Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering today on the House floor fails to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than 5 years after the 9/11 attacks.

This bill fails to include strong chemical security language that had been agreed to, on a bipartisan basis, in the Homeland Security Committee.

But Republicans have caved to the wishes of their allies in the chemical industry by crafting weak provisions that do not provide the security safeguards that are urgently needed to protect Americans.

The fact is, there are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants. This bill fails to fix the problem.

This bill also does not contain a mandate that all of the cargo on passenger planes be screened before it is placed onboard.

An amendment I offered to require 100 percent cargo screening on passenger planes passed the House overwhelmingly three years ago as part of the Department of Homeland Security's spending bill. But the Bush administration ensured that the provision was deleted from the final version of the bill, and Republicans have blocked it ever since.

In addition, this bill fails to provide the resources needed to ensure that our airports have the equipment needed to detect explosives that may be hidden in bags bound for airliners.

Earlier this month, a nonpartisan report developed by experts from air carriers, airport operators, the Federal Government and contractors recommended that Congress should ``continue Federal appropriations of at least $435 million for purchase and installation of Explosive Detection Systems, escalating annually.''

And what have Republicans in Congress decided is the appropriate funding level for the purchase and installation of explosive detection equipment at airports? About $150 million, or roughly one-third the amount recommended by the experts.

This is another example of Republicans nickel-and-diming homeland security while writing a blank check for the War in Iraq.

The foiled London bombing plot last month shined a light on the Bush administration's bungling of the research, development and deployment of systems that can detect liquid explosives at airports.

In its final report card, the 9/11 Commission gave the Federal Government's checked bag screening capabilities a ``D'' and directed that ``The TSA should expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening equipment.'' But almost a year later, we're still far behind where we need to be.

This bill also does not address another aviation security weakness that leaves us vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Specifically, the bill keeps in place an artificial cap that Republicans have placed on the number of airport screeners that can be hired. This is creating security challenges at our airports, as passenger traffic increases, and workers are expected to be on guard for a growing array of threats.

According to the bipartisan report released earlier this month ``without adequate capital investment, screener staffing levels would have to increase significantly to maintain 100% electronic screening.''

But we currently have the worst of both worlds: Republicans refuse to invest the needed funds in explosive detection equipment while they also cap the number of screeners regardless of security needs. This is a dangerous, wrong-headed policy that puts Americans at risk.

This bill also fails to sufficiently fund the Metropolitan Medical Response System, a vital program designed to limit casualties in the event of a major emergency, such as a nuclear attack or avian flu outbreak.

Clearly, our country needs a New Direction to ensure that security loopholes are closed and Americans are protected from terrorists determined to inflict another devastating attack on our country.

Republicans continue to ignore glaring loopholes such as porous security safeguards at chemical plants, failure to scan all the cargo on passenger planes, flawed checkpoint screening equipment, and the lack of enough TSA screeners.

As a result, Republicans are providing our nation with homeland insecurity, rather than the real security that Americans deserve.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I thank him for his excellent work on that legislation.

I would say that the gentlewoman made a fine point here. The Democrats waited for days to find out what was in this bill as the Republicans deliberated by themselves. Finally it comes back over, and we learn what they included.

Did it have anything on rail and rapid transit security? No. Did it have something on moving hazardous materials in a way that got them around densely populated areas? No. Did it have anything to do with ensuring that we screen for nuclear bombs on ships before they came into the ports of the United States? No.

But what did they include? Well, they included an Internet gambling bill. Now, you would think given the fact that it was a port bill, you would think they would have something in it on riverboat gambling. But, no, nothing even on that.

So, ladies and gentlemen, what they have produced is a fine piece of political pork that the Republican Party in secret has put together. Meantime, al Qaeda has their number one objective in the world still undealt with by the Republicans, and that is obtaining a nuclear weapon out of the former Soviet Union, bringing it to a port in the world, placing it in a container on that ship, bringing the ship into a port in the United States, and then detonating that nuclear bomb before it is ever taken off the ship. And the Republicans in this bill, do they require that there be screening for nuclear bombs before they leave for the United States? No.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this bill on the central issue is a failure. The number one threat to our security, a nuclear bomb in a container on a ship, no requirement at all for the screening before it comes to our port. They have the screening after the nuclear bomb reaches the port in the United States. By then it is too late.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it is like instead of buying a dog, they put up a ``beware of dog'' sign. So when the bomb has reached the port of New York or Boston or L.A., the only thing that will be there is ``beware of dog.'' They refuse to put up the protection.

Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6198, the Iran Freedom Support Act, because this bill could very well derail the diplomatic efforts currently underway that are our best hope for ending the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Let me be clear that I agree with the great majority of which this bill would do. I believe that we should extend the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. I believe that we should support human rights in Iran.

But as with so many things in life, Mr. Speaker, timing is everything. And this is the wrong time to pass this bill.

Crucial negotiations between Iran and the European Union in Berlin are reportedly closing in on a deal that would suspend Iran's uranium enrichment program while multilateral talks commence. The Bush administration has so botched the issue of containing Iran's nuclear ambitions that we have few choices left. These negotiations were just suspended for a week, and it would surprise no one if Iran did not return to the table. But make no mistake: as bad as the negotiation option may turn out to be, it remains our best chance of stopping Iran from ever building a nuclear weapon.

We need to support these negotiations, not undermine them. For the Congress to pass language which essentially makes regime change in Iran the official policy of the United States would be counterproductive while these negotiations in Berlin remain promising.

I could support this bill at another time, but not now, not when its passage could kill the ongoing negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his excellent work on this legislation.

I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees offered by Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission determined that the risk of maritime terrorism is at least as great if not greater than the risk of terrorism involving civilian aviation. We know that terrorists around the world want to obtain a nuclear bomb. We know that their plot includes an attempt to purchase a nuclear bomb in the former Soviet Union,

to transport that nuclear bomb to a port around the world, to place that nuclear bomb in a container on a ship, and then to bring that container on that ship to a port in the United States where that nuclear bomb can be detonated by remote control before that nuclear bomb is ever taken off that ship.

The majority is happy that they are going to screen once they reach the port in the United States. By then it is too late. The bomb can be detonated while it still is on the ship. That is our nightmare scenario. And that is something that the majority Republican Party has refused to put in place as a protection against this ultimate al Qaeda attack upon our country.

They support screening after it reaches the United States. They support having a demonstration project around the world. But as late as 2 days ago in the Homeland Security Committee hearing, Secretary Chertoff once again repeated the Bush administration policy, the Republican policy, that they do not support the mandatory screening of all cargo for nuclear bombs overseas, which is the 9/11 Commission report finding, that that is where the protection should be put in place.

So that is our problem. What we will do is we will have a ship with a container in Africa, in Europe, in Asia, and one of those containers will have had a nuclear bomb slipped into it. And then that ship, because there is no scanning for nuclear bombs around the world, that ship then heads for a port in the United States.

We would not be talking about losing 3,000 people or 5,000 people. We would be talking about losing tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans in that nuclear explosion.

If we don't scan for a nuclear bomb overseas, we can't be sure. If we don't scan and seal these containers overseas, then the United States will have to once again reinstitute a policy of duck and cover here in America with Americans learning how to protect themselves in the event of a nuclear bomb.

The bomb is not going to be delivered by an airplane or some submarine attack. Al Qaeda doesn't have that kind of capacity. This is the way in which the nuclear bomb is most likely to come into our country. It is an opening that is too big. It should be closed. The Republican majority just wants to use paperwork screening. It is almost like saying that they are going to check everyone of us at an airport in the United States, but having checked our paperwork they say, Get on the plane, you don't have to let us look at your bags. You don't have to show us your bags, take off your shoes, go right on the plane. Get on the plane. Thanks for showing us your paperwork.

We in America will never be happy with that, but that is what their policy is for nuclear bombs. Show us the paperwork. We are not going to actually check the inside of the container. We are not going to screen; we are not going to scan. We are going to screen your paperwork; we are not going to screen the container.

Can you imagine that as a policy for airlines in the United States? We are going to screen your paperwork before you get on the plane, but not screen you or your bags or computer to make sure that you are not going to blow up the plane. It just won't happen post-9/11.

