Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 393 which would recognize October as Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Month, and I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey, our chairman of our Health Subcommittee, for recognizing me. I also want to thank the resolution's sponsor, Chip Pickering, and thank him for his leadership on this topic.

I have proudly served with Mr. Pickering as cochair of the Heart and Stroke Coalition for the past 2 years. I have enjoyed working with him as well on the Stop Stroke Act, which we are so close to passing into law, and for his advocacy on behalf of these issues. He will sorely be missed when he retires this year from Congress.

Sudden cardiac arrest claims the life of over 300,000 people per year. It's known as SCA, and it can strike at any age in people who appear to be otherwise healthy. We all know the famous stories of young athletes mysteriously dying on the basketball court or the football field. But perhaps none of us know enough about how to prevent it from happening in the future in our families with our loved ones and in the future.

There are certain warning signs for sudden cardiac arrest which can be identified through screenings, and we hope that establishing a Sudden Cardiac Awareness Month will help more Americans learn what those warning signs are and to encourage more medical professionals to conduct proper screenings.

I'd also like to take this time to promote awareness about the greatest chance for survival after a sudden cardiac arrest: the automated external defibrillators, or AEDs. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been proud of the efforts to increase the presence of AEDs on school campuses and other public buildings. Many of you are probably familiar with the placement of AEDs on every floor through the Capitol and our office buildings. They are so simple to use and are crucial to improving survival.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 393 and help improve awareness about sudden cardiac events and AEDs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1014, the HEART for Women Act. I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I thank the lead co-sponsor of this bill, Congresswoman Barbara Cubin of Wyoming.

I was proud to first introduce the HEART for Women Act in 2006 with the help of organizations such as the American Heart Association, WomenHeart, and the Society for Women's Health Research. Since then, the list of supporters has grown to over 50 organizations, 237 cosponsors in the House, and 47 cosponsors of the Senate companion legislation.

This legislation was borne out of the realization that despite heart disease being the number one killer of women, too few people are aware of it. In 2006, only 21 percent of women identified heart disease as women's greatest health problem, and too few people were aware that heart disease manifests itself differently in women than in men.

The HEART for Women Act would improve the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease in women in three important ways.

First, it would authorize educational campaigns aimed at health providers and older women to make them more aware of the risks for cardiovascular disease among women.

Secondly, it will authorize the expansion of CDC's highly successful WISEWOMAN program, to which our chairman alluded. Since 2000, WISEWOMAN has been providing screenings for low-income uninsured women. The CDC has touted the success of WISEWOMAN in that they have screened over 79,000 women in need, identified over 7,600 new cases of high blood pressure, over 7,900 new cases of high cholesterol, and over 1,000 cases of diabetes.

I am proud that this legislation will play a part in reaching hundreds of thousands of new women in the years to come.

Finally, H.R. 1014 will improve the way we collect and analyze research data. By directing the FDA to collect data about safety and the efficacy of new and investigational drugs and devices according to gender, age, and racial subgroups.

We will help women and their health care providers better understand which course of treatment may yield the best outcome.

Once again, I thank our colleague Congresswoman Cubin, the coalition of supporters, and the Energy and Commerce Committee majority and minority staff.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1014.

I thank our chairman for yielding and for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6353, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy bill. And in doing so, I want to pay tribute to its author, Bart Stupak, who would be here giving this statement except that his voice ran out tonight. So I am stepping in on his behalf, but it is something that I truly support as well.

Nearly 7 million Americans are abusing prescription drugs; more than the number of individuals who are abusing cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy and inhalants all combined.

Over the past 6 years, we have witnessed a dramatic 80 percent increase in prescription drug abuse from 3.8 million to 7 million. That's more than double. A large number of individuals are obtaining their prescription drugs over the Internet through rogue Internet pharmacies.

Purchasing drugs online without a valid prescription can be simple: A consumer just types the name of the drug into a search engine, quickly identifies a site selling the medication, fills out a brief questionnaire, and then clicks to purchase.

