Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I ask to claim the time allotted for debate of the amendment offered by Ms. Johnson, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this and so many other amendments on this bill which are so very, very important not only to our veterans, but it serves as a model, as do so many veterans programs, of something we could be doing for other Americans.

Let me speak first to the point of what these do when we manage and coordinate patient care. We had an issue recently in the Energy and Commerce Committee which I serve on doing this, another aspect, and it was a very lively discussion. But recognize that someone who is wounded, as well as someone who has other medical illnesses, a single diagnosis is usually not something that stands loan. For example, a person with diabetes may have several other endocrine problems, problems with their kidneys, with their diet, their circulation, their limbs, their mobility, and of course there are emotions, too, all of which can be very, very complex to deal with.

When the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center did a study on coordinating the care of people with diabetes, for example, they found when they assign people to work on these cases, they reduce rehospitalization by 75 percent. Washington Hospital in Washington, Pennsylvania reduced rehospitalization of folks with heart disease by 50 percent. These are extremely important aspects. And we have to look upon these as things that not only save money, but they save lives and they save a lot of care.

Let me also point to an amendment offered by my dear friend, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, when he talked about mental illness. When we are talking about the wounds of war or the wounds of life, not all of these wounds are visible. They are not necessarily scars one can see, they are not something you can put a bandage on, but they are very real. The psychological wounds of war are such that they can break up a family, keep someone from holding a job, perhaps lead someone to try to self-medicate their problems away with drugs or alcohol, all too common problems among our veterans.

And then when they are not dealt with, we find people who become more dependent upon others, that with difficulties with their families, with their

children, perhaps become hopeless, have trouble holding a job. And all of those continued effects of wounds of war go on.

It is extremely important that we recognize in Mr. Kennedy's amendment, as well as Ms. Johnson's amendment and other aspects of this whole bill that what is vitally important is we treat the whole person.

The time is long past due in this country where we look at medical symptoms and medical disease as something that shows up on an x-ray or a blood test or some other sophisticated test. Indeed, the wounds of war are not always visible, nor are they things that appear soon after the battle. Post traumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders can remain latent for years and suddenly reappear. I remember meeting a veteran at a VA hospital who ended up with some problems after 20 or 30 years after the Vietnam War. He had recently had a liver transplant.

Under the medications and other aspects, he suddenly began having nightmares that he never had before. He had all this psychological trauma that was never showing up before.

What is so important is that we work to train people to understand these issues, which the gentlelady's amendment talks about, that we work to deal with the mental illness issues, which Mr. Kennedy's amendment talks about, and we work as a unit, as a whole, as a Congress, as a Nation to recognize that many times the illnesses and wounds of war are things that may not be there now, may not be visible, but are aspects we have to treat in the long run.

I call on all of my colleagues to enthusiastically support these amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and Mr. Boswell for working on this important bill.

As a psychologist, I have treated more than my share of those who have suffered from significant depression and have had risk of suicide, many of those veterans of various conflicts. This bill is extremely important in what it does in providing access to care, but there are so many things that we must utilize here as part of this bill.

One is to make sure that it is used to provide proper screening for soldiers during basic training and also prior to deployment. Also to make sure that there is ongoing support and availability of that support in combat theaters. There must also be training for officers and leaders in the military to be aware of signs of problems and to be aware of treatment options. That training is vital.

There also must be access to trained personnel both while the person is in a combat theater and when they return home and after discharge and in the years to follow, because many times the signs of these problems may not actually show up for years.

It is important that all of us are aware, for our friends, our spouses, our loved ones who come back from combat, to recognize signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and drug and alcohol abuse as all signs that there may be a deeper mental illness behind that.

But it is important, above all of this, that we eliminate the stigma of mental illness. It is indeed a problem which is associated with biological causes with very real symptoms and very real available treatments. But many times soldiers do not seek treatment because they have a fear of being looked down upon by their peers, they fear a loss of rank, they fear discharge or loss of a chance for promotion. They feel there is limited access for trained professionals, and many also think the cost is overwhelming.

We have to give hope to those with mental illness. For those who have seen significant problems in their life, some remain mired in those problems and remain victims and do not move forward. We can help them. There are some who are able to survive despite their problems and move forward and flourish and work. And there are others who thrive with their problems and turn these into a source of inner strength.

There is a great deal of hope and compassion that we can bring to our soldiers. This bill is a wonderful mechanism to bring that. I applaud all those who helped on it, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for his work on this important bill. We worked together on it. On behalf of H.R. 740, I would like to urge all of my colleagues to vote for this.

The previous version, which I introduced last session and was passed unanimously in the 109th Congress as H.R. 5304, was the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, or the PHONE Act, or the PHONE bill at that time.

Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes and others from the Judiciary Committee have taken a good bill and made it better.

