Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 2008, America lost one of its greatest scientific minds. Dr. John Archibald Wheeler influenced generations of scientists (including me) and his imprint on the field of physics and our collective understanding of the universe we inhabit cannot be overstated.

Wheeler began his career in the company of men whose names are well known to history--Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Wheeler, who earned his Ph.D. in physics at age 21, went to Denmark a year after earning his degree to study under Bohr, who at the time was on the cutting edge of nuclear research. It was only after Bohr fled Denmark in 1939--just months before the Nazi occupation of the country--that Wheeler learned of the research Bohr and others had been conducting into the possibilities and ramifications of nuclear fission.

Ultimately, Wheeler would join Robert Oppenheimer and others on the Manhattan Project, turning America into the world's first nuclear power. Later, Wheeler would play a key role the development of thermonuclear weapons and become an advocate of the war in Vietnam and of the creation of a ballistic missile defense system for the United States. But for all his work on weapons of war, his passion was trying to understand the workings of the universe.

We owe the term ``black hole'' to Wheeler, who initially resisted the idea of the existence of these stellar phenomena but was ultimately persuaded of their existence by the mathematical work of Dr. David Finklestein and others. In this, Wheeler demonstrated the traits of the best scientists: a willingness to challenge, and ultimately change, his views based on the facts and evidence.

When he reached Princeton University's mandatory retirement age in 1976, Wheeler was not ready to walk away from the profession he loved. He moved to Texas, taking up residence at the University of Texas at Austin and continued his investigation into the workings of the universe, seeking to understand ``how everything fits together.'' He continued to teach, lecture, and write for many more years, and his influence on at least two generations of physicists will be felt for generations to come.

Dr. Wheeler's wife of 72 years, the late Janette Hegner Wheeler, passed away in October 2007 at age 99. The Wheelers are survived by their three children, Ms. Lahnston and Letitia Wheeler Ufford, both of Princeton; James English Wheeler of Ardmore, Pa.; 8 grandchildren, 16 great-grandchildren, 6 step-grandchildren and 11 step-great grandchildren.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring John Wheeler through H. Res. 1118. We can honor him best by recommitting ourselves to making America the world leader in scientific research and achievements, and I will certainly do all I can to make that another of Dr. Wheeler's lasting achievements.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was detained and was not able to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to the Beach Protection Act.

For the last 20 years, my colleagues in the scientific community have issued warnings that the release of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth's climate in ways that are both expensive and deadly. And nowhere is this change more evident than in the changing habitat of our world's oceans.

Science has demonstrated that global change is already causing the sea level to rise. It is predicted that in my home State of New Jersey, the sea level rise will cause a loss of 7 inches to 2 feet of our coastline by the end of the decade.

Of course, changes in the acidity of the ocean from increased carbon is another effect. And as the oceans continue to change, factors that are known to affect water quality along our coastline, such as flooding, storms and erosion, will, of course, occur.

The Inslee amendment simply requires the Environmental Protection Agency to study the effects of the global climate change on our Nation's coastlines. The amendment will help States, local communities and Congress better address the challenges, prepare for the changes, and it will call attention to the steps we need to take to prevent further damage. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I commend my colleague for preparing and introducing this amendment.

I yield back.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008.

This is a bill that is optional for counties. It's to encourage counties and States to do the right thing. We should all want national standards of accessibility, reliability and auditability for our elections. This is an emergency stop-gap measure to see that we achieve as much of that as possible before the November elections.

The principle is simple. Anything of value should be auditable. Votes are valuable. They should be audited so that voters can have the confidence that each vote is recorded the way the voter intended. In too many places around the United States, votes are not audited.

In too many places around the United States, they are not even auditable. Voters leave the polling places wondering if their vote will be counted as they intended and election losers and their supporters are left wondering if they can believe the results.

Already in this primary season, there have been numerous, numerous problems, questions, and unresolved disputes.

In county after county, in State after State, electronic voting systems have failed in many ways, failure to start-up in the morning, a mismatch between the electronic count and the end-of-day printout, failed memory cards, and on and on and on. In too many places, the irregularities can not be resolved. There is no way to resolve them. There is no way to know because there is no record of the voter's intentions.

