Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of this legislation, and I thank the gentlelady from New York for her leadership on this issue. I thank Mr. Deal for his leadership, as well, on this very, very important issue.

Madam Speaker, today this House is considering seven very important but largely noncontroversial public health bills. This week, of course, is National Public Health Week, a time to reflect on the importance of the quality of public health programs and a time to reiterate our commitment to addressing the critical problems that afflict America's health care system, such as exploding costs and the rising number of uninsured.

Today, however, I want to address one of the seven health bills that we are considering. The one under consideration right now is H.R. 2063, the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act, introduced by my good friend, Nita Lowey, of New York, the chairwoman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, with whom I had the great privilege of serving for many years. She is a longtime member of the Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. On that committee, she has focused on health care for Americans, but health care particularly for children, as she has focused on education for our children.

In short, Madam Speaker, this legislation will provide schools across the

country with uniform guidance on how to create appropriate management and emergency plans for children with food allergies. It will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a voluntary policy for schools to implement measures to prevent exposure to food allergens and to ensure a prompt response if a child suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction.

Madam Speaker, deadly food allergies are not some arcane, rare occurrence. Frankly, even if they were, they would require our attention. But the reality is that as many as 2 million school-age children suffer from food allergies. One of those children is my granddaughter, Alexa.

No cure currently exists. Avoiding any and all products with allergy- causing ingredients is the only way to prevent potentially life- threatening reactions, reactions including severe anaphylaxis, which often occur at school and which can kill within minutes, unless epinephrine is administered.

Alexa, Madam Speaker, is 5 years of age. When she is at my house, as she was this past weekend, when she is in a restaurant, she is acutely aware, extraordinarily aware, for a 5-year-old, of what she can and cannot eat. And her mother, my daughter, asked the restaurant, what do you cook your french fries in? What do you use on your foods? It is an extraordinarily anxious time when my granddaughter eats. Just last week, for example, members of my family, including Alexa, visited my office, and we had sandwiches put out for a number of the family members. We had to make sure that all peanut butter and jelly sandwiches were removed from our conference room before Alexa entered to protect her.

To tell you how extraordinarily sensitive she is, she was in Disney World in Florida. She was walking with her mother and father down the pathway there from one exhibit to the other, and all of a sudden she started to wheeze heavily. Anne, who had seen this happen before, could not understand it because she didn't have anything to eat. They retraced their steps, and about 100 feet before this started, 100 feet, they saw some popcorn being popped in peanut oil. And it was simply the wind wafting that peanut odor. And whatever it was in the air she then breathed in, and that immediately started to give her a problem.

The importance of managing life-threatening food allergies in the school setting has been recognized by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Nurses and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. One of the extraordinary nurses of America is our colleague, Lois Capps. And I want to thank Congresswoman Capps for her leadership on this issue, as well. As a health professional, she knows firsthand of the consequences of allowing this to go unchecked and unprepared for.

Unfortunately, no consistent, standardized guidelines currently exist to help schools safely manage students with potentially deadly food allergies. As a matter of fact, my daughter, and parents similarly situated, meet with their child's teacher, Alexa is in kindergarten, and teaches them how to use the EpiPen, and it is ever present. My daughter goes nowhere without her EpiPen for use on Alexa should she have an attack.

That is why it is critical that we pass H.R. 2063 to ensure the safety of not only Alexa, but the millions of other school-age children afflicted with food allergies across the country.

I recently went to an event in New York. And after the event, I went to dinner, and there were eight of us at the table. Three of us were grandfathers. Eight people, in New York, not anything dealing with this issue, all three grandfathers were telling one another about the fact that they have grandchildren with food allergies. That is why it is critical that we pass this bill to ensure the safety not only of Alexa, but as I said, of the millions of other school-age children.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this important, life-saving legislation.

I thank the distinguished whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including several important public health bills, H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act, and H.R. 1237, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act. The final list of bills under suspension of the rules will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and H.R. 2537, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It's our expectation that, following the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the committees will be meeting to not only discuss substantive policy, but also to discuss the supplemental appropriation bill. It would be my expectation that that bill would be on the floor either the end of April or the first week in May. We are cognizant, as the gentleman indicated, of the June period, and so we want to move this significantly before that debate so that there will not be any lag.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Well, there are obviously needs in addition to Iraq that are being discussed, and I would tell my friend that those discussions are ongoing. A decision on what may or may not be added in addition to the supplemental that may be necessary for Iraq, there may be other things, that decision has not been made at this point in time. But I do want to let the gentleman know that that is under discussion.

As the gentleman will recall, last year, when we passed the supplemental, there were domestic priorities that were also addressed, in particular, Katrina, as the gentleman will recall, and some other matters as well. So, that's under discussion.

As you know, we are strong proponents of the PAYGO rule and have adhered to that in all but one instance last year. We did not adhere to it, as you know, with the stimulus package. There was concern, and obviously we didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same point in time, so that was under discussion. But I will tell you on the housing bill itself, Mr. Frank has been working on that with his committee, Maxine Waters and others, and with Mr. Bachus and others on the committee. And we would certainly hope to move a housing bill in the near term, certainly no later than the latter part of this month or the very first days of the next month, so that we can pass a bill that would give relief to those who have either been foreclosed upon or are on the brink of foreclosure. We believe that it is essential for us to try to address what is a national problem and a very serious one. And so, that will also go into the consideration, I think, of how much money is needed, how that will be paid for.

Thank you very much for yielding.

I will say that over the last 7 years, the President has told us things are pretty good. There was never a right time for revenues to be increased. Even in the times when the President was telling us the economy was robust, we were growing, we still weren't paying our bills.

We feel very strongly on this side of the aisle, and Mr. Bernanke, in a telephone conversation with me, said one of the things we didn't want to do, when you and I and Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi were talking about the stimulus package, one thing we did not want to do is exacerbate the long-term debt that confronts us. Mr. Bernanke is very concerned about that. But certainly in the context of wanting to move quickly in an emergency way where we have an economy now that Mr. Bernanke, although he didn't say it was a recession, he certainly gave the implication that we were on the brink of that, we're very concerned about the economic policies, very frankly, that we think have led to that.