Identity theft has become an increasingly critical problem for consumers. The Federal Trade Commission revealed that last year about 10 million individuals were victims of identity theft in all 50 States. The disastrous implications for identity theft includes damaged credit, financial ruin, and the effects can tear apart families and ruin businesses.

Congress has repeatedly acted to try and prevent identity theft. But, unfortunately, with new technologies, as soon as we outlaw one version, somebody comes up with a way around that, and once again harasses and harms citizens of this Nation.

One of these technologies used by thieves is the practice of call spoofing or caller ID fraud presented on Web sites as just an innocent game one can use, or perhaps use it to make sales calls, but they mask their identity and alter their outbound caller ID in order to mislead the call recipient. Some may call it a way to maintain caller privacy, but it is nothing less than fraud.

I believe Congress must enact a law to penalize caller ID fraud perpetrators. This bill is particularly necessary to protect American families, the elderly, and businesses because illegally using another person's phone number could have limitless, unlawful applications. It doesn't take much in the imagination to understand how dangerous this practice is and how it is being used now.

For example, a criminal could try to obtain personal financial information from individuals by using a bank's phone number. A person could harass a former wife or husband who has otherwise tried to block the calls from the ex-spouse's phone line. A pedophile could stalk children by stealing his school's phone number or the phone number of a friend of the child. A sexual predator could use a doctor's office phone number to gather records about someone. A terrorist could make threats from a government phone number, and the list goes on.

The criminal use of caller identity theft, however, is not just a possibility. Here are some real-world examples of how caller ID fraud is occurring.

In 2005, a SWAT team surrounded an empty building in New Brunswick, New Jersey, after police received a call from a woman who said she was being held hostage in an apartment.

She was not in an apartment. The woman had intentionally used a false caller ID. Imagine what might have happened if that was a site where people might have been coming out of the building and police might have thought that that person was a potential threat.

I might add that one of the things that these caller ID fraud sites use is they also will allow you to disguise your voice and switch it from a male voice or female voice or vice versa to further fool the person on the other end.

There also have been incidents where people have used stolen credit card numbers and posed as a person who owned the credit card to illegally wire money to someone else. Another case occurred where people claim they were the county courthouse, calling people, claiming that they had missed jury duty, and tried to use that situation then to have the people give them credit card numbers to pay a fine for something that had not even occurred.

For these reasons, I introduced this bill in the 109th Congress as the PHONE Act, to punish those who engage in the intentional practice of misleading others through caller ID fraud. Violators of this bill will be subject to penalties up to 5 years in prison and fines of $250,000 for these crimes. However, it also allows up to 1 year in prison for those who use this as a mechanism of harassing.

All those folks who are still using this system, be aware that this will be made illegal. We expect the Senate to pass this, and all the elderly and small businesses and families across the Nation who find themselves as victims of this, be aware that when the call you have today shows up on your caller ID, it may not be who they say they are.

Please, we need to make sure that until this bill is passed, people are still vigilant of that, protect their identity and never release a credit card number or other personal information, no matter what that caller ID number says, unless you are absolutely sure the person who you are talking to is who they are.

Again, I am pleased to work with the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee chairman on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Chairman Bobby Scott, who has reintroduced this bill. This bill, H.R. 740, adds the important criminal and financial penalties to those who prey on the identity of others.

This legislation will not stop crime, it will not prevent identity theft, but it will protect lives and protect others and close this loophole for identity theft once and for all. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.

Employers spend over $26 billion per year in direct medical costs to treat depression. But the indirect costs, including lost productivity and absenteeism, increased spending by some $51.5 billion per year, but appropriate treatment for depression reduces health care costs for businesses.

The National Institutes of Mental Health reported depression treatments reduce absenteeism and save money. Plans for Federal employees where mental health coverage is included in their health care plan also saves money.

Employers and Members of Congress should review the benefits of mental health insurance coverage and note that coverage of mental health treatment can also significantly reduce public health care spending on Medicare, Medicaid and our criminal justice programs.

I would urge all my colleagues to review how businesses and the Federal Government can save money on this by reviewing my Web site at murphy.house.gov. And remember, patient-centered health care saves lives and money by emphasizing patient safety, patient quality and patient choice.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This week the House passed a number of bills which are important to my municipality in the 18th Congressional District in Pennsylvania. This Water Quality Financing Act, which will authorize $20 billion over the next 5 years for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, is an important bill. It offers increased flexibility for local communities to meet their water quality infrastructure goals.

We take for granted the quality of our water, but it was not always so. The life expectancy of Americans increased from age 47 in the early 1900's to a life expectancy of 75 by the end of the century. The number one reason was the public health benefits of clean water and efficient sewer systems.

Decades ago, Southwestern Pennsylvania's boroughs and townships built their sewer lines with combined sanitary and storm water in the same system. What made sense at the time is now an antiquated and overburdened system. Wherever there is significant rain, it leaves untreated sewage flowing into our rivers and streams, recreating a health hazard.

