Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq War has now entered its sixth year. During this time more than 4,000 soldiers have died, almost 30,000 have been injured, and tens of thousands more will suffer mental scars for years to come. The stress of multiple deployments has strained our military, and our military families. Many of our brightest young officers are leaving the military for careers that allow them to have a family, something that is difficult if not impossible when they are being asked to return to Iraq every 12 months. In addition, the economic cost of this war has been nothing short of staggering. The United States has already spent more than five hundred billion dollars in Iraq, or about $5000 for every household in America. Our children and our grandchildren will be paying off this debt for years to come.

After all the lives lost and money spent, this President has still failed to articulate what our mission in Iraq is, and what strategic goals he still hopes to accomplish. That is why I have introduced legislation that would require the President to have our troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, and also why I do not support giving the Pentagon another $162 billion it can use to wage this war for another year after the next President is sworn in.

While I do not support further funding for this war beyond the President's term in office, I do support the provisions that have been attached conditioning this funding to a timeline for withdrawal, prohibiting the use of torture, holding contractors operating in Iraq responsible for fraud and other criminal activity, stopping the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and requiring the President to submit any long term security agreement he reaches with the Government of Iraq to Congress for approval. For too long this President has been given a blank check with which to pursue his Iraq policies, and I am glad that the House of Representatives will once again attempt to hold him accountable for his mismanagement of this war.

It must be pointed out that this vote is not a vote against the troops. Those who are serving our country in Iraq are performing admirably under difficult circumstances. Congress has already provided funds for the Department of Defense and war operations for Fiscal Year 2008. This vote won't endanger the troops' safety in any way, but it does send a signal to the President that he should begin the process of bringing them home.

I also support the decision to include in this legislation funding for other important Democratic priorities that will help boost our economy. Overall, these measures make up only a small fraction of the total cost of the bill, but they are targeted to make a big impact here at home. Not only will they give much needed assistance to the unemployed, veterans, and other vulnerable people, but these provisions will play an important role in stimulating the lagging economy.

For example, the supplemental package includes a bill I introduced that will place a temporary moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These regulations, if allowed to stay in place, would reduce or eliminate payments for services provided to vulnerable Americans and the institutions that serve them: children with disabilities, people with mental illness, those with multiple care needs, people attempting to transition from an institution to a community living environment, and people with disabilities who need these critical services, such as rehabilitation services and case management, in order to remain in their community. In Michigan, the rehabilitation rule would cut rehabilitation services for 15,000 children with special needs, eliminate habilitation services for another 29,000 developmentally disabled adults and children living in the community, and eliminate access to critical community services and resources for 23,600 adults and 5,100 children who are in supported independent living arrangements or group homes.

The supplemental will also contain legislation I cosponsored to extend Unemployment Compensation, a provision that will greatly help the residents of Michigan's 15th Congressional District which I have the honor of serving. The National Employment Law Project projects that from May 2008 through March 2009, more than 162,000 workers will exhaust their benefits in Michigan, and that currently over 64,000 have already exhausted this benefit. By including this legislation in today's supplemental package Congress will be helping 226,590 workers in Michigan who desperately need the extra boost, while also giving a much needed boost to the economy.

This bill will also provide expanded G.I. Benefits for Veterans Education, restoring the promise of a 4 year college education to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. As a veteran of World War II, I know how instrumental the original G.I. Bill was in expanding economic opportunity, growing the middle class, and creating a strong and vibrant post-war economy. The President and some of his Republican colleagues, including Senator McCain, are opposed to providing increased educational opportunities to today's generation of veterans because they fear it will discourage men and women currently serving from reenlisting. I find it highly disturbing that the President and his colleagues would withhold these much needed benefits to those who have served our country so admirably, and I would advise them that the quickest way to fix our military's retention problem would be to put an end to the misguided Iraq war that has so seriously damaged morale.

Another provision that I strongly support provides $675 million to assist refugees, with the bulk of that money going to address the growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. I asked the President to include $1.5 billion in his budget for increased U.S. spending in the region, increased U.S. contributions to United Nations appeals for Iraqi refugees, and increased bilateral assistance for our allies, such as Jordan, that are struggling to deal with huge numbers of Iraqi refugees within their borders. Unfortunately this request was denied, and I am very pleased that I was able to work with my Democratic colleagues to see to it that some of these funds were made available in the Supplemental.

No matter what we do here today, the President has made it clear that he intends to keep 160,000 troops in Iraq as long as he is in office. While I am disappointed that it appears the President has no interest in ending the war on his watch, I am pleased the Democratic Congress has gone on record as being opposed to that plan, and has put in place the kind of timelines and restrictions required for us to begin to bring our troops home. I also think it is wholly appropriate to include funding for domestic priorities in an emergency supplemental spending bill. Just as the President's mishandling of the Iraq war has caused a crisis in the Middle East, his mismanagement of the economy has created a crisis here at home for millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for a particular provision in the Supplemental Appropriations legislation, H.R. 2642.