But I will say that we have two concerns: Number one, paying for what we buy, not exacerbating the deficit. But clearly we're concerned about getting relief to people that need it in the short term. But my discussions with Mr. Bernanke were, yes, tax increases in the short term he thought were not helpful, but he wanted to make it very clear that he thought making the debt worse over the long term, whether it's for international expenses or domestic expenses, was not helpful to the economy in the long term.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I won't debate that now, but I would be interested in discussing it at some point in time because, as you know, in those years revenues fell short of the administration's projections in the previous years. So that, although revenues did increase, you're absolutely correct, as revenues have every year over the last 50 except for 2, they increased less than the administration had projected.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

We all agree this is an important agreement, but as you know, there are still major long-standing issues to be resolved, violence being one of them, labor rights being another, trade adjustment assistance, which the gentleman referred to, as another. If the White House does choose to send up the agreement, we will discuss the full range of options available to us under the TPA and the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, April 4, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the chairman of the committee. He is an extraordinary individual whom I have known for four decades. He will do an excellent job. We lament the loss, however, of the two individuals for whom this bill is named.

I want to congratulate my good friend, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, as well for her leadership, and I want to associate myself generally with the remarks of the previous speaker. And I think it is emblematic of the partnership that we have, not only with the administration, but on both sides of the aisle as it relates to this moral, as well as health, issue, and I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Madam Chairman, 5 years ago, the United States made an unprecedented commitment to the people of the world who suffer from HIV and AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases. We pledged $15 billion, and with that funding, we have provided life-saving drugs to almost a million and a half people. We facilitated care for over 2 million orphans and vulnerable children and provided mother-to-child transmission prevention services during more than 6 million pregnancies.

We have played a very real role in helping to transform HIV from a death sentence to a manageable disease.

And, Madam Chairman, as I said 5 years ago when we first passed this legislation, we must recognize that our Nation and each one of us has a moral obligation and a national security interest, as has been spoken of, in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria and tuberculosis.

Today, with this legislation, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, we build on and increase our commitment to stop the spread of HIV/

I thank my friend for yielding.

John Conyers is a distinguished leader of the civil rights movement, whose leadership and commitment and tenacity and steadfastness led to declaration of a holiday, a holy day in many respects, a day of recommitment when we remember the life, legacy, and teaching of Martin Luther King, Jr. I did not know Dr. King. I met him but didn't know him.

But I have known John Conyers and I have known John Lewis, and I know them both and they are giants themselves. John Lewis, of course, is the sponsor of this resolution, who represents Atlanta, who came from Alabama, who marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge, confronted by troops who wanted to stop him from doing what is basic to the United States of America, the right of every citizen to express their view on how their government ought to be peopled and run, the right to vote.

As a result of his courage, the leadership of Dr. King and John Conyers and so many others, we passed a Voting Rights Act. I am honored to stand with these two giants.

I understand that Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the committee, helped bring this bill to the floor.

I am of that generation that remembers the dark day in April of 1968, followed too closely by another dark day on June 6, just two-and-some- odd months later.

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago this Friday, Martin Luther King, Jr., was murdered. He was an American prophet. He called us to love justice, to love our brothers and sisters of every color, of every race, of every nationality, of every religion, of every gender. He spoke the truth, but on April 4, 1968, he was taken from us. But his lesson was not taken from us nor his example.

In this flawed and fallen world, hate and rage and violence will have their day, but if we can find even a sliver of good in that crime, it must be this: Dr. King died on a balcony, an open place, a public place. Dr. King showed us, he proved with his own body, that a just cause is worth dying for, as our Founding Fathers had done, as frankly, in my religion, Jesus did.

It is worth living for, too, he showed us. This resolution, even though I will vote for it wholeheartedly, even though I trust it will pass unanimously, even though it's offered by my good friend John Lewis, who ``toiled, and wrought, and thought'' with Dr. King, is just words on paper, unless we match it with the resolve of our lives. That is what Dr. King wanted us to do.

Our conduct, our actions, are the only honors we have worth giving. These words on paper take on value when, and only when, they spur us toward what Dr. King called ``a committed life.''

After the autopsy, which showed that his 39-year-old body held the strained and tired heart of an elderly man; after two brown mules pulled his casket in a

wooden cart through the streets of Atlanta; after tens of thousands assembled to put him to rest, Dr. King spoke at his own funeral.

The loudspeakers played a tape of one of his old sermons, and these were the words that echoed through the Ebenezer Baptist Church. ``I don't want a long funeral. I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked.''

We can say all of it, with truth, about Martin Luther King, Jr., a great American, a great leader, a great man and, yes, a citizen revered, respected, and honored by the world, for he saw himself not just as an American, proud though he was of this Nation's promise, but also he saw himself as a part of all mankind.

May we do our best to live by his example as we remember the sad day when his body was taken from us, but they could not take his lessons.

Madam Speaker, today I want to recognize and thank one of my constituents, Frank W. Wilkes of Clinton, Maryland, for his outstanding service to the United States Congress, the Members who serve here, and the entire Capitol Hill community over the last two decades.

I also want to thank and acknowledge his family--his beautiful wife of 30 years, Paulette, and his sons, Trevor and his wife Delania, and Frank W. Wilkes III.

After 20 years of service with the Capitol Police, Officer Wilkes retired recently and will move into a new phase in his life.

For most of his last years of service, Officer Wilkes served as the officer on duty at the Senate Day Care Center, a position replete with responsibility and challenge. However, what his resume does not capture is the fact that the children there adore their friend, ``Officer Frank.''

In turn, Frank has been a wonderful presence at the day care center, watching and ensuring that the children go about their day safely and securely. It's my understanding that he plans to come back and read to them on a monthly basis as part of his ``retirement'' plans.

Let me say, too, that I have heard from more than one resident in the neighborhood that Officer Wilkes will be sorely missed; that he was quite popular with the surrounding residents who trusted his judgment, respected his extraordinary common sense, and enjoyed his presence.

