National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010

I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the underlying bill we have before us today is being brought forward under a structured rule, adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority.

Today, the Democrats in charge have rejected nine amendments offered by their colleagues, and they have refused to allow these amendments to be debated and for their colleagues' voices to be heard. Democrats have chosen to stifle and control the debate today, presenting the Congress with another structured rule, eliminating the ability of both the Republicans and the Democrats to offer important amendments affecting their constituents.

After promising to have the most honest and open Congress in history, why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the Democrats in charge shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues on both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes?

Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow their Representatives to offer their amendments on the floor of the people's House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this structured rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the bill passed out of committee unanimously, and I am sure it is going to receive strong support on the floor. Yet we know that providing protection for our Nation is one of the few jobs specifically assigned to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only level of government that can provide for the defense of this Nation. However, based on the policies of this administration and the Democrats in charge, who have slashed defense spending even in the midst of ongoing terror threats, only to increase domestic spending and our national debt, you would never know this was true.

I am very concerned about the backward spending priorities of this administration and of the Democrats in charge. While the defense budget proposed by the administration is flat, growing only by 1 percent last year, automatic spending grew by $77 billion, or 5 percent. Military spending represents less than one-fifth of the Federal budget and approximately half of the average level of defense spending during the Cold War as a percentage of our economy. Meanwhile, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the President's new health care takeover are on course to consume the entire Federal budget, including defense. According to the Heritage Foundation, under current projections, it is expected that the Federal Government will spend more on interest payments for the national debt than on defense by the year 2015, if not sooner.

The Obama administration's recently released Nuclear Posture Review and New START agreement will weaken national security, and it will make our Nation less safe. It will cause the U.S. to fall dangerously behind at a time when other countries are seeking to strengthen and to develop their own nuclear weapons. The President seems to believe that the power of New START's example will somehow encourage Iran and North Korea to surrender their ambitions, but there is no evidence to believe this is the case. Since the end of the Cold War, these countries have only increased their attempts to gain nuclear weapons even as the U.S. and Russia have been reducing their supplies.

What would do far more good is a loud and clear declaration that the U.S. and Russia will stop Iran from gaining a nuclear military capability by whatever means necessary. The NPR references existing treaties that our enemies disregard and treaties that have yet to be negotiated, which will take years of diplomatic effort to achieve but will do little to make America more secure.

The threat to international nonproliferation is a nuclear Iran, not the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons are an inevitable truth in our modern-day world, so, unfortunately, they are essential to our national survival. As long as they exist, we must have the world's most effective nuclear arsenal and possess a missile defense system to protect ourselves against any actor that employs nuclear weapons. This is necessary in order to comply with the Constitution's requirements to provide for our common defense.

The NPR signifies that the Obama administration plans to neglect this responsibility. The administration's NPR provides many carrots but few sticks. It commits the U.S. to unilateral disarmament while hoping that this will give incentives to other nations to do the same, which it will not. It leaves the U.S. with no deterrent against rogue nations, such as North Korea and Iran, which continue to develop nuclear arsenals and to assert they will use nuclear weapons if they so much as feel threatened by the U.S.

A ``nuclear zero,'' which the Obama administration talks eloquently about, cannot be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally. It will require many countries to make the strategic decision

that nuclear weapons are unnecessary for their security. Yet the rest of the world, including our allies, friends and foes, see the continuing value in nuclear weapons.

Winston Churchill once warned the U.S. to ``be careful, above all things, not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.''

We are not even close to meeting Churchill's requirement, because we have not yet found an alternative basis for preventing war. Weakening our nuclear arsenal will stop us from being able to follow through on our commitments to our allies. Many of our closest allies see U.S. nuclear weapons as a large component of their security and the reason they remain nonnuclear. Without the U.S. nuclear umbrella, they may fear that they lack security and, thus, will develop their own alternative nuclear deterrent capabilities.

As the late British nuclear expert, Sir Michael Quinlan, stated, ``Better a world with nuclear weapons but no major war than one with major war but no nuclear weapons.''

Nuclear weapons have served our Nation as a primary deterrent and are the reason we have not had a world war since their inception. Without them, we will lose our ability to deter rogue nations from attacking us or our allies. Thus, we will lose the ability to lead our world towards peace.