This legislation would reimburse counties and States for allowing voters to inspect paper-based records of their vote, in other words, paper ballots. That would not only make it possible for audits, but this legislation would go further and reward States for putting in place procedures to conduct those audits. This would go a long way toward restoring confidence in the process.

There is still time before November to secure our election system. If our Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act is enacted, localities could choose to convert to paper ballot voting systems, offer emergency paper ballots if machines fail, and to conduct audits to confirm the accuracy of the electronic tallies.

I want to stress that this is optional. We took great pains to accept the suggestions of the minority party, to take suggestions of election officials, to take suggestions of people all over the country, lawyers and others who have looked at elections in detail. We simplified this so that counties could not object that we were making them do something that we weren't going to support them on. This is optional. We have simplified it as much as possible so that it could be implemented in time for this year's election, and it could be.

This modest bill simply entitles jurisdictions to reimbursement for the costs to conduct fully auditable, fully audited elections. It will encourage States and counties that want to do the right thing on behalf of their voters. But time is of the essence.

If we don't take action immediately, we will not leave enough time for States that wish to opt to do so before the November election. Voters will lose further confidence in the system, and candidates will leave on election night wondering if they can trust the results.

Common Cause wrote: ``The security and reliability problems with electronic machines have been well documented. Both the State of California with the Top to Bottom Review and the State of Ohio with their study have documented numerous security vulnerabilities and have systems and have taken action to protect voters. Additionally, a number of academic and public policy experts have recommended that the shortcomings of these systems be addressed. Finally, there have been a number of incidents in which voters have been disenfranchised and election outcomes thrown into doubt because the machines have simply failed to work properly.''

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law writes: ``Reports of machine problems during States' recent Presidential primary elections provide a preview of potentially widespread machine failure and disenfranchisement in November.''

They and others go on to argue that this simple, straightforward legislation

will allow many counties and States around the country to address these problems in time for their November election so that we can have a truly reliable, accessible and auditable election that voters can believe in.

I yield back the balance of my time with thanks to the gentlelady from California for her diligent work in putting together such a good piece of legislation.

I thank the gentlelady. I just wanted to address a couple of the points that the gentleman from Ohio made.

The first is we don't in this legislation tell the counties how to run their elections. We leave this up to them, and it is entirely optional. There are States around the country who have instituted complete auditable election systems in a matter of months.

If a county or a State feels they cannot do it, then I would advise them not to opt in to this program. But we believe they can. Let's leave that to them rather than as the gentleman from Ohio would, try to decide for them whether this is something that they would want.

We believe from a number of indications that this will be useful in many counties and States around the country.

Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, the States and counties still have the responsibility for the mechanics of the elections. All we're saying is, if they put in place procedures to make them auditable, and procedures to audit the votes, we will assist them in the cost.

There are many things the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said we could be dealing with, and, indeed, we are not dealing with questions of registration and purging of names on registration lists and absentee voting and the openness of the tabulation phase of results. We are just talking about what happens in the voting booth, so that each voter will be able to verify, on paper, that her vote or his vote is recorded the way they intended, and then, those voter verified records be used to audit the results. It's that simple.

I can promise you that if jurisdictions don't take these steps, there will be many questions around the country that cannot be resolved. This is a simple, straightforward way to take care of it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join you today in standing up for working families in America by opposing the flawed fast track procedures.

When the President sent the Colombia Trade Agreement to Congress earlier this week, he started a clock for the agreement's consideration. He hoped that by forcing Congress to act, he would be able to win approval of the Colombia FTA. Yet, in reality, he only exposed one of the many problems that fast track trade negotiation authority created.

Today, Congress is sending a clear message to the President that we will not consider the Colombia Free Trade Agreement or any other FTA's on his time table. We will not be bullied. Congress is a coequal branch of government.

As you may know, I have long opposed the granting of fast track authority to the President because it removed Congress from shaping and drafting trade agreements, the timing of their consideration, and allowed Congress only an up or down vote on unamendable trade agreements. In doing so Congress abdicated our essential responsibility to our nation's citizens. I was pleased that this dangerous fast track authority expired last summer and has not been renewed.

As I hear from people from across central New Jersey, protecting workers' rights, human rights, and the environment are not secondary or extraneous concerns; they are central to what the United States stands for. I support trade that elevates the quality of life for citizens all over the world. The United States, and indeed the entire world, can benefit from increased trade, but increased trade in itself is not the goal we seek. Rather, we seek an improved quality of life for our people and advancement of other people's well-being.