During his 20 years with the Capitol Police, Officer Wilkes served a key role in protecting Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and visiting dignitaries.

In fact, Frank was awarded a Certificate of Commendation for apprehending and subduing a suspect who was attempting to physically assault then-Vice President Dan Quayle.

Prior to joining the Capitol Police force, Officer Wilkes served for 9 years in the United States Air Force. Among other things, he was an administrative executive support manager, and served as liaison between the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the White House, the State Department, and the CIA to ensure the proper exchange of critical, time-urgent information.

Madam Speaker, those of us who enjoy the protection of the Capitol Police force--Members of Congress, government officials, and the general public who visit the Capitol complex--take their presence and their professionalism for granted far too often.

The truth is, we owe our Capitol Police officers--people like Frank Wilkes--a real debt of gratitude for doing such an important, oftentimes complicated job with great dedication and commitment.

Thus, today, I again want to thank Frank for his two decades of service to the Capitol Police and our Nation, and to wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today I want to commend Paul Facchina, Sr., for his outstanding contributions to the natural heritage of the State of Maryland. Mr. Facchina has made his name as one of Maryland's leading businessmen--but I suspect that he will be remembered just as much for his wonderful generosity. He has left our State a gift whose value cannot be measured in dollars: the gift of open, unspoiled land.

Most recently, Mr. Facchina made headlines with his donation of 179 acres in St. Mary's County to the Maryland Environmental Trust. No doubt, he could have sold development rights on that land for a significant profit. But by placing it under a conservation easement, he ensured that it will remain pristine and largely undeveloped. Wetlands and woods will stand in place of housing tracts. And our State's environmental health will benefit: By including vital waterfront land in his grant, Mr. Facchina contributed to our efforts to clean up and preserve the endangered Chesapeake Bay.

At the same time, the grant strengthens one of southern Maryland's most valuable economic resources, the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. By protecting the buffer surrounding the Navy base, Mr. Facchina's donation helps ensure that the Naval Air Station will remain open and viable, creating jobs in St. Mary's County and driving the local economy. In cases like this one, conservation often proves to be good business.

So I thank Paul Facchina, not only for his most recent gift, but for a long and proud legacy of giving that includes an historic plantation, headwater streams of the St. Mary's River, and the forest habitats of Maryland birds. In all, his family has entrusted more than 2,100 acres to the environmental care of our State. When Maryland residents enjoy that open land, and all of its benefits, I hope they will remember whom to thank.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the excellent work of the Maryland Environmental Trust, which will take care of that land as part of its more than 112,000 acres. Since 1967, the Trust has worked to help keep our State beautiful, and to help landowners preserve their piece of it. For more than four decades, landowners have relied on the Trust to watch over the legacies they leave, and I'm sure that they will be able to do so for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an important day for our country, for the House of Representatives, and for the American people. An important day because we focus on the protection that we owe to our people and to our country, not only from terrorists but from those who would undermine the Constitution of the United States.

Let me just briefly put in context where we are today some 7 years and 2 months after the start of this administration. From 2001 to 2006, the President of the United States did not veto a single bill. Why did he not veto a single bill? Because the Congress would not send him a bill that he did not want sent to him. It was a complacent, complicit Congress. And as a result of that complacency of the representatives of the American people, the administration came to believe that it could do anything it wanted without oversight or accountability.

And because of that, when we were put at risk by 9/11, the administration's response, perhaps led by the Vice President, was that we do not need to follow the law. There was a law in place. It's still in place. It still provides for the protection of the American people. It's called the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. But as too often has been the case in this administration, they chose not to follow the law. They chose, instead, to follow their own predilections. And that's why we are here today.

In addition to that, we were in a condition where technology had changed. The administration was absolutely correct on that point. And both the Intelligence Committee in the Senate and the Intelligence Committee in the House knew they had to respond to that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoekstra and Ms. Harman, as the chairman and ranking member, and Mr. Goss prior to that, knew that we had to move towards that. That is now a result of the legislation we see before us.

My good friend and distinguished colleague, the former attorney general of the State of California who's been in this body for some years. He was here,

then he went back to California. He read from the letter of the attorneys general. One of them was Maryland. I talked to him yesterday.

Sometimes people put letters in front of us that are not accurate and we don't check all of the facts. I presume that the other attorneys general that were presented with this letter are in the same position.

Let me read from this letter: ``Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller authored S. 2248 to solve a critical problem that arose when the Protect America Act was allowed to lapse on February 16, 2008.'' Hopefully, everybody in this body knows that information is inaccurate. Senator Rockefeller started to draft his legislation, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, long before February of 2008, the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, long before that ever happened. That information is inaccurate. I don't hold the attorneys general personally responsible for that inaccuracy. But I will tell you, my own attorney general, a signatory on this letter, had been misinformed. That's unfortunate.

I presume by the association, the overwhelming majority of these attorneys general are Republicans, but I don't think it was a partisan letter, per se, but it is shocking to me that an attorney general of a State in this country would say, ``whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe.'' There have been those down through history who, when we have been at risk, have said whatever action we take is justified, and the Constitution has suffered in that process.

We have a responsibility to do both, not just one. The attorneys general in their letter also said this: ``Intelligence officials must obtain FISA warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected terrorists in overseas countries.'' That is categorically false. I do not believe that any one of the attorneys general that signed this letter believed it to be false, but it is wrong. They are misinformed.

We have an opportunity today to move this process forward to protect America and protect our Constitution. Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, a committee from the Senate, passed a bipartisan bill. And I am so interested to hear all of the Members on the Republican side talk about how a Senate, bipartisan- passed bill ought to pass this House.

My, my, my. If Congressman DeLay were here now, he would turn over in his seat. His premise was the Senate doggone well ought to pass House bills and not ask any questions. That was his position. He had no intent to pass, no matter how bipartisan a Senate bill was, Tom DeLay had no use for talking to Senate Republicans about what he ought to pass.

