Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today the House is addressing two of the most important issues facing our Nation: The Iraq war and the poor state of our economy. We have the opportunity to force a change in our Iraq strategy while providing much-needed assistance to returning troops and Americans struggling to make ends meet.

In October 2002, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and more than 5 years later, it is abundantly clear that our Nation needs a new approach in Iraq so that we can bring our men and women in uniform home. I am extremely proud of the service and sacrifice of our troops and their families, and the best way to demonstrate our support is by welcoming them home with the services and resources they need. I strongly support the amendment before us today that requires U.S. forces to begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of withdrawing nearly all troops by the end of 2009. Recognizing the toll that extended deployments are having on our readiness, the amendment also requires the Department of Defense to adhere to its policy of providing sufficient rest and recuperation time for troops returning from combat. Repeated and unpredictable deployments have placed enormous stress on our military and their families, and if we don't make changes soon, we risk losing the men and women who have made our armed forces the best in the world.

Another amendment before us would recognize the service of our troops by establishing a new GI Bill of Rights. Under this plan, which is supported by a broad array of veterans groups, servicemembers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan would qualify for educational assistance based on the amount of time served. Those serving three years on active duty would receive benefits to cover the costs of a 4-year education, based on the costs of the most expensive in-state public school. This new program will allow our military returning from combat to advance their careers and develop skills that will help improve our economy.

Finally, the measure recognizes the importance of providing assistance to our citizens struggling in the recent economic downturn. Congress has been working swiftly to address the housing crisis and the skyrocketing costs of food and energy, but we need to make sure that we help those who need it now. This legislation provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to those who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits--a provision that could help as many as 24,400 Rhode Islanders. Unemployed Americans want to get back to work, but in many places jobs are scarce. We must not punish them for the failings of our economy, and this emergency spending measure demonstrates Congress's commitment to those in greatest need.

We have a chance today to reject the status quo policies of the Bush administration by setting new priorities for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to prevent further blank check funding for Iraq, endorse a responsible new strategy for bringing our troops home and provide support to Americans struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, better known as the Farm Bill. This measure, which reauthorizes federal agriculture and nutrition programs for five years, reflects Rhode Island's priorities: protecting our farmers and surrounding environment and caring for the most vulnerable members of our society.

There has been much discussion about reforming the Farm Bill, particularly with regard to how payments are structured to producers of certain commodities like cotton, rice and sugar. H.R. 2419 begins this process by lowering the annual adjusted gross income of farmers eligible for subsidies from $2.5 million to $750,000 and also excludes farmers making more than $500,000 from non-farm income. This structure will prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits, and will also make payments transparent. While I believe we should go further with reform, I look forward to building on this restructuring in future legislation.

This legislation increases funding by nearly $8 billion for the conservation title, which includes programs important to Rhode Island, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. I am also pleased that H.R. 2419 includes funding for specialty crops, which will benefit our fruit, vegetable and nursery crop farmers. These farmers, who make up a large percentage of Rhode Island's farming landscape, will now receive equal assistance and access to conservation programs.

H.R. 2419 includes over $10 billion in increased funding for the nutrition title, which includes food stamps and other programs aimed to combat hunger and improve nutrition for children, the elderly and low- income Americans. Unfortunately, these members of our society face a stigma when they realize they must turn to the government for assistance, and this Farm Bill works to end that by renaming the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and replacing food stamp coupons with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards. This bill also reauthorizes programs such as the Community Food Projects program, which awards grants to non-profit groups that establish community food projects targeted to low-income individuals, and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, which provides vouchers for low-income seniors to purchase fruits and vegetables at farmers' markets.

This measure also increases funding for school nutrition programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which will help purchase fruits, vegetables and nuts, and create more avenues for produce to flow from local farmers to schools. This is especially important in Rhode Island, where state lawmakers and local organizations have already taken the initiative in improving the eating habits of our students. In 2007, 26 of 38 RI school districts participated in the Farm to School Program, where produce is purchased from local farms. This Farm Bill will help those school districts continue in a healthy direction.

H.R. 2419 also helps northeast dairy farmers, including those in Rhode Island, by extending the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, which compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a certain level. Further, this measure encourages the expansion of renewable energy research and production, contains a new section for horticulture and organic agriculture, and includes funding to make sure our food supply is safe and stable.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill; however, this Farm Bill helps farmers meet growing environmental challenges, gives consumers more healthy food choices, and promotes critical renewable energy development. It was also imperative that the Farm Bill take into consideration the country's current economic state. This bill will help stock food banks across our country by increasing funding to the Emergency Food Assistance Program by $1.26 billion. I look forward to passing this measure into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, which will help cities and towns, but most importantly, individuals and families that have been adversely impacted by the foreclosure crisis.

In my home state of Rhode Island, this problem is particularly acute. Foreclosures have increased by 20 percent in the last few months, and it is our most vulnerable communities that have been disproportionately affected.

Last weekend I teamed with Rhode Island Housing--a nonprofit organization dedicated to keeping housing affordable--to hold a workshop for those facing foreclosure. While we helped many local families, it is time for the Federal Government to do its part on a national scale.