The EPA then mandated the communities must fix these problems, but now local communities are strapped with massive costs. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alone repair costs exceed $3 billion. The towns then pass on the cost to homeowners. Many citizens are seniors on fixed incomes who simply cannot afford to fix the mistakes of the past and still pay for their bills today. Without funding, many of my towns just can't make it.

For years we have tried to help by providing annual funding assistance in a piecemeal manner. We need a comprehensive plan to provide a steady stream of funds to fix these problems, meet the standards to clean up our streams, support the public health and not pass on the whole burden of the inherited problem to current homeowners.

After working on this problem for years, both sides of the aisle have worked on this problem for years, I am pleased that we have some opportunities to offer some solutions; the solutions that I recognize are going to require some more crafting with the House and Senate.

I commend my colleagues who are going to work on this to recognize that we all need to work together because we are all concerned about working men and women. We are all concerned about people, without assigning them to any classes, and together we will work to solve these health problems of our water infrastructure in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.

As you said, few things are as important as the health of our families.

A lot of times in this Congress we talk about issues of health care accessibility, and a lot of times that becomes a discussion of health insurance. But the bottom line is, for families, they want to know that when their child or they are sick, can they get to see a doctor that they can afford, or even having their well-child visits or other checkups and how do they do that.

Health care issues, being a top priority for the Suburban Caucus, includes my legislation, the Family Health Care Accessibility Act, which is an updated version of a bill I introduced last year to ensure that every family has a neighborhood doctor. Regardless of their income, regardless of whether or not they have insurance, families will have health care.

We oftentimes hear it quoted here, and sometimes misquoted, that there are millions of Americans without health insurance, and indeed there are, and we do not want Americans to do without that health care. But, in fact, many of these folks are covered, perhaps through their employer; and, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania was describing, when they are between jobs and they have that gap there, that is something that Mr. Dent's bill would help cover them.

But there are some who are also covered by Medicare and Medicaid and don't know it. We need to work with them to make sure they are aware of that. The census data simply asks who is covered.

But the other issue becomes what about those Americans, 12, 13, 14 million or so, who do not have anything, and those are the ones we need to recognize that there are some things we can do, and we need to act now. It is not a matter really of concern about spending vast amounts of money, but we have a solution at hand, a simple solution, a direct solution, and one that we should embrace quickly to help these families.

Understand that health care costs for families in the United States are rising. From 2004 to 2005, the medical costs for a four-person household increased by over 9 percent, to $12,200-plus. This is a growing burden on all families and often many look at this as they can't afford health care.

But, fortunately, there are community health centers out there. These are nonprofit, community supported health care facilities that provide affordable primary and preventative health care on a sliding fee scale so that every patient who walks through the door can receive access to health care services. This is low-cost, affordable quality.

So instead of a family saying that they look at a health insurance bill of several hundred dollars a month, that would not be the issue, because what they could spend was a small, small fraction of that on a sliding fee scale to help them cover a doctor's visit, a dentist's visit or something else.

In fact, community health centers provide this high-quality care to over 15 million families who are the low-income, underinsured and uninsured. They provide a medical home for these folks and save even 30 percent for those who are on Medicaid, which is about a $17 billion annual savings to the American taxpayer.

Community health centers provide a wide array of health care, such as prenatal, dental, podiatry, mental health, substance abuse counseling, hearing screening, vision screening, discount prescription drugs, case management, smoking cessation, blood pressure monitoring, blood cholesterol monitoring, weight reduction programs, a wide array of programs that are available there. But the issue is, are there enough of these centers around and are there enough doctors to staff them?

About 70 percent of those who use these community health centers have incomes below or at the poverty level, but there are also many other families who find themselves in a situation where they are working but are not insured and they can go to these, recognizing they can hold their heads high, because they are getting good quality health care and they have a health care home.

For many folks, these are the only health care services available, and while the number of uninsured patients at community health centers is growing, the number of physicians available to them is decreasing. There is a critical shortage of physicians available at community health centers to meet the health care needs of the uninsured and underinsured.

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports a 13 percent vacancy rate for family physicians, a 9 percent vacancy rate for internists, a 20 percent vacancy rate for OB-GYNs, and over 20 percent for psychiatrists. So what can we do to get more doctors at the community health centers?

Well, interestingly enough, physicians and other specialists hired by community health centers are covered by the Federal Torts Claim Act for medical liability costs. However, those who want to volunteer are not covered. They would then have to get their own insurance.

We have heard it spoken many times in this Chamber and other places where the cost of medical liability insurance is so high that many doctors retire early, they limit their practice or they leave the States where those prices are so high, in the tens of thousands, many times over, dollars per year. For example, many OB-GYNs will stop delivering babies in order to reduce their costs. In Pennsylvania alone, there are about only 4 percent of physicians who are under the age of 35, and we are looking for more shortages in the future.