Included in this bill is legislation that I introduced with Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania. The ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008'' is a simple, straightforward bill that would place a temporary moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The Committee on Energy and Commerce recently reported the bill with unanimous support. The House then passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 349 to 62.

These Medicaid regulations in question, if allowed to stay in place, would reduce or eliminate payments for services provided to vulnerable Americans and the institutions that serve them. They would affect children with disabilities, people with mental illness, those with multiple care needs, people attempting to transition from an institution to a community living environment, and people with disabilities who need services, such as rehabilitation services and case management in order to remain in their community. The regulations would also eliminate funding for school-based outreach and enrollment, and funding that helps safety net providers care for indigent and under-insured patients in our communities.

In my home State of Michigan, the rehabilitation rule would cut services for 15,000 children with special needs, eliminate services for another 29,000 developmentally disabled adults and children and eliminate access to critical community services and resources for 23,600 adults and 5,100 children who are in supported independent living arrangements or group homes.

The Administration's arguments for supporting these regulations simply do not hold water. These regulations go beyond any justifiable point to curb abuses in the system. Rather, they represent a misguided effort to shift costs to States and prohibit Federal support for legitimate expenditures on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries.

More than 2,000 organizations representing beneficiaries, providers, schools, and States have written to lend their support to this initiative, from ``A'', such as the American Hospital Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, to ``Z,'' the Zion Lutheran Elementary School in Nebraska. The chorus of support has been overwhelming.

I would also like to take a moment to commend Chairman Pallone and Ranking Members Barton and Deal who worked to prepare the bill for rapid action in Committee and the House floor.

I also wish to thank Chairman Obey for including the Medicaid legislation in the supplemental appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, this legislation represents a fair, common sense solution that will allow homeowners to stay in their homes, and help stabilize the housing market. I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Frank for his hard work on this legislation, which will be of critical importance in Michigan, where are there are thousands of homeowners in danger of foreclosure. I am especially pleased that this bill includes legislation which I cosponsored that would provide up to $300 billion in new loan guarantees to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages. In addition, this legislation includes important provisions that expand homeownership opportunities for veterans, seniors, and first-time homebuyers.

This legislation will help both homeowners and lenders, but this is no bailout. Lenders who participate will have to take a loss, but their losses under this program will be far less than if these properties go into foreclosure. Borrowers who realize a profit when they sell their home must return some of that profit to the government. The United States provided similar leadership during the New Deal using a program run by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC). Much like the HOLC, this program stands to save millions of homes from foreclosure at a minimum cost to the taxpayers.

I would especially like to thank Chairman Frank for his assistance in securing passage of a provision important to the residents of Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti, Michigan. I have been working for 4 years now to try to facilitate the transfer of this property to Ypsilanti Housing Authority. Chairman Frank and the staff of the Financial Services Committee have been instrumental in these efforts, which are designed to clarify Congressional intent regarding certain properties that entered the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) property disposition process prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) but where the initial proposed disposition was delayed.

While I believe that Parkview is already subject to the grandfathering provision of the DRA, this provision clarifies that such properties should be considered ``pre-DRA'' properties, and that HUD should proceed with its prior disposition contracts as to those properties. This provision is one of many that was included in legislation that passed the House last year, and is now being included in this bill as part of a comprehensive housing package. This legislation is of the utmost importance to the Congress, and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon be enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4040) to establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the motion to instruct under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the thoroughly bipartisan legislation underlying this motion. I begin with a commendation to my good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Barton, the ranking minority member, and the other members of the subcommittee and full committee who have worked so hard on this legislation on both sides of the aisle.

I would observe that this is a thoroughly bipartisan piece of legislation. It passed out of the committee 51-0, and it passed the House 407-0. It is one of the most important consumer protection bills to come before this House in this Congress. It is crucially important for us to have such legislation signed into law this year. And I want to point out that without it, people will remain at risk from dangerous products and from an important Federal regulator who will remain both underfunded and incapable of acting properly to take care of consumers' legitimate concerns with regard to the safety of all manner of products from toys from the very beginning of life right through the time that we enter the graveyard.

On December 19, 2007, the House passed this legislation then without a dissenting vote. It represents extraordinary work by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it shows how bipartisanship can function, and it shows how an excellent staff on both sides of the aisle working together can bring before us legislation that is in the broad overall public interest. The Senate substituted its version of the bill on March 6, 2008. Some elements of the Senate bill are problematic, but others are indeed worthy of serious consideration by the conference committee. The differences between the two bills are outweighed by their similarities. There is no reason why the House conferees should not return here in short order with a workable, balanced, and strong conference report deserving the full support of the House and upon which I intend to work closely with my good friends on the minority side, as we have so far.

I want to remind my colleagues what the House bill does. It bans lead beyond the most minute amount in products intended for children under 12 years of age. It mandates premarket testing by certified laboratories for lead and other hazards in children's products, and it sees that those laboratories are properly qualified and able to carry out their important responsibilities. It places requirements on manufacturers to enhance recalls. It empowers the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to share information about dangerous products immediately. It requires CPSC to provide public access to a database of serious injuries and deaths caused by consumer products, but it does so requiring also that the information be truthful, correct, and properly verified. It prohibits the sale and export of recalled products. It ensures that CPSC effectively shares information with the States. And it bans industry-sponsored travel by CPSC Commissioners and their staff.