I commend Chairman Frank and Chairman Rangel for their leadership in bringing this critical measure to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, on May 6, 2008, my vote on the Kind Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, rollcall vote 258, was recorded as a ``no'' vote when I intended to cast a ``yes'' vote. I wish to clarify on the record my support for the House-passed funding levels for the Grassland Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as the Senate's sod saver provision.

Madam Speaker, today we are introducing the Homeland Security Network Defense and Accountability Act of 2008, a bill designed to improve the cybersecurity posture of the Department of Homeland Security.

The security of our federal and critical infrastructure networks is an issue of national security. The United States and its allies face a significant and growing threat to our information technology, IT, systems and assets, and to the integrity of our information. The acquisition of our government's information by outsiders undermines our strength as a nation and over time could cost the United States our advantage over our adversaries. This is a critical issue that we can no longer ignore.

One of the first things that Chairman Thompson tasked me with when I was named Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology was to lead a bipartisan inquiry into the cybersecurity posture of our federal networks and our critical infrastructure. Viewing the potential for cyber attacks on federal networks as an emerging threat that warrants attention, Chairman Thompson challenged me to address the four areas that the 9/11 Commission determined our systems failed: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management. The same can be said of the federal government's approach to cybersecurity--and as a result, our critical information and technology systems are vulnerable to cyber terrorists.

So far in the 110th Congress, we have held seven hearings on cybersecurity, heard from hundreds of experts on how best to tackle this issue, reviewed information security best practices in the public and private sectors, investigated cyber incidents across the spectrum, from the State and Commerce Departments to our Nation's electric grid, and uncovered and assisted law enforcement in investigating breaches at the Department of Homeland Security. It has become clear that an organization is only as strong as the integrity and reliability of the information that it keeps. Therefore we must make cybersecurity a national priority.

This legislation represents a small but critical step toward improving the cybersecurity posture at the Department of Homeland Security by addressing two key issues: ensuring a robust defense-in- depth of our information systems, and holding individuals at all levels accountable for mitigating vulnerabilities. Early in our investigative process, I announced that the Committee's oversight goals were to increase public awareness of the problems associated with federal network security; fix those vulnerabilities that are, or could be, successfully exploited; and hold individuals, agencies, and private sector entities responsible for their

actions. Though much work remains to be done, I believe that we are moving in the right direction. The Department has already begun acting to improve its information security as a result of several Committee hearings. By fully implementing and carefully considering the intent of this bill, I believe the Department of Homeland Security will continue to make great strides in improving its information security posture. I hope that one day DHS will be considered a global leader in cybersecurity.

This measure is comprised of several important pieces. First, this bill would establish authorities and qualifications for the Chief Information Officer, CIO, position at the Department of Homeland Security. In March 2007, Secretary Chertoff issued a management directive giving the Chief Information Officer hiring authority for CIOs and approval authority over agency CIO budgets and IT investments. This bill statutorily authorizes that directive, but includes additional requirements for information security qualifications. In a number of hearings, we expressed concern that the lack of an information security background can hamper the CIO's understanding and efforts to secure the Department's networks. We cannot allow future Presidents to repeat the mistakes made by this Administration in appointing unqualified individuals to this important office.

This bill would also establish specific operational security practices for the CIO, including a continuous, real-time cyber incident response capability, a network architecture emphasizing the positioning of security controls, and vulnerability assessments for each external- facing information infrastructure. As we learned through our investigations of cyber incidents on DHS networks, the absence of a 24 hour/7 day a week real-time response capability can lead to devastating consequences, and we simply cannot afford significant time lapses in our response to cyber incidents.

This legislation also includes testing protocols to reduce the number of vulnerability exploitations throughout the Department's networks. Through our investigations and oversight hearings, we identified a significant gap between requirements under the Federal Information Security Management Act, FISMA, and the current threat environment. As we have learned, agencies that receive high FISMA scores are not necessarily secure from the latest attacks. This provision will require the CIO to consult with other federal agencies and establish attack- based testing protocols to secure Department networks. Today, one of the biggest problems with FISMA is that while we continue to identify vulnerabilities in our systems, we fail to provide adequate funding to mitigate those vulnerabilities. This bill will hold both the CIO and the agency head responsible for developing and implementing a vulnerability mitigation plan that includes budget and personnel marks.

The ubiquitous nature of the Internet can lead to significant problems if one party is infected with a virus or rootkit that can penetrate another person's network undetected. That is why our bill requires the Secretary to determine if the internal security policy of a contractor who provides network services to the Department matches the requirements of the Department. Network service providers for the Department are also required to implement and regularly update their internal information security policies, and deliver timely notice of any computer incidents that could affect the Department's computers. This section is similar to provisions contained in the security controls developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, special condition ``SA-9.''

Finally, we seek a formal report from the Secretary on several critical issues. I was disturbed to learn that the Department still has not conducted a risk assessment on its unclassified network, despite a series of breaches, and we seek a detailed counter-intelligence plan from the Secretary to investigate all breaches, as well as an outline of a program to increase threat information sharing with cleared contractors. DHS must also examine a similar undertaking, and consider offering training to contractors using the attack-based protocols established in consultation with the defense and intelligence communities. We also ask the Secretary to update us on how effective the Department has been in meeting the deadlines established by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, for Trusted Internet Connections, TIC, encryption and authentication mandates.

