Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3187, a bill that would designate a post office located in East Greenwich, R.I., as the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office.'' I thank my Rhode Island colleagues in the Senate for introducing this bill to honor U.S. Navy Commander Richard Cevoli, a life-long resident of East Greenwich who proudly served his country in World War II and the Korean War.

Richard Cevoli was born in East Greenwich, R.I. in 1919, and graduated from LaSalle Academy and Rhode Island State College, which is now the University of Rhode Island. In World War II, Commander Cevoli was awarded the prestigious Navy Cross for his bravery during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the Philippines Coast in 1944. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active flying career. He was also inducted into the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame. Commander Cevoli died serving his country when his plane crashed during a training mission on January 18, 1955, leaving behind his wife, Grace, and three children, Steven, Carol, and Elizabeth.

I ask my colleagues to support S. 3187 so that all Rhode Islanders can be reminded of Commander Cevoli's duty to his country and his impressive accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. Since the President's illegal domestic wiretapping program became public, I have called for greater oversight and Congressional involvement to ensure that we can provide our intelligence agencies with the tools needed to fight terrorism while protecting essential civil liberties of Americans. The bill before us today does not meet those standards.

As a member of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, I am fully aware of the dangers posed by those who wish to harm Americans, and I have strongly supported efforts to make our nation safer. However, the Bush Administration has not explained to my satisfaction why powers available under existing law cannot meet the needs of the war on terrorism. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already permits the warrantless surveillance of communications under certain limited circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration did not use those emergency powers and instead chose to expand the authority of the National Security Agency (NSA). The President's decision to expand domestic surveillance, while notifying only a handful of legislators, does not constitute Congressional consent and is a danger to our established Constitutional system of checks and balances.

I would have been receptive to modifications to FISA that preserved the vital oversight through the creation of the FISA court system. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 5381, the Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA (LISTEN) Act, introduced by the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Harman. This legislation would mandate that all monitoring of calls, email records and phone records be carried out in accordance with FISA and further asserts that the 2002 authorization for the NSA domestic surveillance program outside of FISA was not within the Bush Administration's authority.

Instead, this legislation gives the President broad authority to continue his domestic surveillance program without approval from the FISA court. It uses judicial and Congressional notification as a substitute for legitimate oversight, and it establishes such broad justifications for surveillance that the Administration will have almost unlimited ability to continue its past practices with little to no changes. Disturbingly, it also removes an important protection of current law that requires the government to certify that its warrantless surveillance of foreign agents would not intercept the communications of U.S. citizens.

Once again, the President has sought to expand his own authority at the expense of Americans' civil liberties, and Congress has willingly abdicated its oversight authority. I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure so that we can find a better way to crack down on terrorist who would do us harm while safeguarding the rights of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Before I begin, I just wanted to recognize and commend the great service of my friend and colleague, Congressman Hefley, and I have so enjoyed serving with you in a number of capacities, particularly in our work in the Armed Services Committee. We had an opportunity to work on several important issues, and I thank you for being such a gentleman and giving such great service to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5122 and thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work.

The bill helps our servicemembers and their families, as well as military retirees. It includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for military personnel and much-needed increases to end-strength numbers. It places a 1-year moratorium on cost increase for the TRICARE pharmacy benefit and expands TRICARE eligibility for Reservists, two very important issues to my constituents.

I am particularly pleased that H.R. 5122 recommends $400 million to expedite the construction schedule for the Virginia-class submarine so that we can start building two per year as early as 2009. I commend the great work of my friend Congressman Simmons and his leadership on this issue. He is a great partner in this effort. The Navy's current shipbuilding plan would have our submarine fleet drop to dangerously low levels, and this bill understands we cannot allow that to happen.

I thank the committee for its leadership in its efforts, all of the staff and all of my colleagues on the committee for their efforts to accomplish these important goals, and I encourage my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, which is a comprehensive approach to securing our ports. And though not a perfect bill, it surely could have been better, it is an important first step.

One of the worst-case scenarios experts fear is that terrorists would be able to smuggle nuclear material across our ports. This is an unacceptable reality that we face today, which highlights just how important it is that we have adequate detection devices at all of our seaports and border crossings. Our radiation portal monitors are our last, best chance to prevent catastrophic nuclear or radiological attack, and our intelligence analysts continue to tell us that the threat is very real.

I am glad to see that under this bill all containers entering the U.S. through the 22 busiest seaports will be examined for radiation by the end of next year. While this is certainly a great start, we ultimately need to deploy radiation portal monitors at every point of entry to fully secure our Nation's ports.