Here is the huge opening. This is something that the Republican administration continues to listen too closely to the cargo industry and the shipping industry rather than to the real security interests of the American people.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. I thank him for his great leadership.

Let us be clear. There is no question that our government must make every effort to uncover, disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks. The 9/ 11 strikes demonstrated the devastation that can result if we fail to detect terrorist plots.

The question is not whether our intelligence agencies should be allowed to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists. The answer is, of course, yes. The question before us is whether a court should review such surveillance so innocent American citizens are not spied upon as the government conducts surveillance operations.

The bill we are considering today fails to provide the vital civil liberty safeguards for American citizens that are the cornerstone of our democracy.

This bill is badly flawed. It expands the President's authority to secretly wiretap U.S. citizens without going for a warrant to a court. Under current law, warrantless wiretapping is permitted in certain emergency situations. This bill more than doubles the amount of time that the President can conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant.

This bill also increases the likelihood that innocent Americans will be caught up in government-run surveillance operations. That is because the bill reduces the amount of specific information the government must provide when seeking approval from the FISA court.

Mr. Speaker, the President wants to go on a fishing expedition, but he doesn't want to have to get a fishing license from a court that guarantees that he has not exceeded the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today attempts to authorize an illegal Bush Administration program that a Federal judge has determined ``blatantly disregards'' the Bill of Rights.

The Bush Administration's secret domestic surveillance program uncovered last year not only ignored constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, but also failed to abide by laws enacted before and after the September 11th attacks that give government authorities the tools needed to tap terrorist communications and track down terrorists while protecting the civil liberties of American citizens.

Let us be clear: there is no question that our government must make every effort to uncover, disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks--the 9/ 11 strikes demonstrated the devastation that can result if we fail to detect terrorist plots.

The question is not whether our intelligence agencies should be allowed to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists. The answer is, ``of course. Yes.'' The question before us is whether a court should review such surveillance so that innocent American citizens are not spied upon as the government conducts secret surveillance operations. The bill we are considering today fails to provide the vital civil liberties safeguards for American citizens that are the cornerstone of our democracy.

This bill is badly flawed.

It expands the President's authority to secretly wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant from the FISA court. Under current law, the government can conduct warrantless surveillance for up to a year of any ``agent of a foreign power''--such as a foreign official or spy in the United States. But current law places a restriction on this authority-- no communications of U.S. citizens or residents must be likely to be intercepted in the process. The bill before us today removes this important protection. That means that the phone calls and e-mail communications of any U.S. citizen could be intercepted while the government conducts warrantless surveillance of foreign agents.

Under current law, warrantless wiretapping is permitted in certain emergency situations. This bill more than doubles the amount of time that the Bush Administration can conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant--

from the current three days to up to seven days.

This bill also increases the likelihood that innocent Americans will be caught up in government-run surveillance operations. That's because the bill reduces the amount of specific information the government must provide when seeking approval from the FISA court, such as details on the type of information the government is looking for and the procedures in place to prevent information from U.S. citizens from being collected in the surveillance operation.

Congress should be holding the Bush Administration accountable for illegally eavesdropping on thousands of U.S. citizens. Instead, the House is considering a bill that would expand the power of the Bush Administration to conduct such spying.

The Constitution says ``We the People'', but we have a President who seems to have forgotten this--he thinks it's ``Me the People.'' From secret wiretapping programs to signing statements that cast aside the intent of Congress, this President has shredded constitutional protections and ignored the checks and balances that are essential to our democracy.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, which has been rushed to the House Floor without sufficient evaluation. This bill will not make us safer. It will make everyday Americans more vulnerable to secret government eavesdropping conducted outside of the special court process that was designed to track terrorists without trampling on civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, the Military Commissions Act, which we are taking up today, will not make us more secure. It will endanger American personnel overseas, undermine the Geneva conventions, and give a get-out-of-jail-free card to people who may have committed war crimes.

If an American is captured in North Korea, Iran, Syria, or Somalia and held and interrogated under the same kangaroo court process this bill will create, every single Member of this House would be outraged at that miscarriage of justice.