Additionally, even on the merits I am very concerned by the Colombian agreement. As I have said before, trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect our natural environment. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities, they are about values. Trade agreements state what constitutes acceptable behavior in worker's rights, environmental matters, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. We must continue to demand improvements in our trade policy.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act.

Think about it. Ranging from the awe-inspiring volcanic landscape of the craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho to the majestic White Mountain National Recreation Area in Alaska, the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System protects some of the most spectacular landscapes in America. Altogether it protects 26 million acres of America's diverse public lands from Alaskan tundra to red-rock wilderness, deep river canyons to ocean coasts, to American Indian cliff dwellings, and our Nation's oldest trails. These sites provide Americans with unique venues for recreation, for wildlife viewing, for exploring history, for scientific research, and for a wide range of traditional uses.

H.R. 2016 would ensure that all 800 sites that comprise the NLCS remain a cohesive and protected system for generations to come. Now, currently these are recognized only through BLM administrative regulations. There's no guarantee that these beautiful sites, that this system, will continue to exist even 5 years from now.

President Lyndon Johnson put it well. He said, ``If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow, we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it.'' By making the NLCS Federal statute, we will ensure that future generations will enjoy these national treasures, and I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I am pleased to join the Speaker of the House today as an original cosponsor of this important legislation to address the rights of the people of Tibet. Across the globe, people are speaking out in support of the people of Tibet. And today, Congress is making a strong statement. And no one outside Tibet has been more clear and more eloquent than the Speaker of the House.

I recently had the honor to join the Speaker as a member of a congressional delegation to India. We were with the spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and we saw and heard thousands of Tibetan refugees cheering America, I'm pleased to say, but pleading and pleading with us not to forget Tibet.

Tibet has been under the heavy hand of China for almost five decades, and the situation has deteriorated with China brutally suppressing Tibetans and systematically and relentlessly eradicating Tibetan culture. Our delegation was moved to see and hear the pleadings of Tibetans of all ages who have braved Himalayan crossings to escape oppression, some weeks ago, some years ago. And the Dalai Lama gives them hope and calls on the world not to forget those who have fled and those who are left in Tibet. And we, too, should give them hope.

I have in my office a crayon-drawn Tibetan flag given to me during our delegation's visit to the Tibetan Children's Village, and I keep this flag in my office because it reminds me of the human toll of the situation. Children and adults flee the villages of Tibet and cross the highest range of mountains in the world to reach the promise of a life where they can preserve their culture and have freedom. The journey is treacherous, but children try to escape the oppression in Tibet.

I am pleased that all the members of this important trip joined the Speaker in introducing this resolution. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the Chinese Government needs to end the violent crackdown on nonviolent Tibetan protesters. Furthermore, it is long past time for the Chinese Government to begin, without preconditions, a dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and ensure that human rights and dignity of all Tibetans are protected, to address the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people, to safeguard the people and their distinctive identity, to support economic development, cultural preservation, health care, education and environmental sustainability.

This important resolution reminds the world and China of our commitment to the people of Tibet.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, six remarkable New Jersey public servants retired from the Middletown Township Police Department. Let me take a few moments to tell you a little bit about each of these men.

Lieutenant William C. Best joined the Middletown Township Police Department in June 1971. Bill spent 20 years in the Patrol Division, working daily to help keep his community safe, and moving up through the ranks in the department until becoming a Patrol Lieutenant in April 2006. After more than 36 years on the force, Bill decided it was time to spend more time with his wife of 43 years, Sandra, their children, Kim and Amanda, and their two grandchildren--Molly and Teddy. I should also note that Bill's service to his country included a stint in the Navy from November 1961 through November 1963. Bill was a witness to history during this time, as he served aboard the aircraft carrier Saratoga during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.

Lieutenant Stanley Malinowski joined the department in December 1972, and over his nearly 36 year career he held multiple assignments in the Patrol Division and the Community Relations/DARE program. Like Lieutenant Best, Lieutenant Malinowski served his country in the Navy before joining the police department. Stanley is a Vietnam veteran, having served from 1965 to 1969. He spent three of his four years in the Navy aboard the guided missile destroyer USS H.B. Wilson, with multiple tours in Vietnam.

