Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to continued war funding for Iraq.

I voted against the war and have never wavered in my opposition to the Administration's misguided policies in Iraq.

It has been a long and painful 5 year journey for the people of our country since the Administration acted preemptively and unilaterally to invade and occupy Iraq.

Military leaders, the best minds in foreign and economic policy, and the vast majority of the American people have been resoundingly clear: The Administration's war-without-end policy is not a strategy for success.

As retired General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter stated, ``Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options.''

I cannot support war funding without a clear exit strategy in sight. It is bad for our troops, our country, and our standing in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of today's second amendment that includes a clear path out of Iraq, a plan that my constituents and the vast majority of Americans are demanding.

More than 5 years ago the President proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. Paradoxically, he insists on a permanent U.S. presence there. And what exactly has this Administration ``accomplished'' in Iraq?

More than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed and almost 30,000 injured; tens of thousands Iraqi civilian deaths; an emboldened Iran and new threats from Al Qaeda in the region; $519 billion taxpayer dollars spent and a future expenditure of some $3 trillion; a hobbled Iraqi government unable to provide clean water, medical care, jobs for its people, or pass critical oil sharing legislation; a U.S. military on the verge of collapse and unable to press vigorously the critical fight in Afghanistan or respond to other crises in the world; and still no exit strategy.

With no end game in sight, the Administration and its supporters in Congress are complicit in a continuation of a failed policy which they insist on extending with a blank check policy to accompany it.

The President owes it to our brave men and women in Iraq and their families, he owes it to the American people, and he owes it to the citizens of Iraq not to leave this mess for the next President to finish.

This bill establishes a clear path out of Iraq. The language requires the Administration to begin redeployment 30 days after enactment and requires Secretary Gates to submit to Congress within 90 days a report detailing plans to reduce and redeploy troops from Iraq. It prohibits sending troops to Iraq that are not assessed as ``fully mission capable'' of performing their assigned mission, and outlaws the presence of a permanent U.S. base there. Additionally, this provision requires the Iraqi government to match every U.S. dollar spent for training and infrastructure construction and repair. Finally, it prohibits the intelligence community from subjecting detainees to interrogation techniques not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual. This will essentially abolish the use of water torture and begin to restore America's standing in the world community.

As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence it is vital that we extend the ban on torture to the Intelligence agencies. The President has said he will veto any ban on torture, clearly demonstrating his desire to reserve for himself the right to subject detainees to these horrendous techniques. Congress has an obligation to make it clear that the American people do not believe in torture and will not allow it to continue.

This amendment sets a decisive course out of Iraq and begins to shift responsibilities to the Iraqi government. I urge my colleagues to heed the demands of the American people and support this strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that the Appropriations Committee included two important provisions in today's third amendment. First, it includes critical funding for Iraqi Christians and second, it modernizes and improves the G.I. bill.

I'm pleased that the amendment contains $10 million for vulnerable Iraqi minorities, including Christians. The needs of Assyrians in Iraq could not be greater. A report produced by the Department of State on U.S. assistance to the Nineveh Plains in Iraq concluded that Christian minorities have experienced serious human rights abuses in the Nineveh Plains. The report also states that the region has absorbed a significant number of Christian internally displaced persons (IDPs) moving from the south, placing an economic burden in the area.

They are fleeing because they are being threatened and murdered in their home communities. Their priests are being executed, their churches burned, and their nuns threatened. In February of this year, Archbishop Paulos Rahho was abducted and murdered in Mosul.

While Assyrians only represented 5 percent of the total Iraqi population before the war, according to the United Nations today they comprise as much as 40 percent of the growing Iraqi refugees who have fled for their lives to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.

These families desperately need security, housing, jobs, schools and the chance to live in a sustainable community where they can openly practice their faith. This funding is essential to their survival.

Also included in this amendment is a modernization of the G.I. bill. The G.I. bill has been heralded as one of the most successful government programs in the history of our Nation. It gave millions of G.I.s the chance to go to college, many of whom were the first to receive a college education in their families. But the G.I. bill is over 54 years old and has not kept up with rising tuition costs.