The public is tired of a Republican majority that retreats to fear- mongering instead of trying to find constructive solutions to the serious security problems facing Americans. The Republicans refuse to screen for nuclear bomb material coming in in ships, they refuse to screen cargo going onto American passenger planes, and they refuse to require that chemical plants in our country have mandatory security built around them.

By passing this bill today, we are lowering our standards and we are encouraging other countries to lower their standards as well. And it will be the American troops captured on a future battlefield who will pay the price.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank her for her excellent work on this legislation. And I thank the Members of the majority for their work on this legislation as well.

But I come to the floor in order to identify the single most glaring deficiency in the legislation. This is a promise of a 5 percent increase in the NIH budget each year. But the reality is that this 5 percent is an imaginary 5 percent because this 5 percent does not account for the reality of health care inflation.

On an average year, health care inflation is 3 to 4 percent. In some years it is 5 to 10 percent, meaning that a 5 percent increase is actually in some years an actual reduction in the amount of money which can be used for health care research.

In fact, what we have seen over the last 3 years is that while the Republicans have flatlined the NIH budget, it has actually lost 11 percent of its purchasing power in new research that targets the diseases which affect American families. Research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give hope to American families, the clues that can unlock the diseases which they fear will affect their family, and there is no family that doesn't have some disease that they believe runs through their family's history. It could be Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, you name it; but it goes right down to some diseases that have very small numbers of Americans that are affected, like cystic fibrosis, which might only have 30,000 Americans.

What happens in a situation like this is because of the huge tax cuts which the Republicans have pushed through Congress year after year, we are incapable here in Congress of then gaining their support in order to increase above inflation by 5 percent the NIH budget.

And so who do we quote on a subject like this? Who do we quote on the subject of inflation and the impact that it has on American families? Who has been the single most articulate American on the subject of inflation in our lifetime? That person is Ronald Reagan. This is what Ronald Reagan said about inflation. He said: ``Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man.''

Mr. Speaker, we don't want the NIH research budget to be robbed by inflation. That is what is happening. It has

happened since 2003. It is going to continue. Between 12 and 16 million American baby boomers are going to contract Alzheimer's. There is a belief that if we could make a breakthrough in Alzheimer's, we could delay its onset by 7 years, saving at least 50 to $60 billion because they won't need care during those years.

This is without question in my opinion the most important budget that comes through Congress because this is, more than terrorism, the one issue that puts the fear of God in the hearts of every family. It is that one of these diseases will come into one of their family members.

My belief is that there has been a series of choices made in the last 6 years to have these massive tax cuts that makes it impossible for us to give a cost-of-living increase on top of inflation. It is wrong, and I believe that this bill, as good as it is in so many places, is deficient in the one central area which is central.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Maher Arar, whose treatment at the hands of American officials is a stain upon our national conscience.

During a layover in New York's JFK airport in September 2002, Mr. Arar, who was born in Syria but who now holds Canadian citizenship, was seized by American officials. He was held without access to a lawyer for two weeks in the United States, then transferred briefly to Jordan, and finally to Syria. Mr. Arar was imprisoned in Syria for 10 months, most of the time in a dark underground dungeon the size of a closet. He was tortured both physically and psychologically, and forced to make false confessions, including that he had attended an al-Qaeda terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Maher Arar was finally released a year after he was seized in New York, never having been charged with any crime.

When he was in American custody in New York, Maher Arar demanded to speak to a lawyer. He was denied. He demanded to speak to a judge. He was denied. He asked the American officials not to send him to Syria, as he knew he would be tortured there. Of course, the Americans did not need to be told that Syria routinely tortures its prisoners, as the U.S. State Department lists Syria in its annual Human Rights report as a country that practices torture. Yet Maher Arar was sent to Syria for interrogation, where he was brutally tortured, just as the American officials involved in his rendition must have known he likely would be.