And by the way, if the President said pass it, if it was the Patients' Bill of Rights that he didn't want and it passed the Senate and the House, it didn't pass out of the conference committee because the President didn't want it. And by the way, on the prescription drug bill that a large number of your caucus was against, you passed anyway. It took you 3 hours to vote it, but you passed it. And so many of your Members came kicking and screaming to the final result and lament that vote this very day, and all of you on that side of the aisle know it. Not all of you, but a large number.

Our responsibility is not to take a Senate bill or a House bill at face value. It is to exercise our best judgment to serve the American people as best we can.

I will close with this: Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the committee, strong proponent of the bipartisan bill, said this on March 11, 2008, just a few days ago:

``Today's House proposal reflects progress in bringing the two bills together, and it is a step in the right direction.'' He concluded his statement by saying this: ``As soon as the House sends us this new bill, we will once again roll up our sleeves and get back to work on a final compromise that the House, the Senate, and the White House can support.''

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and they gave to the President of the United States a role in the legislative process. We have an opportunity today to serve the protection of our country, the interception of communications dangerous to our people, and to uphold our oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Let us take that opportunity.

I'm always interested to listen to some of the representations made on this floor. I have been here some time, as all of you know.

Ronald Reagan said ``trust but verify.'' For 27 years, all but 8 of those with Republican Presidents, I have heard representations from the floor by Republicans about what their deficits were going to do.

For every one of those 27 years that Republicans were President of the United States, every one without exception, we ran huge deficits. And this year will be no different. The Republicans have had monopoly on policy-making in this town for essentially 7 years. This past year, we had some authority because the American people wanted change. But clearly, the President of the United States would not agree with us, and we had to do what the President would agree to so that, essentially, without restraint, the Republicans have had, for the last 7 years, the authority to do whatever they wanted to do.

The first 8 years I was here, Ronald Reagan was President. He ran $1 trillion in deficits. Then George Bush became President, a little over $1 trillion. This President, a little over $1.6

trillion. President Clinton was President for 8 years, only 8 years that we have had the Presidency, and America ran a net surplus.

So when you hear the protestations of the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee and the gentleman who just spoke from Texas, listen to them, but verify. Look at the record of Republican fiscal irresponsibility undiminished in the 27 years I have been here.

Mr. Ryan, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I have very substantial differences on how you get from here to there, is he correct that we need to look at our entitlement system? He is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, as he knows, I went to the Senate and testified on behalf of a resolution that does that. There is a resolution here that does that, as well. We have to do that. There is no alternative.

Have they done that over the last 7 years of this Presidency? They did not. Did we do it in 1983 with Ronald Reagan as President, Tip O'Neill as Speaker of the House? We did. And we made Social Security secure for the next 60 years. But when we were running up those deficits that Ronald Reagan said we were not going to run up, the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid crisis that confronts us was decades away.

Today, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. It is years away. However, the solution is not to cut medical services for senior citizens and to cut education for our college students. The solution is not to put the car in reverse. The solution, as Ross Perot said, is to lift up the hood and fix it. And that is what the Spratt budget is doing. The Spratt budget is saying to all the Members of this House and to this Congress, we must act responsibly. Responsibly is not only acting fiscally responsibly, but also investing responsibly in the future of our country.

I would urge my colleagues to reject this tired, tired, tired shibboleth about ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Frankly, the biggest per capita real tax increase in my tenure was under Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan in 1982. And then, of course, George Bush was defeated, presumably because he tried to help balance the budget. And in fact, George Bush made a significant contribution because it was the George Bush agreement on pay-as-you-go, the 1997 Newt Gingrich-Bill Clinton agreement on pay-as-you-go that got us those 4 years of surplus of which I have spoken.

John Spratt was involved in the leadership of that effort. Tom Kahn of the committee was involved in that effort. And as a result of that effort, we brought surpluses, 4 years. Surprisingly, one of those years was a real surplus. And when I say ``real surplus,'' notwithstanding the Social Security income that we are counting to get to either balance or surplus which is really not what we should be doing, I agree with that, on either side of the aisle.

But ladies and gentlemen, John Spratt's budget meets the test of verification. It meets the test of reality. It meets the test of saying we need to pay for what we buy and not pass it along to our children and grandchildren. The budget vote is one of the most important that we make. Not because the American people really will look closely at the budget or because they think it has great consequence in their lives. It is very difficult to see the consequence of the budget because the budget then needs to be carried out in appropriations, authorizations, and policy.

But ladies and gentlemen of this House, we know that it speaks to whether or not we have the courage of our appropriations. The gentleman that spoke before me from Texas talked about earmarks. I am always interested to hear Republicans talk about earmarks. They came to Congress and quadrupled, quadrupled, four times, the number of earmarks.

I am always pleased to yield to a friendly point. Do I get to make the judgment as to how friendly it is?

I am reclaiming my time.

The tears, the crocodile tears that flow from the eyes of the ranking member of the Budget Committee about this awful thing that we called ``congressional investments.'' It is so sad that for 6 years they were unable to discipline themselves. And by the way, last year, they were unable to discipline themselves. And guess what? This year they wanted a moratorium for 6 months.

You have gone much longer than your caucus wanted to go. I understand that. But the conference wanted to go for 6 months.

I thought it was such an interesting proposal because it meant ``we will go just long enough until we really do appropriations and when it really means something.'' Too often, ``hypocrisy, thy name is ourselves.'' I say it on both sides of the aisle.

Now, I'm for, as everybody knows, congressional initiatives. But I am for paying for them. When we quadrupled them, we borrowed for them from the Chinese, from the Germans, and from the Saudis. As a matter of fact, this President, as my friend knows, has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the other Presidents combined. Trust but verify.

Every year that I have been here, ranking members have risen, one of whom is now the chairman of the OMB, and told me what a bright future it would be if their budgets were adopted. Now, the problem is that sometimes they can't get agreement between Senate Republicans and House Republicans on what that beautiful budget ought to be. We passed a budget last year. We lived within that budget last year. We need to do so this year. And we are trying to pay for things. We had a stimulus we didn't pay for. Some of us were concerned about that, but you can't stimulate and depress at the same time.