According to a recent Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) survey, 18 percent of the veterans recently back from tours of duty are unemployed. Of those employed since leaving the military, 25 percent earn less than $21,840 a year. The survey also demonstrated that only 48.4 percent of the respondents took advantage of the G.I. bill and concluded that receiving the benefits of the current G.I. bill was not a strong predictor of successful employment outcomes.

This survey clearly demonstrates the need for this new G.I. bill. The amendment provides veterans with a maximum educational benefit equal to the highest tuition rate of a public college or university in their State, as well as a monthly stipend for housing. It also establishes a new program in which private educational institutions would make financial contributions toward veterans' tuition, and the federal government would match those contributions.

When our veterans return from the battlefield, they should have every opportunity to enter the classroom and ultimately the civilian workforce. Our Nation needs these brave men and women to contribute to the growth and health of our economy and this new G.I. bill accomplishes this.

From development funding for Iraqi Christians to the creation of a new G.I. bill, this amendment addresses specific urgent needs for our Nation and world. The amendment is well crafted and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council and its contributions to San Mateo County with my friend Congresswoman Jackie Speier.

On April 10, 1908, the San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council received its first charter from the California State Building Trades Council. Today it is comprised of 24 local construction unions and has a membership of over 16,000 of the highest skilled crafts women and men in the construction industry. They are plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, carpenters, roofers, ironworkers, cement masons, elevator constructors, heavy equipment operators (Operating Engineers), painters, truck drivers (Teamsters), lathers, sheet metal workers, plasterers, brick and tile layers, boilermakers, pile drivers, glaziers, carpet and soft tile layers, fIre sprinklerfitters, insulation and asbestos workers, laborers, hod carriers, sign painters, millwright workers, laborers, cabinetmakers, steamfitters, and hardwood floor layers. While their jobs may be different, what links them together is their dedication to perform with high skill and great pride.

In 1908, San Mateo County was young and growing, and through the hard work of another generation, the county was shaped into what it is today. The single biggest accomplishment was the construction of San Francisco International Airport and more recently, a new terminal at the airport.

The mission of the San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council has always

been to improve the quality of life for all construction workers, promote the value of highly skilled union crafts women and men, and to increase the union market share in the construction industry.

The San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council has also understood the importance of not only developing a strong foundation of skilled crafts persons through apprenticeship programs, but also the need to reach out to developers, public agencies, and elected officials to explain why it makes good business sense to use union contractors and union workers. The San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council's active approach in voicing the need for construction workers to be paid decent wages with pension and health benefIts so they and their families can afford to live in the community illustrates its commitment to every single worker.

Madam Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in honoring the San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council as it celebrates a century of building and serving San Mateo County. We salute Bill Nack, the council's business manager and every single member of the council. The work of generations has shaped and built San Mateo County as we know it today, and contributed to the building of our country as well.

May the next century be marked by the excellence and achievements of the first 100 years of the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County.

I want to first begin by saluting our colleague, Louise Slaughter, and Mrs. Biggert, who has worked so hard on this. This is really all about the future, except we had to struggle for 13 years in order to recognize it. But today, we do. And it is a singular extraordinary achievement, not only on the watch of Chairwoman Slaughter, but today for the full House to pass this legislation.

We know that in the makeup of our humanity is a genetic profile. Researchers and scientists have demonstrated what the potential is if in fact, not only through the human genome project, the sequencing, and the discovery of all that is hidden in it, what that portends for humanity. But there's another side of this, and that is a darker side. The darker side is entitled: Discrimination. That if that information, our genetic makeup is used by insurers to discriminate against people.

So today what we are doing is eliminating that block, that discrimination that stands in the way of the fullness of the potential of our genetic profile and how it can be not only accumulated but used to the benefit of humanity. That is what this legislation represents.

When we pass it and the President signs it into law, this legislation will not only end the discrimination and all that is attendant to it, but that from this day forward the principles of preventive medicine, the reduction of health care costs, the advancement of research, and the saving of lives will be the order of the day.

I salute you, my colleague. Well done. You have earned your keep in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008 and very pleased that a bipartisan agreement was reached to bring the bill up under suspension of the rules because it's essential for the House of Representatives to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

Over 2,100 organizations across the country have told Congress that we have to stop the seven regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, over the last year because they threaten the loss of $50 billion in Federal funding for key healthcare services. California's Governor Schwarzenegger has estimated that the regulatory changes will place an additional $12.5 billion burden on California alone.