Maher Arar was the victim of the Bush administration's program of ``extraordinary rendition,'' whereby prisoners in American custody are sent abroad for interrogation in other countries, sometimes to places such as Syria and Uzbekistan that are known to routinely practice torture. This is a disgusting practice that brings dishonor to the United States of America, and ultimately endangers our troops in the field by validating the use of torture all over the world. Extraordinary rendition is nothing more than the outsourcing of torture, and this program must come to an immediate halt. The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act, which I introduced in this House over a year and a half ago, would end the practice of extraordinary rendition. But the Republican leadership has refused to bring the Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have many details on the case of Maher Arar, because the Bush administration has refused to divulge any information on its program of extraordinary rendition and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress have refused to conduct any meaningful oversight over this program. Now that the President has admitted that the CIA operated secret prisons all over the world, the Congress must step up to the plate and conduct true oversight on the President's program of extraordinary rendition.

This week, the official Canadian inquiry into the case of Maher Arar, which focused on the role that Canadian officials played in his rendition, released its report. The Arar Commission report clears Maher Arar of any wrongdoing, and concludes that he was indeed transferred to Syria by the United States, where he was tortured. American authorities were invited to testify before the Arar Commission, but refused.

Canada has now completed its investigation into the injustice done to Mr. Arar by Canadian officials, who without any evidence of wrongdoing told the U.S. he had connections with terrorist organizations. Mr. Speaker, now this Congress must initiate our own investigation into the role that U.S. officials played in this affair. We must know the truth of what happened to Maher Arar, why it happened, upon whose orders, and upon what justification.

That is why I have today introduced five separate Resolutions of Inquiry requesting copies of all documents in the possession of the United States Government that may relate, in any way, to Maher Arar. These five Resolutions direct the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General to provide Congress with all documents and records in their possession relating to Maher Arar. The same request is made of the President, in order to ensure that any documents in the possession of the White House or the Intelligence Community are also provided forthwith.

The Congress, and the American people, must learn the truth of what was done to Maher Arar. I urge my colleagues to support these Resolutions of Inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 15th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Armenia. Today, we congratulate and pay tribute to the citizens of Armenia, as well as people of Armenian descent in the United States and around the globe on this important anniversary of their independence from the former Soviet Union.

Since its independence in 1991, the Republic of Armenia has been a trusted and valuable friend of the United States in the strategically important South Caucuses region. During that time, the United States and Armenia have developed a strong relationship based on shared democratic values.

Throughout their history, the Armenian people have persevered over unspeakable tragedy and hardship. Despite oppression, occupation and the genocide committed against the Armenian people, the unique Armenian culture, heritage and values have flourished.

However, Armenia still faces significant obstacles. It is surrounded by hostile neighbors who have erected blockades to prevent the flow of key resources into Armenia, hindering its ability to develop economically. Despite these difficulties, Armenia's economy has continued to grow at an impressive pace. The United States must continue to provide economic and military assistance and do everything in its power to end these blockades so that Armenia's economy can continue to grow and its young democracy can thrive.

I join my colleagues in the House of Representatives today in commemorating Armenia's independence. I look forward to the bonds of friendship between the United States and Armenia becoming even stronger in the coming years and I wish all Armenian people well on this day.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party has taken an opportunity to make a positive contribution to the commemoration of the 9/11 anniversary and turned it into a partisan ploy that divides our country and this Congress. What a huge missed opportunity and disservice to our Nation.

At the same time, they have undertaken a coordinated, cynical, political campaign to impugn the patriotism of any Democrat who dares to question, dares to criticize, dares to suggest that there may be a better, safer way of protecting our country.

The Republicans include in this resolution legislation that divides our country, not just Democrats and Republicans in Congress; but they include in this resolution the Republican border security bill, the PATRIOT Act, other bills that they know divide Democrats from Republicans and Americans from other Americans.

If they want to go down the path, there are other issues that divide Democrats from Republicans. Democrats want to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They want to make sure that every one of them is put on the books. The Republicans oppose implementing all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

In other areas they oppose having full security built around chemical plants in the United States. There are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to get into than chemical plants in our country.

Nuclear power plants, they oppose the hardening of the spent fuel facilities next to nuclear power plants in our country. They nickel and dime security for public transit. They refuse to support the requirement that hazardous materials, where possible, are shipped around densely populated areas instead of through them in our country.

In aviation they still oppose screening of the cargo which goes on to passenger planes in our country. Each one of us has to take off our shoes, has to put our bag through security, and then nearly 6 billion pounds of cargo are placed under the feet of passengers on planes across our country.

