Likewise, death as a result of suicide is no less tragic than death secondary to a heart attack. Those suffering from severe psychiatric illness should not be held to a lesser standard of care than those suffering from physical illnesses.

Ensuring access to appropriate services is central to improving the quality of life for those with mental illness. The issue of mental health insurance parity, in my opinion, is a civil rights issue. Inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill, and it reinforces the strategy of insurance companies to deny care rather than provide care.

The mental health community scored a victory for its patients earlier this year when the House voted to pass H.R. 1424, the ``Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.''

It has taken courage on the part of Congressmen like my colleague Patrick Kennedy to stand up to special interests and ``do the right thing'' when it comes to ending discrimination against the mentally ill and standing up to health insurance companies. There is still work to be done before a mental health insurance parity bill is signed into law. Hopefully, the bill will soon be reconciled into a form which will benefit psychiatric patients and end discrimination against the mentally ill.

Mr. Speaker, let us applaud the tireless work and unending determination of those fighting to improve the lives of the mentally ill. Let us also be reminded that there is much work to be done before the stigma associated with mental illness is ended, and the lives of those suffering from mental illness are valued as much as those suffering from other medical illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, section 12017 of H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act. Among other things, the changes provide that, during periodic renegotiations with USDA's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation regarding the standard reinsurance agreement for the FCIC's crop insurance program, approved insurance companies may consult with each other, and collectively with the FCIC.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to provide a bit of background, and to sound a cautionary note.

For a number of years, insurance companies participating in providing reinsurance to the FCIC--that is, providing back-up insurance to the insurance being provided by the FCIC--did indeed consult with each other, and collectively with the FCIC. This occurred most recently in the 1997 renegotiation. In fact, the insurers apparently used a common agent to negotiate the terms of the agreement on their behalf.

I understand that that experience may have led USDA's Risk Management Administration, which runs the FCIC, to begin reconsidering whether joint discussions were a good idea from a competitive standpoint, in achieving the best result with the taxpayers' dollars that the FCIC was spending in the reinsurance marketplace. In any event, the RMA evidently discussed the matter at some length with the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and came away with the clear conviction that joint negotiations are anticompetitive--as experience under the antitrust laws confirms time and time again.

As a result of its new understanding, the RMA restricted the kinds of collaborative consultations it would permit during the 2004 renegotiation.

Some may believe that the RMA either went further than it needed to in 2004, or that it may go further in future renegotiations, prohibiting consultation even on aspects of the renegotiation that not only are not competitively sensitive, but where the antitrust laws recognize that cost-saving efficiencies can be gained without harm to competition. To the extent that that has been a concern, the new language being added to the Federal Crop Insurance Act may help clear the way for that kind of competitively benign consultation.

I wish to emphasize, however, that the new language does not create an antitrust exemption, or alter the antitrust laws in any way. The Supreme Court has aptly referred to the antitrust laws as the Magna Carta of our free enterprise system, and has said repeatedly that exceptions to those laws are not to be lightly inferred. Therefore, any insurer wishing to engage in consultations pursuant to this new authorization should be careful to do so in compliance with the antitrust laws.

Some observers have raised the question whether some of the conduct that could be at issue here might be covered under the McCarran- Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for the business of insurance, to the extent that such business is regulated by State law. It is far from clear, however, that reinsurance being provided to the USDA's FCIC for its federally administered crop insurance program is in fact regulated by State law. And even if it were, the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not apply to the antitrust prohibitions against boycott, which can all-too- easily be implicated when competing firms start coordinating their negotiation-related activities and strategies. These are serious violations of the law, and those who would seek to avoid the pitfalls here would be well advised to seek appropriate antitrust guidance.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,'' legislation that establishes an antitrust remedy for anticompetitive and discriminatory practices by broadband service providers. I am joined by Representative Lofgren.

Over the last ten years, the Internet has gone from its infancy through a period of exponential growth. Today, it is estimated that over 1.3 billion people use the Internet--that is almost 20 percent of the world's population. In the last 7 years alone, the worldwide use of the Internet has jumped 265 percent.

The Internet has become the dominant venue for the expression of ideas and public discourse. From social networking to get-out-the-vote drives, the Internet is now a leading tool for speech and action. Web sites like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Monster have changed the way people of all ages connect socially and professionally. Political candidates raise more money online with each election cycle. Newspaper Web sites and independent blogs have revolutionized the ways in which news and media are disseminated and consumed. And the Internet has opened up new performance venues to emerging artists and entertainers. In these and many other ways, the technological innovation in communication made possible by the Internet has made it among the most powerful outlets for creativity and free speech.

