Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was not present on April 22, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall No. 205, Rollcall No. 206, Rollcall No. 207.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Christian Albert McGrain, the first baby born in New Jersey in 2008. Christian was born 26 seconds after midnight on January 1, 2008 at St. Peters University Hospital in New Brunswick. NJ to proud parents Jacqueline Dempsey McGrain and Michael McGrain. Christian is the pride and joy of his grandparents Albert and Carol McGrain, Thomas K. and Gail Dempsey, and great-grandparents, Tom and Phyllis Dempsey.

Madam Speaker, the birth of Christian Albert McGrain, mere seconds after midnight on New Year's Day, is a cause for celebration. With Christian's timely birth, this is a year his family will always remember. I wish Christian and his family the very best in 2008.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on April 14, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 183, rollcall 184, and rollcall 185.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on April 10, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 178, rollcall No. 179. rollcall 180, rollcall 181.

I would have noted ``nay'' on the following rollcall vote: rollcall No. 182.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on April 1, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 150, rollcall No. 151, and rollcall No. 152.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. George Ntim, in recognition of receiving the J. Willard Marriott Award of Excellence. As director of guest relations and community services at the New York Marriott Marquis, Mr. Ntim is receiving this prestigious award for his dedication to excellence in service and hospitality. This is quite an honor as this award will be given to only nine individuals in the entire global operations this year.

Madam Speaker, the dedication that Mr. George Ntim shows to his profession is truly praiseworthy, and I thank him for his service to his numerous clients. I have personally had the good fortune to know Mr. Ntim, as he has assisted me various times during my stays at the Marriott. His affable personality and enthusiasm certainly does not go unnoticed, and contributes to his professional success. The hard work Mr. Ntim exhibits on a daily basis exemplifies that he is truly deserving of this honor.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Corporal Raymond D. Hennagir of Deptford, New Jersey. Corporal Hennagir was injured while on foot patrol in Zaidon, Iraq. He stepped on an improvised explosive device, losing both of his legs and four fingers on his left hand. The bravery of this man is truly inspiring. Out of respect and gratitude for the great service Corporal Hennagir has given his country, I submit this poem written in his honor by Albert Carey Caswell.

Teach Me

Teach Me!

Teach me well!

You so beseech me. As you so gallantly look past all of your

pain and heartache, all of your hell!

Reach Me!

As you Reach in and out to Me! With your heart which so

swells!

As your most splendid heart to me, so all about life . . . so

tells!

All about courage and faith!

All about not letting pain and heartache, get in your way . .

. and not letting go, or your soul erase!

All about courage's, most courageous face!

Let me learn!

As from you, and all of your character I can so discern!

All about life . . . and all about what is possible, when

within a great heart a soul so burns!

So I can grow!

So I can learn, so throughout my life I can so use and learn

. . . of what a heart is capable of so!

As your blessings to me you now so bestow, ever in these

moments of my life . . . I will know!

Which, can so show me . . . that path!

Which, can so show me the way . . . which can so teach me all

about the things which last . . .

As I watch you and your most heroic glow! The questions to my

heart you so answer, I ask?

For you have touched me, with your most heroic glow!

For you have so taught to me, all that it is . . . that I so

need to know!

So I can touch the sky, so I can so soar so very high . . . a

part of you, I will take with me I'll show!

For on this Earth . . .

Our Lord God so puts on such men and women of such fine worth

. . .

To Teach Us All, to so hear his call . . . to make us all

understand, of what it is which comes first!

Everybody loves Raymond, You Teach Me . . . Teach Me So!

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this week, the House has in front of it two well- thought-out but starkly different visions of where to take the country. We have put forward a budget that is true to our principles. We believe that you grow the economy and create opportunity for people by stopping the practice of running the government on borrowed money, by investing in the education, health care, and development of our people, and by expanding opportunities for economic development both here and around the world.

The minority, true to its principles, has introduced a budget which follows its strategy. I think this is a sincere and well-thought-out budget whose principles are just wrong. And if anything, I think that this budget is nostalgic because it does remind us of the 6 years in which the minority had the majority in both the House and the Senate and the White House. And it follows a tried and true, but failed, strategy, which is to say that you reduce taxes by more than you cut spending, and you borrow the difference.