Regrettably, poor information security practices plague the entire federal government, not just DHS. NIST continues to serve as an excellent guide for robust cybersecurity practices; unfortunately, federal agencies are often quick to cut cybersecurity budgets in favor of tangible products. If we care about information security, then we must not allow agencies to bleed money out of these programs.

Of course, legislation alone will not accomplish our goals. The Homeland Security Committee continues to conduct robust oversight over this Administration's Cyber Initiative. While I support the aim of the Cyber Initiative, I continue to have significant questions about the scope, budget, and secrecy of these efforts. Furthermore, there are several critical issues that each federal agency must immediately address to improve its security posture. We must start conducting robust damage assessments that can measure exposure to current attacks, and continue to fix those vulnerabilities. We must enhance and educate the federal workforce to limit successful exploits. We must support focused R&D efforts to solve the big challenges that face us in the world of cybersecurity. We must support and enhance initiatives like the Federal Desktop Core Configuration, the OMB-mandated security configuration for all Microsoft Windows Vista and XP operating system software. We must continue to monitor the efforts of the Administration to collapse federal connections to the Internet, known as the TIC Initiative. And finally, we must hold accountable those responsible for these efforts--whether they are our CIOs or Chief Information Security Officers, OMB, DHS, the Defense Department, the Intelligence community or contractors charged with securing our networks. Information security must become a prime concern for each of us if we are to ever be successful in defending ourselves from attack.

Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Network Defense and Accountability Act of 2008 is a robust and carefully crafted bill, and is the result of a bipartisan effort to treat information security and cybersecurity with the same attention and effort that our adversaries would use to exploit us. I thank Chairman Thompson for co-sponsoring this bill with me, and I send the bill to the desk and ask that it be properly referred to the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which extends crucial Federal protections against discrimination based on an individual's genetic information.

The new millennium has seen unprecedented scientific advances in genetic research that have brought a renewed hope of solving today's most difficult medical puzzles. Since the human genome was fully mapped in 2003, many in the scientific and medical communities have viewed genetic medicine as the next step toward finding better diagnoses, treatments and possible cures for a wide spectrum of diseases. These advances have also raised legitimate ethical concerns about the potential misuse of genetic information in workforce and insurance related decisions. Although current law already addresses certain aspects of this issue, the importance of protecting individuals from discrimination and safeguarding the right to privacy cannot be overstated.

This bill will guarantee more comprehensive protections from discrimination in health insurance and employment on the basis of genetic information. Specifically, it will prohibit group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to develop a disease in the future. Furthermore, it bars employers, employment agencies, labor organizations or training programs from using an individual's genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions.

Genetics is a field of study that offers tremendous promise for medical advancement, but we must give thoughtful consideration to the implications of these emerging discoveries on society. No individual should fear discrimination based on genetic technologies. H.R. 493 will allay concerns about the potential for discrimination, encourage individuals to participate in genetic research, and take advantage of genetic testing, new technologies, and new therapies. I thank Congresswoman Slaughter for her leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 2830, which will allow the Coast Guard to appropriately balance its dual missions of safety and security. In the past few years, we have increasingly depended on the Coast Guard to ensure our shores against drug smuggling, acts of terrorism, and other suspicious activity, while simultaneously keeping recreational and commercial boaters safe.

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has been required to do more with less. This important measure will reverse that trend by providing an additional 1,500 Coast Guard personnel and $8.4 billion in increased funding to ensure that the Coast Guard can carry out all of these responsibilities successfully. I am particularly pleased this bill will increase oversight and efficiency of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or the TWIC program as it's known, which has encountered numerous problems since its inception nearly 6 years ago. Many businesses, particularly those in my home State of Rhode Island, particularly those hiring seasonal and temporary employees have experienced economic hardship under the program. But the bill before us will help fix many of the problems associated with the TWIC program.

Finally, H.R. 2830 will require the Coast Guard to protect and enforce security zones around all existing liquefied natural gas, or LNG facilities, and encourages State and local entities to assist the Coast Guard with this important mission. This provision will allow LNG facilities to safety operate in densely populated areas, such as those in my home State of Rhode Island.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I commend both Chairman Thompson and Chairman Oberstar for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Our voices, as well as those of Armenian-Americans across the nation, are essential in the effort to bring needed attention to such a historic tragedy. The Armenian- American community has made tremendous contributions to our country, and their efforts and passion will help ensure that those who lost their lives will not be forgotten.

Today, we pay tribute to the memory of those who died, reflect on all those who have suffered from such prejudice, and vow to raise awareness so that such an atrocity never occurs again. As a member of the Armenian Caucus and a cosponsor of the genocide resolution, I will keep fighting to ensure that the Armenian Genocide is appropriately recognized.

It is a shame that we have not learned from our mistakes in the past regarding genocide, but it is not too late to heal these wounds and also help end atrocities occurring as we speak. With the Olympics taking place this year, it is my hope that all nations can come together and play a constructive role in ending violence in places like Darfur. In the spirit of the Olympics, we must come together as one and make clear that we all stand with the world against genocide and human rights abuses. It is our duty to end this human suffering, and I will continue to work with my colleagues in Washington, DC, to promote healing and peace throughout the world.