I want to observe that the motion is a good one. I support it. I commend my

good friend from Kentucky for his offering of it and for his leadership in the handling of this legislation.

I again want to pay my respects and compliments to my colleagues on the Republican side and to my colleagues on this side for the outstanding way in which they have put together this legislation.

I urge that the House support the motion to instruct offered by my good friend from Kentucky.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6022) to suspend the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have long supported filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and strongly support the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provision that directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the reserve ``as expeditiously as practicable'' to the full 1 billion barrel capacity authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, however, also requires that the Secretary time SPR acquisitions in a manner that does not incur excessive costs or do not appreciably affect the consumer price of petroleum products.

On May 8, I wrote the President urging him to direct the Secretary of Energy not to enter into any new contracts to fill the SPR during calendar year 2008. This, regrettably, is what the Department of Energy has proposed to do under an April 4 solicitation for royalty-in-kind oil to be delivered between August and December of this year. In light of the record cost of oil and resulting hardship for average Americans, businesses, farmers, and the general economy, I believe it would be imprudent for DOE to take these barrels off the market.

While there is no guarantee that putting this oil onto the market rather than into the SPR will lower prices, even such a modest step could potentially prick the speculative bubble now characterizing oil markets. In 2006, DOE suspended filling SPR during the summer driving season, and that is what is appropriate for it to do now.

While it is in the discretion of DOE whether or not to enter into new contracts at this time, the administration seems determined to forge ahead. Common sense would say to us not to take the oil off the market at a time of record high prices. Given the administration's apparent determination to pursue this course, the Congress must act and I support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) be permitted to control the remainder of the time on this side.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a fair, commonsense solution that will give assistance to communities struggling to deal with the problem of vacant homes, help stabilize the housing market, and help low income families obtain a home they can afford and be proud of.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Act will make available to communities throughout the Nation $15 billion in new zero interest loans and grants for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties. State and local governments have been hit hard by the foreclosure crisis not only because they have been stuck with the bill for maintaining and securing vacant homes, but also because they face decreased property tax revenues. Not only are these properties off the tax rolls, but empty houses drive down the value of other homes in the neighborhood which further decreases tax revenues.

Just as important, this bill will get these homes occupied by families who truly need them. A priority will be given to low income families, families who have lost a home through foreclosure, as well as first responders, veterans, public school teachers, and homeless persons.

This measure will bring almost $600 million in assistance to the State of Michigan at a time when it is badly needed. Michigan has been particularly hard hit by the President's misguided economic policies, most especially his failure to address the foreclosure crisis. I sincerely hope that the President, who approved a $30 billion bailout for the investment bank Bear Steams, will see to it to sign and implement this bill which will provide much needed assistance to State and local governments.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a fair, common sense solution that will allow homeowners to stay in their homes and help stabilize the housing market. I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Frank for his hard work on this legislation, which will be of critical importance in Michigan, where there are thousands of homeowners in danger of foreclosure. I am especially pleased that this bill includes legislation which I cosponsored that would provide up to $300 billion in new loan guarantees to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages. In addition, this legislation includes important provisions that expand homeownership opportunities for veterans, seniors, and first-time homebuyers.

This legislation will help both homeowners and lenders, but this is no bailout. Lenders who participate will have to take a loss, but their losses under this program will be far less than if these properties go into foreclosure. Borrowers who realize a profit when they sell their home must return some of that profit to the government. The United States provided similar leadership during the New Deal using a program run by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, HOLC. Much like the HOLC, this program stands to save millions of homes from foreclosure at a minimum cost to the taxpayers.

I would especially like to thank Chairman Frank for his assistance in securing passage of a provision important to the residents of Parkview Apartments in Ypsilanti, Michigan. I have been working for four years now to try to facilitate the transfer of this property to Ypsilanti Housing Authority. Chairman Frank and the staff of the Financial Services Committee have been instrumental in these efforts, which are designed to clarify Congressional intent regarding certain properties that entered the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, property disposition process prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, but where the initial proposed disposition was delayed.

While I believe that Parkview is already subject to the grandfathering provision of the DRA, this provision clarifies that such properties should be considered ``pre-DRA'' properties, and that HUD should proceed with its prior disposition contracts as to those properties. This provision is one of many that was included in legislation that passed the House last year, and is now being included in this bill as part of a comprehensive housing package. This legislation is of the utmost importance to the Congress, and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon be enacted into law.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, today we consider H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I first wish to congratulate Representative Slaughter for her leadership on this bill on which she has worked for better than 13 years. It has been a privilege to join her in that work, and I am delighted that it has brought us to today's vote.

