Liberal in the Land of Conservative

Mr. Speaker, what else are these purveyors of confusion supposed to say?

They have had an opportunity to spread deregulation all over. They have declined the opportunity for many years to pass an antipredatory lending bill. They have promoted tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. And now that they have had the opportunity to have a House and a Senate in which their particular caucus was in the majority, they have had a full opportunity to manifest their economic ideas, and what those ideas have come to has been the largest foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of long overdue legislation to crack down on predatory mortgage lending. This week the House will consider legislation to curb abusive and predatory lending, a major factor in the Nation's highest home foreclosure rate in 25 years and the precursor to the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Our committee's portion, the infrastructure recovery program is targeted. It will be transparent and recipients will be held accountable, and the investments are desperately needed. The construction sector is suffering the highest unemployment rate of any industrial sector, 15.3 percent, 1.4 million construction workers out of a job.

Fully implemented, as our committee proposes, we can have a million workers on a construction site in June of this year and generate $325 billion in total economic activity when fully implemented, jobs that cannot be outsourced to other countries, using materials that are made in America, not outsourced beyond our shores.

Transparency, we require reporting by every State DOT, every transit agency, every airport authority, every 30 days on the contract awarded, by contract, on the specific jobs, job description and payroll, which we will receive and make public through hearings that we will conduct 30 days after the funding is allocated to the States and every 60 days thereafter.

Accountability, an amendment which I expect or hope to offer tomorrow made in order by the Rules Committee, will have a requirement that funds be committed in 90 days, use it or lose it.

I rise today in support of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

The next Attorney General will need to hit the ground running, from beefing up civil rights and antitrust enforcement to addressing white-collar crime and drug-related violence, to helping keep our country safe from terrorist attacks. As I told the Judiciary Committee last week when I voted in favor of his nomination, Eric Holder is the right man to do the job. He is the right man to lead the Department of Justice at this critical time. And most importantly, coming from a State that had our own share of problems with a political appointee put in place as U.S. Attorney, he is the right man to get the Department back on course, to put the law first, when it comes to the Department of Justice.

The President called on us to take immediate action. That is what this economic recovery plan is about--a bipartisan group of Senators--and, Mr. President, you and I were involved--who got together and said we need to get this done. I thank Senators Nelson and Collins for their hard work. It is not a perfect bill, and I don't agree with everything in it and with everything that came out, but literally we cannot afford to wait any longer to get something passed.

At the core of this bill is jobs. This bill is about jobs, jobs, jobs. It will put Americans to work by rebuilding our roads, highways, and bridges, which have been neglected far too long. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion of highway spending, it creates nearly 48,000 new jobs and generates more than $2 billion in economic activity.

...

Another piece of the plan I want to highlight is the emphasis on energy jobs. I spent the last few months traveling around my State. I can tell you what I have seen. I have seen the little telephone company in Sebeca, MN, that needed a backup power structure because power was going out for their customers. They put together a packet with small wind and solar, and they sold it to the people in their area. They have been selling like hotcakes. The windmills in Pipestone, MN, became so popular that they opened up a bed and breakfast. You can go and stay overnight with your wife and wake up in the morning and look at the wind turbine. That is the package.

The point of this is that the people in our State see the value of these new energy jobs, whether it is a little solar panel factory in Starbuck, MN, or a big wind turbine manufacturing factory up in the Moorhead area. They see the value of new energy jobs. This energy technology revolution--or ET--is different than the information technology resolution--IT. When I saw the IT revolution, as big as it was, jobs tended to be segmented in certain areas such as the Silicon Valley, and they tended
to be for people with graduate degrees and PhDs. This energy technology revolution will spread jobs across the country, in manufacturing jobs, green helmet jobs, and many other jobs for the people of this country.

...

Finally, this plan contains money, significant money for broadband and telecommunications infrastructure--$7 billion. When President Roosevelt said he was going to put rural electrification in place in 1935, we only had 12 percent of American farms with electricity. About 15 years later, 75 percent of the farms had electricity. That is what Government action can do.

Look at broadband. We have gone from fourth in the world to 15th. This is not the kind of progress that will keep our country moving and get us back on track. For broadband, there is $7 billion in this bill.