Well, community health centers have limited resources to meet the current needs of the uninsured and underinsured, but there are many physicians and psychologists and dentists and others who want to volunteer at community health centers, but the current laws are a barrier to them. So when they do approach community health centers and say they would like to offer some time every month, the centers oftentimes find themselves in a position of turning them down.

This bill simply does this: Whether you are working in a community health center or you want to give your time at no charge to help those in need, you can be covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, something that this Congress has done for those who are employed by those centers.

Let's extend that to those who want to volunteer. There is then no cost to those centers to hire those folks, and it is very limited cost to provide that health insurance for them. So there is a huge savings.

But the main thing is we provide more coverage for families, families have more doctors that they can go to, we don't have these shortages, we don't have long lines at these centers, and people have a health care home.

It is such a simple task for Congress to pass this. This bill is one I hope my colleagues will help me in co-sponsoring and help support as it moves through the process. We simply cannot afford to continue to address health care by talking about health insurance only. That is an important part, but it isn't just financing this system. It is a matter of fixing this system in a compassionate, quality way. Community health care centers provide that, if we only open the door for more doctors and others to provide that care on a volunteer basis.

What could be more humanitarian, what could be more compassionate, than to remove this government barrier that stands in the way of people reaching out their hearts and providing this care at this very low cost?

I would hope that all of my colleagues would join me in co-sponsoring this bill and helping to move it through. But it is, as part of the Suburban Agenda, one where we recognize that working families have tremendous needs.

We have in this country, reaching out of compassion, have helped those with very little income through Medicaid. We have helped those who are veterans through the VA system. We have helped the elderly through Medicare. Let's also help those who are in different thresholds, in different categories, who cannot afford health care, and let's do this very low cost, perhaps even a cost offset plan, that can provide this care to them.

Well, what happens is, right now, those doctors who are paid are covered under the Federal Torts Claim Act.

What happens, if they can't see the patient, it is one of those things that medical care delayed is medical care denied. What they end up doing is sometimes going to emergency rooms, where the cost is many times over, and hospitals by law have to provide that care. They cannot turn them away. Again, we are taking children and families who should be seeing their physician for primary care, their immunizations, their flus and colds and earaches, and seeing a physician at a health center, and to have legal barriers are something that does not make sense to any family, let alone suburban families.

Yes, indeed. Hospital emergency rooms should be for emergencies and traumas. Those who have flus and other illnesses can be seen by other doctors that don't overburden the emergency room at a very high cost.

Those, however, who do not have those illnesses yet, by a checkup with their doctor, adults and children alike, we can reduce costs because they can get to see the doctor early, or the nurse or the nurse practitioner or the dentist.

Our focus should be on providing quality care, accessible care at low cost. Community health centers are a tremendous asset for our Nation and something that we should all be supporting. It is perhaps the most compassionate thing we can be doing for the underinsured and the uninsured.

We will continue the battles in other areas, and we will continue to work to provide all the care that families need. But this is such an important answer that is in communities now and something I think we need to pass now.

I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. I am not clear whether there are any associations that oppose this part; maybe there are. But I would hope that they would reach out and say, these doctors are covered by some liability insurance. It is a lower cost to them. But the main thing is, let's get these families and these children to see doctors now and get the care that they need.

Madam Speaker, I want the American men and women serving in Iraq to come home. I want this war to end. I want the violence to stop, the injuries to stop, the deaths to stop, and I also want terrorism to stop.

Over the last few weeks, many of my constituents told me these same feelings, their strong feelings in support of or against this resolution.

I hear your concerns. No one can doubt your love of your country. Like you, I am deeply concerned about the direction of this war. Like you, armed with the knowledge of the present, the strategies of the past were too often incomplete. The intelligence was misinterpreted or inadequate.

The comments made here today on this resolution will be listened to by Iraqis and al Qaeda and the soldiers in the field right now, the marines on the high seas headed that way, and the thousands who already are on the offensive. Here is my message to them: Arab countries have told us that if we left now the results would be catastrophic. I want those Arab countries to impress upon the Sunnis and the Shias the absolute need to work for peace now. I want the United States to actively engage in diplomatic efforts with all Arab nations. There is no more time for delay. I want the Iraqi military to step up and take over combat operations, to be the tip of the spear, and for our troops to shift our mission to training and support. I want to see the Iraqi Government stand strong where every group feels respected and protected and all feel they have a future of hope.

There is no time for delay.

I also want Republicans and Democrats to sit down together and discuss how to make these things come to fruition. I want us to review the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, to talk about which recommendations are worthy of implementation. I want us to thoughtfully, carefully and responsibly discuss not only what action we should take in Iraq, but to weigh the full consequences of any action and to offer real ideas, real strategies and real solutions.