So my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, vote for our children and future generations today. Vote for the John Spratt Democratic budget. Reject this budget that pretends it's going to bring you balance but has never done so once, not once in the 27 years that I have been here. Vote for the Spratt budget. It is good for our country. It is good for our people. It is good for our future.

Let me first thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt of South Carolina, for all of his hard work, patience and intelligence in producing this Democratic budget resolution--which is nothing less than a blueprint of our values and priorities.

Let me also thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus for offering their important budget alternatives-- alternatives that reflect our shared commitment to the American people and a stronger America.

Now, before I discuss what I believe to be the vastly superior and realistic Democratic budget, let me briefly address the Republican budget substitute that we are now debating.

I both like and respect the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan. He is a thoughtful, diligent Member.

And, I believe that were it up to him, he might actually try to implement the provisions in the Republican budget substitute.

But the problem, of course, is that he would be fighting a lonely, losing, untenable battle.

This we know: many, many Republicans would not support the deep, draconian cuts to domestic programs called for in their own budget.

The fact is, this Republican budget only reaches balance in 2012 by slashing funding for mandatory programs by $412 billion.

This Republican budget would cut Medicare and safety-net programs; cut Medicaid, thereby jeopardizing health care for more than 50 million children, parents, seniors and disabled Americans; cut--and possibly eliminate--the recently enacted increase in Pell Grants; and cut funding for military retirement and health care.

Furthermore, the Republican budget implies very deep cuts in discretionary programs, devastating public health, education, safety net and infrastructure programs.

This Republican budget fails to reflect the values and priorities of the American people.

In contrast, the Democratic budget continues to move our Nation in a new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed Republican economic policies over the last 7 years.

Remember, in just 86 months, Republicans have turned projected budget surpluses into

record deficits--including a projected $386 billion this year and another $340 billion next year--and added more than $3 trillion to the national debt, which today stands at $9 trillion.

Our Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility, adhering to pay-as-you-go budget rules and bringing the Federal budget back to balance by 2012.

It rejects the drastic funding cuts in the Republican substitute and the President's budget, which includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, State and local law enforcement programs, and environmental protection.

It strengthens our economy, providing crucial funding for our innovation agenda, efficient and renewable energy programs, education, and infrastructure.

It provides tax relief for hard-working Americans, including a reconciliation instruction that provides offsets for a new one-year patch of the alternative minimum tax.

And, our Democratic budget makes America safer, providing for a robust defense, boosting homeland security funding, and rejecting the President's cuts to first responder programs.

This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark contrast to the irresponsible fiscal policies of the current administration and former Republican majorities in Congress.

I urge all of my colleagues:

Vote for fiscal responsibility, and a bright future for our children.

Vote for the budget that reflects our values--and meets the needs of the American people.

Vote for this Democratic budget.

Will my friend yield on his last point?

I agree with him, and the reason for that, of course, is while you cut revenues, you didn't cut spending when you were in charge.

It is too late to ask you to yield, I take it, on the employment issue.

Madam Speaker, at the request of, and after discussion with, the distinguished Republican whip, I ask unanimous consent that at a time designated by the Speaker on the legislative day of March 13, 2008, the House resolve itself into secret session as though pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVII; secondly, debate in such secret session proceed without intervening motion for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority whip; and, thirdly, at the conclusion of that debate, the secret session shall be dissolved.

Clause 9. Excuse me.

That's what the consent agreement is, pursuant to our discussions.

Certainly.

My presumption is, and I think that's accurate because of my discussions with the Republican whip, the discussion will be with reference to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I can't tell you that because I don't know.

I presume, I tell the gentleman from Ohio, that it certainly will relate to the legislation that we will then be considering probably at this point in time tomorrow.

My presumption is that we will not debate the legislation in secret. Not only is that my presumption, I think we will clearly have public debate tomorrow on the bill. The minority whip came to me indicating that there were things he thought the Members ought to have knowledge of that he was of the opinion could not be divulged in public debate. There is a provision under our rules to accomplish that objective. After discussion with him and limitation on the time so that we could, in fact, get to a vote on what we believe is very important legislation, we have agreed to this arrangement. Again, it's limited, but we did not want to be nor are we in the position of saying to the minority whip if he has such information that we want to preclude that from being offered, because we want no indication that any information is being withheld. That is appropriate, obviously. There are going to be restrictions, obviously, even in the context of the session.

I thank the gentleman. In responding to him, I believe, and I'm not, frankly, absolutely positive, and I am hoping that somebody perhaps on the Intelligence Committee staff or others in the House knows, but I believe that during the early 1980s, 1983, on Contragate there was such a session.

In 1983.

Contragate.

Yes.

I don't know the answer to that question.

If you will yield to Mr. Blunt, he may be able to offer some information.

Yes.

The answer to the question is you will all be receiving from the leader and the whip's office on your e-mails notification of the time and you will get sufficient notice. It is contingent upon how long it takes those that have the responsibility to do so. But you will be getting your e-mails in a time frame that will allow you to get back notice.

If this is approved, my expectation is there probably will be no further votes tonight.

Yes.

I think that's accurate.

That is my expectation.

I think the answer is that, within the framework of the unanimous consent, I've requested there is not such a limitation. I think the gentleman is correct on that. However, as I said, my expectation and my discussions with the whip ares that the purpose of the session is to offer information that might not otherwise be appropriate to disclose in public session.

My expectation is there is going to be a fulsome debate, as there has been, tomorrow on the legislation itself. So my expectation, given the shortness of the time that we are talking about, 30 minutes per side, we will have the Intelligence Committee here and the Judiciary Committee here to comment, obviously it is going to be a little difficult, because if there is information brought up that there may be comment on that information, and very frankly, the parameters of the debate tomorrow may, although not disclosing that information, may obviously be perceived by many of us as relating to whatever is discussed. It is very difficult to know specifically because I do not know the specific information that that request was made for.