I am also very proud that my fellow Rhode Islanders have been actively involved in calling attention to this issue, and I urge them to continue to make their voices heard. As an ardent supporter of Rhode Island's Armenian-American community throughout my public service career, I join my colleagues today in honoring the victims of the genocide by paying tribute to their memory, showing compassion for those who have suffered from such prejudice, and never forgetting the pain that they have endured.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am honored to be able to speak this evening about the issue of universal health care, one of the biggest domestic challenges that is facing our country at the present time. I am also pleased to be joined this evening and who will be speaking in just a few minutes, by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on the issue of universal health care.

Mr. Speaker, again I am very pleased to have this time to speak on a topic that remains of paramount concern to individuals and families across the country, and that is again the issue of health care in America.

Health care costs, Mr. Speaker, are rising in the United States at an alarming, alarming rate. Yet despite the fact that we spend more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country, we produce very disappointing outcomes by a number of important measures. One major attributable factor is the high level of uninsured in America.

Furthermore, the U.S. remains the only developed nation that does not guarantee health coverage as a right to all of its citizens. Today, there are nearly 47 million Americans who lack health insurance coverage, leaving one in six without access to proper medical care. What makes these figures more shocking is that over 80 percent of the uninsured come from working families. As the cost of health care continues to rise, it is clearly burdening our families and placing American employers at more and more of a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, I believe it is our duty as policymakers to offer a new vision and new solutions to fix our ailing health care system.

Providing quality, affordable health care to every American has been a long-time priority of mine. And it is in this spirit of furthering the national dialogue on this important issue that my colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Chris Shays and I have worked together to introduce H.R. 5348, the American Health Benefits Program Act of 2008.

This bipartisan universal health care proposal is based on a tried- and-true program that has stood the test of time, and that is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or FEHBP as it is called. Currently over 8 million Federal employees, retirees and their dependents receive health insurance coverage under FEHBP. This includes Members of Congress.

This program uses a system of managed competition between private insurance carriers and provides enrollees with a large menu of coverage options. Its use of bulk purchasing power helps contain costs and brings stability to the system. In 2007, this resulted in an average premium increase of just 1.8 percent compared to the private market average of 6.1 percent. And by the way, I have yet to come across an employer, at least in my home district, or anywhere in the country, for that matter, who has only realized a 6.1 percent increase in their health care costs. Generally it is in the double digits and sometimes you can be talking about 20 or 30 percent or more increases to a given health care plan in any given year. Our proposal basically would use that successful model to provide similar benefits to all Americans, establishing the first ever American health benefits program or AHBP.

Now the development of AHBP will be guided by eight fundamental principles, and they are on this chart to my right: choice, shared responsibility, affordability, portability, continuity, preventive care, and health care reinvestment. I believe these are the types of principles that we have to have in any type of system and they are certainly the core tenets of our universal health care proposal.

Now under AHBP, employers who wish to continue negotiating with private insurance carriers may do so as long as the coverage they offer meets a basic standard set by AHBP. However, employer-sponsored coverage is proving to be more and more cost-prohibitive for businesses as health care costs continue to outpace inflation and insurance options drastically fluctuate from plan to plan. That's why AHBP allows companies to choose to pay a fixed predictable payroll tax according to their size and average employee earnings.

We have a chart here which says that depending on the average number of employees that a company has, as well as according to their average salary, they would pay a certain percentage of their payroll tax. For example, on the very lower end where you have the small businesses that have the lowest average earnings, that company would only pay a maximum of 4 percent of payroll.

On the higher end, you would have the companies that at the very highest end would pay no more than 10 percent of payroll. There would be a certain cap on the average earning itself.

So my point is that there is a range of options here. There is a range of plans to choose from, but this is also an affordable way for employees to have health care coverage.

Basically we are separating out the coverage from the workplace itself. We need to get away from the issue of just employer-sponsored coverage. I think it is the best way to go, and it is a sensible proposal.

For many businesses this may cost less than they currently spend on premium contributions and health care and health plan administration. Payroll tax revenue under the system we are proposing will basically create a funding stream to allow for a fixed government contribution of 72 percent toward health care premiums of every participating American.

Individuals in AHBP will have the responsibility to pay for the remaining share of their premiums, to the extent that they can afford it, again with the lowest income earners receiving subsidies to ensure affordability.

This new program is not a single-payer system. It is not one size fits all, and it does not reinvent the wheel. Medicare, Medicaid and veteran services and other public programs that are tailored to specific populations will remain intact. Additionally, no one will be denied coverage or discriminated against based on their health status or preexisting condition. That is a very important tenet of this proposal.

AHBP will use basically an expanded system of managed competition to ensure that private insurance carriers compete for enrollees on the basis of benefits as well as efficiency, service and price. It will offer portable and continuous coverage and incentivize investment in disease preventive and

long-term preventive care which decrease the costs of care over time.

Investments in health information technology will also lower costs while increasing quality and efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, instituting meaningful systemic reforms will require a fundamental shift in how we view employer-provided coverage and health care delivery. While it is critical that businesses maintain a role, I believe it is essential that we change our perspective of health insurance as a privilege or benefit tied to employment. Instead, we must look at it as a right and a responsibility to be shared by the community. Individuals and employers, health care providers and the government, all have key roles to play in reaching a truly inclusive and efficient health care model.