Detective First Class Barry Grimm joined the force in June 1971, and he held numerous assignments in the Patrol and Detective Divisions over the course of his more than 36 years with the department. Barry was one of the department's arson investigation experts, and was an instructor at the National Fire Academy for more than 20 years. Barry has also been a member of the Middletown Township Fire Department since 1968 and served as its chief in 1999. Barry is looking forward to spending more time with his wife of 36 years, Birgit Mosehach Grimm, their four children, Amy, Michael, Christopher and Shawn, his son-in-law Patrick and daughter-in-law Bethany, and his two grandchildren Owen and Sophie.

Detective First Class Richard Rast joined the force in November 1977. During his more than 30 years on the force, Detective Rast served in the Patrol Division, the Community Relations Division, the Traffic Division, and the Detective Division. Detective Rast is a member of the Eastern State Criminal Investigators Association and the New Jersey Vehicle Theft Investigators Association. Like Lieutenants Best and Maliowski, Detective Rast is a Navy veteran, having served during the Vietnam era between January 1969 and November 1971. Rich and his wife Gloria have been married 38 years. They have two children, Bonnie and Sarah, and four grandchildren--Rebecca, Julia, and Brooke.

Corporal Frank Holden joined the department in August 1987 and retired on December 31, 2007. During his 20 year career in the Patrol Division, Corporal Holden received numerous awards for his work, both from the department and from community groups, including the Women's Center of Monmouth County, the American Legion Post 338 of Middletown, and the Middletown Fraternal Order of Police. Corporal Holden has been extremely active in his community as a fundraiser for multiple charities, including The Rainbow Foundation, Jason's Dreams for Kids, The Special Olympics, The Lance Armstrong Foundation, and Victory Junction Gang Camp. Frank and his wife Carol have lived in the Locust section of Middletown for the past 16 years. They have three children-- Jennifer, Sara, and Adam.

Corporal Glenn Morehead joined the department in December 1980 and retired in December 2007. He received multiple awards during his long career, and his commitment to his community extended well beyond his work as a police officer. Corporal Morehead served over 20 years each with Leonardo First Aid Company, the Lincroft Fire Company, and the Middletown Township Fire Academy. In July 2008, Corporal Morehead and his wife will celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. The Moreheads also have a son, Matthew.

I think it's important for their neighbors and the citizens of their community to understand just how fortunate Middletown has been to have had these six men in public service for so long. For decades, they helped keep Middletown and its residents safe from criminals, fires, and disasters--both natural and man-made. Their involvement in the community has enriched lives and helped make Middletown the wonderful place to live that it is today. As each of these men and their families begin a new chapter in their lives, I want them to know that they have my sincere thanks for their long years of service and my best wishes for the future. Congratulations and well done.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 5501.

This important legislation reauthorizes and expands the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). I have long supported this bold initiative that has made the U.S. a leader in this critical health and moral issue of our time. PEPFAR has shown to the world our nation's vision and compassion in addressing this healthcare crisis.

Five years ago, an estimated 31 million people were living with HIV/ AIDS worldwide, anti-retroviral drug treatments were expensive, and approximately 8,200 people were infected with HIV/AIDS every day.

I have heard from a number of my constituents about their support for continued U.S. efforts to combat AIDS and the spread of HIV around the globe. It is obvious that Americans care. In the absence of a cure for AIDS, this worldwide epidemic continues to spread at an alarming rate.

That is why I am pleased that H.R. 5501 makes an important transition from emergency relief to the establishment of long-term and sustainable AIDS relief programs. The legislation also works to better integrate the tuberculosis and malaria programs with the HIV/AIDS programs. This is essential because in sub-Saharan Africa tuberculosis is the leading killer of individuals with HIV/AIDS.

Since the creation of this program, the United States has invested more than $19 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The results have been striking. By the end of 2007, the United States had helped provide anti-retroviral drug treatments to approximately 1.5 million people with AIDS, supported care for 6.6 million--including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children--and

helped to prevent more than 157,000 infant infections.

H.R. 5501 greatly expands our efforts abroad by authorizing a total of $50 billion over five years. This total includes $41 billion for HIV/AIDS programs, $5 billion for malaria programs, and $4 billion for tuberculosis programs. This dramatic increase in funding will help partner countries continue to identify and meet targets for treatment and prevention. Additionally, the funding will help build and strengthen the existing health systems in host countries.