I think that's a very good question. Let me tell you that we have asked. Mr. Blunt and I have discussed that. And we have asked the appropriate officials, bipartisan officials, of this House, under the rules, to give us the answer to that question and to have on paper the specific advice to every Member of the House so that we cannot have Members go out of here, put themselves at risk of violation of the rules, have clear advice and counsel as to what that is.

Now, it is my belief, this is not an opinion given to me, but it is my belief that every Member of this House that receives information from sources unrelated to this hour are certainly free, as they are right now, to discuss that information. And the fact that it is discussed in the session would not adversely affect that right. I would be shocked and not in agreement with this unanimous consent if the case were otherwise.

We are not surprised by that.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The contemplation of this unanimous consent is that there will be no business done in the sense of ``doing business'' as taking legislative action. Nobody contemplates that.

If I could continue, there are some in this body who have, because of their membership on particular committees, been able to see information in secret which other Members of this body have not seen. As the distinguished gentleman from California observed, there are still limitations notwithstanding this secret session.

We have a room that allows people to receive information in secret. They are not necessarily transacting business; although, the Intelligence Committee obviously on both Houses does, in fact, conduct its business in secret in that they vote in secret on some legislation.

All this contemplates is the offering and receiving of information that the minority has represented they believe they want to give to the Members that they ought not to give in open session. The matter that we are considering obviously is a very important, critical matter. There are substantial, as you know, differences. You and I agree on most of those. We perhaps disagree with others. It was the Speaker's and my view after discussing with Mr. Conyers and Mr. Reyes that to deny that would give Members the impression that somehow we did not believe they ought to have that information.

Now, I don't know what the information is, as I have said. But having said that, we certainly do not contemplate any business being done. Now, the fact that a Member may say something that is not secret, I would presume things are going to be said in there that are not secret. The gentleman from Ohio raised some excellent points. I share the concern of the gentleman from Texas and the concerns.

But I also understand this is a serious matter. We believe in public we will debate tomorrow a serious proposal as to how to serve our intelligence interests and our constitutional responsibilities. So I am hopeful that we will not object to this, although I think the concerns raised are absolutely legitimate, very serious, worthwhile concerns, and as the gentleman from Texas observes, which is why this is done so very infrequently. I have only been a participant in the 1983 session.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. But that is my take on what is going to transpire.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

If the gentlewoman will yield, I believe the gentlewoman is reserving her right to object and wanted to speak on the issue.

The gentlewoman has the floor.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my good friend for yielding. What I think the whip is saying, the Whip came to me earlier today, said he wanted to discuss information which the Intelligence Committee has, which the broad reach of the Members do not have, but he did not want to, he did not feel he could discuss that in open session.

The rules provide for the whip to make a motion to do that. That will then be a relatively lengthy process. The whip and I discussed this on his representation that he had information that he felt, in good conscience, he could not divulge, not because it's not in the bosom of the Intelligence Committees or, frankly, maybe the Judiciary Committee, which has been cleared, but because he felt it was information that was not releasable.

What we have done is reached an agreement that makes it very clear that there are very short parameters for this discussion and debate.

I want to say that I, generally, have not been here as long as Mr. Obey, but my experience on these kinds of sessions, whether they are briefings, has been the same as his. I have rarely learned something that I couldn't read in U.S. News & World Report or Time the day before or the day after.

But having said that, we have tried to reach an agreement with the minority that would facilitate the receiving of information which many Members, not the Intelligence members or the Judiciary members, but many Members have not had available to them and could not be discussed in open session.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

For my part, I believe I will be fully engaged on this piece of legislation, on its merits, what it does to facilitate the interception of communications which may prove dangerous to our country and at the same time protect our Constitution.

I don't think I am going to be constrained in any way.

Now, what I will be constrained on saying is that, obviously, I have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go to the committee to review information in the bosom of the committee and to make conclusions on that. I will not discuss that specific information, but there is, most of the information that I have, having done that, is from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, other news magazines, from articles that I have read. I frankly think that no Member is going to have to be confused about debating the merits or the demerits of the issue that will be before us tomorrow based upon this secret session.

Now, the gentleman, as I say, has made a request that he has information that he wants to discuss which he believes ought not to be discussed in public. I think everybody, not in public in the sense of depriving the American people from the information, but information that we need to hold close so that it is not used by those who would cause us harm, without speculating as to what that information may be. I frankly think that every Member will be able to make that judgment.

But, more than that, we have discussed this, and we hope to have, and I forget who it was who was mentioned, very appropriately, we hope being prepared now is directive from a nonpartisan source of security people. This is, after all, a rule of the House that is being pursued. It could be pursued by motion, but it's being pursued by unanimous consent. Doing so, we believe, sets the parameters more appropriately.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I don't want to go further than I am absolutely confident on the response to this. However, let me say that I believe that all the information that Members need to debate this bill tomorrow is currently in their possession and will be elicited in public debate.

The minority whip does not believe that. He believes there is additional information.

I think Members, I would not want to leave the impression with any of our Members that somebody had information that they believed was very important to the security of our country that they were precluded from giving to Members. That is why we pursued this objective.

As I say, the rules provide for that. But in terms of the debate, my suggestion is, I think, particularly the gentlewoman who serves so ably on the Judiciary Committee has all the information, and she has some information she knows she can't speak of because she has received briefings as a member of the Judiciary Committee.

But I believe there will be no constraints.

However, the constraint I think is you would not say, out of a secret session, and none of us should say out of a secret session, that X, Y and Z was said in a secret session, or that I got this information from a secret session. And if you did not have that information but for being in that session, my advice would be not to tell that information. But my view has been this has been a very wide, public debate; and I don't have any problems debating this vigorously tomorrow, as I intend to do because I think the bill is a good bill and protects both our intelligence ability and our Constitution. So I will not feel constrained at all. But I will not say I will not tell information that I received in this secret session because I don't think I am going to need to at all.

I think the fact of attending the session is not secret. The answer is ``yes.''