CMS has claimed these cuts are being imposed to eliminate waste from the Medicaid program. Far from addressing ``inappropriate'' payments, the seven regulations that CMS adopted will cut legitimate and necessary care for the most vulnerable in our society. Rather than using the power it already has to address waste, fraud, and abuse, CMS has taken the wrong turn by simply declaring that it will not pay for services.

CMS is saying ``no'' to rehabilitation services to help people with profound disabilities and medical conditions maintain or gain function.

CMS is saying ``no'' to case management services that help people get the medical care they need and are entitled to; this includes services for individuals with disabilities who are trying to move out of institutions and into the community.

CMS is saying ``no'' to specialized transportation to help children with disabilities get to and from school.

CMS is saying ``no'' to compensating safety-net hospitals for their critical services to the communities.

By adopting this bill, we will stop the implementation of these draconian regulations. The bill will require an HHS study and report on the regulations and their impacts on states, something CMS failed to do. For those concerned about waste, the bill provides additional funding for the Secretary to root out true fraud within the system. Finally, the costs of the bill are fully paid for by requiring electronic verification of assets for individuals applying for Medicaid.

With many of these regulations due to take effect very soon, it's critical that the House pass this bill today with a margin that will convince the President that a veto will not be sustained. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Trudy Cattermole, who was a loving wife, a great mother, an adored grandmother, tireless and faith-filled community leader and devoted and treasured friend to me and countless others. ``Trudy'' Leone McShane Cattermole was born April 12, 1927 and she passed away peacefully two days after her birthday on April 14th in Atherton, California surrounded by her loving family. She is survived by John, her husband of 54 years; her children, Gregory, Jay, and Theresa (Nani); her niece, Joanne McShane Costa; ten grandchildren, Kyle, Drew, and Michael Cattermole, Emily and Abigail Cattermole, Christina, Chase, Taylor, Tovac and Cael Daniels; and her great niece and nephew, Claire and John Costa.

Above all else, Trudy cherished her family. She was totally devoted to her husband and to her children and grandchildren. She was graceful, generous and had a terrific sense of humor. As Trudy's family attests, she shared her trust in God with all her children, from the grace said at each meal, to her attendance at every baptism and first communion and to her devotion to the Sisters at Oakwood. She taught all of them about faith in action and she lived her faith by being a friend and to giving back to her community.

Trudy served as chairperson of the Flower Ball. She gave to her children's schools serving in many capacities, including chairman of the Bellarmine Fashion Show, board member of the Bellarmine Woman's Mother's Guild. She served as president and board member of the Oakwood Auxiliary, and board member and officer of the Serra Club, volunteered at the St. Francis Center, St. Anthony's Dining Hall and helped found Sandwiches on Sundays at St. Pius Church. She was a Eucharistic minister at St. Pius Church where she was married and attended services for over 60 years. She was recognized as a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre. She was a second generation San Franciscan. She attended Sacred Heart High School in Menlo Park, and Lone Mountain College in San Francisco.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring Gertrude ``Trudy'' Leone McShane Cattermole. Through her many contributions to her family, friends, church, and community she has left a lasting legacy of love, faith and social consciousness which will never be forgotten and for which will live forever with all of us blessed to have had her in our lives.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5819, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act.

The Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs are important sources of Federal support to facilitate the commercialization of research. Updating these programs will ensure the continuation of the central role they play in maintaining the preeminence of the U.S. research enterprise.

The importance of fostering public-private partnerships cannot be underestimated. I see firsthand all the aspects of the innovation process, because my Congressional district contains basic research institutions, hundreds of current and former SBIR- and STTR-awarded companies, and venture capital firms. The SBIR and STTR programs facilitate the transition of technologies to the market. The important changes made by this reauthorization include increasing the award guideline levels, establishing advisory boards to improve program effectiveness and outcomes, and emphasizing the importance of energy- related research proposals.

A key aspect of the debate surrounding this reauthorization has been whether or not venture capital-backed companies should be eligible to participate in the SBIR program. Small businesses with a proven ability to attract venture funding should not be excluded.