While I support the underlying bill, I do have some concern about one specific issue. I have long been concerned by the restrictions placed on how PEPFAR funds can be spent. I have opposed the requirement that one-third of the funds be spent on abstinence-only education because it has not proven to be a successful way to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS. A report by the Government Accountability Office found that this restriction tied the local hands of public health workers.

I believe that PEPFAR funds should be spent on the most effective HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention strategies available. That is why I am pleased that H.R. 5501 removes the requirement that one-third of the funds be spent on abstinence education. As this bill works through the legislative process, I hope that any language in the bill that might be interpreted to limit funding to programs that are compliant with the global gag rule be removed.

Madam Chairman, our country has done more to end the spread of HIV/ AIDS in the last five years than any nation in the history of the world. We must continue. This bill represents a reasonable expansion of our efforts and makes the important transition to permanent HIV/AIDS relief. I urge my colleagues to support this investment in the health of our global community and in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I am pleased to rise to say that not only do we have enough time to debate this, but we have a very good, well-structured bill in front of us.

It is an important role of the Federal Government to look after the safety and the security of the American people. This bill does that. It is a well-structured bill that gives telecom companies the opportunity they have asked for to defend themselves in court. It provides for a congressional commission that will look at how electronic surveillance has been conducted and will make recommendations. It includes a reasonable expiration date to keep Congress involved in the oversight of this. And I would argue most importantly this legislation provides prior involvement of the court in all intercepts of communications of Americans. Critically important.

Here are the facts. This bill gives our intelligence community the flexibility they need to collect information on our enemies while protecting the American people in every aspect. And it mandates extensive reviews and reporting requirements on the electronic surveillance programs in question. It rejects the President's efforts to redefine the relationship between the people and their government, a very key point.

I commend the Speaker, the leader, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee for negotiating with a firm tone and a principled approach to give us very good legislation, a very good bill despite the fact that they've had to work with the relentless drumbeat of propaganda and disinformation orchestrated by the administration in this matter. I commend them for producing such good legislation in such difficult circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H. Res. 895, a resolution establishing an independent Office of Congressional Ethics within the House of Representatives. I believe it is a long overdue, although partial, step to protect the public trust and bring greater transparency and accountability to the people's House.

At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Speaker said we must drain the swamp. We made some changes to the House Rules and passed legislation that mandated more extensive limits on gifts and travel, greater disclosure of activities by lobbyists, helped slow the revolving door of Members of Congress and staff to lobbying on behalf of private interests and brought greater transparency to the earmark process. Yesterday, following painstaking drafts, we took further steps.

The scandals that have embroiled this institution over the last few years because of the unethical conduct of certain Members of Congress have eroded the faith that Americans have in our legislative branch of government. What has only deepened this cynicism is the belief that Congress does a very poor job in investigating the ethical lapses of its own Members. The contentious nature of the current ethics process has too often led to deadlock and an inability to truly investigate claims concerning Members of both parties. While I commend the leadership and the membership of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the work they have done under trying circumstances, it is clear that the process has been missing an independent voice that can help us get above the partisanship and rancor that too often accompany these types of investigations. This bill is a step toward creating that independent voice.

The legislation establishes an Independent Office of Congressional Ethics, composed of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and the Minority Leader. Three of the members of the office will be nominated by the Speaker with the concurrence of the Minority Leader; three members would be nominated by the Minority Leader with the concurrence of the Speaker. The members, who cannot be current Members of the House, Federal employees or lobbyists, would serve four-year terms with one reappointment possible. The Office would have the ability to initiate review by written notice provided by two Office members, one of which must be appointed by the Speaker, the other by the Minority Leader. The Office would have the ability to refer a matter if three members affirmatively vote to move it to the Ethics Committee.

The legislation has the support of a number of groups that have called for strong reform of the ethics process, including Common Cause, U.S. PIRG and recognized public policy experts such as Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann at the Brookings Institute. They recognize that in the past, the principle of Congress policing itself has just not worked. They have played a vital role in making sure that today's resolution comes to a vote so that all of us live up to the oath of office we take the first day of every new Congress. I also want to commend the Speaker who has promised and delivered on her pledge to bring vigorous, ethical leadership to this institution. Without taking action, we will only allow public cynicism about government to continue to grow. This important resolution will bring real ethics reform to Congress. It will help reestablish the trust and confidence of the American people in this institution and in the principle of honest and open government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of this legislation. I'm pleased to have been a co-sponsor of this bill, because the service programs and the new initiatives will help to address some of our Nation's toughest problems about poverty to natural disasters and will help improve the lives of millions of our most valuable citizens. The bill will increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers by a third and will significantly increase the stipends for those volunteers.