I am also pleased to see that this bill contains provisions to strengthen the Container Security Initiative. Under the SAFE Port Act, we will have a greater ability to foster communication between the United States and the operators of foreign ports to inspect more U.S.- bound cargo before it reaches our ports. We need to continue to do everything in our power to screen cargo at its point of origin to prevent the dangerous possibility of nuclear material ever reaching our shores.

Mr. Speaker, the SAFE Port Act most certainly makes strides in terms of securing our ports, but we must acknowledge that it is just one step in a much larger process. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure our Nation's vulnerable ports.

I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work in getting us to this point today. Again, it is an important first step. Let us continue to rededicating ourselves to making sure that we are doing all we can to make sure the American people are safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3127, the Sudan Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, which passed Congress on September 25, and H. Res. 992, which calls for the appointment of a presidential special envoy for Sudan and passed the House on September 26. H.R. 3127 addresses the ongoing violence and humanitarian disaster in the Darfur region by directing the president to impose sanctions on the Government of Sudan as well as freeze the assets of anyone responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Sudan.

H.R. 3127 also supports the United Nations and NATO to send a civilian protection force to assist the African Union Mission in Sudan. This is especially important since the Sudanese Government is currently refusing to allow U.N. troops into Sudan, which threatens a recent peace agreement and could lead to further violence. I am disappointed, however, that an earlier provision in H.R. 3127 that would have allowed States to make a decision to divest from Sudan was not included in the final version.

This conflict has resonated with people all over the world who want this travesty to end. It is a shame that we have not learned from our mistakes in the past regarding genocide, but it is not too late to change the situation in Sudan. We must not stand by as the situation deteriorates in Darfur. It is our duty to end this human suffering, and I will continue to work to stop this conflict and promote peace in Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that there should be established a ``Let's All Play Day.''

I introduce this bill in support of the goals and ideals of Boundless Playgrounds. I would like to take this opportunity to share these goals and ideals with my colleagues in the House.

An estimated six million children in the United States have some type of chronic condition or disability that makes it hard or impossible for them to fully enjoy traditional playgrounds. Those who work with children with disabilities stress the importance of play in their development. Boundless Playgrounds differ from traditional playgrounds in the sense that these playgrounds, and the equipment within the playgrounds, are accessible to all children. They are barrier-free, inclusive and configured to support children's development. Perhaps most importantly, by encouraging children with and without disabilities to play together, these playgrounds provide a space to celebrate similarities and differences and develop essential life skills. I can think of no better way to combat stereotypes than to expose our children to others with disabilities at a young age.

Currently, there are more than 100 Boundless Playgrounds in twenty- one states, with more in development. In my own district, a Boundless Playground in Providence, Rhode Island provides many Rhode Island children and their family members the ability to interact and play together. I have been amazed and inspired by how the community has come together in support of this park--most notably the contributions of Hasbro, Inc. Such cooperation is a tremendous testament to Rhode Island's commitment to supporting children who struggle to overcome obstacles.

Mr. Speaker, we could all take a lesson from the forethought put into the design of Boundless Playgrounds. In the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other initiatives that have encouraged the inclusion of people with disabilities in their communities, I am proud to recognize Boundless Playgrounds for their dedication to all children and families. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to acknowledge these extraordinary playgrounds by cosponsoring this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Americans have paid record high prices at the gas pump this summer, the Bush administration and the Republican friends in this body have voted to give tax breaks to big oil companies.

At the same time, they refuse to move forward on policies to achieve energy independence and keep our Nation from relying so heavily on foreign oil. Now American families are facing a long winter of high home heating bills with no end in sight.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats strongly believe that this body should not adjourn until action is taken to address the energy concerns of all Americans. We support a comprehensive policy that will roll back the tax cuts for big oil companies and invest the savings into

developing alternative fuels and achieving energy independence.

Keeping fuel prices under control is essential to working Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, in light of the Republican leadership's unwillingness to address the energy concerns of American families, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4479, a bill to repeal subsidies for big oil companies and give them to consumers, low-income heating programs, and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6166 and am deeply disappointed that Congress has missed an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner to prosecute those who would do harm to Americans, while ensuring that such efforts would withstand legal scrutiny.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that President Bush exceeded his authority by establishing military commissions to try detainees in the global war on terrorism without explicit congressional approval. That decision presented Congress with an important opportunity to develop a proposal to try some of the world's most dangerous people and to provide swift justice to those who engaged in horrendous acts against our Nation. Unfortunately, instead of proceeding in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that enjoys the full confidence of this body, Congress is faced with a proposal negotiated exclusively by Republicans and whose actual effectiveness in prosecuting terrorists remains in question.