Recent advances in research have made it possible to identify the genetic basis for human diseases. These breakthroughs, magnificent as they are, have opened the door to early detection and treatment of diseases and prevention strategies geared to a person's genetic makeup. At the same time, this information can also be used to unfairly discriminate against or stigmatize individuals when it comes to insurance and employment.

To protect individuals from insurance discrimination, H.R. 493 would prohibit health insurers, both in group and individual markets, from canceling, denying, refusing to renew or changing the terms or premiums of coverage based solely on genetic predispositions towards specific diseases.

Additionally, in order to protect individuals from employment discrimination, this bill would make it unlawful for employers or other hiring entities to use an individual's genetic information regarding hiring, firing, promotion or other terms and conditions of employment. The legislation requires that genetic information be treated as a part of the individual's confidential medical record and that employers maintain separate forms or files for any genetic information that they may obtain.

The House of Representatives passed this legislation a year ago with a strong bipartisan vote of 420-3. Unfortunately, the measure has been held up in the Senate, as usual. With these concerns now resolved, we are close to providing Americans the ability to undergo genetic testing that may indicate early treatment and prevention of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's, without fear of losing their health insurance or affecting adversely the conditions of their employment.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The bill currently before us includes clarifying language intended to ease the concerns of some of my colleagues and is identical to the version passed by the Senate last week. These changes include a firewall between title I and II of the bill. The modifications clarify that employers are not liable for health insurance violations under civil rights laws unless the employer has separately violated a provision of title II governing employers.

The changes also make it clear that while individuals are protected from discrimination based on genetic predisposition, the authority of insurance companies to base coverage and pricing on the actual presence of a disease is not affected.

These changes broaden the base of support for the bill and allow us to bring it to the House floor with the expectation that it will be signed into law by the President.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill and for coming together to make this legislation a reality.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the remainder of my time to my distinguished friend from California, the Honorable George Miller, chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, and that he be permitted to yield that time in accordance with his whims.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007. This bill has many provisions which will improve homeland security, ensure safe navigation and enhance shipping reliability, among other measures. However, I would particularly like to draw my colleagues' attention to the ballast water protections in this bill.

As a member who hails from the Great Lakes State, I am perhaps more familiar than most with the havoc invasive species can reap on our waterways. I would note that in its 2005 report, the Great Lakes Collaboration stated that the world's greatest freshwater lakes are ``succumbing to an irreversible `invasional meltdown' that may be more severe than chemical pollution.'' There are currently 185 invasive species in the Great Lakes and another is discovered, on average, every 28 weeks!

Invasive species cost the Federal Government about $1.3 billion per year and it is estimated that 42 percent of plants and animals on the Threatened and Endangered Species List are at risk because of alien species. Aquatic invasives pose a particular threat because of their ability to spread quickly through connected waterways.

Ballast water, which is used to stabilize freighters, is taken on board before a voyage begins. It can often contain organisms which become invasive species when released in navigable waters. For the reasons outlined above, ballast water represents a significant threat to our Great Lakes.

To its credit, the National Park Service has already taken steps to prevent ballast water from spreading a deadly fish virus known as VHS in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. But much more must be done to protect the Great Lakes and other waterways from the exotic species contained in ballast water.

H.R. 2830 takes these necessary steps. This legislation for the first time creates strong ballast water management treatment standards in statute and requires that ballast water treatment technology be installed on board beginning next year. In addition, the bill requires all discharged ballast water to be thoroughly treated and implements tougher standards beginning in 2012, with a goal of zero species in discharged water by 2015. The manager's amendment to the bill also includes clarifying provisions to ensure that ballast water management activities are properly reported, so that freighters can be held accountable for complying with the law.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman James Oberstar, for his hard work on this important legislation. We in the Great Lakes region are lucky to have one of our own, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, overseeing these matters. I urge all of my colleagues to support this critically important bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in observance of the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman government detained hundreds of clergymen, professionals, intellectuals, and other political and community leaders. This marked the opening of a campaign of genocide that over the next 2 years would lead to the deaths of a million and a half Armenians.

It is important to both remember this event, and to acknowledge it as genocide. Not only does it allow us to pay proper respect to those who lost their lives in Armenia at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, but it also helps us to comprehend the malevolent and inhumane events that take place in our global community today. Ethnic conflict and sectarian fighting remain an urgent issue for both the U.S. and the international community to address. The historical lessons and the exchange of ideas that flow from an honest discussion about the genocide that took place in Armenia can help us take steps to prevent further atrocities from occurring in our time.

It is my hope that today's observation and reflection on the genocide in Armenia is part of a renewed effort of focusing our efforts towards the goal of understanding and eliminating the circumstances under which genocide can exist.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 323) expressing Congressional support for the goals and ideals of National Health Care Decisions Day.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time. My good friend from Georgia, I know, has some important comments.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5613) to extend certain moratoria and impose additional moratoria on certain Medicaid regulations through April 1, 2009, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008. This is a bipartisan bill, critically important to our Nation's safety net. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported it favorably with a strong bipartisan vote of 46-0.