Now, if I add this up correctly, in reading the minority's budget, it calls for spending cuts in the area of $800 billion over 5 years. Perhaps there's a different interpretation, but it would seem to me that there is entitlement spending reduction there and also discretionary. And it calls for reductions in revenue over a 5-year period in the vicinity of $1.2 trillion. So it would appear to me that there is about a one-third or $400 billion difference between the reduction in revenues that is called for and the reduction in spending that is called for. That is, if nothing else, traditional to the practice of borrowing money to run the government.

Second, I have a concern about the specificity of the spending cuts that are put forward. Our friend from Missouri, the minority whip, just talked about the instructions to cut spending in the Education and Labor Committee's area. And our friend said that, as a former university president, he would not first look to cut student loans as a way to deal with the cuts that are required under the minority's budget. Well, I would respectfully say to him, Mr. Chairman, through you, that to my knowledge there is only two other places one could look to find those cuts: The first would be in the pensions of Americans through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the second would be through the school nutrition program, through school breakfasts or lunches.

So, one can say that you don't want to cut student loans, but if you do, then you've got to turn either to the school lunch or breakfast program, or the pensions of Americans.

We, frankly, disagree with that approach. We took a very different approach on student loans, as the chairman said. What we did was to cut

student loan rates in half and expand opportunities for Pell Grants and other scholarships, and we did so without borrowing money. What we did was to go after what we felt were unjustifiably high subsidies for the student loan banking industry. So, this example, I think, shows the difference in philosophies.

In order to finance tax cuts which are skewed toward the wealthiest in our country, the minority would borrow a substantial amount of money on top of the debt it has already run up, and it would pay for it in part by cutting either student loans, by raising interest

rates to students, or cutting school lunches and school breakfast programs, or somehow getting money out of the Pension Guaranty Corporation. We would not do that. What we did was to cut student loan rates in half, increase Pell Grants and other scholarship opportunities, and pay for it without borrowing money by reducing what we view as a corporate welfare subsidy to the student loan banking industry.

This is a very big difference. It's a legitimate difference. We think it's why the gentleman's amendment should be rejected.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to begin by sincerely congratulating the chairman of the committee and the ranking member from Wisconsin for, I think, a very thoughtful and substantive approach to a very serious set of problems. I think that the tone and quality of the debate on the House floor this afternoon has served the country well and has served the institution well, and it is entirely owing to the leadership of the chairman and ranking member and the men and women who serve the Members' committee so well, and I appreciate that.

I strongly support the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget. I think it's the right thing for the country based upon an analysis of facts, choices, and consequences. The most important factual reason that the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget benefits and strengthens families in our country is it operates on the principle that American families operate under, which is you can't live on borrowed money forever. You can't run your credit card up forever and hope that you win the lottery someday to get yourself out of that mess. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, just as American families do across this country, recognizes the reality that you have to make choices.

Now, the other fact that I think is very important that Members realize is that this budget does not have a tax increase for anyone this year or anyone next year or anyone last year. One of our friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, said that this was deja vu, this budget. She was exactly right because most of us were here almost exactly a year ago and heard a ritualistic incantation from the minority side that this was the largest tax increase in American history, the largest tax increase in the history of the world, the largest tax increase in the history of the universe, the largest tax increase in whatever's larger than the universe.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just invite the people of this country to evaluate the validity of that claim. When they sit down and fill out their tax return this year, they should ask themselves the question, did my income tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the capital gains tax rates go up? No, they didn't. Did the excise taxes go up? No, they didn't. And the same answer would be true for this year and the year after that.

Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that people listen to this debate and they say, how can this be that the Democrats get up and say there are no tax increases in this budget and the Republicans get up and say it's the largest tax increase in the history of civilization or whatever the latest version of it is? Here's the answer:

In 2010 the tax cuts enacted earlier in this decade expire, and the Congress will have to make a choice. Until then, there is no tax raised on anyone for anything. When that day occurs, this budget contemplates that we will do what families across the country do and make an intelligent decision. If the economy bounces back and grows, there's a very good chance there will be plenty of revenue to renew all of those tax cuts. If it doesn't, then the Congress has the choice of reducing spending in given areas to finance tax cuts for all or some of the people who would be affected.

But what we will not do is what the erstwhile majority elevated to an art form during its reign, which is to borrow the money to pay the bills. We won't indebt the children of this country to the People's Republic of China and our other creditors because we don't have the discipline to make a decision here.

There's a big choice. Our budget believes that the economy grows and American families prosper by stopping the practice of borrowing money to run the government, by investing in the education and health care and development of our people, and by expanding economic opportunity. We believe that works.

The other side, with great sincerity, believes that massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people will trickle down to the rest of us and that will work.

This is the big choice we have to make, but there is a record for this choice. We do not have to make this choice in the empty vacuum of political theory. You see, because we tried their way for 6 years when they had control of both Chambers and the White House, and our strategy of stopping the practice of borrowing money, investing in people, expanding economic opportunity is what we tried for most of the 1990s, and there's a record. They created some jobs through their strategy. But for every one job they created, we created five. There was some economic growth under their strategy, but for every dollar of economic growth they created or facilitated, we created a dollar and a half.

What was the impact of their strategy on the American families that this budget supports? Well, over a 6-year period, the purchasing power of a typical middle class American family shrunk by $1,100. During the years in which our strategy was the policy of this country, the purchasing power of a middle class family increased by $6,000.

I yield briefly to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, it's also the case that every single Republican there in 1993 voted against the plan that put that into effect and, therefore, they have no ownership.

So I would say the record is very, very clear, that I think our friend from Wisconsin and his fellow colleagues on the committee are very well intentioned about the policy they followed to help American families. I just think they're wrong, and I think the record shows that they're wrong.

Now, what are some of the consequences in this budget between their way and our way? Well, one of them is the issue of middle class tax cuts. Now, they are going to say that all these middle class taxes are going to go up.

Here's the reality: The budget contains what we call a reserve fund for the purpose of financing middle class tax cuts. And, again, when we reach that point, we will make a decision as to how best to preserve those, either based upon growth in the economy, which we certainly hope will occur, in offsets in spending, which we are prepared to make, or in other sources of revenue which we have brought to this floor before.

Look at the issue of children's health care. Last year, we attempted to provide health insurance for 5 million additional children. These are the children of people that work in convenience stores, gas stations and retail stores. These are very hardworking people who are struggling to get ahead. And there is a program that has worked very well since 1997 to help those families and their children. Now, we wanted to expand that coverage to 5 million more children, and we paid for it. A great number of Members on their side voted for this, and a great number of Members of the other body on their side voted for this, but not quite enough, because we ran into a Presidential veto, and we couldn't quite override it here.

Our budget will do the same thing. It will say let's find health insurance for

5 million more children who do not have it, and let's pay for it. Let's not pay for it by borrowed money.

For those who are trying to live by collecting child support enforcement, there are more resources for it. For those women who are pregnant or have small children and want to promote their well-being, there is more money for it. For Americans struggling to deal with getting by and paying the grocery bills on food stamps, there is more resources for this. Public health issues, whether it is the spread of disease or the prevention of disease, there is more resources for this, as well.

This budget proceeds on the powerful principle on which American families proceed. Don't try to survive on borrowed money forever. It puts us in position to make difficult and sometimes unpopular choices. It does not raise taxes on anyone in the fiscal year that is in front of us, and it makes investments in the strategy for economic growth that has worked in the past and we believe will work again.

I know that the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) who is new to the institution, but in no way new to serving her constituents, has a special concern about block grants. I would like to encourage her to engage in a colloquy at this time.

At this time I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman who has been a leader on child support efforts for purpose of a colloquy, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I thank the gentlelady for her contribution.