After the Hamdan decision, the House Armed Services Committee held numerous hearings on how Congress should respond, and I commend the chairman for his efforts to ensure that committee members learned the complexities of this topic.

One constant theme we heard from the witnesses testifying was that Congress should ensure that any system established to try military detainees followed existing legal procedures to the greatest extent practicable.

On that point, let us be clear. Despite the mischaracterizations of some Members on the floor today, no one has recommended giving terrorists the same rights as criminals or members of our Armed Forces. Everyone recognizes that many of these detainees are dangerous people, and we agree that the judicial

system used to try them must reflect the complexities of prosecuting enemy combatants in the midst of an ongoing war. What the legal experts did counsel, though, was that if military commissions did not include basic, broadly accepted principles of jurisprudence, the commissions could be subject to legal challenge.

Unfortunately, we have no idea if the legislation before us will withstand such scrutiny because the commissions it would establish vary significantly from other accepted forms of tribunals that have been used to prosecute crimes in times of war.

I hope that this legislation does ultimately pass constitutional muster, because it would be a devastating blow to our efforts to combat global terrorism if the conviction of a terrorist were overturned on a legal challenge. However, because I am not confident that the legislation will be upheld, I must oppose it.

The other overarching concern I have with this measure is the impact it will have on the United States' obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The legislation would give the President broad authority to interpret U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions and would create confusion about which practices would be prohibited. The Supreme Court specifically stated in Hamdan that basic protections of the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 apply to detainees, but the legislation actually complicates compliance with Common Article 3 by creating new definitions of offenses that do not comport with international law. Unfortunately, this change could endanger our own men and women in uniform by encouraging other nations to redefine how they treat captured prisoners. We would not want other nations to offer anything other than full Geneva protections to our own troops, and we must therefore respect the concept of reciprocity on which the Conventions were established.

As Colin Powell noted, respecting the Geneva Conventions not only protects our own servicemembers, but it affirms our commitment to international standards of law and justice at a time when our moral authority in the global war on terrorism is increasingly being questioned.

I am deeply disappointed that, on a matter of such importance to the American people, Congress did not act in a careful and bipartisan fashion to establish a system of military commissions that can protect the American people and withstand legal scrutiny. Instead, the leadership is forcing this measure through the House while ignoring some very valid concerns. I simply ask where their sense of urgency was nearly 5 years ago when the President established military tribunals without congressional input.

Some of my Democratic colleagues have argued for years that we need greater congressional involvement in the justice system for military detainees, but those appeals were ignored. Once again, Congress has abdicated its constitutional oversight responsibility for too long and, when finally forced to act, has chosen partisanship over sound policy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure so that we can craft an alternative that is tough on terrorists while meeting our legal and international obligations.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call on my colleagues in Congress to refocus their efforts on comprehensive immigration reform. What we need is not to debate and pass a bunch of bills that duplicate legislation already passed by the House--legislation that has little chance of passage in the Senate. What we need is to get back on track with what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has repeatedly called for-- comprehensive immigration reform. Only when we enact comprehensive reform will we be truly effective in securing our Nation's borders.

Today we are considering three bills, which do little to fix our Nation's illegal immigration problems. We need to do more, and we need to do it in a sensible, bipartisan and comprehensive fashion. The American people expect Congress to secure our borders, and that extends to understanding who currently resides in our country and why they are here. Just as importantly, in considering border security legislation, we need to focus on securing weapons of mass destruction to ensure they do not make their way through our ports of entry. I find it redundant and unnecessary that we are going back to consider legislation that has already been passed by this body when there is so much unfinished business we ought to be focusing on.

We need to focus on ``smart security'' and develop a comprehensive plan. I continue to support the Kolbe-Flake-Gutierrez bill, which is a broad and multi-faceted approach to securing our borders. Under this legislation, we would hire and train more border patrol agents to secure our borders, improve our surveillance technology, and require employers to verify the status of their employees. This proactive approach ensures we keep those wishing to harm us out of our country and allows us to ascertain precisely who is in our country and why they are here.

We also need to refocus our efforts on monitoring exactly which materials come through our borders. As the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological or nuclear materials. I am dedicated to ensuring we have this important technology at every entry point.