I want to commend and thank our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Pallone, and our distinguished colleague and cosponsor of the legislation, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, for their leadership on this matter. And I want to express to my good friends and the ranking members on the committee and the subcommittee, Mr. Barton and Mr. Deal, for their superb cooperation.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the Committees on Ways and Means and Financial Services for the splendid cooperation and help they gave us in moving this legislation to the floor expeditiously. The support of Chairmen Rangel and Stark were both necessary and very much appreciated.

H.R. 5613 places a 1-year moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The regulations would have restricted payments to critical safety net providers such as hospitals and nursing homes, as well as payments for graduate medical education training. The regulation would have reduced or eliminated payments that allow children with severe mental illness to remain in family settings, and payments to schools transporting poor children with disabilities. The Governors of all 50 States oppose these rules, as do the State Medicaid directors, State legislators, and the National Association of Counties.

More than 2,000 national and local groups such as the American Hospital Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the March of Dimes support this legislation. They know of the devastating effect these rules would have upon local communities, upon the hospitals, and upon vulnerable beneficiaries.

Without this moratorium, schools would be forced to lay off workers starting in June. Hospitals and nursing homes would be forced to cut off services and to lay off workers as well. In troublesome economic times, we cannot afford to lose good-paying jobs or to cut services that enable people with disabilities to be gainfully employed.

H.R. 5613 will postpone the implementation of these seven rules for 1 year, giving Congress time to evaluate the effect they would have on States, providers and beneficiaries.

I want to again commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including my dear friend, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Deal for their leadership and hard work on this matter. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5613.

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

Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

I want to again commend my friend from Texas for his superb performance on this legislation. And I want to assure him that I share his concerns on the intergovernmental transfer matter, and that we will be going into it. I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) worked very hard on this important

legislation and is a cosponsor of it. Regrettably, he is detained, unfortunately, on an aircraft and is not able to be with us today to speak in favor of this bill on which he worked so hard. And I want the Record to show that the House owes the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) a real debt of thanks for his hard work here and for his remarkable leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my dear friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again my colleague from Texas. He is always a gentleman.

I want to note that last night the Commerce Committee dedicated a picture hung in the committee in honor of our good friend Mr. Barton. It is a fine-looking picture of a distinguished former chairman of the committee, and I would urge my colleagues, if they want to look at a distinguished Member of this body hanging on the wall in the committee and to look at a very fine piece of art, they should come over and see the excellent picture of our good friend Mr. Barton hanging there in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. Israel established itself as a sovereign nation on May 14, 1948. Since that time, it has been a close friend and ally to the United States.

Throughout the beginning of the 20th Century and in the aftermath of the Nazi Holocaust, millions of Jews from around the world found a home in Israel. Serving as the representative for Michigan's 15th Congressional District, my father, John D. Dingell, Sr., was an outspoken proponent for the establishment of a Jewish homeland and subsequent U.S. recognition of Israel's sovereignty. In my tenure in the House. I proudly followed his lead, encouraging close diplomatic, economic, and strategic ties with our fellow democratic nation.

Since its independence, Israel, the ``keystone in the arch of peace'' in the Middle East, as my father put it, has dealt with its share of crisis and wars. The United States stood by as its partner and friend and has served over the years as the chief broker in negotiations between Israel and its neighbors. It is imperative the United States continue in these efforts and continue to foster a close friendship with Israel, as a nation that shares our ideals and values. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today, and honor the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 312, the House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009.

There are a number of reasons why the President's budget was considered ``dead on arrival'' by Members of this House. I can think of five off of the top of my head--(1) $200 billion in cut funding over 5 years from Medicare and Medicaid; (2) $570 million in cut funding from the Low Income Home Heating Assistance Program; (3) $800 million cut from the Federal-Aid Highways Administration; (4) $85 million from the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 5) $59 million cut from the Migration and Refugee Assistance. The icing on the cake--the President proposed freezing spending for the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Institutes of Health.

If this is not a sign that this President is out of tune with the American people, then I would advise this President that he spend more time reading the mail that comes to his office and less time on his ranch in Crawford.

With today's budget resolution, the House is holding true to its commitment to the American people and the priorities of our families. Frankly, there is no excuse to continue to neglect the families that need help from their government.

Recently the Congressional Budget Office projected that under the current policies of this administration the budget deficit will reach $396 billion in 2008 and $342 billion in 2009. These are the second and fourth largest deficits ever. I would remind my colleagues that when this administration took office we were fortunate to have a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. For a President who continues to advocate for fiscal responsibility, it appears to me that he has not followed his own advice.

Currently, 80 cents of every dollar of new debt since 2001 is owed to foreign investors. This is not a trend that we will let continue. Unlike the Bush administration, the Democratic Budget will be balanced by 2012 and will remain in balance in 2013. Furthermore, we will reduce the deficits over the next 5 years while continuing to follow pay-as- you-go.