The fact is that this piece of legislation, carefully crafted and now working with an amenable and a cooperative administration, is in a much better position to meet the needs set forth in the original legislation, which is to help homeowners. The bill requires at least $40 billion, but no more than $100 billion, be used to help distressed homeowners.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today torn about this resolution. Though I welcome resolutions by the Congress to express support for the people of Israel and Gaza at this difficult time, this resolution does not do enough to move towards a stable and durable peace in the Middle East.

I feel that I cannot vote against the resolution, because I believe every country has a right to defend itself. I have been to Sderot, and I have seen firsthand both the physical and emotional destruction caused by the rockets.

Last fall I voted for a resolution specifically condemning the rocket attacks into Israel. However, I feel I cannot vote for this resolution either, because it does not sufficiently address the human suffering by Palestinians in Gaza. Over 750 people have been killed, 250 of them children, 50 of them women, with over 3,000 people injured.

Mosques have been bombed, schools as well. Even before the recent military operation, life for the people in Gaza has become increasingly unlivable under a crushing blockade. The Red Cross has been obstructed, 800,000 people without water, 1 million people without electricity.

That is why I intend to vote ``present'' today. Hopefully we can urge this Congress to not simply declare its support of its ally, but will actually move its ally and the rest of the region toward a more durable, sustainable, final solution to this conflict.

History has shown that ground troops and air strikes have not resolved conflict in the Middle East. If we try to resolve conflict with military might and nothing else, then we will be no safer than we were before. No one will be. Diplomacy is necessary to save lives and yield a lasting peace with security.

The United States must play a more active role in pursuing real peace in the Middle East.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today with much dismay over the fact that we were not able to pass the energy extenders, the tax extenders, the package of important provisions for our country's economy because of this obstructionism on the other side.

Let me tell my colleagues why this was so important to me. We only got four Republican votes for this package. I think it is outrageous when you look at what we are dealing with.

As I start, I want to invoke the memory of two young men, one Robert Dixon and another one, Quising Lee.

These are two young men who are from Minneapolis who were killed in Iraq. There have been 64 Minnesotans killed in Iraq, and Robert Dixon and Quising Lee are two gentlemen who lived in my district.

I'll never forget when I went to go see Quising Lee's family after he was killed. He went to North High School. He was 20 years old when he died, and he was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Robert Dixon was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq as well. I wasn't able to go to see Robert Dixon's funeral. I was here. My wife went for me. Kim, thank you for doing that. And she sat there and listened to stories about Robert Dixon and his life and his service to our country and the things he hoped for and wanted.

But I did get a chance to visit the family and go to the funeral of Quising Lee. Quising Lee, 20 years old when he was killed, went to North High School, had his whole life in front of him. Only 20 years old.

It's in the memory of those two young men from Minneapolis that I offer remarks tonight, and on behalf of those 64 Minnesotans that have been killed, and on behalf of those 4,500-some individuals, Americans who've been killed in Iraq, and on behalf of those, probably as many as perhaps 600,000, perhaps even 1 million Iraqis who've lost their lives in Iraq.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, it was on May 7, the day of the Indiana primary election just last Tuesday, I believe that was May 5, excuse me, May 5, that 12 nuns came to the voting booth to cast a ballot in the election. These nuns, women of the cloth, women who have dedicated their lives to prayer and service, only wanted to vote but were barred from doing so by Indiana's photographic identification law. This law, which is the most stringent in the United States, the most stringent of any State, requires that before you can cast a ballot, you must present a government-issued photographic identification card. This 98-year-old nun, American citizen, devoted to her country and her faith, was denied along with 11 of her colleagues.

I'm disappointed to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this problem didn't have to happen. Only a few days before this Indiana photographic ID law was put in place, the United States Supreme Court reviewed this law and found that it was reasonable for Indiana to force citizens to provide such identification.

Now, Madam Speaker, you might say, well, isn't this designed to just stop voter fraud? The answer is "no,'' Madam Speaker. In the United States Supreme Court decision, the Justice that wrote the majority opinion admitted and acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter impersonation. And in fact, Madam Speaker, this bill was a bill to solve a problem that simply did not exist at all. This bill was confronting a mythical voter fraud that worked only to stop 12 nuns and many others from voting.