I think every Member will in fact say based upon the information they have, as I will say and as you will say, some of that information is held close. Some is not. And we will make our decisions based upon the information we have. So I think the gentlelady is absolutely correct.

There are a lot of hypotheticals, a, I believe the gentleman is correct, there is a high bar. I will tell you that as everybody in this House knows, Mr. Blunt and I are friends. I have great respect for Mr. Blunt. Mr. Blunt came to me, without denigrating any other Member, he is a leader of his party and I accord him the respect of making the judgment that in fact he is going to meet that high bar.

I have not interrogated him any more than I would want him to interrogate me on that issue. I take him at his word as a Member. Now, the consequence of not meeting that high bar is only that Members will say that a request was made that was not justified. I think that is the consequence. There is certainly no consequence in the rules. And, first of all, we would, I suppose, as a body have to judge, a, what the bar was and whether you met it.

In any event, I think the gentleman understands the answer to my question. I respect him as the leader of his party. He has made this request, and we are trying to honor it, I might say, in a way that most fashions it so that it will be as focused and as helpful as can be.

The gentleman is reading from the rule and he is a very bright, good friend; and I am sure he read the rule accurately. So my presumption is that he is accurate.

The gentleman is absolutely correct on that observation.

Will the gentleman yield?

The reason I stand is because again I want to explain. The information, I don't know the information, but the information that Mr. Blunt has clearly is within the bosom of the Intelligence Committee, and I don't know, but I presume the Judiciary Committee has had access to it under the President's order. What has not been done is that information has not been shared with the Members. It's not a question of the sharing with the Intelligence Committee. I understand the gentleman's concern. What Mr. Blunt is simply saying is he wants to share with the Members. He cannot share it in open session. I don't know what the information is, but, again, as I expressed to my friend, and I would hope that we would understand that at some point in time, we need to accord to one another the credibility. Particularly I would hope that he would accord to me, as the leader, credibility, and as I accord to him credibility on his assertion that this is something he wants to share with the Members, some of whom would not have had access. They may have had access to it, but they haven't heard it. That is all I think he's saying. And in that context, we have come to this agreement which we think, as I say, focuses and serves the concerns that you have legitimately raised and focuses our efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that the gentleman needs to address himself to is why this is a privilege of the House. I suggest that the Speaker make sure he is talking to that point.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

I thank my friend for yielding.

In response to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, let me read a statement from the President's veto message of March 8, 2008:

``My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program.'' He doesn't say that it will not be a part of the CIA program. He has very carefully worded, ``It is not part of the current program.''

That is why I tell my friend this legislation is relevant. That is why, in my opinion, his Presidential candidate, although he seems to have changed his mind, passed his own bill, which the President, of course, signed and then had a signing statement that he wasn't sure that he had to follow it, that torture was not the policy of the United States of America. I agree with that. It's not. It should not be. But we need to make a very clear statement that it is not. Why? Because the rest of the world is looking at us and wondering what are the values that this great Nation we respect so much values?

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the President could have made a clear, unequivocal statement that this great Nation does not and will not torture those in our custody. He should have signed this important intelligence authorization conference report into law. But instead, he vetoed it, because it requires all American intelligence agencies to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations.

Let us be clear: This veto was unfortunate and misguided. It threatens to further degrade America's moral standing as others have said, including Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State in this administration. It threatens to undermine our credibility in the international community and to expose our own military and intelligence personnel to the very same tactics and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, every Member here believes that our Nation must take decisive action to detect, disrupt, and, yes, eliminate terrorists who have no compunction about planning and participating in the mass killings of innocent men, women, and children in an effort to advance their twisted, demented aims. We can, we will, and we must prevail in the war on terror. However, in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us, we must not sacrifice the very ideals that distinguish us from those who preach death and destruction and say that their ends justify whatever means they may use.

During the current administration, we have seen the line blurred between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture. And there is no doubt, our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result. The excesses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are well known, as well as the administration's belief that the Geneva Convention against torture is, and I quote, quaint. Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The administration's advice that it got from counsel was that the Geneva Conventions against torture is, quote, quaint, close quote. I would suggest to you it is as relevant today as it was when it was signed.

These incidents and others sully our great Nation's good reputation and allow our enemies to foment fear and stoke hatred. Requiring all intelligence agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual on interrogation is an attempt by this Congress, passed by majorities in both Houses, to repair the damage that has already been done. Furthermore, the techniques permitted by the Army Field Manual have been endorsed by a wide array of civilian and military officials as both effective and consistent with our values.

Here, in fact, is what General David Petraeus wrote to members of the Armed Forces in Iraq last May. I believe it has been quoted, but it bears repeating:

``Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.''

General Petraeus went on to say:

``Our experience in applying interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.''

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of whether we must combat and defeat terrorists. We must. However, we must never let it be said that when this generation of Americans was forced to confront evil that we succumbed to the tactics of the tyrant.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote to override this unjustified and deeply misguided veto.

Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in this House on loving this institution.

The issue, my friends, is not whether we have respect for one another. Too often, it is demonstrable on this floor that we don't.

The issue is, Will the American people have respect for us? That is the issue. That is the critical issue that confronts us this evening. Not because any of us are pointing fingers at anybody else in this House.

But unless you were sound asleep prior to the last election, unless you were living in another country in another land in another time, you know what the people thought about this, the people's House that we love. That, my friends, is why we are in the majority, because the people thought changes were necessary in this House.

The people asked for change. They asked for accountability. There have been some things said on this House floor that are not accurate. Mr. Tiahrt said that Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, and Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, would make independent appointments to this.

Mr. Capuano changed that as a result of the suggestions of these Members. It was a good change because it meant that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi are going to have to agree on six people.

It has been said on this House just now that this replaces the Ethics Committee. It absolutely does not. Does it complement it? I think it does, but it does not replace it. Nor does it substitute its judgment for the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee can continue to operate as it does now and can initiate, it does not need to wait on this committee. It can initiate the defense of the ethics of this House, 435 of us elected by our neighbors and friends. We are all sad when one of us comes short of the expectations of our constituents, as we should, because we know only too well, those of us who have served for significant periods of time in the public's fear, that the acts of each of us is often attributed to the rest of us.