The Democratic Budget also holds true to its commitment to our veterans by increasing funding for 2009 by $3.6 billion above the current level. At the same time that the administration is demanding more and more from our troops, they have also shamefully proposed $18 billion over 5 years in new fees for veterans and military retirees. Our troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan honorably and dutifully and they deserve to come home to quality health care and strong education benefits. This budget will allow the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, 333,275 of which are Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

On January 20, the Commission on the Guard and Reserve issued a report announcing that the military is not ready for a catastrophic attack on the country. More worrisome is the conclusion that the National Guard is ill-trained and ill-equipped to handle the job. The Democratic budget addresses this issue by focusing on improving military readiness and enhancing the pay and benefits for our troops in order to improve their quality of life.

In the last 7 years, this Administration has failed to support our first responder programs, firefighter assistance grants and the Community Oriented Policing Services. The Democratic budget proposes to reverse this trend by placing a high priority on restoring funding. It is imperative that while we are assisting those abroad with their security needs, that we are also supporting our own domestic security needs.

I am proud to say that this budget proposal will also follow through on our commitment to expand children's health insurance coverage by providing a $50 billion increase to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) so that we can provide healthcare to millions more children who otherwise would go uninsured. As we all witnessed last year, the President vetoed legislation expanding SCHIP on two occasions. In my home state of Michigan we have seen the number of uninsured increase to 10.7 percent of Michigan's population. Rather than making healthcare coverage less accessible, Congress must be doing everything it can to ensure that every individual who wants healthcare coverage has the means to get it.

The Democratic budget also rejects the proposed $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. There is no doubt that this President does not place the health of our families on the top of his priority list, however, his budget did ensure that his fat cat friends in the insurance industry would still receive the overpayments to private managed care plans. I am pleased to say that the House has proposed $1.9 trillion in mandatory spending programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As we have seen college costs and tuitions skyrocket, this President has proposed freezing funding to the Department of Education. The President has again failed to provide funding for No Child Left Behind (NCLB), providing only $24.6 billion for 2009, making the cumulative shortfall for NCLB $85.6 billion. On top of this, the President has proposed cutting Teacher Quality State Grants by $100 million. At a time when we are asking our teachers and schools to meet rigorous standards of NCLB, how can we cut funding from a program designed to assist with professional development?

The Democratic budget rejects these cuts by providing $7.1 billion for education and job training above the President's proposal. If we want to turn our economy around we must have workers that are well- trained and equipped to compete in the global market. However, to do so we must address rising college costs. In the last year the average tuition and fees to attend a four-year in-state public college increased 6.6 percent to $6,185, and for a four-year private college families are facing a bill of $23,712. This budget resolution will help parents and students pay for college raising the maximum Pell grant and continuing Perkins Loans and Supplemental Opportunity Grants.

The Democratic budget provides funding that is crucial for job creation. As we have seen here at home, our economy is heading towards a recession. From 2001-2006 alone, Michigan lost 235,000 jobs, many of them high-paying manufacturing jobs. With the rising unemployment rate, it is clear that we need to invest in our workers and new industries that would promote job creation here at home.

This budget provides critical funding for the America COMPETES Act increasing funding for math and science education and research. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which was drastically cut under the President's budget, will receive continued funding which will help to retain 37,000 jobs. It also supports the trade adjustment assistance program, which would provide 130,000 workers with both income support and access to training.

In the past year we have witnessed the danger of our neglected infrastructure in the tragedy of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Until the next surface transportation bill, we must ensure that our roads and bridges are receiving the funding and support needed to be safe and secure for our communities. We must also address the negative effects of the rising costs in fuel. Congestion on our roads has resulted in 26 gallons of wasted fuel per person, costing our constituents $78 billion annually.

Over the years we have heard time and again from the President that we must decrease our dependence on foreign oil, yet he has proposed cutting funding for our highway and transit programs, mass transit expansions and Amtrak by $2 billion below authorized levels. The Democrats will not stand for this and instead propose increasing the investment in transportation infrastructure by $41.2 billion for highway programs, $10.3 billion for transit, $1.3 billion for highway safety and $3.9 billion in airport improvement grants. This will save our constituents delays on the roads and in the airports and reduce pollution and fuel needs.

Just this week it was announced that Michigan is sixth in the nation for foreclosures; nationally almost 2.8 million homeowners are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosures. Last year the House passed legislation that would create an affordable housing fund, which is currently awaiting Senate consideration. This budget takes a step forward by providing needed funding for the $2.8 billion shortfall for the project-based rental assistance program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and provides funding for tenant-based rental assistance.

The Democratic budget would also help those that are struggling with home heating costs by rejecting the President's cut to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistant Program. Since 2001, home heating costs have gone up by 80 percent. There is no reason our families should be choosing between groceries and heat during the tough winter months.

While the President can propose cutting funding, Congress will continue to provide funding for bipartisan programs such as our water and natural resources programs. This budget rejects the proposed $2.9 billion in cuts and instead invests in water infrastructure that

will promote and protect our clean and safe drinking water supplies.

The Democratic budget provides tax relief for the middle class families that need it most. The Democratic budget will continue the tax cuts for the middle class, while also preventing 20 million families from being subject to the alternative minimum tax.