I want this Congress to support our soldiers, every one of them; to tell them we value them and pray for them and their families and will give them what they need to do their job. I want all of them to know that we will stand with them until the last one returns home. And I want them to know that policy comes before politics, and that no poll, no political plan, no political threat should ever undermine our allegiance to doing what is right for our soldiers and our Nation. I want them to know that their work, their risks, their fighting, has meaning and purpose, and must be immune to the politics of Washington.

I want the soldiers and airmen from the 171st, the 99th and the 911th in Pittsburgh, and all our National Guard and Reservists and active duty to come home. I want their families to be able to embrace them, their children to be tucked in at night by them and our towns to be able to show the affection of a grateful Nation. But while they are there, while they stand sentry with eyes on the horizon, ride in their convoys or walk on patrol, I want their minds on the critical task of that moment.

I spoke this week to the mother of a soldier who was just killed in Iraq, Russell Kurtz. A finer and a braver man you will not find. I asked her what she thought about this discussion of sending more troops to Iraq, and she said, ``I would rather have more troops there helping my son.''

Dom DeFranco, the Pennsylvania Commander of the VFW, wrote this letter to the editor of the Almanac Newspaper. I will submit the whole letter, but let me read this. He said, ``Even with their pride, honor and dedication motivating them patrol after patrol, bad morale can bring down even the toughest warrior. As a Vietnam veteran, trust me, it cuts deep. Regardless of where you stand on the current war on terror, troops get the message that they are wasting their time when politicians and citizens make headlines criticizing military action.''

Madam Speaker, I include the entire letter for the Record.

To the Editor: Men and women are risking their lives in the

Middle East trying to restore peace to an oppressed

population. Their military gear and encampment offer some

protection, but the threat of life-changing physical and

mental wounds is constant. So is the challenge to always be

mission-ready, prepared to make life and death decisions in a

split second. A grueling situation for sure.

However, even with their pride, honor and dedication

motivating them patrol after patrol, bad morale--especially

when fueled back home by demonstrations and political

grandstanding--can bring down even the toughest warrior. As a

Vietnam veteran, trust me--it cuts deep.

Regardless of where you stand on the current War on Terror

(The Veterans of Foreign Wars does not take sides in debates

about military action), troops get the message that they are

wasting their time when politicians and citizens make

headlines criticizing military action.

As the debate about the War on Terror continues, I urge

citizens and politicians to stay focused on providing our

troops with all of the combat equipment, supplies, and

personnel they need to be the most effective fighting force

possible. Democracy affords politicians and citizens

effective ways to debate policies without sending morale

busting messages from the home front. Life on the front lines

is tough enough without taking incoming salvos of negativity

from back home. They also need our emotional support.

Like you, I want our troops home as soon as possible. But

as long as they are in harm's way, we should back them with

the full resources of our nation--in material, personnel and

supportive messages. Anything less will have a negative

impact on their morale and possible their safety.

Madam Speaker, listen to this comment from the American Legion regarding their unanimous support for the current action in Iraq and the increase in troops and their caution or political rhetoric. They said, ``Veterans of the Vietnam were remember what it was like to fight without the support of the people back home. You couldn't separate the war from the warrior then, any more than we can today.''

While our soldiers are there, I will support them with everything they need in terms of armor and ammunition, bullets and bread, weapons and words.

I will continue to work for all of these things, but for this point in time, while our soldiers are on the battlefield, I want to be able to look them in the eye and say at your moment of need, I backed you up on the battlefield.

Mr. Speaker, an estimated 2 million seniors suffer from a depressive illness, and another 5 million may have depressive symptoms. The risk for depression doubles when a person has a chronic illness such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer or Parkinson's disease. People with mental illness can get better with the right treatment, but Medicare's current policy discriminates against mental health by charging 2\1/2\

times more in copayments than for any other outpatient health care treatment.

Seniors who receive necessary mental health services reduce their hospital costs. One hospital offered mental health services for elderly patients with fractures, and reduced the length of stay by 2 days and hospital costs by over $160,000.

I will be reintroducing legislation to end Medicare discrimination for mental health services by adjusting copayments, and I ask my colleagues to cosponsor it. Learn more about how we can make health care affordable and accessible by visiting my Web site, Murphy.house.gov. We need patient-centered health care for patient quality, patient safety and patient choice.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise once again with my colleagues to recognize the students, teachers, faculty and graduates of our nation's Catholic Schools.

As Bishop Donald Wuerl has stated ``Catholic schools are a tremendous asset to our Church and our nation.'' What graduates of Catholic Schools offer to society is not only a commitment to achieving academic excellence but also of service to the community. These are traits I learned at an early age as a student at St. Barnabas Elementary School and Walsh Jesuit High School and I greatly value both my Catholic and public school education.

For instance, 86 schools, along with parishes, youth ministry and CCD programs, raised more than $300,000 over the last nine years in support of the ``Kids Share A Lunch Nutrition Project'' for the Pittsburgh diocesan mission in Chimbote, Peru.