The unsettling truth is that society already pays for the uninsured. Some think that there is no cost associated with the uninsured. That is completely not true. Society already pays for the uninsured, but it does so at tremendous cost and with staggering inefficiencies. Individuals without health insurance are most often forced to seek care from doctors and hospital emergency rooms only after their illnesses reach catastrophic levels, drastically increasing the risk of complications and the cost of treatment.

Our most recent estimates place total uninsured medical expenses at nearly $125 billion a year. That is staggering. Approximately $41 billion of this total comes in the form of uncompensated care which is predominantly borne by the government and financed by the taxpayer. Beyond this, the cost is also reflected in the form of higher health insurance premiums that everyone pays. This cost is only compounded by the lost income due to reduced employment and job productivity. However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing costs are not the monetary costs in nature, but the immeasurable price that we pay in human lives each year as a result of inequitable, inadequate care.

A recently released analysis estimated that 22,000 deaths nationwide occurred last year resulting from adults not having health insurance, averaging one death every 24 minutes. This is simply an unacceptable price to pay for delaying necessary reforms to our health care system, and we need to change it.

The challenges we face in fixing our ailing health care system are great. However, the costs of inaction are even greater.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for policymakers at all levels and across the ideological spectrum to take action toward developing a health care system that really works for our Nation, one that offers Americans choice, calls for shared responsibility, and is affordable to all.

I believe our proposal introduces a practical model for universal health care while leaving room for further discussion on this very complex issue. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It's not a conservative or a liberal issue. It's an issue that matters most to the American people.

And on that note, I am pleased to yield this evening to the gentleman from Connecticut, my partner in this bipartisan universal health care bill and this effort to finally, once and for all, solve our Nation's health care crisis, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays.

I thank the gentleman for his words and also his passion and support on this bipartisan universal health care bill. Your input has been invaluable in crafting this bipartisan bill and bringing it to where it is today, and we hope that this, now, continues, where we begin the process of fixing our health care system, bringing it to the top of the public policy agenda. It is clearly long overdue.

The American people are asking, they're demanding that we fix our health care crisis, and that we cover the uninsured, not only cover the uninsured, but making health care affordable. This is something that's long overdue.

I think it's a national disgrace that we have 47 million people in this country without health insurance. And as we have both pointed out, that because of that, it's a major contributing factor in that we have the highest cost and the worst outcomes in comparison to other industrialized nations. Again, the high number of uninsured is a major contributing factor to that statistic.

So the fact that we have a bill now is exciting because it's based on a template, a tried and true program that's already working.

When I first came to this debate, I said, this is one of the most, the biggest challenges facing our country right now. And I said, why can't we solve it? And is there anything out there that is working now that serves as an example of what we could base a universal health care system on?

And after studying it and looking at it, I said it's really right before us, and that's the Federal employees health benefits program. Right now, we have, the Federal Government, as mentioned earlier, negotiates a variety of different health care plans for more than 8 million Federal employees, dependents and retirees. You've got everything, and the choices of options that are available, from the very basic plan with the small premium and the small copay, up to the more classic comprehensive Blue Cross-type plans and everything in between.

That's right. Using bulk purchasing power is the thing, by getting more people into one insurance pool, we spread risk around, and it achieves cost containment and stability in the system.

That's right. Absolutely. And it's equally important to recognize that this is not a big government-run plan. We're not creating another big government bureaucracy. It's government negotiated but it's private competition. It's managed competition. Private insurers would be able to compete for now enrollees based on benefits, efficiency service and price. So the insurance companies have an incentive now to economize, find efficiencies. They would have to deliver on what has been negotiated in the various plans, and that would be clearly spelled out, but they would now be challenged to find ways to do things like invest in preventative and early care, which there really isn't necessarily the incentive, I believe, right now for insurers to do that, because, for example, when it's tied to employment, you know, we all, people change jobs several times throughout their careers. There's no guarantee that an enrollee that starts with an insurance company today is going it would be Insurance Company B, you know, wouldn't be with the Insurance Company A years down the road. They would be with potentially another insurance company, which means, you know, why should Insurance Company A invest in all this early preventative care, when, down the road, when someone gets older and we all become greater consumers of health care, that, why would they, that company wouldn't benefit from the investment that they made, where under this system they would. You may change plans within a particular company, but you may very well be with the same insurance company or plan throughout most of your life.

Right.

Right.

And I think that is an important point, if I could just interject. The high costs of health care now are putting not only a tremendous burden on our individuals and families, but it's putting our companies at a significant competitive disadvantage in terms of those companies overseas whose nations have universal health care. And so it is not particularly burdening in individual business itself in foreign countries where it is here where companies bear much of the costs of providing universal health care.

So we're helping to change the dynamic, if you would, of how health care is provided in America. And, again, we're changing it from an employer kind of run system, a sponsor system, to now a universal health care model that everybody is participating in, and it's not necessarily tied to employment. Again, businesses still have an important role to play, we all do. Businesses, government, health care providers.