The original legislation which created the program stated that no federal funds could be used for the Phase 3 commercialization state of an SBIR award, requiring award recipients to seek venture capital and other private sector funding. Preventing those companies from returning to the program for a different project undermines its very objective of bringing more technologies to the market. A small business that wins an SBIR and then attracts VC funds has a proven ability to succeed, yet may have insufficient resources to pursue new research projects. These companies should be eligible to continue to participate in the program and I'm pleased to see that the reauthorization before us today maintains this position.

Let me remind my colleagues that Congress did not authorize a policy change to prohibit venture-backed companies from participating in the program. A ruling by an SBA administrative law judge made this interpretation and seriously damaged the program by disqualifying many good companies. Today we clarify the language and get the SBIR program back on the right track, without excluding small businesses which have successfully obtained venture capital funding for other technologies.

I know there are concerns that this bill's increase in the percentage of research funds that are directed to the SBIR and STTR programs will detract from the core research missions of the agencies. This is a particular concern for the NIH which has been working under a constrained budget over the last several years. We need to continue to increase funding at the NIH and other research agencies, and we should consider the impact of increasing the SBIR and STTR set-aside as the bill moves forward in the legislative process.

I hope the House will demonstrate strong bipartisan support for this bill to ensure that the innovators and entrepreneurs of our country continue to have Federal assistance to transition their research and ideas out of the labs and into the marketplace. I urge the entire House to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, today Rep. Christopher Cannon and I introduced the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act of 2008 (WIN) which, if enacted, would foster the deployment of a new nation- wide wireless broadband network.

By every measure, the U.S. is losing the international broadband race and our competitiveness as a nation is at stake. More than 100 million Americans do not have broadband at home. Seventy-one percent of Latinos do not have broadband at home. Sixty-nine percent of Americans living in rural areas do not have broadband. Sixty percent of African Americans do not have broadband at home.

The high cost of internet access is a barrier for too many families who want broadband. In just the last year, the average cost of a broadband connection has risen $2 per month, or nearly five percent. These troubling figures must change and that's why I've introduced the WIN Act. This legislation mandates that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auction certain spectrum that is currently lying fallow.

The winner of the auction would be required to build and complete a network within 10 years which must provide coverage to at least 95 percent of our country. The licensee would be required to provide service for free to consumers and public safety users. The WIN Act also requires the licensee to deny access to obscene and indecent material on the free service tier.

The results of the 700 MHz auction disappointed many of us who hoped that a new entrant would emerge. Seventy percent of the auctioned spectrum went to only two carriers. While the auction required under this legislation is open to anyone, it is my hope that the bold conditions of requiring free, family friendly service will encourage the entry of a new national broadband service provider.

The public airwaves are a national resource that should he utilized to benefit the public. For far too long our nation's carriers have stockpiled spectrum, gamed building-out requirements, and provided poor service to consumers. This bill attempts to remind licensees that they do not own the public waves in fee simple. As licensees, they hold spectrum in a public trust. This is an agreement that obligates them to utilize this spectrum in the public interest in exchange for their exclusive control.

The Innovation Agenda made a commitment to spur affordable access to broadband and this bill will go a long way to providing universal broadband access. I encourage my colleagues to join me and Rep. Cannon in support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of particle physicist, presidential advisor and arms control advocate, Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, who died on September 27, 2007 in his home in Los Altos, California. He is survived by his wife Adele; two daughters, Margaret and Carol; three sons, Edward, Richard and Steven; nine grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.

``Pief,'' as he was more affectionately known, was born in 1919 in Berlin. At the age of 15, Dr. Panofsky immigrated with his family to the United States where he received degrees from Princeton and the California Institute of Technology. In 1951, he accepted a professorship at Stanford University and, from 1961 to 1984, served as the founding director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).

Under his leadership, SLAC became one of the most productive research facilities ever constructed. Its research in high-energy physics and subatomic particles would yield three Nobel Prizes and the discovery of new forms of matter.

The wide-reaching moral and ethical repercussions of his work, particularly his earlier contributions to the Manhattan Project, were not lost on Dr. Panofsky. He carried his zest for discovery into impassioned advocacy, working with our Nation's highest offices and across borders and seas to prevent nuclear catastrophe.