This year's theme for Catholic Schools Week (January 28-February 3) is ``Catholic Schools: The Good News in Education,'' and the good news is strong in Pennsylvania. With a 15 to 1 student/teacher ratio, more than 97 percent of high school graduates from Pennsylvania's Catholic Schools (including both Catholic and non-Catholics) went on to a post- secondary education following graduation.

This year, Catholic schools in the Diocese of Pittsburgh celebrate 178 years of quality education. Pennsylvania alone, has 650 Catholic schools with over 180,951 High School and elementary students. (47,079 High School Students: 133,872 elementary students).

Dr. Robert Paserba, Pittsburgh diocesan superintendent of schools has stated ``parents are choosing our schools because they teach strong moral values in a disciplined environment--clearly a recipe for helping all children in our schools achieve their highest potential. As with our schools themselves, our graduates become a source of hope for the world.''

I believe Catholic schools do promote social awareness and help make the world a better place to live. I am pleased to commend all those who teach and are students of Catholic schools.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate and admire all of the citizens of the United States and all those from territories, and they participate in debate here.

One of the things that helps us understand what takes place here, I would like to go back to what happens in Alleghany County where I live in the city of Pittsburgh. We have an Alleghany County Council, and they meet in the city of Pittsburgh regularly, and some members of that council are citizens of the city of Pittsburgh; but their jurisdiction is not the city of Pittsburgh. What would happen if they decided it would be their jurisdiction to vote on issues that affected that city on matters of taxation and other issues that take place? I believe the courts would say that just because you are citizens of this area does not mean that your jurisdiction of your elected body extends to that city, and courts would strike it down.

This is not an issue of whether or not we respect and admire our friends and fellow citizens from these territories. It is the matter of the rules of what our Constitution states and what people can represent and what should be allowed in this body. It concerns me that on the tote boards here of the list of votes, it does not say whether somebody is a full Member or a Delegate. That, I believe, is something that is also going to mislead the American public as to the vote totals here.

But more than anything else, to be able to vote on issues that affect my constituents, whether it is taxation or other issues of representation, it is simply not in our Constitution to have that there, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. Speaker, over 17 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq, higher than any other measured military conflict, meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. Predeployment mental health screening, availability of treatment, perception toward treatment and public attitudes of the soldiers' actions all affect the vulnerability and prognosis for this disorder.

PTSD is a severe anxiety disorder that develops after a traumatic event involving physical danger. It is also called ``shell shock'' or ``battle fatigue'' in other wars and is particularly prevalent among soldiers who have experienced wartime combat. Symptoms can include insomnia, irritability, inability to concentrate, panic, terror, dread, despair, grief and include daytime recollections, traumatic nightmares or combat flashbacks. Most persons exposed to severe trauma do not develop symptoms. Onset can be immediate but more commonly occurs from a few months to years after the event.

Currently, the Department of Defense provides mental health services for 180 days following discharge and the VA offers its health care services, including mental health, to veterans at no cost for 2 years following discharge. Afterwards, veterans may continue to receive mental health treatment but are subject to copayments.

Unit support while still deployed helps reduce symptom risk. Once soldiers return home these supports end, but ongoing support is essential to reduce the risk, from families, friends, veterans, the VA and our society as a whole. Many with early symptoms of PTSD, however, isolate from social contact and do not benefit from these supports.

In the current war in Iraq, unlike Vietnam, society as a whole is generally able to separate support for the soldier from support for the war. However, as criticism for the war increases and the public questions the purpose and outcome of this war, a significant question remains as to the impact upon the soldier's mental health of these expressions of doubt. For those at risk for PTSD and since hopelessness may raise the risk, society's comments of the situation may increase the soldier's sense of personal blame and lead the soldiers to question if they did their job well. Or they may develop a sense of worthlessness and guilt that their fellow soldiers lost their lives for a cause that was not supported by the country. Further research must be done to explore this link, but it also raises an important issue. Not only is there a concern for a stigma for the war action itself but also getting help. The majority of soldiers who need treatment for PTSD and mental health symptoms do not seek help for fear of being seen as weak, for fear of being treated differently by their commander, or fear of future harm to their career.

Pictures, commentary and news coverage of this war affects not only recent combat veterans but extends to those of prior wars. A survey of 70 Vietnam veterans stated that 57 percent reported flashbacks after watching reports about this war on television, and almost half faced sleep disorders.

Mr. Speaker, there is a need for specialized military mental health services. As of May last year, of the 5 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers who may have been at risk, only 22 percent sought help from mental health providers. The rest sought help from primary care doctors, many without mental health training.

The National Defense Authorization Act of last year created the defense task force on mental health. Within a year, they are to submit a report to us with a long-term plan to improve the effectiveness for Armed Forces who have experienced multiple deployments. But Congress can improve the Department of Defense referral process for mental health evaluations by psychiatrists/psychologists to better meet the needs of our troops. As chronic PTSD symptoms can continue for years, the VA should extend the 2-year universal coverage period for mental health services for our Nation's soldiers when they return from active duty and combat. And we need to study the effects of the 24-hour media exposure on the occurrence of PTSD symptoms upon returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress can also increase public awareness of PTSD to reduce the stigma for returning veterans and for them to take advantage of mental health services at the VA.