I particularly want to highlight a section that I am proud of. It is a section that will create opportunities for professionals in the sciences and technical fields to keep America competitive. It engages scientists and engineers in volunteerism and encourages their efforts to address unmet education and human needs. It will use scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians, for example, to close the digital divide that creates such a chasm between low-income communities and the more privileged communities.

The bill also creates a national civilian conservation corps that, as a residential program, will be deployed in times of national need, such as emergencies and disasters. When not deployed in such circumstance, they will build infrastructure, protect the environment, conserve our resources, and help with urban and rural development.

Mr. Speaker, this is outstanding legislation. We really should commend Mrs. McCarthy as well as Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Platts for their work on this legislation.

I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee.

When Congress passed this bill last year, I lauded several of its features, provisions aimed at attracting and retaining people with good foreign language capability and understanding of foreign cultures, a provision bringing speed to security clearance processes for new hires, the provision directing the Director of National Intelligence to establish a multilevel security clearance process, a provision requiring the inspector general to review all covert action programs, and a number of other things. Getting these things right is critically important because intelligence is among the most important functions of our government.

A good intelligence system can save lives by preventing war, or, should war come, by helping to win the war as quickly as possible. But a flawed intelligence system can be dangerous, as when intelligence is manipulated so as to take America to war under false pretenses, or when fearsome powers of the government are turned on its own citizens without checks and balances. Indeed, it's because this President opposes checks and balances on our intelligence system that we are forced to have this veto override today.

Let's be clear, American personnel, civilian or military, should never engage in interrogation practices that amount to torture. The provision the President objects to would simply put the entire U.S. Government under one standard for interrogating detainees, the Army Field Manual. The heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI have testified that the nontorture guidelines in this bill are adequate for their people to follow in interrogation of dangerous people.

If the President were serious about restoring our reputation in the world and about providing moral and legal clarity for all government employees involved in the handling or interrogation of detainees, he would never have

vetoed this bill. Providing that moral and legal clarity is our constitutional obligation. And to that end, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, so far this primary season elections have been conducted in 14 States that still use unauditable voting machines, purely electronic. I have shared in letters to my colleagues information about incidents in a number of States, one where 90 percent of the machines were not functioning in one county when the polls opened; and another State, where results from the internal paper tapes did not match results on the corresponding memory cartridges; another State, where six voting machines in a county had faulty memory cards; in a polling place in Chicago, where no touch screen machines were working; and at a polling place in Atlanta, where only one in five was working.

In counties where there are no paper records verified by their voters, the irregularities cannot be resolved. Machine failures elsewhere would have prevented voters from voting had back-up paper ballots not been available. Some jurisdictions where paper ballots are required allow voting data to be verified by the voters and then used to confirm the results despite the failure of electronic memory.

There is still time before November to secure our electoral system. The Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, if enacted, will provide localities what they need to do this. Please support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Speaker, it will be a landmark day when we realize that health is not just about fixing broken bones. It's about having a healthy, complete individual from head to toe.

Today the House takes an important step to require mental health parity in insurance, and I particularly want to thank and recognize Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, and the late Paul and Sheila Wellstone.

Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans suffer from mental illness of some form. Few Americans are untouched and no one is immune.

Some of my colleagues have expressed their concern about the cost of providing mental health parity; yet an analysis of the bill indicates that it would result in an increase of less than 1 percent in premiums and would reduce out-of-pocket costs by about 18 percent. Further, according to a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, employers who actively encourage their employees to use mental health services actually experience better health outcomes and, I want to emphasize this, increases in hours worked and productivity gained.

I include in the Record an editorial from the Journal of the American Medical Association from last September of 2007 dealing with the treatment of depression.