Dr. Panofsky served as an adviser on arms control in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, helping to secure the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. In 1983, as the Cold War marked an increasingly divided world, Dr. Panofsky dismissed the Reagan Administration's ``Star Wars'' weapons initiative, and advocated instead for collaboration between SLAC and Chinese and Russian scientists as a deterrent to nuclear war.

Madam Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring Dr. Wolfgang K. H. ``Pief'' Panofsky. Through his many contributions to particle physics and arms control policy, he has left a legacy of brilliance and social consciousness which will never be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, we've read and seen on the news the accounting of numerous deaths following the anti-government protests in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. The proindependence protests were initiated by ethnic Tibetans commemorating the 49th anniversary of the failed 1959 uprising that sent the Dalai Lama into exile. China is now facing mounting international pressure, including the U.S., to demonstrate restraint in dealing with the dissent.

I support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to peacefully protest for independence and safeguard their distinct identity by promoting the elimination of all forms of racial, religious, and linguistic discrimination against them. The People's Republic of China, PRC, has failed miserably to guarantee the preservation of these rights for the Tibetan people and as a result, Tibetans remain plagued by poverty, illiteracy, and a limited infrastructure.

I was privileged to participate in the Speaker's congressional delegation to India last month when we visited the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala. During our visit we discussed the tragic violence that has been taking place in Tibet with the Dalai Lama and we agreed that an open dialogue with the PRC and international pressure are the most effective methods at our disposal for ending the crisis.

This resolution was born out of those discussions with the Dalai Lama. It condemns the government of the PRC for its bloody suppression of the Tibetan people and calls on the government of the PRC to invite the Dalai Lama to China for the purpose of dialogue to resolve the root causes of unrest in the Tibetan areas of China.

Free expression and the right to dissent are defining elements of a democracy. That's why it is essential for us to speak out in condemnation of China's repression of religion, its complicity in the Sudanese atrocities in Darfur and its oppression of Tibet.

I urge my colleagues to pass this important resolution.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3773. Today's debate really goes to the heart of the two highest responsibilities of Members of Congress, to preserve our Constitution and to secure our Nation.

Front and center, that's what this bill does, it accomplishes both. It gives the intelligence community the most flexible tools for our professionals for their surveillance of terrorists and other necessary targets overseas. It accomplishes that. It safeguards our constitutional rights by requiring the FISA Court to approve targeting and minimization standards at the front end, when no emergency exists and to assure that Americans are not targeted.

It protects the private sector by providing prospective liability protection for telecommunications companies that provide lawful assistance to the government, and it provides those companies a way to present their defenses

in secure proceedings, in district court, without the administration using state secrets to block those defenses.

These are the most critical tools and safeguards, and that's why Members of Congress can be assured that they will be taking all the right steps by supporting this bill.

The bill is one that we should all support, and I am proud to support it.

Madam Speaker, the field of biotechnology is the future of medicine. Scientists and doctors are just beginning to scratch the surface of the potential to harness the extraordinary power of biology and the astounding natural processes which occur in the human body, in animals, and in other living organisms to advance breakthrough medical discoveries and treatments. While ordinary pharmaceuticals primarily treat the symptoms of a disease or illness, biotechnology products-- ``biologics''--can be manipulated to target the underlying mechanisms and pathways of a disease.

Through the study of biotechnology, we will develop effective treatments for cancer and AIDS, many of which are already saving lives. We will cure diabetes. We will prevent the onset of deadly and debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and arthritis. We will save millions of lives and improve countless more.

The development of biologics is expensive and extremely risky. Bringing a biologic to market can require hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development costs and can take several years. For every successful biologic, there are another 10 or 20 that do not pan out, making the incentives for investment in this field extremely sensitive to any changes in the regulatory structure for biologics.

In the relatively young industry of biotechnology, many of the original patents on biologics are beginning to expire and it's appropriate for Congress to consider how ``follow-on'' biologics or ``biosimilars'' are considered and approved by the FDA, and the impact these products will have on patient health and safety, health care costs, and incentives for innovation.