However, some of the Internet Service Providers, which control 96 percent of the residential market for high-speed Internet access, and are either monopolies or duopolies in most areas of the country, have proposed to give favored treatment to some Internet content and disfavored treatment to other content. Under these proposed business models, what treatment you get will be determined by how much you pay or, potentially, whether the Internet service provider approves of the content or whether the provider has a financial interest at stake. Under these regimes, many of the innovations and ideas that we have enjoyed on the Internet may never have occurred. We would never have had a Google search engine or YouTube videos if ``pay to play'' had been our national policy. To be sure, if we go in this direction, it will stifle both future technological innovation and free speech.

Rather than attempt regulation of the industry, we believe an antitrust remedy is the most appropriate way to deal with the problem. The antitrust laws exist to correct distortions of the free market, where monopolies or cartels have cornered the market, and competition is not being allowed to work. The antitrust laws can help maintain a free and open Internet.

The ``Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008'' amends the Clayton Act to require that broadband service providers interconnect with the facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis. It also requires them to operate their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner so that all content, applications and services are treated the same and have an equal opportunity to reach consumers. The bill expressly preserves the ability of broadband service providers to manage their network, so long as it is done in a nondiscriminatory manner, and the bill allows the operators to give priority to emergency communications and take reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to prevent violations of the law.

Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone and everything. The Internet was designed without gatekeepers for new content and services and without centralized control. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, start-up companies might never be able to offer their products, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available, and the artists and thinkers of our time could find their speech censored.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4279) to enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we move to dramatically step up our Nation's intellectual property laws and enforcement efforts. With so much unpleasant economic news in the headlines, the measure before us, H.R. 4279, puts resources towards aiding a sector of the economy that employs an estimated 18 million workers. That is 13 percent of our labor force and accounts for half of all of the United States exports driving 40 percent of the country's growth.

As a result of less-than-effective enforcement, however, counterfeiting and piracy cost the United States' economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion a year and creates the loss of about 750,000 American jobs.

And so H.R. 4279 will do these important things: It will prioritize intellectual property protection to the highest level of our government by creating an office in the White House that will be responsible for coordinating the intellectual property efforts of eight diverse agencies and producing a national Joint Strategic Plan for IP enforcement. It will elevate IP enforcement within the Department of Justice and provide more resources for investigating and prosecuting IP crimes.

It will make changes to both civil and criminal IP laws to enhance the ability of intellectual property owners to effectively protect their rights, and it will increase penalties for IP violations that endanger public health and safety.

Throughout the process of developing this bill, we heard many expressions of support as well as a number of expressions of concern. But we've been able to work out these issues on a bipartisan basis at every step of the process.

I congratulate the distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, for their cooperation in this process. And so now as a result, the measure is supported by the Consumer Electronics Association, the Digital Media Association, the Net Coalition, the Internet Commerce Coalition, the Coalition for Consumers' Picture Rights, the Printing Industries Association and more.

That is in addition to the support we've already had from the Teamsters, the Directors Guild of America, SEIU, AFTRA, Unite Here, AFM, OPEIU, the Coalition Against Counterfeiting in Piracy, the Motor Equipment Manufacturing Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, PHARMA, and NBC Universal.

Intellectual property protection is among the key issues that will determine American competitiveness in the 21st century. The ability to create, innovate, and generate the best artistic, technological, and knowledge-based intellectual property is the formula for continued growth in the global economy and is fundamental to the promotion of human progress.

This committee of ours, the Judiciary Committee, has given these items involved in the measure extensive consideration, lots of compromise back and forth, and we feel that this bill will make important contributions to the fight against counterfeiting and piracy.

It was reported by voice with strong bipartisan statements of support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise now to yield to my dear friend and chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee who's worked on this subject matter for so many years. Howard Berman has been a bellwether in bringing together the groups, and I'm happy to yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have only one speaker left, but might I say a word about the distinguished ranking member, Lamar Smith of Texas, who's worked with us incredibly, with deliberation. He's brought parties together. There has been an enormous amount of work behind the scenes for which nobody knows how much he's done to make this possible. I thank him publicly.

I now yield the rest of our time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I follow suit and yield back any time remaining on this side.