Finally, earlier this year, I wrote a letter to Chairman Spratt requesting that he keep in mind the plight of the millions of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons when preparing the budget priorities for this year. I am happy that he was able to include language in the Committee Report accompanying the budget document recognizing this humanitarian crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that not only have we received the last budget proposal from this Administration, but it is also the last budget of empty promises. I look forward to passing the Democratic budget resolution proving Congress's commitment to our American families. More importantly, I look forward to working next year with my colleagues and the next Administration to develop a fiscally responsible budget that will finally put the needs of our country first.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the original Patriot Act, I voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005, I voted against the President's Protect America Act that was signed into law last August, and I remain prepared to vote against any legislation that does not adequately protect our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. I have some concerns about this legislation. I don't believe it is perfect. However, I am prepared to vote in support of it today as a sign that we in the House are prepared to negotiate a bipartisan solution that will end the deadlock on this issue.

I note that the President has already rejected this overture, and once again insisted that he will veto any bill that does not grant blanket amnesty to the telecommunications companies that are alleged to have assisted the Bush Administration in conducting illegal warrantless wiretap programs. It is unfortunate that the President has taken this position, but I can assure him that there are those of us who will not be moved by his intransigence.

I have repeatedly asked the Bush Administration to provide me with a briefing about the warrantless wiretap programs that took place without Congressional authorization so I could determine for myself whether amnesty is justified, and these requests have been repeatedly denied. After seven years of lies and obfuscation, I refuse to take the President at his word that amnesty for telecommunications companies is in the best interest of the American people, and I refuse to vote for amnesty until I am given the opportunity to review the evidence supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the following letters of support for H.R. 1424, the Paul WeIIstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, be submitted for the record on the floor debate on this bill.

National Association of State

Mental Health Program Directors,

Alexandria, VA, February 29, 2008.

Hon. Patrick J. Kennedy,

Hon. Jim Ramstad,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad: On behalf of the

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors

(NASMHPD). I am writing to offer our strong support for H.R.

1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity

Act of 2007. NASMHPD represents state and territorial mental

health commissioners/directors and their agencies that

provide public mental health services to over 6 million

people annually. Our members manage community-based systems

of care as well as inpatient care in state psychiatric

hospitals for individuals with serious mental illness.

It has been over ten years since the Congress passed the

Mental Health Parity Act, which prohibited annual and

lifetime dollar limits for mental health care. This small but

symbolically important first step left much work to be done;

it is now the time to fill remaining gaps by prohibiting

treatment limitations and eliminating inequitable financial

requirements. An ever-growing body of research, advanced

especially during and since the 1990-2000 Decade of the

Brain, demonstrates that mental and behavioral disorders are

brain disorders and benefit in the same way as other physical

disorders from advances in science. Scientific knowledge of

mental illness has removed all justification for the wide-

spread difference in insurance coverage for mental health

benefits.

An October 2006 NASMHPD study describes an alarming finding

that people with mental illness experience twenty-five years

of lost life. This is an unconscionable situation that

demands immediate action, for all adults and children with

mental illness who now

face such terrible odds against living a long and healthy

life. The harsh reality of poor health for those with mental

illness requires new approaches to integrate mental health

and general health. Enacting a strong mental health parity

law has the potential to measurably improve the health status

of individuals with mental illness who suffer other dire

health consequences.

The states' mental health directors commend you for your

leadership on this critical national priority. We are pleased

to add our voice to the growing chorus of support that was so

clearly demonstrated during your highly successful ``Equity

Campaign Tour'' along with the 273 co-sponsors of H.R. 1424.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Glover,

Executive Director.

American Psychiatric Association,

Arlington, VA, March 5, 2008.

Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the American

Psychiatric Association (APA), the medical specialty

representing more than 38,000 psychiatric physicians

nationwide, and particularly on behalf of our patients and

their families, to urge you to vote for passage of mental

health ``parity'' legislation (H.R. 1424) on March 5, and to

oppose any weakening amendments and/or motions to recommit.

Mental illnesses have a devastating impact on millions of

Americans every day. The good news is that treatment works,

but too many insurance plans impose discriminatory cost-

sharing and treatment limits on mental health care that are

not required for treatment of any other illnesses. For nearly

a decade, the Federal Employees Benefits program has required

insurers to provide parity coverage for mental health care.

Research has shown that the parity requirement has not led to

any significant cost increase for federal employees

(including Members of Congress and their staff). Surely the

public at large deserves the same coverage?

Opponents of the House bill are circulating outrageous and

false claims about what the House bill does. I am attaching a

brief fact sheet that sets the record straight. Please feel

free to share this with your House colleagues.

The members of the APA have been pleased to work with the

House Blue Dogs over the years, and look forward to a

productive relationship in the years ahead. Please reject the

blatant disinformation being circulated by parity opponents

and vote for passage of H.R. 1424. It is long past time for

Congress to act.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Carolyn B. Robinowitz,

President.