However, instead of addressing these real problems, the Republican leadership has chosen to bring up legislation that we have already passed--not because they want a solution to our immigration problem, but because they need to distract the American public from their inability to accomplish any real reforms. My Democratic colleagues and I have fought for increased funding for more border patrol agents, detention beds, and immigration and customs agents, but Republicans have voted against those efforts 10 times.

I call on my colleagues to refocus their efforts to enact a comprehensive immigration plan. Time in the 109th Congress is quickly running out, and we are doing our country a disservice when we focus on political rhetoric instead of real solutions. It is time to get back on track with what the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has tasked us with-- comprehensive reform.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4844 because of the dangerous impact it would have on voter participation in the United States. When I was Secretary of State, I led an effort to reform our elections. We replaced our outdated voting equipment, made polling places accessible, and significantly reduced error rates.

My job was to make voting open and accessible to eligible citizens, and to encourage people to participate in the process. From that experience, I know this legislation would practically do nothing to reduce fraud, while creating new barriers for Americans to vote.

Should H.R. 4844 become law, fewer eligible citizens will be able to vote because they lack proper identification or documentation. Maybe it is an elderly woman who leaves her home of 50 years to enter an assisted-living facility. It could be a resident of New Orleans whose public records were lost in Hurricane Katrina. The list goes on and on. However, these people have one thing in common: Once they are turned away from voting, it is unlikely they will return. They may not return that day because of a lack of time or transportation; or they may not return in future elections because of the hassle they experienced. New obstacles to voting will cause many to drop out of the Nation's election system because it failed them.

Not only would the bill make it harder for every American to vote, but it would also add massive new compliance requirements for election officials. It also unnecessarily duplicates current law, which requires that voters in Federal elections be U.S. citizens.

Fraudulent voter registration is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. Furthermore, the bill does not address other, more prevalent forms of voter fraud and additional problems that we have witnessed in recent elections.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a proud record of removing barriers and increasing the opportunity of all Americans to vote. It guaranteed the right to vote to citizens whose only disqualification was the color of their skin. It opened polling places to the disabled. It extended the franchise to Americans living overseas. It did all of this on a bipartisan basis and while maintaining the integrity of our elections.

H.R. 4844 is a step away from that proud tradition because it would erect new barriers for eligible citizens and disenfranchise many Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4844 so that we may preserve the most precious right, the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill is not about border security or terrorism prevention, as the name implies, but is rather a gimmick and will not in fact solve our nation's border and immigration problems. We need to focus on ``smart security'' and develop a comprehensive plan. Only then will we truly secure our borders and ensure our safety as Americans. This bill strays far from those priorities and is opposed by almost every reasonable business, labor, and civil liberties advocacy group in the country.

The bill before us does not provide any specific dollar amounts to build the mandated fence, and nowhere does the bill even authorize additional Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Customs officers needed to secure the border. Blindly erecting a fence, without taking into consideration the needs of the area and the men and women who work on the front lines of our borders is not effective and we can do better. We need to focus on ``smart security,'' and we need to do it now.

It is extremely important to know who is entering our country and who is already here. We need to focus on strengthening our borders by improving our surveillance technology, deploying more border patrol agents, and providing them with the materials they need to effectively do their jobs. This is why I am proud to support Mr. Thompson's substitute amendment.

The substitute amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive border security strategy by deploying at least 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 2,000 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at our borders each year for the next four years. The substitute also provides helicopters, portable computers, radio communications and hand-held global positioning devices so the agents have all of the resources they need to get the job done.

Mr. Thompson's substitute also ends our ineffective ``Catch and Release'' practice. We need to ensure that we have adequate space in which to house people until we determine who they are and why they are here. It is unacceptable that illegal immigrants have been released after being charged with a crime simply because there is not adequate space in which to detain them. The substitute authorizes 100,000 additional detention bed spaces through FY 2010 to assist with the detention of undocumented individuals.

We also need to refocus our efforts on monitoring precisely which materials come through our borders. As the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological or nuclear materials. I am dedicated to ensuring we have this important technology at every entry point.

Although erecting a security fence in specifically targeted areas may be necessary, it needs to be part of a much larger comprehensive plan. In order to employ a plan that is truly effective, we need to take into consideration all of these factors, not just a select few.

Rhetorical bills proposing a quick fix will not secure our borders, and I will not support legislation that does not propose a comprehensive solution. I am proud to support Mr. Thompson's substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave soldier in Iraq, Sergeant Moises Jazmin, a Rhode Island resident who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss.