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Democrats in charge were outspoken critics of the Bush administration's spending. However, it is clear that these same Democrats either have very short memories or their criticism was all for show because, since being in charge, they have not only failed to improve our current economic situation but have undeniably made it worse. While both Republicans and Democrats need to work to hold the line on spending, it is only appropriate that the Democrats in charge be reminded of their criticisms of deficit spending under a Republican Congress, which their own spending under their Democrat Congress now dwarfs.

In 2006, then-Minority Leader Pelosi stated, ``When Republicans spend the Federal budget into the red, the U.S. Treasury borrows money from foreign countries. Our national debt is a national security issue. Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys, our clothes, and our computers, pretty soon, they will be making our foreign policy.''

Actions speak louder than words. If only Speaker Pelosi still held these beliefs today, maybe our fiscal situation would look quite different.

Again in 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi is quoted as saying, ``If something is important to you, figure out how to pay for it, but do not make my children and grandchildren have to pay for it or anybody's children or grandchildren have to pay for it. It is immoral for us to heap these deficits on our children.''

How ironic, Mr. Speaker, to have had those words spoken by now Speaker Pelosi.

In 2006, then-Minority Whip Hoyer told Republicans, ``You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history. You are in charge of the House; you are in charge of the Senate, and you have the Presidency.''

I would tell the majority leader today to heed his own words and to ask himself if his Democrat Congress is doing the right thing by the American people, by our children, and by our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It makes in order the committee amendment as an original bill and provides that the bill shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the 16 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and waives all points of order against those amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule provides the Chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have watched as countless stories revealed flaws in the military's procurement operation. Disappointment with the way the Department of Defense manages the money we appropriate it reflects poorly not just on the Pentagon, but on Congress as well. The $640 toilet seat is now the stuff of legend, but sadly it is often just the tip of the iceberg.

In recent years, excesses stemming from the ill considered rush towards privatization championed by the previous administration have become increasingly common. The push to contract out nearly every part of the military's mission has inevitably led to waste, fraud, and abuse involving some of the biggest corporate names in this country. Sadly, I believe that many years from now historians will associate a significant part of the war in Iraq with wasteful and poorly managed contracts that made private companies millions of dollars, billions of dollars, actually, often at the expense of our own men and women in uniform and certainly of taxpayers.

Two years ago in Congress, I was here on the floor as the House debated H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. That, too, was intended to save taxpayer money. Earlier in the 110th Congress, I worked with my friend, Ms. Schakowsky, on H.R. 897, the Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act. I hesitate to say that those and other efforts towards contracting reform have been unsuccessful. Clearly, we have made significant reforms and part of our work in Congress involves regular and diligent oversight. It is a never-ending process.

For my part, one of my proudest efforts during my career in Congress has been to force the Pentagon to acknowledge that some of the testing done on body armor for troops during an early part of the war was deeply flawed. My work on this issue grew out of a 2006 audit that I read about in The New York Times that found that 80 percent of marines who had died in Iraq of upper body wounds would have survived with the proper body armor. I waited for other committees to take the lead, but no one came to the floor.

We are still working on this issue, but we have come a very long way. Major changes have been made in testing labs, some of them taken back into the Army rather than contracted out, which in this case did not work. Thankfully, however, the work did accomplish one thing: the military agreed to no more poorly managed deals for outside contractors to test the body armor. All current and future body armor testing will be conducted internally by the Department of Testing and Evaluation within the DOD with strict standards to ensure our troops receive nothing but the highest quality of body armor.

When it comes to the safety of our troops, which we send into battle, it is foolish to put the bid out to the lowest-priced contractor.

But today we have moved into a new chapter of oversight and reform, and I am happy to see it come. This morning we are bringing up an important piece of legislation intended to help the Pentagon reform inefficient procurement

operations. It's called the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010, otherwise known as the IMPROVE Act. This bill will help the Defense Department immediately, once this is signed, to crack down on cost overruns and lax oversight of contractors. Not only that, but the bill should help reduce our dangerous reliance oftentimes on outside companies to do so many varied functions on behalf of the military.

It is hard to overstate how important this bill is. My colleague, Mr. Conaway of Texas, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee Defense Acquisition Panel, offered the following testimonial on how urgent the need is for contracting and acquisition reform. He said: ``The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal Government, owning 86 percent of the government's assets, estimated at $4.6 trillion. Over the last two decades, millions of dollars have been spent by DOD in the quest to obtain auditable financial statements.'' Yet getting those numbers has proven elusive, if not at times impossible. No more, Mr. Speaker, after this bill is signed.