Working together, we can ensure that none of our Nation's veterans suffering with PTSD are left behind, but above all as Members of Congress we have to make sure that the things we do and say respond to the caveat to first do no harm.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson told us: ``I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever.'' Although he was talking about the issues of the day, those words ring true for all of us in this Chamber because all of us want to do the right and the just thing. Our words here for or against embryonic stem cell research will not change what is true and just. We seek knowledge, we pray for wisdom, but our thinking does not make it so in one way or the other.

I believe life begins at conception. Others do not. If we are to err on any side, on what side should we err? There are opinions on each side of this issue about when life begins. There are common opinions that we all must work together to help treat disease. There is confused information regarding what works. Research tells us adult stem cell research works. Amniotic stem cell research has been revealed to have much promise. Embryonic stem cells after 20 years of research tells us it does not.

What is important to know is there is nothing in Federal law that limits academic research. We do not stop the States from pursuing research. We do not limit private companies. Research has not been hampered. And nothing is stopping research from treating disease. What we are all commonly pursuing is ways to treat disease, and our concern is how do we do this in a just and ethical way.

When I would be involved in pursuing medical research studies at the University of Pittsburgh, we had to put forth our study in front of the human subjects review panel. They scrutinized research very carefully to make sure it did no harm to anyone. Sometimes what one researcher considered to be a small and innocuous risk, others said, no, you cannot get involved in that portion of research. Whatever it is, sometimes just evaluating the outcome of some treatment on a child that someone thought, as small as it might be, might be invasive. That was because we were guided by the ethical principle of ``first do no harm.''

But here we are faced with recent studies that say amniotic stem cell research has tremendous promise, and for some reason we are rushing this week to say we must pass this bill on embryonic stem cell research when perhaps we should really be pursuing further scientific information so this House can do its job with hearings, with gathering information to give us the knowledge we need and pray for the wisdom we seek.

I hope in all of this that we would continue to be guided by the idea of first doing no harm, and I would hope that we would also look at the fundamental basis of this bill that refers to the idea that these children would otherwise be discarded. I don't think that is a road we want to use.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for support for my bill, H.R. 5304, the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, or the PHONE Act.

This bill is a critically important consumer protection from fraud, deception and other crimes. It offers for the first time criminal penalties for those who falsify a caller ID number in the commission of a crime.

Over the years, Congress has repeatedly worked to prevent consumers from identity theft. Unfortunately, with new technology comes new risks and new opportunities for criminals to evade the law. One of these new technologies used by thieves is the practice of call spoofing or caller ID fraud.

With caller ID fraud, one masks their identity by altering their outbound caller ID number in order to mislead the call recipient. In other words, you can make a call from your phone, but to the one who is receiving the call, your caller ID number can be anything you so choose. In short, caller ID fraud takes away accountability from people who wish to do harm to others.

Today, 21st century criminals are using fake caller identification to anonymously defraud and harass Americans all across the country. That is why I am so pleased that Congress is considering H.R. 5304 tonight, in order to penalize caller ID fraud perpetrators.

This bill is particularly necessary to protect American families and the elderly now. It doesn't take much imagination to understand how dangerous this practice could be for unsuspecting people.

For example, a criminal could try to obtain personal financial information from individuals by falsely using a bank's phone number. An ex-spouse can harass a former wife or husband who has blocked calls from the ex-spouse's phone line. A pedophile could stalk a child by using a school phone number or the phone number of a friend of the child. A sexual predator could use a doctor's office phone number. Or a terrorist could make threats from a government phone number, and there is no quick way to trace that original call.

The criminal use of caller ID fraud is not just a possibility. Here are some very real-world examples of caller ID fraud that are very disturbing.

The AARP Bulletin reported a case in which people received calls which falsely claimed that they missed jury duty. To avoid prosecution, callers told their victims that they needed to give their Social Security number and other personal information. The phone number that appeared in the caller ID was from the local county courthouse, so people assumed the caller was telling the truth.

A security company, Secure Science Corporation, has stated that criminals have accessed these legal call spoofing Internet sites in order to protect their identities while they buy stolen credit card numbers. These individuals then call a money transfer service, such as Western Union, and use a fake caller ID and a stolen credit card number to order cash transfers to themselves.

If the name on the credit card is John Doe of 123 Main Street and the caller ID number that shows up is for John Doe of 123 Main Street, it is easy to see how someone can be deceived into credit card fraud.

Here is another example. In 2005, SWAT teams surrounded an empty building in New Brunswick, New Jersey, after police received a call from a woman who said she was being held hostage in an apartment. However, the woman had intentionally used a false caller ID and she was not in the apartment at all. Imagine what might have happened when those SWAT teams showed up. Imagine what might have happened.