And then, unbelievably, rejecting the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, knowing that al Qaeda puts at the top of their terrorist target list putting a nuclear bomb on a cargo container in a ship and bringing it into port in the United States, the Republicans object to the requirement that all of these containers be screened in ports overseas before they are ever allowed to leave for the United States. They say it is too expensive. Well, the price we will pay in security for the Republicans objecting to the screening for a nuclear bomb is that when a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city, as Vice President Cheney said, more deaths will occur than all the lives that were lost in all the battles that the United States fought all the way back to the Revolutionary War. They refuse to impose this mandate for screening of nuclear bombs in cargo container ships. They want to screen it after it gets to a port in the United States. By then it is too late. The 9/11 Commission says screen for nuclear bombs as they are being put into containers overseas before they take off for the ports of the United States.

This resolution is just a complete and total undermining of the solidarity which we should have on this occasion of the fifth anniversary of that loss of life

Mr. Speaker, Bob Tisch was my friend. He did many things in life for which he will be remembered, but for me it was that he created a family of unsurpassed excellence. It was an honor for me to know him, and his family should know how many people like me came to admire him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to Spelman College for providing African American women with outstanding education and guidance for the last 125 years.

Spelman College was founded in 1881 as Atlanta Baptist Female Academy by two women commissioned by the Baptist church to provide educational opportunities for newly freed black women. Spelman began in a damp church basement with 11 pupils, mostly women, determined to learn to read the Bible and write well enough to send letters to their families in the North. The academy first offered postsecondary education in 1897. It adopted its present name in 1924.

Two years after its founding, the former barracks and drill grounds used for federal troops after the Civil War were purchased for the school for $15,000. To pay the enormous debt, the black community raised $4000, the Negro Baptists of Georgia raised $3000, and individuals donated $1300, which left an outstanding balance of $6700. John D. Rockefeller was so impressed with the school when he visited that before he left, he paid the outstanding balance, which resulted in a name change to Spelman Seminary, in honor of Rockefeller's mother-in- law, Harvey Spelman. Several years later, Rockefeller donated $40,000 toward the building of Rockefeller Hall, named in his honor.

Spelman continues to be blessed with friends dedicated to its mission to provide high-quality educational opportunities to black women. Spelman was the recipient of a $20 million gift from entertainer Bill Cosby and his wife Camille to build the Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby Academic Center. The school also receives $37 million from the DeWitt Wallace/Spelman College Fund, which was established by the founder of the Reader's Digest Association. The College has gained national recognition as a result of such philanthropic gifts and the fact that it was the basis for the fictional black college in the television show ``A Different World.''

Despite large-scale development, Spelman continues to place special emphasis on the cultural, social, and personal development of each student and sisterhood and individual discovery is encouraged and stressed. Spelman continues to prepare women to become successful in any field they choose while also instilling a sense of giving back to the community, with their motto of ``Women Who Serve''. The founder of the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman, Spelman '60, is perhaps this generation's most effective voice for the disadvantaged and forgotten in our society. The author Alice Walker, Spelman '63, who received the Pulitzer Prize in literature for The Color Purple is also a dedicated activist and social visionary.

I am particularly proud that a Massachusetts native and member of the Spelman class of 2006, Tulani Elisa, has chosen to serve the people of the 7th Congressional District of Massachusetts here in my Washington office.

Congratulations to a great American institution of higher learning and of commitment to service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Swift Approval, Full Evaluation (SAFE) Drug Act. This bill is designed to ensure that the FDA can balance the need to get important life-saving drugs to the market quickly while ensuring the drugs get the full evaluation they need to ensure the safety of those products. A strong postmarketing study system allows the FDA to achieve a careful balance between speed of approval and careful scrutiny of the products. However, as both the GAO and the Inspector General of HHS recently reported, the system to ensure that postmarketing studies are conducted and completed is broken and the FDA has not made reform a priority.

Postmarketing studies are important because they prevent death, detrimental reliance and waste. They provide critical information about the risks and benefits of a drug after it has been approved and on the market. They can also provide additional information about optimal use of the product and what groups of people are most likely to benefit (or not benefit) from use. Since the long-term effects of products are not usually studied prior to approval, postmarketing studies provide critical information about the risks or benefits of long-term use. Postmarketing studies allow the FDA to approve drugs for to consumers who need them quickly while ensuring that scientists will continue to investigate the best uses of the drug. These studies are particularly important when, in the interest of speeding drugs to consumers, the drugs are approved under the FDA's accelerated approval process.