This bill mandates that the Pentagon consider shifting work away from contractors if they don't meet the cost goals. It will set up a new system of cost objectives and schedules which DOD procurement officers would have to follow. The bill says that by 2017 Pentagon agencies must prepare records that can be audited and draft a new policy that wouldn't reward those who don't meet requirements. These are simple, sensible reforms that the American people can understand and appreciate.

No matter what anyone in Congress thinks of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all of us know that the men and women who are serving overseas rely on the equipment, and they deserve to know that the funds for their equipment are not being squandered and that they are given equipment of the highest quality.

Another bright note on this legislation is that, when it was approved by the Armed Services Committee, the vote was 56-0. Such bipartisanship is rare in the House these days, and I am happy to speak on a bill that all of us can agree on. Although there is not currently any pending movement on the bill in the Senate, it is my hope a decisive and strong bipartisan vote today on this bill will spur the Senate into action. Billions of taxpayer dollars and the trust of our troops depend on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentlewoman that there were 26 amendments offered on this bill. Only one was a Republican amendment. Ten amendments were not allowed, but the Republican amendment was. We are not afraid of debate. We are not afraid of discussion. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat taken aback by your calling for a ``no'' vote on this rule given that this legislation passed unanimously out of the committee.

I have no further requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on both the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, let me thank, first of all, my colleague, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps), for yielding me the time. Also, let me just thank you for using your invaluable background as a nurse in helping shape quality health care for all in our country. So to Congresswoman Capps, thank you very much for your leadership.

Also, let me thank Congressman Russ Carnahan and Congressman Michael Burgess, the co-chairs of the Multiple Sclerosis Caucus and their staff, including my staff, Christos Tsenta, for helping to work on this resolution in a bipartisan manner and for keeping the Congress focused on MS issues, which was recognized during MS Awareness Week, March 8 through March 14.

Let me also thank Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton and their staff for agreeing to bring the resolution to the floor, along with our nearly 110 cosponsors. And to Congresswoman Kilroy, the gentlelady from Ohio, I just want to say to her that her determination and her strength is such an inspiration to all of us here in the House of Representatives.

Let me thank the Multiple Sclerosis Coalition, the National Ms Society and all its staff, especially Shawn O'Neail and Shawna Golden, for leading the charge on MS Awareness Week and for their work on this resolution and for helping to support activities around the country in recognition of this week.

And this resolution is in honor of all of those living with MS and all of the friends and family and loved ones who care for them and support them.

Lastly, I just want to thank my beloved sister, Mildred, for teaching me what it's like to live with multiple sclerosis. Mildred was diagnosed with MS at about the age of 26 or 27. She has been living a productive and fruitful life. She has learned about the treatments and medications; and, fortunately, she has had access to some of the best. But she wants everybody to have access to the types of treatment that she has had.

I asked her this morning what she'd like for me to say and she said, increase funding for research so we can find a cure.

She said to me, You know, it's so frustrating to go to the doctor, and for me to ask the doctor a question about the symptoms of my disease and the doctor says, I just don't know. She said at first she thought the doctors were just putting her off; but, actually, the doctors just don't know.

So this bill is for all of the times that she told me she gets up in the morning and wonders whether she'll be able to walk that day. This is for all of the times that she is in remission, dreading the next flare-up, wondering what is going to trigger the return of her symptoms.

So I'm pleased to be here today to talk about a disease that my family and hundreds of thousands of families around the Nation have faced. In fact, our first lady, Michelle Obama, her dad, Mr. Frasier Robinson, had multiple sclerosis, and so our first family clearly understands the need for increased awareness and outreach and resources to fight this disease.

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, unpredictable disease of the central nervous system. It's thought to be an autoimmune disorder where the immune system incorrectly attacks healthy nerve fibers of the central nervous system, interfering with transmission of nerve signals throughout the body.

There are over 400,000 people throughout the United States suffering from multiple sclerosis; and worldwide over 2.5 million cases have been diagnosed. But the real numbers of people living with MS are almost certainly higher.

Although MS is largely considered a disease that affects Caucasian populations, it does occur among African Americans and other minority groups and can be quite severe. Because people of color tend to have had less access to the health care system, which I'm confident now that our health care law will finally address, they may not get diagnosed at the rates that they should.

As has been said, Madam Speaker, MS Awareness Week was recognized this year from March 8 through March 14. The theme of this year was ``Move It!'' and it was intended to encourage people throughout the country to volunteer, raise funding, advocate, educate, and raise awareness about this disease.