The risks of self-medicating, however, can include potential adverse reactions from inappropriately prescribed medicines, dangerous drug interactions, use of counterfeit or tainted products, and addiction to habit-forming substances.

Several of these illegitimate sites failed to produce information about potential adverse side effects, effectiveness, and where the pharmacies are located.

A 2004 GAO study obtained 68 samples of 11 different prescription drugs, each from a different Web site. GAO found that 45 online pharmacies provided a prescription based on their own medical questionnaire or had no prescription requirement. Among the drugs GAO obtained without prescription were those with special safety restrictions and highly addictive narcotic pain killers.

The tragic case of Ryan Haight has already been mentioned. His mother has testified before Congress and is nationally known. Ryan died at the age of 18, as has been stated, from an overdose of pain killers, including Vicodin. He ordered these over the Internet without a legitimate prescription while he was a 17-year-old minor.

The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act would bar the sale or distribution of all controlled substances via the Internet without a valid prescription. In order for a prescription to be valid, it must be issued by a practitioner who has conducted at least one in- person examination of the particular patient.

H.R. 6353 would also require online pharmacies to clearly display on their Web site a statement of compliance with U.S. laws and DEA regulations. This would allow consumers to clearly identify which pharmacies are safe and which are not.

This legislation also creates a new Federal cause of action that would allow a State attorney general to shut down a rogue site selling controlled substances in any State and increase the penalties for all illegal distributions of controlled substances classified as Schedule III, IV or V substances.

This legislation is supported by the administration, including the DEA and FDA, the Chain Drug Stores, Go Daddy, eBay, Federation of State Medical Boards, and the Fraternal Order of Police.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I thank Congressman Lamar Smith, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, Senator Feinstein, Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton. I also want to thank Virgil Miller, Ryan Long, Caroline Lynch and Jeff Spalding with the committee staff, and Erika Orloff of Mr. Stupak's personal staff for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1907, which formally codifies NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, informally known as the CELCP program.

First, I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall, and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Ms. Bordallo, for bringing H.R. 1907 before us today. I also want to join with the ranking member, Mr. Young, in recognizing the author of this legislation, Mr. Saxton, for his leadership in all of the areas that he has worked on, especially in this area. Those comments of my colleague from Alaska were very well said. For years, Mr. Saxton has been a champion for the marine environment, and his passion for our oceans will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, it's well-known that more and more people are moving to the coast to enjoy its beauty and its recreational opportunities. An estimated 60 percent of Americans will live along our coasts during the next 2 years. More than ever, the pressures of urbanization and of coastal pollution threaten to impair watersheds, to impact wildlife habitat and to cause irreparable damage to our fragile coastal ecology.

We see strong signals of what continuing down this path could bring us: beach closings, fish kills, human health impacts, and a lack of public access to beaches and to coastal waters. That's why we need initiatives like the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, the CELCP program.

This existing program pairs willing sellers through community-based initiatives with sources of Federal funds in order to enhance environmental protection. Lands can be acquired in full or through easements, and none of the lands purchased through this program would be held by the Federal Government. It puts land conservation initiatives in the hands of State and local communities. That's why it's supported by the Coastal States Organization.

In my congressional district, we've worked collaboratively with coastal communities, with environmental groups, with willing sellers, and with the State to conserve lands around the Morro Bay National Estuary, on the nationally significant Gaviota Coast and near the Piedras Blancas Outstanding Natural Area.

These lands are home to a wide variety of plants and animal species that are particularly threatened by encroaching development and pollution. By working with local communities to purchase lands and easements, California has been able to successfully preserve the natural and scenic heritage of some of its last undeveloped stretches of coastline.

Mr. Speaker, programs like CELCP will help other coastal States to participate in these community-based conservation efforts. Given the importance of healthy, productive and accessible coastal areas, it's time to formally authorize CELCP. This legislation makes important improvements in the program. It provides a better framework for its administration, and it will ensure the consistent implementation throughout the country.