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, established a process that amounted to a trade-off between its mission to ensure drug safety and effectiveness and the need to speed promising new drugs to market to increase treatment options for life-threatening illnesses. Called accelerated approval, this process allows FDA to approve a drug on an expedited basis using promising but limited information about its safety and effectiveness, but only on the condition that the company agrees to conduct further studies to confirm

the safety and effectiveness of the product. Under the law, drug companies are required to do additional studies to confirm that the drug is safe, effective and works for its approved indication.

The importance of conducting postmarketing studies to ensure the safety of drugs approved through accelerated approval is illustrated by the example of encainide and flecainide. In the 1980's encainide and flecainide were approved to treat ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarcation. Arrhythmias are a risk factor for heart attacks and encainide and flecainide are very good at suppressing arrhythmias. People assumed that because the drugs were good at suppressing arrhythmias, they would also prevent heart attacks. While this treatment was on the market between 250,000 and 500,000 people were prescribed the drug every year to prevent heart attacks. When the postmarketing clinical trial was conducted to confirm that encainide and flecainide did in fact reduce heart attacks, the study found these drugs actually tripled the rate of death. The drugs were withdrawn from the market. If the postmarketing study had never been completed, doctors would have continued to prescribe a drug that they thought was beneficial but was actually killing people.

Postmarketing studies are also important to ensure that drugs approved through accelerated approval actually work. In May 2003, Iressa, which is manufactured by AstraZeneca, was approved under the accelerated approval process for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in individuals who have failed to respond to two or more courses of chemotherapy. Iressa showed promise in early studies. The FDA approved Iressa, on the condition that AstraZeneca continue research on the drug to confirm the early results. Complying with the FDA's mandate, AstraZeneca conducted a postmarketing study and found that, for most people, Iressa was not effective. The drug was withdrawn from the market. This trial provided critical information to both physicians and patients who are trying to determine the best course of treatment for this horrible disease. If the postmarketing study had never been completed, doctors would have continued to prescribe it and patients would have continued to spend $1,800 a month for a drug that is ineffective for most patients when there are alternative treatments available.

Unfortunately, many companies fail to conduct the postmarketing studies they promised to complete as a condition of approval on a timely basis and the public may go years without knowing whether the drugs approved through accelerated approval are really safe and effective. According to information provided by the FDA to my staff on March 30, 2005, drug companies take a very long time before they even initiate postmarketing studies that are required as a condition of approval as of March 9, 2005; companies with outstanding trials had been selling these products to the public for an average of 1 year and 10 months and up to 6 years and 9 months without even initiating the required studies.

Despite the fact that companies often wait years before starting required postmarketing studies, the FDA has never used the only mechanism it has to enforce compliance with the requirement: withdrawal of the product. According to the HHS IG, ``Currently, short of withdrawing a drug from the market--a remedy available to FDA only in limited circumstances--the only short-term, practical options available to FDA in dealing with drug applicants that do not comply with the terms of their commitments are sending letters and placing phone calls. Providing FDA reviewers with additional tools, such as the ability to impose monetary fines, may send a signal to drug applicants that there are consequences when postmarketing study commitments are not fulfilled.'' The SAFE Drug Act will provide additional enforcement mechanisms.

The system of tracking postmarket safety issues and monitoring and enforcing postmarketing studies is broken and failing to ensure patient safety. The SAFE Drug Act will address these problems by:

(1) Providing the FDA with authority to require postmarketing studies and enforce the prompt completion of those studies;

(2) Providing the FDA with mechanisms to help monitor the progress of postmarketing studies;

(3) Providing the Secretary with the authority to require that the label include specific wording to ensure safe and effective use of a product including special labeling to help consumers identify accelerated approved drugs or biologics until converted to full approval;

(4) Restricting direct to consumer advertising for accelerated approved drugs or biologics until converted to full approval;

(5) Providing FDA employees with enhanced whistleblower protections if they are retaliated against for reporting violations of laws or regulations or a significant threat to public health and safety to Congress, GAO, Federal Agencies, or their bosses; and

(6) Requires reports to Congress on the systems to track postmarketing safety issues and approvals that are based on Non- Inferiority Trials.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive health-care poll, a majority of the American public is concerned about the FDA's ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. We need to stop the erosion of public confidence in the FDA, reform the system of postmarketing studies, and ensure that FDA balances the desire to speed drugs to market with its critical role as the watchdog of public health. I urge my colleagues to support the SAFE Drug Act.