As a primary matter, it's important to recognize that traditional ``small-molecule'' pharmaceuticals and biologics are fundamentally different in their development, their manufacture and their chemical makeup. A traditional small-molecule drug is manufactured through synthesis of chemical ingredients in an ordered process, and the resulting product can be easily identified through laboratory analysis. A biologic is a large, complex molecule, which is ``grown'' in living systems such as a microorganism, a plant or animal cell. The resulting protein is unique to the cell lines and specific process used to produce it, and even slight differences in the manufacturing of a biologic can alter its nature. As a result, biologics are difficult, sometimes impossible to characterize, and laboratory analysis of the finished product is insufficient to ensure its safety and efficacy.

The pharmaceutical drug production process is easily replicated and a ``generic'' drug product is virtually identical to the original innovative product, so generic drug manufacturers are permitted to reference the original testing data submitted by the innovator companies when the original drug is submitted to the FDA for approval. With biologics, the manufacturing process is unique to each biologic and is not

generally disclosed as part of the published patent. A biosimilar manufacturer would have to have intimate knowledge of these proprietary processes in order to ``duplicate'' the biologic product, and even then it is extremely difficult--no two living cell lines are identical, so no two biologics manufacturing processes have identical starting materials or proceed in the same way.

It's also important to note that because biologics are produced with cells from living organisms, many of them can cause an immune reaction which is normally benign and does not affect safety. However, some of these reactions can negate the effectiveness of the biologic or even cause side effects that are more dangerous. Most of these reactions can only be observed through clinical trials with real patients.

Any expedited regulatory pathway for biosimilars must account for all these factors and I'm proud to join with the Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton, to introduce the Pathway for Biologics Act. Our bill builds on the significant progress the Senate, led by Senators Kennedy and Enzi, has already made, as well as the significant level of consensus we have heard on our Committee about this issue. The Pathway for Biologics Act will establish a new statutory pathway for biosimilars guided by three principles:

1. Legislation to facilitate the development of biosimilars should promote competition and lower prices, but patient safety, efficacy and sound science must be paramount.

2. We must preserve incentives for innovation and ensure that patients will continue to benefit from the groundbreaking treatments biotechnology alone can bring.

3. We must strive to protect the rights of all parties and resolve disputes over patents in a timely and efficient manner that does not delay market entry and provides certainty to all parties.

The regulatory pathway set forth in the Pathway for Biologics Act embodies each of these principles and sets forth a sensible, scientifically sound process for approval of biosimilars. The legislation allows for input from all interested parties and provides FDA appropriate flexibility to protect patient health by requesting analytical, animal and clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of a biosimilar. The FDA will be empowered to require the tests and data it deems necessary, but the results of clinical testing for immunogenicity will always be required as part of this data unless the FDA has published final guidance documents advising that such a determination is feasible in the current state of science absent clinical data and explaining the data that will be required to support such a determination. Since biologics are derived from human and animal products, immune reactions are a major concern for any new biologic product and are now impossible to detect without actual human testing.

Our legislation also addresses the important issue of interchangeability of biosimilars for the reference product. Some legislative proposals would allow the FDA to permit pharmacists and insurers to substitute a biosimilar for a physician's prescription for an innovator biologic product even when they cannot be demonstrated to be identical in their composition or effectiveness. Interchangeability of generic pharmaceuticals for brand name drugs is entirely appropriate since traditional generic drugs are chemically identical to the reference product. However, if the state of science is such that a complex molecule cannot be fully characterized and a precursor biologic cannot be adequately compared to a proposed biosimilar, then the biosimilar should not be fully substitutable for the precursor product without a physician's direction. The Pathway for Biologics Act makes it clear that the FDA cannot make a determination that a biosimilar is interchangeable with a reference product until it has published final guidance documents advising that it is feasible in the current state of scientific knowledge to make such determinations with respect to the relevant product class and explaining the data that will be required to support such a determination. This requirement is consistent with the recommendations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

An essential element of any new regulatory scheme for the biotech industry is a careful balancing of incentives for innovation and opportunities for new entry by competitors. To preserve incentives for innovation, the Pathway for Biologics Act provides 12 years of data exclusivity for new biologic products, which ensures that biosimilar applications that rely on the safety and efficacy record of existing biologic products will not be permitted to enter the market for 12 years following the approval of the innovator product. The 12-year exclusivity period is meant to preserve existing protections biotech companies receive from patents. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the effective patent life for pharmaceuticals is about 11.5 years, so a data exclusivity period of 12 years is consistent with that finding. Data exclusivity is necessary to provide additional protections and incentives for biologics because biosimilars--unlike generic drugs--will not be chemically identical to the reference product and will be less likely to infringe the patents of the innovator.