Reducing the Burden of Depression--Building Villages for Coordinated

Care

(Kenneth B. Wells and Jeanne Miranda)

In this issue of JAMA, Wang et al provide evidence that

implementing depression care programs through employer-

sponsored managed behavioral health can improve clinical

outcomes, job retention, and effective hours worked compared

with usual care. The programs encouraged depressed workers to

learn about and use evidence-based depression treatments,

supported clinicians in following practice guidelines, and

offered telephone counseling and self-help workbooks. The

monetary value of the increased work time under the program

exceeded the direct intervention costs and likely exceeded or

was within the range of cost increases due to greater mental

health specialty use under the intervention. While formal

estimates of cost-effectiveness and employer return on

investment are pending, it appears to be in the business

interests of many employers to implement such programs to

protect their investments in the retention and productivity

of workers they have hired and trained.

These findings should be evaluated within the context of

the simple but startling facts about depression. Clinical

depressive disorders are among the most prevalent of major

medical conditions, affecting about 16% of adults in their

lifetime. Owing to high prevalence, early age at onset

(unlike other debilitating disorders that occur past the age

of parenting and work responsibilities), and strong impact on

functional status, depressive disorders are leading

contributors to disability worldwide. Depressive disorders

are highly treatable yet often remain unrecognized and

untreated. While a number of effective programs promote

higher use of treatments in service delivery settings,

particularly primary care practices, these programs are not

yet widely implemented. Thus, technology is available to

treat this disabling condition, but US health care systems

have failed to take full advantage of the technology to

reduce personal or societal consequences of depression.

The intervention approach in the study by Wang et al can be

characterized as ``building a village'' of health plans,

clinicians, and resources that ``surround'' depressed persons

with opportunities to learn about and engage in evidence-

based care, attending to a careful fit of intervention

requirements and context-specific implementation options.

This approach has generally proven effective in primary care,

and the substantial outreach efforts mirror those in the WE

Care study demonstrating that depression treatments are

effective for low-income and minority women. In the study by

Wang et al telephone managers from the behavioral health

company offered counseling and communicated recommendations

to clinicians, an extension of their usual role. In the

Partners in Care study, primary care nurses expanded their

disease management skills to include assessment, education,

and follow-up concerning depression. In both studies,

patients and clinicians were free to use or not use study

resources according to their preferences. Such interventions

have the advantage of preserving the naturalistic context of

the delivery systems, potentially facilitating the

translation of findings into change by example. Interventions

in both studies achieved roughly similar outcomes: a 10

percentage-point gain in use of appropriate treatment and in

recovery from depression over a year, as well as roughly 2

more weeks of days worked in a year in the study by Wang et

al and a month more of days worked over 2 years in Partners

in Care.

Depression interventions have many advantages for

individuals, their family and friends, employers and society,

over and above relief of individual symptoms. As mothers'

depression improves following care, for example, their

children also enjoy improvements in mental health. The study

by Wang et al demonstrates that treatment of depression

increases productivity and may reduce economic losses due to

depression for employees and employers. If such gains exceed

costs of providing the interventions and treatments, there is

``money on the table'' across stakeholders that could be used

to pay for interventions. Why then do many individuals with

depression endure their illness without care?

One barrier to care is that depression affects motivation

and cognition, making it difficult for many individuals with

depression to realize they have a need and obtain care

without the outreach provided by nurse/care managers. Family

members also may fail to identify depression or have

knowledge about appropriate care. This suggests that

opportunities to improve access to depression care should be

embedded within an infrastructure available to potentially

depressed persons, such as primary care settings. However, an

awareness of the effects of treatment on social costs such as

productivity may not provide a strong incentive for

clinicians and health plans to improve care, as they do not

necessarily face immediate financial consequences from

patients' changes in productivity or may not track this

outcome. Yet most private health care in the United States is

financed through employer-sponsored insurance. Direct

contributions to the bottom line of employers offers them an

incentive to promote depression care, independent of policy

mandates or other motives such as responding to employee

demand.

Other stakeholders, including policy makers and the public,

may benefit from improved depression care through an

increased tax base from employees who work more or an overall

improved economy. Yet it is challenging in the US policy

environment to use economic gains from one policy sector such

as the labor market as leverage to support improved health

care, However some policy changes could be implemented to

better align the incentives to implement depression care

programs across diverse stakeholders and to avoid undermining

the goals of such programs, for example by excluding

depression treatment from health insurance coverage when

changing jobs or insurance based on a recent history of

depression treatment in an employer-based depression program.