Right. And that's an important point to make.

There are some employers that, though they offer health insurance, the company may only offer one plan, and it may not fit the needs of all of the employees. It may be good for some but, again, not everyone.

Under this plan, there would be a variety of plans to choose from: again, a very basic plan with a small premium, a small copay, up to the more comprehensive-type programs, and several options in between. And it's basically bringing everyone into one insurance pool.

So you're bringing a younger, healthier population into the program; you're spreading risk, which leads to more stable costs; and we talked about the fact that the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under last year only had a 1.8 percent increase in its health care plans on average and the private sector had about a 6.1 percent increase. And I think that's even modest.

So, again, a good model here.

I'm glad that you raised the issue of the commission because it is important to look at the reasons for the rising costs of health care and then look at what options we can employ to achieve cost containment and bring stability to the system. Things like employing health information technology, the electronic medical records that we're talking more and more about these days, the cost of prescription drugs and how that system is run, and how we pay for prescription drugs. I'm looking at performance-based outcomes that the commission would look at. Again, all important tenets of achieving cost containment.

And you rightly pointed out that employers, in determining whether they like the system or not, are going to look at the range of costs or percentage of payroll that they would contribute based on the size of their company. Employers, I suspect right now, hopefully this will encourage them to ask, what are we paying as a percentage of payroll right now, and that figure will determine, in many ways, whether this system works better or worse for them. I suspect that in many cases it will be better.

And we pointed out that the smaller companies with the lowest average salaries would pay no more than 4 percent of their payroll toward this payroll tax. And the larger companies with the highest salaries would pay no more than 10 percent of payroll and not to exceed more than $12,000 per employee.

Absolutely.

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the most challenging issues facing us in our time right now. It's going to take time and effort to get the message out and hopefully encourage support for our plan.

I'm glad that you and I have made a commitment to travel the country so that we can help to bring the plan before people, hopefully to educate the American people about what we're proposing, and offering this as a viable solution to our Nation's health care crisis. It's clearly long overdue. And in my home State of Rhode Island, it's the number one domestic issue that I hear most about. It is directly tied in many ways to the health of our economy and making sure that our companies can be competitive in this global market. It's important to individuals and families.

And no person should have to worry if they're going to lose their home because they come down with a catastrophic illness or a family member comes down with a catastrophic illness, but that happens every day across this country right now because of the present health care system. And again, it's not that there is no cost associated with the uninsured. If someone is that sick and they need to be treated, they're going to go, very often, to the hospital, to the emergency room where they're going to be seen. But usually by then it's at the end stage of an illness where a person is so sick that they have to be likely hospitalized, or the cost of treating them is far more expensive than it otherwise would have been at the earlier stages when early intervention, early care would have made all the difference if it were with a prescription or some other treatment. Now we're offering a system to change that.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut again for his words and his support in helping to craft this bipartisan universal health care bill.

Like you, I believe that the American people deserve the same kind of health care coverage as Members of Congress. And this is a bill that achieves that goal. It's something that is long overdue. It's something that is vitally important to every family across America, making sure that our families are taken care of, our businesses can stay competitive, and that we're offering something that is affordable, not only for the short term, but for the long term.

In closing, for individuals, the American Health Benefits Program offers choice, affordability, and portability. You can take the coverage with you if you change jobs. And on the side of how we provide this coverage, it's managed competition whereby insurers would now have to compete for enrollees based on benefits, efficiency, service and price; again, a good model for guaranteeing coverage, but making sure that it's affordable, with an important component of cost containment, making sure that we're looking at using the most innovative technologies out there, such as health IT records, and other things that would make sure that we're providing the most efficient and affordable care possible, but comprehensive care.

I think my friend has some other comments that you would like to make as we close?

I thank my colleague. And I couldn't agree more. We want people to look at this plan, tell us what part of it they like, what they don't, what works, what doesn't, so that we can improve upon it. And certainly it's important for people to get educated because this is an issue that is clearly confronting our country. It is serious, it is challenging, but the time to solve it is now.

We're beginning the process. We invite the American people to be partners with us in this effort. I look forward to traveling the country with you as we talk to groups across the country and hopefully enlisting their support,

and ultimately the support of all the Members of this House and the Senate.

I look forward to the day where we can pass this bill in both Chambers and put it on the President's desk for the President's signature, and again, truly make a difference for the people that we serve. I think it's the right thing to do.

With that, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his friendship, his valuable input and support on this bipartisan universal health care bill. And I also want to take a minute just to thank the Speaker for giving us time to discuss this very important issue.

Thank you. I thank my staff as well. It is something that often gets overlooked, and I want to make sure that it's not because your staff and my staff have worked so closely on this, as well as the effort that you and I have put in. A lot of great work has come from this collaborative effort. And I thank you again for your support and your input.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, on April 8, 2008, I was unable to vote due to official business outside Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 161, 162, and 163.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment that highlights the critical importance of deploying fire sprinklers in all commercial buildings. My amendment encourages the installation of fire sprinklers in commercial buildings and supports educational programs about installing them in residential buildings as well.