American Psychiatric Association Response to Controversy About DSM-IV

and Mental Health Parity--March 2008

Business and insurance opposition to passage of H.R. 1424

in part involves opposition to the use of the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) to define

those conditions that must be covered by health plans under

the terms of the bill. Let's look at a few of these claims:

DSM-IV obligates employers to cover jet lag, caffeine

intoxication, and similar conditions:

Fact: This is nonsense. These claims typically refer to so-

called ``V Codes.'' These are not DSM diagnoses, The V Codes

are developed by the World Health Organization for the

International Classification of Diseases (or ICD), not by the

APA for the DSM. They are listed in DSM as a courtesy to

facilitate coding and cross-walking between DSM and the ICD,

and they are intended to allow clinicians to identify the

types of non-diagnostic problems that are brought to their

attention.

Because it is ``so broad,'' using DSM to set baseline

coverage will force insurers and employers to pay for

treatments for the most minor of conditions.

Fact: This argument is based on the false premise that

diagnosis and treatment are one and the same. This is

absolutely false. Simply because a diagnosis is made does not

obligate insurers to pay for treatment, and nothing in H.R.

1424 changes that fact. Treatment would still be subject to

the same medical necessity decision-making and utilization

review that is in effect today. The appropriate treatment for

jet lag would almost certainly be ``get some sleep.'' Members

of the House should demand that employers who argue about jet

lag and caffeine intoxication provide data showing they have

incurred any appreciable costs because they have been forced

to pay for treatment.

DSM-IV will codify a treatment mandate.

Fact: False. This claim confuses diagnosis with treatment.

Once again, DSM-IV is not a treatment mandate, it is a

diagnostic tool. In fact, employers and insurers don't want

you to know that they use DSM every day to limit and in some

cases deny treatment under terms of medical necessity.

The American Psychiatric Association has a vested interest

in having DSM-IV written into federal law, creating an

improper conflict of interest.

Fact: DSM-IV is widely recognized as the leading and

internationally authoritative text for the diagnosis of

mental illness. It is the product of exhaustive research and

deliberation over a six-year period involving more than 1,000

individuals and numerous professional organizations, as well

as agencies of the Federal Government. As a result, DSM-IV is

referenced and has legal standing in more than 900 federal

and state laws and regulations. The major legal reason why

states and the Federal Government have used DSM-IV instead of

ICD-9-CM is to insist on a higher and more precise standard

for defining a mental disorder. Are employers and insurers

proposing to ban any references to CPT-Codes in federal law,

or use of ICD-9-CM codes for billing purposes? Of course not.

Why is DSM-IV any different?

The House of Representatives is poised to take a truly

historic step toward ending insurance discrimination against

Americans seeking help for mental illnesses, including

substance-related disorders. Please do not allow the

deliberate distortions and outright falsehoods about DSM-IV

asserted by business and insurance groups to influence your

vote. The 38,000 psychiatric physician members of the

American Psychiatric Association urge you vote for passage of

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns about the resolution before us today. First, I am concerned that granting the power and authority to investigate Members of Congress to an independent, outside entity cedes away too much of the power granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution of the United States. We need to be clear about what it is we are doing today; we are altering the scheme created by Framers of the Constitution in a way that weakens this body.

The Constitution grants Members of Congress important protections that allow us to carry out our official duties free from the threat of investigation by an outside entity. Among other things, the immunity provided by the speech and debate clause allows us too vigorously pursue our oversight responsibilities without fear of retribution. Rather than allow some outside body to decide the standards that should be used to judge whether a Member of Congress is capable and responsible enough to carry out his or her duties, the Constitution vests that power in the voters, and with Congress itself.

I understand the problem that this resolution is attempting to address: People in this country are losing faith in the institutions of government. I believe that delegating the authority for investigating Members of Congress to an outside entity only confirms these fears. I believe that rather than giving into the skepticism and cynicism inherent in this view, we need to show people that government is responsible and that it can work.

If the Committee on Standards and Conduct is no longer capable of carrying out this responsibility, by all means we should find a way to reform it, empower it, and give it the tools it needs to uphold the integrity of this body. However, it seems to me that it would be unwise and unnecessary for us to tell the American people that we are no longer capable of policing our own.

Regardless of what we do here today, it will remain up to the voters to decide who represents them in this body. As the dean of the House, I have had the privilege to serve in this body and represent the people of my District for many years. During my time in the House I have witnessed politicians be indicted, be forced to resign because of public pressure, and be investigated and reprimanded by the House. I have also seen politicians accused of wrongdoing, or tarnished by the mere appearance of wrongdoing, who have been given the opportunity to make their case before the voters and return to this body.

In today's world, where the Internet and 24 hour cable news amplify and repeat almost any charge, regardless of its veracity, it seems unlikely that many Members of Congress will be able to avoid public scrutiny if they commit illegal or unethical acts. The question before us is not whether we want those who commit such acts to go unpunished, but what is the best way to ensure that they are held accountable. While I respect the views of those who believe an independent office is necessary, I cannot bring myself to agree. Ultimately, I will place my faith in the voters and in this body to ensure that the House of Representatives remains a strong and honorable institution.