Dialogue is a tool that can help us stabilize the world, bring peace to millions and millions of people all over the world. Dialogues should not be used as some sort of a gift. It doesn't make sense for any nation to say capitulate to our demands, and then we will talk to you. The very purpose of negotiation is to say, let's talk, and the first agenda item could be serious problems we have with one another.

But the start is talking, unconditional talking, talking with a clear agenda in mind, talking with no illusions about differences. But talking, nonetheless, is something that I think we need, and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is not just another public policy issue, it's a matter of life or death for 54 million Americans suffering the ravages of mental health and for 22 million Americans suffering from chemical addiction.

Last year alone, 300,000 people were denied access to addiction treatment, most had health insurance, and 33,000 people committed suicide from untreated depression. Over 150,000 of our fellow Americans died as a direct result of chemical addiction.

On top of the tragic loss of lives, Mr. Speaker, untreated addiction and mental illness cost our economy over $550 billion last year. According to the Wall Street Journal, untreated depression alone cost our businesses $70 billion in lost productivity last year.

So it's ludicrous for the opponents to come here and argue that parity will cost businesses $1.5 billion, as my friend from Washington, member of the Rules Committee, did. If you don't believe the Wall Street Journal, certainly those on our side of the aisle, what do you believe? Cost businesses $70 billion, just depression, untreated depression alone.

Mr. Speaker, all the empirical data, including all the actuarial studies, show that equity for mental health and addiction treatment will save literally billions of dollars nationally. At the same time, it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's our own CBO numbers. So, I don't know where these people are getting these numbers, these inflated cost figures. Pulling them out of thin air is the only thing I can surmise.

The CBO says it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1 percent. In other words, for the price of a cheap cup of coffee per month, several million Americans in health plans can receive treatment for chemical addiction and mental illness. And it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some opponents of this legislation have misrepresented the costs of enacting parity.

[Time: 18:15]


Mr. Speaker, I'm alive and sober today only because of the access I had to treatment back on July 31, 1981, when I woke up in a jail cell in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. I'm living proof that treatment works and recovery is real.

But far too many people in our country don't have the same access to treatment that I had and other Members of Congress have also had. A major barrier for thousands of Americans is insurance discrimination against people in health plans who need treatment for mental illness or chemical addiction.

The legislation that my friend from Rhode Island, PATRICK KENNEDY, who has worked tirelessly on this legislation, who arranged for all 14 field hearings, who has been a real champion, this legislation that we have authored will end the discrimination by prohibiting health insurers from placing discriminatory restrictions on treatment for people with mental illness or addiction. In other words, no more inflatable deductibles or copayments that don't apply to physical diseases. No more limited
treatment stays that don't apply to physical diseases. No more discrimination against people with mental illness or chemical addiction.

The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act simply provides equal treatment for diseases of the brain and the body. This legislation provides people in health plans with the same exact coverage that we as Members of Congress have and other Federal employees as well.

By the way, some of the exaggeration, some of the red herrings as to the use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV are just beyond belief. The red herrings presented by opponents, caffeine addiction, sibling rivalry, jet lag, would not be subject to treatment because insurance plans can use ``medical necessity'' requirements. So let's not use bogus red herring arguments. Let's come with intellectually honest arguments if you're against this legislation.

Also, the DSM-IV is used for Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans health care. I wonder how many of you can go home and say, look, it's good enough [Page: H1298]
for Members of Congress but it's not good enough for you, constituents. I don't think anybody in this body would dare do that nor should we. If it's good enough for Members of Congress, it's good enough for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, PATRICK KENNEDY and I have traveled the country from one end to the other, holding 14 field hearings. We've heard literally hundreds of stories of human suffering, broken families, tragic deaths, shattered dreams all because of insurance companies not providing access to adequate treatment for mental illness and addiction. I don't have time, Mr. Speaker, to recite some of these horror stories, but PATRICK and I could share hundreds and hundreds of horror stories caused
by discrimination in treatment for mentally ill and addicted people that we heard in these 14 States.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to end the discrimination against people who need treatment for mental illness and addiction. It's time to prohibit health insurers from placing discriminatory barriers to treatment. It's time to pass the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The American people, Mr. Speaker, cannot wait any longer.