Five years ago, a tragedy struck in my home State of Rhode Island when a fire tore through the Station Nightclub in West Warwick. It was certainly a terrible awakening for all of us about the importance of fire safety. That fire, which killed 100 people and injured 200 more, could have been prevented, Mr. Chairman, if fire sprinklers had been installed throughout the building. Almost every Rhode Islander knows someone whose life was changed forever by that terrible night, and we all learned a very hard lesson on the importance of installing fire protection equipment in our homes, workplaces, our schools, and recreational buildings. I hope that with a renewed focus on installing fire sprinklers and other safety devices, that we can prevent a tragedy like the one in West Warwick from ever occurring again.

There is no question that fire sprinklers save lives. In fact, the National Fire Protection Association has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public building equipped with a fully operational automatic fire sprinkler system.

So, to this end I have introduced a piece of legislation called the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act, H.R. 1742, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide an incentive to business owners for retrofitting existing buildings with lifesaving sprinklers. This legislation, which right now has 114 cosponsors, will reduce the tax depreciation time for retrofitting sprinklers in nonresidential real property from 39 years down to only 5. So a significant time reduction. Again, from 39 years down to only 5 years for this tax depreciation to take advantage of the retrofitting of sprinklers.

While it's clear that fire sprinklers save lives, Congress has to date not taken a position on the importance of this important technology. So I believe that it is critical that we lend our voice to this issue and hopefully save another community from ever experiencing the devastating losses that West Warwick did.

So while we may not always be able to prevent fires from occurring, we certainly can minimize the damage they cause and the lives that they take. My amendment that I am offering today is a sense of Congress, and takes us one step closer toward that goal.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support reauthorizing the United States Fire Administration, and I would like to commend Chairman Gordon for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This bill will allow the U.S. Fire Administration to continue to provide support services for fire prevention, firefighter training and education, and emergency medical services activities. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment as well, H.R. 4847.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his supportive comments and look forward to working with him on passage of this amendment.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3773, a careful and reasoned approach to electronic surveillance. Though people have talked a lot about immunity, we must remember that because of changes in technology, this is a bill to update the way we conduct electronic surveillance.

I approached this subject with two principles in mind. First, our surveillance must be effective. Second, the rights of Americans must be protected. On the second point, there is a real difference between the Senate and the House bills.

The issue is how both bills handle the calls of Americans. Under the Senate bill, the DNI and the Attorney General approve surveillance and then go to the court, with no set timeline for ruling. Under the House bill, the program of surveillance, not the specific individual targets, is submitted to the court. The government will essentially ask the court: Is this method of handling the communications of Americans appropriate, careful, and, most importantly, constitutional?

The approval of a program of surveillance allows the government to get approval before there is an operational requirement. So there will never be any operational sacrifice here. If it were going to slow down intelligence collection or cause operational problems, I can see where some might take issue with that. But the simple fact is that the way this bill is drafted, there is no excuse for not getting the approvals in place in advance.

I am all for strong intelligence authorities. The beauty of this bill is it combines that with care for our civil liberties, without sacrificing either.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 312, the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009. This proposal fulfills an important commitment that we have made to the American people by investing in fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of households and in programs that strengthen the economy, make America safer, and help families struggling to make ends meet in an economic downturn.

On February 6, I expressed my strong concerns over the misguided budget request that the President transmitted to Congress. I am very pleased to see that the budget before us today restores many of the important programs that the President proposed to cut, while achieving balance by 2012. It is more vital than ever that we remain responsive to the needs of the American people, while maintaining strong fiscal stewardship to ensure our financial obligations are not passed along to our children and grandchildren.

Any budgetary blueprint that we expect to bolster the economy must also include an investment in education and job training programs that will promote new employment and ensure our workforce can adapt to the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, those programs were not priorities for this Administration. Under the President's proposal, Rhode Island would see $1.5 million less for after-school programs and a cut of almost $6 million for career and technical education. In contrast, the Democratic budget resolution would provide $7.1 billion more than the President for vital education, job training, and social services programs nationwide in 2009.

I am pleased that this resolution addresses the President's failure to make higher education affordable for students with economic challenges, especially in Rhode Island, where college tuition has risen 45 percent in 4 years. This measure also includes crucial funding for the Democratic innovation agenda and the America COMPETES Act, which will enhance our edge in math and science education and research. To maintain our economic advantage in the coming years, our Nation must invest more in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education.

Also critical to America's economic prosperity is a budget that promotes fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of families struggling to make ends meet. In particular, this measure includes a 1- year patch to keep millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans outside the ever-widening net of the alternative minimum tax, AMT, and it is fully offset. In addition, the Democratic budget will extend the R&D tax credit, which will spur economic growth, create new jobs, and help struggling small businesses regain their competitive edge.

Community development and social services programs will play an important role for businesses and families as we attempt to reclaim our economic prosperity, and I am proud to support a budget that funds these initiatives. This budget restores community and regional development programs, like the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program, which provides vital funding for economic and community development in both urban and rural areas nationwide. The House Democratic budget resolution also reverses cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps people actually reduce their energy consumption. These programs are vital to places like Rhode Island where families are struggling with astronomical heating costs.