This practice of making a false alarm to a SWAT team has occurred numerous times across the country. So, not only does this practice have the potential for tragedy, but it also diverts police and can be used to mask other crimes or homeland security threats.

It is for these reasons that I introduced H.R. 5304, to punish those who engage in the intentional practice of misleading others into caller ID fraud. Violators of the bill will be subject to a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. There is no mandatory sentencing involved in this bill.

I am hopeful the Senate can quickly approve the bill, so we can send this bill to the President and protect consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the bill came together in a bipartisan fashion. The bill was examined at hearings of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on November 15 of this year. My two distinguished colleagues, Chairman Howard Coble and Ranking Member Bobby Scott of Virginia asked many probing questions and offered insights that were invaluable. Their legal expertise truly improved this bill and made sure it was not one that dealt at all with those who may use these in legal fashions, those that would not be considered crimes.

Thanks to their input, the bill was amended to achieve an agreement and brought before the House tonight. I sincerely thank them and everybody else on the Judiciary Committee for their cooperation on this bill and their commitment to this important consumer protection.

I certainly also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the full committee and congratulate him on his remarkable tenure as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I want to thank Phil Kiko, general counsel of the House Judiciary Committee; Mike Layman, my legislative director; and especially Susan Mosychuk, my chief of staff.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, Congress has been routinely criticized as a reactive institution. Tonight, that Congress takes a proactive step to move a bill that addresses a problem before further tragedies occur. This bill will help to stop crime, protect identity theft and protect lives, and I urge all Members to support the PHONE bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address Mr. Scott's concerns. I know during the Judiciary Committee the gentleman from Virginia raised a couple of very important issues. One, he wanted to make sure there were no mandatory sentencing penalties in this; and, two, to make sure it did not disallow some legal practices.

For example, businesses may use a caller ID when they call someone to protect the privacy of people within that business. Indeed, my understanding is the wording of this does address that, according to what Judiciary and the Department of Justice has looked at with that wording.

So it made sure that those within a business may have use or those with other legitimate uses for using a caller ID. It is only related to those who harass or defraud others, so only specifically in the commission of a crime. I just want to say it addressed those issues, as far as I know.

Mr. Speaker, while we are all talking and debating about the number of deaths in overseas wars, America has a dirty little secret in terms of the numbers of deaths that occur in our hospitals. About 90,000 people a year die from infections that they receive at hospitals or health care, at a cost of about $50 billion to our health care system.

The November issue of the ``American Journal of Medical Quality'' said it costs about $26,000 for each patient to treat those diseases. And it lasts an average of 20.6 days for a patient that has an infection, compared to 4.5 days without.

If we are really serious about controlling health care cost, it is not a matter of shifting the burden to having the government take it over, nor is it a matter of offering tax breaks just to carry health insurance.

This Congress, in this upcoming Congress, it is our duty, it is our responsibility to finally start doing some things about reforming our health care system so we can make it a system that people can afford, and not one that is so overwhelming in cost that it ends up hurting citizens and, in fact, leading to their deaths.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise in support of H.R. 5782. This bill will save lives. One way it can save lives is illustrated by a story of two children from my district, Moon Township, in Pennsylvania.

On March 16, 2005, while walking home from school, two teenagers, a brother and sister, walked past a construction crew that was drilling in front of their house. The crew had ruptured a natural gas distribution line. The children entered the home without knowing that natural gas was seeping in. Soon afterwards, this house exploded to look like this. Both children were inside. They escaped. Both were injured, one seriously, but thankfully both survived.

The explosion occurred because accumulated natural gas fumes had ignited. When the pipeline was broken, the crew made the calls as required after they broke the gas line, but the procedures they followed did not prevent the children's injuries.

These two young children could have been among the more than 420 fatalities from pipeline accidents in the last 20 years. In this case the notification rules were followed, but the procedures just take too long. We need a faster, simpler system, one in which emergency authorities arrive at the scene quickly, and a single clear system, not the current patchwork of rules that varies State to State and town to town.

That is why I worked with the family of the two young children, local law enforcement and municipal governments and others interested in pipeline safety to write H.R. 2958, Marc and Chelsea's law. My bill requires pipeline breaches to be immediately reported to appropriate safety authorities in order to prevent future injuries.

I am pleased that the Pipeline Safety Act includes my bill's provisions to establish uniform emergency notifications. With the passage of today's legislation, an excavator who causes a pipeline accident must call the local gas distribution company operator. Also, if there is detectable gas, the excavator must also call 911 immediately.

Establishing consistent notification requirements is critical because there have been over 7,600 pipeline accidents.

I thank Mr. Barton, Tom Hassenboehler, Mike Layman, Susan Mosychuck for their help in this bill, but also Marc and Chelsea for their help as well.