Under such an ill-advised policy, the risk of losing coverage

would serve as a major deterrent to seeking care.

The need to coordinate program implementation and policy

suggests an expanded concept of ``a village,'' that includes

not only wrap-around interventions but coordinated efforts

across affected stakeholders. It may be trite that the

stakeholder with the most power to influence services

delivery for most Americans is the employer, but broader and

deeper change in access to depression care may yet require a

concerted effort among affected parties to yield prograns

that address public and self-stigma and to provide access to

depression treatments under policies that

facilitate use of such programs and do not penalize

individuals for using them. Studies such as that by Wang et

al strongly support such integrated solutions.

Exactly how programs to improve depression care are

implemented may affect the distribution of benefits--an

important issue given evidence of disparities in quality of

depression care and the potential for practice-based programs

to overcome disparities in depression outcomes. Developers of

interventions and policies should consider implications of

their design for inclusion of underserved groups who may not

seek behavioral health care. Despite the extensive efforts by

Wang et al to reach general employees, the majority of

persons had already inquired about outpatient care. Learning

how to optimize personal and societal gains by improving

access to quality depression care across diverse communities

through employer, practice, and community-based programs and

policy changes is a next agenda for evidence-based action. As

a community participant in the Witness for Wellness program

recently stated: ``Depression is everybody's business.''

Now, ultimately, despite the economic arguments in favor of parity, it is not a debate about dollars and cents but about lives saved and people restored. Let's work to ensure that those who need access to mental health will get it.

Mr. Speaker, it will be a landmark day when we realize that health is not just about fixing broken bones. It's about having a healthy, complete individual from head to toe. Millions of Americans suffer from mental illness of some form, conditions that disrupt a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others, and daily functioning. Mental illnesses strain families and can contribute to lost productivity, unemployment, substance abuse, homelessness, or suicide. Few Americans are untouched by it. No one is immune.

Prompt and comprehensive treatment can reduce enormously these effects, but insurance companies--including government plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--frequently impose limits on coverage for mental health that are not imposed on traditional medical and surgical care. Already this year, Congress has worked to address these inequalities in the federal health programs.

Today, the House of Representatives is taking a significant step toward finally ending the insurance discrimination that has existed for decades against people with mental illness.

Representative Patrick Kennedy and Representative Jim Ramstad deserve credit for their strong leadership on the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, H.R. 1424, which I am proud to cosponsor along with more than 270 of my colleagues. This much needed legislation would require insurance companies to provide benefits for mental health and substance abuse treatment equal to those provided for physical medical treatment.

The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act would require that all Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV, illnesses be covered, rather than letting insurance companies determine their own scope of coverage. This is the same coverage requirements that we as Members of Congress receive under our federal employee health plan, and our constituents deserve no less coverage.

The American Psychological Association, which publishes DSM-IV, reports that lack of insurance coverage (87 percent) and cost (81 percent) are the leading factors for individuals not seeking mental health services. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act would solve both of these problems.

Additionally, unlike the bill working through the Senate, H.R. 1424 would not preempt state law. This is very important for the residents of my home state of New Jersey and others who already have mental health parity laws on the books. For good reason these states worry that they might be forced to reduce their coverage requirements.

We know that mental illness is treatable, yet because one third of the people affected do not receive needed treatments, mental illness remains a leading cause of disability and premature death. According to the World Health Organization, the costs related to untreated mental illness are $147 billion each year in the United States. Those who oppose the legislation thinking it is too expensive should note this cost.

Yet, an analysis of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act indicates it would result in an increase of less than one percent premiums and would reduce out-of-pocket costs by 18 percent. Further, a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association, JAMA, indicates that employers who actively encourage their employees to use mental health services actually experienced an increase in hours worked and productivity gains.

Ultimately, despite the economic arguments in favor of parity, it is not a debate about dollars and cents, but about lives saved and people restored. I recently received a letter from a constituent who is a corporate human resource director. She did not write me in that capacity, however. Instead, she wrote me ``as the sister of a beloved brother who committed suicide one day after his in-patient mental health care benefit `ran-out'.'' She understood and related to me not only the human resources concerns, but also and especially, the true cost of mental health and the failure to enact mental health parity. Let's work to ensure that those who need access to mental health care, get it.