The legislation also includes incentives for additional indications and pediatric testing. New indications are critical for biologics and are often more significant than the indications for which approval was granted. Incentives for continued testing on new indications must be included to promote access to new treatments and cures, and this bill provides an additional 2 years exclusivity for new indications. I also believe it's important to provide incentives similar to those given traditional pharmaceuticals under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act to biologics, so the legislation provides an additional 6 months of data exclusivity for testing for use in pediatric groups.

In order to protect the rights of all parties and ensure that all patent disputes involving a biosimilar are resolved before the expiration of the data exclusivity period, the Pathway for Biosimilars Act establishes a simple, streamlined patent resolution process. This process would take place within a short window of time--roughly 6-8 months after the biosimilar application has been filed with the FDA. It will help ensure that litigation surrounding relevant patents will be resolved expeditiously and prior to the launch of the biosimilar product, providing certainty to the applicant, the reference product manufacturer, and the public at large. The legislation also preserves the ability of third-party patent holders such as universities and medical centers to defend their patents.

Once a biosimilar application is accepted by the FDA, the agency will publish a notice identifying the reference product and a designated agent for the biosimilar applicant. After an exchange of information to identify the relevant patents at issue, the applicant can decide to challenge any patent's validity or applicability. All information exchanged as part of this procedure must be maintained in strict confidence and used solely for the purpose of identifying patents relevant to the biosimilar product. The patent owner will then have two months to decide whether to enforce the patent. If the patent owner's case is successful in court, the final approval of the application will be deferred until the patent expires.

Madam Speaker. I believe the Pathway for Biosimilars Act sets forth a straightforward, scientifically based process for expedited approval of new biologics based on innovative products already on the market. This new biosimilars approval pathway will promote competition and lower prices, but also ensure that patients are given safe and effective treatments that have been subjected to thorough scrutiny and testing by the FDA. The Pathways for Biosimilars Act will also protect the rights of patent holders and preserve incentives for innovation in the biotechnology sector to develop the next generation of life-saving, life-changing therapies.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Pathway for Biosimilars Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our very distinguished, wonderful chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

We are here this evening for one reason and one reason only: it is to override the President's veto of the House authorization for the intelligence community. And the reason, the stated reason, and the President said so, the reason he vetoed the bill is because he is for torture. T-o-r-t-u-r-e. It's what the President said.

This is a very sad, dark moment for our country that a President of the United States would remove all of the tools that we've provided for the intelligence community in a post-9/11 world and say, Because you don't allow torture, I'm not for the bill.

Now, the President's position is entirely inconsistent with our Nation's history. The United States of America has long accepted that torture is beneath the standard of a civil nation. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of water torture on a U.S. civilian. The military has frequently prosecuted American military personnel for subjecting prisoners to torture since the Spanish-American War.

Our Nation was able to win two world wars and defeat a rising tide of communism with a torture prohibition in place. And I think that we can defeat America's enemies today without lowering ourselves, without allowing ourselves to become the organizers against us. That's what we have done. And we have not only degraded ourselves but helped to chip away at the magnificent credibility of our great Nation that people before us provided, and now we stand on their shoulders. And a President of the United States vetoes a bill because he stands for torture. We should slam that door shut.

And the way we do it is by overriding this President's veto. There isn't any room in our country for this. And for anyone to describe these things as being sissies because you stand against torture, that is really shameful. That's really shameful, with all due respect.

This is a tough position. It's the right position.

So I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto because that veto was about torture.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to have sponsored this Resolution to establish a National 9-1-1 Education Month.

Forty years ago President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Justice recommended that a single, nationwide telephone number be established for reporting emergencies--9-1-1. Since then, 9-1-1 has been used by millions of people across the country to quickly and efficiently contact their local fire and police departments, as well as report emergencies in their communities. Over 200 million emergency calls are made each year through the 6,000 9-1-1 public safety answering points serving more than 3,000 counties.