There needs to be a confidence level among the American people in the people's House. How are they going to

have that confidence? I suggest to you that it is my belief, as one who is not for many of the things that the so-called groups are for, who think that it is going to change, it will not change, many times, the substance of what we deal with.

I happen to have come to the conclusion that this proposal that Mr. Capuano and others have made, and I regret the fact that this is not a bipartisan proposal. One of my best friends in life, not just that served here in this House, is Senator Ben Cardin. Many of you know how close he and I are. He and Bob Livingston worked on the last major ethics reform together and came together in a bipartisan fashion.

I am one who works in a bipartisan fashion. Ask Bob Ney and the Help America Vote Act. Ask Steve Bartlett on the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe in operating that way. I wish this were a bipartisan product.

If we had the vote on the Republican alternative, I would vote against it. Why would I vote against it? Because it has within its framework submitting to the Justice Department after 45 days a complaint that the Ethics Committee has not dealt with. I don't think that is appropriate for a violation of the rules. It should be within the bosom of this body. This proposal copies it there.

This does not give subpoena power to people to go on fishing expeditions. It gives to six people, selected jointly by Mr. Boehner and Speaker Pelosi, who I hope and believe that they will agree upon people of very high integrity and good common sense. Because when they say, and somebody comes along and says in a press conference, Steny Hoyer has violated the rules, none of us can protect ourselves against that. That's the business we are in. We are all targets and we are all vulnerable.

But it is my belief that this body will be composed of the kinds of people that I think Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Boehner will appoint, and not Members.

I am a lawyer. I will tell you, the public is not too convinced that lawyers are good at self-regulation. Some of you are doctors. The public is not particularly convinced that doctors are good self- regulators, or CPAs or other professions.

That's what we are talking about. We are talking about to the American public we do act properly, we do keep the faith. We are honest, and we are prepared to answer for our conduct and give confidence to you, the American people, that it is the people's House, not our House, the people's House.

I suggest to you, my friends, that whatever can happen, whatever could happen, whatever scenario you fear can happen right now with the existing process, all this does, it adds a complementary body, hopefully, and I believe, of citizens of very high repute who will, in turn, be able to say to the American public, yes, this group of Americans is honest, hardworking, and serving you well.

Are there, from time to time, exceptions? There are. But let us have the confidence to tell to the American people our conduct is, and we want it to be, above reproach, and we do not fear the oversight and accountability that this proposal suggests. I urge my colleagues, have confidence in those that Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi will appoint. Have confidence in yourselves and in your colleagues, and let us this night give confidence to our constituents and the American people.

Vote for this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to follow my friend Mr. Murphy who just spoke, with whom I agree entirely. This will be a cost savings. I want to congratulate as well Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, one a Democrat and one a Republican.

But this is not a partisan issue. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an issue of human beings. It is an issue of people that need help and have been denied it, people who are one of us, as Mr. Murphy so eloquently and correctly pointed out.

I rise in strong support of this legislation. I strongly support this long overdue bipartisan legislation to end discrimination against patients seeking treatment for mental illness. Mr. Kennedy spoke of that discrimination.

I want to commend Congressman Kennedy and my friend Congressman Ramstad. Congressman Ramstad is going to be leaving us, but he has been one of the best Members that has served in this body, who looks at issues on their merits, not on partisanship. We all ought to do that.

This legislation, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, now has 274 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Under this bill, an insurer or group health plan must ensure that any financial requirements such as deductibles, copayments, coinsurance and out-of-pocket expenses which apply to mental health and addiction treatments are no more restrictive or costly than the financial requirements applied to comparable medical and surgical benefits that the plan confers.

Why does it do that? It does it because in America we want healthy people; not physically healthy people or mentally healthy people, but people who are physically and mentally healthy, because obviously there is an extraordinary relationship between the two. Under this bill, we will accomplish that end.

It also requires equity in treatment limits. This means that the treatment limits, such as the frequency of treatment, number of visits and days of coverage applied to mental health and addiction benefits, are no more restrictive than the treatment limits applied to comparable medical and surgical benefits. Why? Again, because we want to effect the health of the individuals we are serving.

It is important to note that this bill only applies to insurers and group health plans that provide mental health benefits. That is, it does not require plans that do not currently offer mental health benefits to do so. It simply says, if you provide mental health benefits, do so equitably and fairly and equally. That is why Patrick Kennedy referred to this as a civil rights bill. It is a civil rights bill.

It also exempts businesses with 50 or fewer employees and businesses that experience an overall premium increase of 2 percent or more in the first year and 1 percent in subsequent years. We believe that perhaps will not happen, but it provides for it.

Research has shown that there has been no significant cost increase attributable to the parity requirement in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which has made parity coverage for mental health care available to more than 8\1/2\ million Federal employees for 8 years. So we have had experience at this. This is not a radical departure. This is, however, the provision of equal treatment.

Furthermore, this bill's enforcement mechanisms are real, permitting the IRS to enforce and levy fines and penalties on plans for disallowing employers from deducting health care costs as an expense.

The two offsets in this bill were included in the Children's Health and Medical Protection Act, or the CHAMP Act, which passed the House last August. The first increases the rebate or discount that drug companies are required to provide State Medicaid programs for drugs provided for Medicaid beneficiaries. The second prohibits physicians from referring patients to hospitals in which they have an ownership interest, with the ability to grandfather existing physician-owned hospitals.

It is telling, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is supported by, among others, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

On the steps of the Capitol in a press conference with the Speaker, with Mrs. Rosalynn Carter, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad, as well as David Wellstone, I said that the United Negro College Fund has a wonderful phrase that it uses, and that phrase is that ``a mind is a terrible thing to waste.'' That is so very accurate. And if a mind is a terrible thing to waste, it is a terrible thing not to treat, as we would treat the broken arm or the diabetes or any other physical ailment.

This bill makes America healthier. This bill will save money. This bill makes good sense, morally and economically. Support this vital piece of legislation.