Sergeant Jazmin grew up in Providence, RI, and attended Central High School until he enlisted in the Army at the age of 17. He is remembered as a committed and loving member of his tight-knit family.

Sergeant Jazmin was serving in Iraq in the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division. On Sunday, August 27, he was on patrol when an improvised explosive device detonated near their Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The blast killed him and three other soldiers in his unit.

This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When Sergeant Jazmin's nation called him to duty, he answered without hesitation. We will remember him as a patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

Sergeant Jazmin is survived by his parents, Leon and Rosa, and many other friends and family members. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period. We will also continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave Marine in Iraq, Lance Corporal Eric Valdepenas, who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in mourning this great loss.

Lance Corporal Valdepenas, a resident of Seekonk, Massachusetts, was a graduate of Bishop Hendricken High School in Warwick, Rhode Island, my own alma mater. He was an honors student and co-captain of the school's championship lacrosse team. He is remembered by his teachers and classmates as having tremendous energy and an exceptional character. After high school, he attended the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and was pursuing an engineering degree when his Marine Reserve unit was called up in December 2005.

Lance Corporal Valdepenas served with the 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division. He demonstrated the same commitment and positive attitude in Iraq that his family and friends knew well, and he earned numerous military awards, including the Purple Heart. On September 4, while on patrol in al Anbar province, an improvised explosive device detonated next to his vehicle, killing him and two other Marines.

This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When Lance Corporal Valdepenas's nation called him to duty, he answered without hesitation. We will remember him as a patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

He is survived by his parents, Jesus and Ann-Marie, and seven siblings Marie Drury, Karen Ing, Nora Lough, and Teresa, Edna-Anne, Neil, and Sean Valdepenas. They will remember his great love for his family, his loyalty and his kindness. May we keep them and other friends and family in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period. We will also continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues and millions of Americans in mourning and honoring those who bravely lost their lives on September 11, 5 years ago. Their memories must be honored and they must not be forgotten, and we must ensure that they did not die in vain. It is our job as elected officials to learn from those vulnerabilities that terrorists were able to exploit to ensure that similar tragedies never happen again.

Unfortunately, the resolution before us today places politics ahead of honoring our fallen heroes, and it does nothing to ensure that our Nation becomes safer. It is nothing but a divisive and partisan measure that allows Republicans to pat themselves on the back and give them peace of mind. Well, I refuse to be complacent. There is simply too much that remains to be done to secure our homeland. We need to get back on track in implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Our borders, ports, and virtually every entry into our country remain unsecured, and the 9/11 Public Discourse Project has given the administration a D on their efforts to protect against weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, one of the worst case scenarios experts fear is that terrorists

would be able to smuggle nuclear material across our borders or through our ports. This is an unacceptable reality. As the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological and nuclear materials in and at our border crossings. Mr. Speaker, we need to significantly strengthen our radiation detection technology, and we need to do it now. Five years after the terrorists attacked our country, we still lack the capability to identify exactly what comes through our ports.

I urge my colleagues to refocus our efforts on implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as this is truly the way to honor the heroes who lost their lives on that devastating day 5 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some concerns with the bill before us, but also to urge my colleagues to find ways to encourage the careful development of meaningful health information technology systems. It is critical that we move rapidly toward the development and implementation of an electronic health information system, but it also is critical that this be done with great forethought and integrity.

I regret that I cannot support the bill before us today because it fails to include critical components mandating quality in our health care technology systems. Furthermore, I echo the concerns of my colleagues regarding the need for patient privacy standards and important consumer protections.

This is a missed opportunity for our nation's health care system. The goal of moving health care from pen and paper to the digital age has enjoyed bipartisan support. I am troubled that the bill presented to the House of Representatives today fails to meet the standards of the bipartisan coalition spearheaded by my colleague, Patrick Kennedy.

In recent years, I have been proud to see the health care community in Rhode Island come together to accelerate the use of health

information technology in our state. One project in particular--and this is just one of many--called EHR-RI, has brought together physicians, hospital administrators and insurance company representatives to focus on the goals of getting this technology into physicians' offices and aiding in the often-complicated transition to new systems. The health care community recognizes the need to compromise and work in collaboration to achieve the goals of using technology to help patients and their families.

Because the efficient use of technology is central to our efforts to control costs and increase quality in health care, I urge my colleagues in Congress to follow their lead. Support stronger legislation that would truly advance the electronic health information exchange in our nation's health care system.