At this time I would like to engage in colloquy the gentlelady from New Hampshire who has seen firsthand the ravages of neglect of people out in the community when you don't fund important programs, and I know she supports this budget because it does, Ms. Shea-Porter.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I mostly certainly did, and I am about to say something that I think the chairman can confirm we very rarely hear around here. I was wrong. You see, I thought what you guys now think. I thought that an increase in the top marginal rates would, as the former Speaker at the time said, cause a recession in the country, and the evidence showed it didn't happen. And I am willing to admit that that is a vote I should have cast the other way, and I was wrong to do it, and so were all your guys.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding and commend Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Ramstad for bringing this bill to our attention.

Someone who is struggling with substance abuse addiction or bipolar disorder, they shouldn't be under a different set of rules for getting their bills paid by their insurance company than if they had a knee injury. That is what this is about. If you have a $500 deductible for knee surgery, you ought to have a $500 deductible for your care for alcoholism or drug treatment or bipolar disorder. The insurance industry would be required to do that under this provision.

What would be wrong with that? Why would people be concerned about this? The first argument that we have heard is that there is a defined set of benefits that would have to be offered here to protect people with mental health and substance abuse issues. Well, there is a reason for that, because the insurance industry in this country has made it a practice of telling us what they don't cover. It is a cottage industry for people to find out that procedures are experimental or there is not enough justification. People find out every day that coverage they thought they had is no longer covered.

The second objection we hear from people is that this costs too much. That directly contravenes the evidence. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows over the long haul this saves money. And in the worst case scenario, the premium increase because of mental health parity laws is 0.6 percent per year, a minimal cost that is far outweighed by the benefit.

Finally, we hear concerns about small businesses. This provision exempts small businesses of 50 and fewer employees.

This is simple good sense. It says that a substance abuse problem or mental health issue should be treated under the same rules for getting your bill paid by your insurance company as a knee operation would be. Mental illness and substance abuse reaches across racial lines, class lines, religious lines, and geographic lines. It reaches into many, many families, including families represented in this institution.

This is a reform that is long overdue. It is why it is a reform that has support from both Republicans and Democrats. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a commonsense step towards helping families across this country and vote ``yes'' on this much-needed piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 30 seconds to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) who has been a vigorous advocate for mental health issues since his arrival here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has become expert on both the military and civilian health care system, my friend and neighbor from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very powerful voice for the voiceless, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I have others I can yield to.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes at this time to a gentleman who really understands the interface of insurance and health care law, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and neighbor from the State of New Jersey, Mr. Holt.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.

I would reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would say that the manuals referred to in this bill make no reference whatsoever to any abortion services as a covered benefit.

At this time, I'd be pleased to demonstrate bipartisan support for this bill and yield 1 minute to the gentleman, my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Shays.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend from California if he has any further speakers.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentlelady from California who has worked on this issue for many years on the committee, Mrs. Davis, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would just represent that I am the last speaker on our side for this portion of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the Education and Labor Committee's time.

My friend from California says that mental health parity is a goal that he lauds. Well, it's a goal that we should achieve right here, right now, today, by passing this bill.

We've heard the argument that the bill establishes preferential treatment for people with mental health and substance abuse issues, exactly the opposite of the truth. The bill establishes parity and equal treatment between mental health and substance abuse and physical and surgical benefits.

We've heard the concern that medical management practices that control costs have been taken out of the bill. What is also true, however, is that nothing in present law, nothing in the status quo precludes medical management practices that are useful in offsetting costs. There is nothing that prohibits that.

Finally, we hear that there is a concern that employers confronted with the defined benefit package, with the guaranteed rights of the insured under this will drop coverage. In States that have similar provisions, there is not a shred of empirical evidence that that is the case. Where State laws extend robust protections to mental health and substance abuse benefits, employers have not dropped mental health coverage; in fact, it has expanded.

This is the right time for the right bill. Its cost is minimal, its benefit is great, its support is bipartisan, and its time for passage is now.