I know that we all would like to do something like this in honor and in the memory of our good friend in his days in Congress, Mr. Saxton. So I want to thank the chairwoman and Mr. Saxton for their leadership on this legislation. I look forward to working with them in the coming days to ensure its passage so that we can fill this vital need for coastal protection. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1907.

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak today about my dear friend Margaret Mehring, who passed away on July 3, 2008. Margaret was someone that we all want to--and need to--remember. She was an educator, filmmaker and author. She was a political activist, fighting against the McCarthy era excesses and standing firm for the freedoms we cherish in this country.

She also worked hard to help Native Americans tell their own stories, with her work being expanded to the founding of the Media Training Development Program for Tribal College around the country. She managed political campaigns and even wrote a pamphlet about running grassroots campaigns that I got into the hands of top Democrats in Washington. How many of her lessons are finding their way into this election, I often wonder.

Margaret Mehring was all this and much, much more. She was a friend, a mentor, an always present conscience to many of us in this room. Margaret and I became friends when my late husband Walter was beginning his improbable run for Congress. That was back in 1994. Long before most people even knew who Walter was, Margaret was one of his strongest supporters. She and Walter--and I--connected on a very deep level. She understood the importance of building a community of hope and purpose. But she also knew the value of organizing a community around an idea or, in this case, a person and political movement. Margaret dedicated herself to organizing and turning out the vote for Walter so he would be elected to Congress.

She was someone who really recognized the importance of grassroots organizing, mobilizing a community, and turning out the vote. She was instrumental in galvanizing many of her friends and neighbors to support Walter's, and later my, candidacy. And I will always be deeply grateful to the tireless work she devoted to my campaigns.

But what makes me remember Margaret and miss her was larger than the help she provide Walter and me, as important as that was.

Margaret's work was dedicated as much to strengthening our democratic traditions and our civil society as it was to any one candidate. She was concerned about the vitality of our democracy and the health of our society. Ensuring that we leave this wonderful Earth a better place than we found it was what drove her every day. Clearly Margaret was a valuable member of the Democratic party, but more importantly she was an asset to the Democratic process.

I will miss Margaret dearly, I already do. But I carry with me--every day--the lessons of her commitment to her community, her dedication to making the world a better place. It is a source of strength and a constant inspiration to me. Thank you for letting me offer my thoughts today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill.

I do so because I simply cannot support the myth that a lack of offshore drilling is at the root of our energy problems, and the supposed solutions to that myth are contained in this bill.

I fully support the provisions in the bill that will help America reach the goal of a clean energy future. For example, the bill extends federal tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy that will expire by the end of 2008. It's critical that these tax incentives be extended to avoid causing significant harm to our country's developing clean energy industries. It would also provide new incentives for purchasing energy efficient products and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

I also support the Renewable Electricity Standard included in the bill, which requires at least 15 percent of our national energy production to come from renewable sources by 2020. More than half of the states already have a standard like this in place, including California and Texas.

I believe these provisions are clear steps in the right direction and, in fact, would argue we should be doing more of them.

But President Bush was right when he said our country is addicted to oil. The U.S. is like the alcoholic who says he needs just one more drink to get him through the day and then tomorrow he will stop. And this recent nonstop effort to open up the entire U.S. coast to more drilling looks to me a lot like a problem drinker in denial.

The driving force behind this legislation is the relentless, disingenuous and, in the end, futile attempt to drill our way to energy security. It is doomed to failure because we simply don't have the resources. We consume 25 percent of the world's oil and yet we have only 3 percent of the world's oil supply. Do the math.

Or better yet, just look at recent history. Seven and a half years ago, President Bush took office promising to implement a national energy policy that would make America energy independent. The former oilman entrusted his Vice President, himself the former head of the largest oil servicing company in the world, with leading the effort. Since then, the President's energy policy has mostly been about enabling our addiction to fossil fuels by focusing only on increasing domestic oil and gas supplies.