This is the fifth year of MS Awareness Week, and over the past 5 years, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has received $30 million in donated corporate support, advertising space and public relations, and generated more than 120 billion media impressions.

In March alone, the MS Society recently received over 650,000 hits on their Web site from people who got active in the fight against MS. So the drumbeat is being heard loudly and clearly.

People living with MS were at the Today Show and Good Morning America and featured on 12 digital billboards which ran more than 700 times throughout the entire month of March in Times Square. The MS Coalition, the National MS Society, and the Congressional MS Caucus were also actively engaged in discussions about access to quality health care, increased MS research, disability rights, and MS issues and sought more funding for MS research.

This month, the Northern California Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society is also in the middle of holding its MS walk fundraisers. Our own MS walk in my district in Alameda County is actually scheduled for this Saturday. I'm also proud to say that a former person in my office, Alicia Barron, has been on the front lines of raising awareness about this disease through her work with the Lone Star Chapter of the MS Society in Houston, Texas. We appreciate her work and service.

While MS Awareness Week has passed, there is still a lot we must do. On May 26, MS societies throughout the world will band together on World Ms Day to increase awareness, knowledge, and understanding of the disease and the needs of people with MS and how to improve their quality of life.

As I've always said, our health is tied to the health of our brothers and sisters throughout the world, and we have to view anyone's problems, their problems, as our own problems; otherwise, we will never be truly rid of this disease. As Members of Congress, we have the ability and the responsibility to ensure that additional research funding is put towards diseases like multiple sclerosis. We need to invest more time and more efforts into finding the causes of MS to prevent it, to improve existing therapies for those who suffer with it, and I hope one day, as my sister said, just find a cure.

I'm pleased that the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill included $4.5 million to fund research into multiple sclerosis among our veterans. I look forward to making sure that we provide even more next year.

So, once again, I want to thank my colleagues for their support of the resolution. And in honor of all of those living with MS, I want to say we are committed to putting more money into research and to finding a cure. As my sister Mildred said, that is all we need to do.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for her recognition.

As cochairman of the Congressional MS Caucus, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1116, supporting the goals and ideals of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week from March 8 through March 14. The goal of this annual event is to raise awareness of this disease for individuals and their families who are impacted by this illness.

Every hour in the United States, someone new is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. It is a chronic, often disabling disease that attacks the central nervous system. Over 400,000 Americans are living with MS, and approximately 2\1/2\ million people are affected worldwide.

These patients suffer a variety of symptoms which can vary from person to person and, indeed, may vary within a particular patient during the course of the disease. Among the symptoms are impaired vision, muscle weakness, problems with coordination and balance, numbness, memory problems and, in the most severe cases, which, fortunately, is rare, the disease is fatal.

Even the milder cases of multiple sclerosis create daily changes for patients by impairing speech, the ability to write, the ability to walk. Despite the debilitating effects, the cause of multiple sclerosis is unknown. There is yet no laboratory test that is available that definitively establishes the diagnosis and, of course, there is no cure.

Treatments, however, have improved markedly over the last 20 to 30 years, and that is the reason we should applaud the work of the Multiple Sclerosis Coalition, an affiliation of MS organizations dedicated to the enhancement of the quality of life for those affected by this disease, which recognizes and celebrates this special week that we designate as Multiple Sclerosis Week.

Many Americans know a person living with MS, a mother, father, son or daughter or another family member, or even a colleague. During my brief time in Congress a member of my staff has been diagnosed.

I also want to recognize those who struggle with multiple sclerosis every day, the family and friends who support them, the doctors, nurses, researchers and others that care for them and continue to search for a cure.

I'd also like to thank Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri, who's the co-chair of the MS Caucus, and Representative Barbara Lee of California who are sponsoring this resolution with me.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

I will yield myself my remaining time.

I want to thank Representative Carnahan for the recognition and echo his call to other Members of this Congress to join the MS Caucus. This caucus does real work. We provide information. We provide conference calls. We provide educational time with either Members or staff, and it is a worthwhile endeavor.

While there is no cure for multiple sclerosis as it stands today, the treatment has evolved significantly. In my 25 years of medical practice, I saw a significant evolution. Although I was not the primary caregiver for multiple sclerosis patients in my general OB-GYN practice, I did have many patients who did suffer from that illness and, as a consequence, over the course of my professional lifetime, did see the treatment evolve from one that was essentially palliative to one that was more targeted towards the disease itself or targeted towards the damages the disease inflicts upon the central nervous system.

So I do encourage both sides of the aisle to join this caucus. It is an important endeavor.