I would urge each of our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join this bipartisan coalition and vote ``yes'' on the legislation offered by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of the Education and Labor Committee's time.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on matters affecting my

family from voting on the afternoon of February 14, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 66, rollcall 67, rollcall 68.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Mr. Murlidhar Devidas Amte, affectionately known as Baba Amte. Over 60 years ago, Mr. Amte moved his wife and infant children to barren, desert land with the goal of creating a community for the most downtrodden people in India, leprosy patients. Today, Anandwan is a self-sustaining community of over 2,500 leprosy patients, orphans, and other social outcasts built on the belief that ``work builds, and charity destroys.'' This community builds their own homes, grows their own food, and practices recycling techniques beyond those of most communities in the world. Anandwan has a college to teach self- sustaining, organic farming techniques, and also schools for the deaf and blind children of the greater community.

As a successful lawyer during the independence movement in India, Mr. Amte was a staunch believer in Gandhian philosophy and chose to change his entire life to help uplift people that did not have the same luck at birth that he was bestowed.

Beyond Anandwan, Mr. Amte worked with his two sons to build other communities for tribal people still living in the jungle without health care. He furthered his reach when he chose to become an activist for not only people, but the environment. With a degenerative spinal disease that eventually made him bedridden, he traveled to a site for a proposed dam, the Narmada Dam Project, which would destroy the land and force thousands of people from their homes. He camped out in a van on the site in protest of not only that dam but all dam projects in India.

Mr. Amte has received numerous humanitarian and environmental awards in his lifetime including The United Nations Human Rights Prize (1988), The Templeton Prize (1990), The Gandhi Peace Prize (1999), Dr. Ambedkar International Award for Social Change (1999), and countless others.

Baba Amte left this world on February 8, 2008, but his spirit will always live on through the thousands of lives he helped. I want to thank Baba Amte for all he has done for the people of Anandwan and the world.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Hinojosa, Chairman Miller, Mr. Keller and Mr. McKeon for their excellent work on this bill.

In the global economic competition, the difference between winning and losing is having skilled workers or not having skilled workers. This bill takes a major step forward in making sure that we have skilled workers, that America puts its best team on the field at all times.

There are two specific areas I commend the leadership of the committee for including in this bill. The first has to do with autistic men and women. A lot of autistic children make great strides in their lives and they become very able, very empowered people. But then they graduate from high school, and they age out of their education, and the supportive, intensive learning environment that they need is very often no longer there.

This bill has provisions to help establish residential, high-quality, post-secondary programs for autistic men and for autistic women.

This bill says to the men and women who wear the military uniform of our country that when they come back to campus, they will be welcome. An anomaly in the existing law says that a young man or a young woman who is deployed and goes overseas and fights for our country, when he or she comes back, they may be treated as a returning student, has had a gap in their student life, which means they go to the back of the list for enrollment in special courses, for financial aid and for many other purposes. This bill corrects that and recognizes that when a young man or woman serves, they should be rewarded. We should all support this bill on a bipartisan basis.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Philadelphia music landmark, The Electric Factory. For 40 years, The Electric Factory concert venue and its founders Larry Magid and Allen Spivak have hosted such legendary acts as Jimi Hendrix, The Who, and Pink Floyd.

The original Electric Factory began in 1968 as one of rock music's first ever live venues. First located in a converted tire warehouse, the venue moved in 1994 to its current site in an actual converted electric factory. This two story building has standing-room-only space for up to 3,000 audience members and gives spectators the unique ability to view a portion of the backstage.

Not only is The Electric Factory known for its major performers but it is also celebrated and respected for its philanthropic efforts throughout the years. Electric Factory Concerts has raised millions for local and international charities as well as local schools and children's programs in the area. In 1985, Electric Factory Concerts raised over 75 millions dollars for famine relief by hosting a large charity concert at JFK stadium.

Today, the venue still remains in its same location and is still led by one of its founders Larry Magid. The Electric Factory now features a variety of musical genres including heavy metal, rap, and rock and continues to hold philanthropic events ever year.

The Electric Factory is highly thought of as one of the nation's leading indoor concert venues. I want to congratulate and thank founders, Larry Magid and Allen Spivak, for their continued service to Philadelphia and South Jersey.