As the connection between the eyes and ears of the public and the emergency response system in the U.S., 9-1-1 answering points are often the first to know of emergencies caused by natural disasters, to national security threats, making 9-1-1 a vital homeland security asset. Educating people of all ages and backgrounds about 9-1-1 is crucial to the effectiveness of our emergency response system. It is especially important for vulnerable populations like children, the deaf and the hard of hearing, and those with limited English skills to understand and use.

A National 9-1-1 Education Month will encourage the development of public awareness events, advertising to the public, targeted outreach to schools, and training activities for parents and teachers. The deaf and hard of hearing are increasingly using text, video and instant messaging to access 9-1-1 operators. With such an effective and comprehensive emergency network, everyone benefits from learning.

As co-chairs of the E9-1-1 Caucus, Mr. Shimkus and I understand the importance of the 9-1-1 emergency network to the public safety and security of our country and this resolution will help to ensure that all Americans can access these critical services in an emergency. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a National 9-1-1 Education Month.

I thank the gentleman, who is our wonderful chairman of the Health Subcommittee in the House, for yielding. I want to begin by paying tribute to our colleagues, Jim Ramstad and Patrick Kennedy. They came to my congressional district for a hearing, and there was an outpouring. But, in addition, there was an outpouring across the country and I believe that they carried a candle across the country and that candle has lit the way. They lit the way with their integrity, with their courage, with their patience to listen, and their legislative craft of the bill that is brought before the House today. So to both of you, I salute you and the country thanks you.

America is best when we see where we have not done right, where there is a wrong, and we correct it. Congressman Kennedy said today that this is civil rights legislation, and it is. Every Member of the House should recognize that, today, we have the opportunity to break down a barrier, one of the last barriers in our country where those that have mental illness are indeed discriminated against in the insurance system of our country.

Now there are some in my congressional district that have led the way. Tony and Fran Hoffman helped to found the National Association of Mental Health. Eve Oliphant has worked for that. And I am really proud that David Wellstone, the late Senator Wellstone's son, is a constituent as well.

There are some very important points that have been made about the bill. There are also many things that have been thrown at it. For those that say that jet lag is going to be paid for by insurance companies, don't insult people that have mental health illnesses in our country. That will not happen. So, my colleagues, let's pass the civil rights legislation today. We will do the country good by doing so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to pay tribute to my colleague, my neighbor, and my friend, Congressman Tom Lantos.

For three decades, Tom Lantos has been an eloquent voice for the voiceless here and around the world. With his passing, our country has lost a great champion for human rights. His dedication to his fellow human beings was rooted in having survived the Holocaust. His story of survival and escape from Nazi forced labor camps in Hungary during the Second World War is inspirational, but it was the memory of those, including his mother,

whom he lost, that motivated him in his extraordinary career of public service.

Tom Lantos' story was also the story of an immigrant. He said he was an American by choice. Coming to the United States through an academic scholarship, he worked hard and made the most of the opportunities that only America can offer. He earned degrees from the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley, and taught economics for 30 years before running for Congress in 1980, winning against a Republican incumbent in a Republican year.

As a Member of Congress, Tom Lantos raised the profile of human rights in every corner of the world from China to Tibet and from Sudan to Burma. One of the first things he did when he came to Congress was to found the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in 1983. As the only Armenian-American serving in the House, I'm especially grateful for Tom's leadership as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last year when he worked to secure the passage of legislation recognizing, at long last, the Armenian Genocide of 1915. His voice in the face of strong opposition from many fronts helped secure the passage of this resolution through the committee.

Although Congressman Lantos' expertise was in world affairs, he took care of his constituents in California's 12th Congressional District. For 15 years I've had the privilege to serve with him, representing one of the most remarkable areas of our country. We worked together on efforts to preserve our local environment and improve transportation.

Congressman Lantos' efforts are clearly visible throughout his congressional district. He worked to expand BART service at San Francisco International Airport and to create a water ferry service from San Mateo County to San Francisco. He led the effort to acquire Rancho Corral de Tierra for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and we worked together to fund a visitor's center for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary at the Fitzgerald Marine Center.

More important than the legacy of his work is the legacy of his family, especially the love of his life, his wife Annette; his daughters Annette and Katrina; and his 18 grandchildren and 2 great- grandchildren. They always represented the greatest achievements of his great life.

America was blessed by the life of Congressman Tom Lantos. May he rest in the peace that he worked so hard to bring to others during his entire life.