Again, I want to thank everyone who has participated today. We've heard today that multiple sclerosis is a chronic, often disabling disease, but today, new treatments and advances in research are starting to give new hope to people affected by the disease, but more must be done to understand the course of this illness.

Most people with MS learn to cope. They learn to cope with the disease and to lead satisfactory, productive lives, but they do want answers. We recently capped off MS Week 2010 on March 8-14, and now prepare for World MS Day on May 26.

Texas, my home State, is getting into the act with the BP MS 150, which is a 180-mile journey from Houston to Austin. This event is a 2- day fundraising cycling ride organized by the Lone Star Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. That is the largest event of its kind in north Texas. This year's ride just took place this past weekend. In 2009, this event raised more than $17 million for research for MS, and the fundraising goal for this year is $18 million, with contributions still being tallied. But the Lone Star Chapter of the National MS Society is on its way to reaching this ambitious goal. And this was the 5th year of MS Awareness Week.

The Multiple Sclerosis Caucus is a bipartisan group of 127 Representatives and 23 Senators who are in full support of this resolution. But we can do more. In fact, we will be looking to have an MS briefing for Members and their staff sometime in June, and I hope many Members will be able to attend.

And, in addition, I urge everyone who supports this resolution to cosponsor H.R. 1362, to create a National MS Registry. This bill has over 150 cosponsors, and I urge my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to take up this resolution because it is an important amount of work that needs to be done. And with all of the focus nowadays on genomic medicine, this registry is going to become increasingly important.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of H.R. 1362, which I authored with Mr. Van Hollen.

There are over 400,000 Americans living with MS and millions of more Americans who live with some form of neurological disorder.

As co-chairman of the Congressional MS Caucus, I have been working to further research into the development of MS and other neurological disorders to help the population of Americans living with MS. I firmly believe that a national surveillance system will be a critical first step toward allowing our researchers access to information that could be the key to finding cures.

The other night, I was told that we are running for second base in our efforts to cure neurological diseases and that we have never tagged first. This bill, H.R. 1362, the National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010, is our first base.

Currently, there is no formal coordinated system to track and collect data on these diseases, and the lack of comprehensive data collection impedes progression to finding a cure. In fact, the last national study of the prevalence of MS was conducted 34 years ago. This integrated research will help drive innovation and will provide a solid understanding of how factors such as gender and age influence disease prevalence.

As diagnoses are made, we will have the ability to create progression markers, allowing for the compilation of the data and the construction of treatments for future patients with similar backgrounds. Through these efforts, we will be able to disseminate information and to encourage high-risk populations to connect to the available resources.

This legislation will emphasize the study of the epidemiology of neurological diseases. It is vital that we examine previous trends of the disease as they relate to geography, environmental factors, and heredity in order to forecast future trends. In order to advance, we must create a foundation of research for the millions of Americans suffering from MS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other conditions.

The National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010 has wide support, including by the National MS Society and the Parkinson's Action Network, among many others.

The bill before us reflects countless hours of negotiation. I want to thank Anne Morris and Ryan Long, who are with the committee, as well as Ray Thorn, who is with Mr. Van Hollen's office, for their work. This bill went through regular order. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously, and it has come to the floor a better product because of the bipartisan work.

I have spoken to medical students several times recently, and I have told them that the tools and technologies they will have at their disposal will revolutionize the practice of medicine. This bill is part of that future.

A surveillance system will aid doctors on the ground right now who are struggling with ensuring a proper diagnosis. For example, with an MS examination, it generally reveals evidence of neurologic dysfunction, often asymptomatic in other locations. It is not science fiction to think that, in the future, a scientist noticing a genetic or blood marker in certain patients will be able to use surveillance systems like the ones created under this bill to link genetic factors with occupations, environmental and other demographic information.

As diagnoses are made, we will have the ability to create progression markers, which will help researchers compile the data and construct treatments for future patients with similar backgrounds. That is how we will get the vaccines, the treatments, and the cures for the next generation.

Future physicians will be able to tailor treatment to patients based on previous results and will be able to disseminate the information and encourage high-risk populations to connect to available resources, but we need to put in place the first building blocks. The epidemiologic evidence supports the role of environmental exposure to conditions like multiple sclerosis. MS also correlates with high socioeconomic status, which might reflect improved sanitation and delayed initial exposure to infectious agents, but we will not be able to be sure until we can monitor on a statistically significant basis.

Again, I want to reiterate my strong support for the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.