This budget resolution also includes $1.2 billion more than the President's budget for energy programs. As families face unprecedented costs to heat their homes and put gas in their cars, it is imperative that we fund efficient and renewable energy programs. H. Con. Res. 312 does this by encouraging the production of renewable energy alternatives, increasing energy efficiency, investing in new energy and vehicle technologies, and training workers for ``green collar'' jobs. This resolution also encourages mass transit by increasing funding for Amtrak. I am proud that Rhode Island has already started many of these initiatives, but Democrats recognize that we need to support them on a broad, nationwide basis.

Equally important during this challenging economic time is the continued need for strong health care funding. The Democratic budget measure rejects the President's proposed 10-year cut of over $500 billion to both Medicare and Medicaid, two vital safety net programs serving our Nation's elderly, low-income, and disabled citizens. It also provides

an increase over the President's proposed discretionary health care budget to fund programs that emphasize support for disease-prevention, food safety, and access to quality health care for underserved populations. I am also very pleased to see that this budget will accommodate up to a $50 billion increase to expand children's health insurance to cover millions of uninsured children.

Health care also remains the highest priority for our Nation's veterans and the brave men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces. This resolution appropriately addresses veterans' needs by rejecting the President's proposed new fees and increasing veterans funding by $3.6 billion relative to the amount needed to keep pace with inflation. This will provide increased resources for the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including 333,275 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the VA will play a larger role in the coming years as more servicemembers return from ongoing conflicts.

As the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology, I am proud to support a budget that properly invests in our homeland security. Unlike the President's budget, this resolution provides robust funding for programs important to State and local law enforcement in Rhode Island, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which awarded $34.8 million to Rhode Island from 2004 to 2007, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, LETPP, from which Rhode Island received $11.5 million from 2004 to 2006. By passing the Democratic budget, we can give local law enforcement officials in Rhode Island the tools they need to continue to keep our citizens safe.

The Democratic budget resolution also makes America safer by investing in our Nation's transportation systems, including highways and waterways, providing sufficient funding as well as a reserve fund to facilitate new infrastructure initiatives. This budget also meets the President's funding level for the Department of Defense, but shifts resources to high priorities such as nuclear nonproliferation programs, which was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Finally, this resolution responds to the current hardships faced by our servicemembers by funding quality of life improvements for the troops as well as their families.

In this time of uncertainty, the American people are relying on us as decisionmakers to put forth a plan that will restore our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security, provide relief where it is needed, and promote fiscal discipline. Today, I am pleased to rise in support of a Democratic proposal that will accomplish each one of these goals. This budget resolution represents a new roadmap toward achieving the true priorities of Americans, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months, researchers have created apparent embryonic stem cells from reprogrammed adult skin cells. This is an exciting new breakthrough, known as induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS, which is an important and incredible milestone. However, it should not halt our efforts towards embryonic stem research. The iPS method is still in its earliest stages, and there is widespread debate among the scientific community as to the safety and effectiveness of its practical application.

Embryonic stem cell research remains the gold standard for potential therapeutic use. Further, it has laid the foundation of scientific knowledge that has made these recent discoveries possible. We should not abandon one area of research just because we have made progress in another. We must continue our investment, both public and private, into all areas of responsible stem cell research, whether that is adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, or this new, exciting iPS method. It is the right thing to do. It offers great potential to offering cures for millions of people suffering from some of life's most challenging chronic conditions and diseases. The hope of millions of Americans depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which I am proud to cosponsor. I know many people have worked hard to bring this important measure to the floor, including my friend from Minnesota, the co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, Mr. Ramstad. Most of all, I would like to recognize the commitment and perseverance of my good friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy. Patrick has been my good friend for many years, and I have watched him harness his passion and his knowledge to address the challenges faced by those with mental illness. He has raised awareness about a topic that had previously been considered taboo by the American people, using his own personal experiences to humanize the issue of mental health. I know that the people of Rhode Island admire his leadership, and I thank him for his tireless efforts.

Mental illnesses and substance abuse problems are at epidemic levels in this country. According to recent estimates, more than 35 million Americans experience the disabling symptoms of mental illness. Depression alone costs employers over $35 billion dollars a year in lost productivity, and that figure does not even factor in the multitude of other behavioral and psychological disorders that challenge our society on a daily basis. Substance abuse also directly affects an estimated 25 million Americans. An additional 40 million are indirectly affected once family members of abusers and the injured victims of intoxicated drivers are considered. Put simply, the social and monetary costs of these problems are astounding.

This bipartisan legislation makes tremendous strides in ending the inherent discrimination in our insurance system against patients seeking treatment for these illnesses. It permanently reauthorizes and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to provide for equity in the coverage of mental health and substance-related disorders. It does not achieve equity by mandating that group health plans provide mental health coverage. However, if a plan chooses to offer coverage--as it rightfully should--then the coverage it offers must be no more restrictive in the financial requirements or treatment limits that are provided for medical or surgical disorders. This will mean equity in deductibles and co-pays, as well as in the frequency and number of visits. It will also establish parity for out-of-network coverage. In short, it will vastly expand coverage and access for those seeking treatment for their mental health.

Mental health parity is already available to members of Congress and over 8 million Federal employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, at minimal additional cost to the program. It is time that we extend this benefit to all Americans, and this legislation takes us considerably closer to that goal. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.