I thank the gentlewoman. The great Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, used to say that, ``In dreams begins responsibility.''

There is a dream here that we can place all of the medical records of all Americans online, that can have an IT world where for the sake of patients we can move medical information across hundreds, thousands of miles to save the patient's life. And that is great. That is a great dream. But that dream will replace something that exists today, which is that when each of us goes in to visit a physician, when our family member's private medical records are inside a cabinet with a nurse that has a key that can open that drawer and pull out your family's private records, that you have confidence that that physician, that that nurse is not going to tell everyone else in town what the secrets are of your husband, of your wife, of your child, of your mother or your father, that there are protections, that privacy is sacred, that your physician is a privacy keeper and not a data mining information seeker.

As we move to this new era where information is being abrogated by medical insurance companies, HMOs, medical consultants, medical data mining companies, that we build in at the beginning of this era the privacy protections, the guarantees that each individual's family has a right to say, ``I don't want my family's psychiatric records, I don't want my child's medical records, I don't want this information, mental health, prescription drug records or other personal medical data put online without my permission. I just don't want it spread around without my permission, without my family's permission.''

So I went to the Rules Committee, and Congressmen Kennedy, Emanuel, Doggett, Capps, we requested that we have that debate here on the House floor, and the Republican leadership said no. No, we are just going to listen to the insurance industry. We are going to listen to the HMO industry. We are not going to allow a debate on medical privacy on the House floor as we move to this new era.

And I will tell you something, this is about as serious an issue as people can imagine affecting their family, and there are 84 million good reasons why we should have this debate: Because 84 million is the number of times over the last 2 years we have seen the compromise of the financial records of American people, from the ChoicePoint scandal, these you can go right down the whole line. But now we have the big enchilada, and that is the medical records of people's families.

And, by the way, this is not an issue that divides along Democrat or Republican lines, liberal or conservative lines. It polls out at over 80 percent of all Americans that want the right to be able to protect their own personal medical records.

So what has happened then? Well, what has happened is the Republican party is ignoring the fact that it polls out at 80 percent Democrat and Republican. And what they decided to do is to side with the insurance industry, side with the HMOs who want to use our personal medical records as a product, as something that allows them to go through and to identify useful information for the insurance industry, for HMOs.

William Butler Yeats once said that, ``In dreams begins responsibility.'' That should happen here on the House floor today. But the Republicans are abdicating that responsibility. They are saying, let's give the HMOs, let's give the data miners, let's give these consultants, let's give these insurance companies what they want now, and we will come back and revisit the privacy issue after there is a catastrophic compromise of privacy affecting millions of American families. That is not exercising the responsibility that should be exercised. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue.

There is no privacy protection in this bill. We are about to move to an era where all of your drug records, all of your psychiatric records, all of your children's medical records are going online. William Butler Yeats, the great Irish poet, said that in dreams begin responsibility. We have a responsibility to have privacy protections built into this bill.

What do the Republicans say? They say trust the Department of Health and Human Services. This year Tom Davis, the Government Reform Committee, gave a grade to all agencies in the protection of privacy. Do you know what grade Tom Davis and your Government Reform Committee gave to the Department of Health and Human Services? An F. Now, that is Medicare and Medicaid. That is one quarter of all Americans. Now we are taking all private citizens as well and the Republicans are saying ``trust the Department of Health and Human Services.''

What our motion to recommit says is that every American has the right to say that their children's medical records do not have to be put online; that everyone does not have to know about it; that they have a right to say no, they don't want those records online; that each family can make that decision for themselves.

Vote ``aye'' on the Doggett motion to recommit.