For example, between 2001 and 2007, the Bush Administration offered 343 million acres of leases for offshore drilling, selling over 33 million acres to oil and gas companies. And in the last five years, the Republican-controlled Congress gave the President approval for new leasing in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the U.S. has more oil and gas rigs operating today than the entire rest of the world.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration energy policy paid lip service to conservation, neatly summed up by Vice President Cheney's dismissive and uninformed remark that ``conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.''

And the Administration's lack of interest in developing alternative energy was succinctly illustrated when Congressional Republicans, needing to reduce the overall cost of their ``landmark'' 2005 energy bill, slashed support for alternative fuels while leaving intact tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for already rich oil companies.

The results of these choices aren't pretty: in 2000, the U.S. imported 53 percent its oil; today, that figure is 59 percent. And while consumers pay record high prices at the pump, oil companies are racking up record high oil profits. Exxon-Mobil's last quarterly profits were $11 billion, the largest in human history. The other oil and gas behemoths pulled in similarly spectacular profits.

But the failure of President Bush's strategy was both predictable and predicted. Democrats in Congress pointed out that the vast majority of offshore oil and gas reserves were already available for exploitation. Even if they hadn't been and we made them all available to drilling, there is still that troubling U.S. demand versus U.S. supply contradiction.

For years, Democrats tried to convince the Republicans then in charge of Congress that real energy security would be found by making our cars, buildings and appliances more efficient; by dramatically speeding up the development of renewable and alternative energy sources; and by beginning the long, hard transition away from fossil fuels that imperil our economy, damage our planet and come mostly from unstable countries all too often wishing us harm. Those arguments were all rejected by the President and his supporters in Congress, leaving us where we are today.

To be clear, I don't want to see more oil rigs off my congressional district. My constituents rightfully fear the economic and environmental effects of new drilling. Many of us witnessed firsthand the devastation of the blowout on Platform A off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. We saw the dead birds and seals, the beaches covered with oil, the land that we love so much nearly destroyed.

In the years since, despite the great advances touted by the industry, oil accidents and drilling-based pollution in my district have been plentiful, offshore and onshore. For example, Exxon-Mobil recently agreed to pay almost $3 million for releasing dangerous PCB's into the Santa Barbara Channel from Platform Hondo.

Another fine example is that of Greka Oil, a company that has been polluting our local creeks with toxic runoff and countless oil spills seemingly without a care. It looks like Greka based its environmental policies on the cutting edge technology found in the movie ``There Will Be Blood.'' I could also site the infamous Torch Operating Company pipeline explosion in 1997, the destruction and rebuilding of Avila Beach brought on by Unocal's decades-long pollution in that coastal town, or the impacts to our local air and water quality that we deal with every day. That is the history--and daily reality--of oil drilling in my congressional district.

So, yes, Californians don't want more of that.

But my opposition to this bill is mostly because it is simply not in the best interests of this country. The longer we try to fool ourselves into believing that this time new drilling will bring us lower prices and that we still have plenty of time to get ourselves off this oil addiction, the tougher the day of reckoning will be. Our economy will continue to be at the whim of crazy dictators around the world, globing warming will continue unabated and the decisions to send our troops in harm's way will too often be tainted by the stench of oil politics.

And just so we are clear, this ``American'' oil we want to drill for is more likely to end up in gas tanks in Beijing or Calcutta than in Washington or Wasilla because oil markets are global. The multinational oil companies that

will sink their rigs off California or Virginia will be selling ``American'' oil to the highest bidder. That is one reason why none other than the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration concluded that even opening the entire U.S. coastline to more drilling would have virtually no impact on oil prices.

We need to end our addiction to fossil fuels and we need to start now. Expanded drilling off our coasts will not bring us closer to that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to file a supplemental report on

I thank my dear colleague from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in sad support of this resolution to pay tribute to our colleague, the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

As so many have said, Stephanie had the gift of making us all her friends and, for me and for others, her sisters.

As has been said, she was a tireless advocate on behalf of working families and civil rights long before she came to Congress, and she continued her devotion to these causes over the last decade. I was proud to work with her in the last few years against a proposal that would have undermined the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Her leadership on this issue was exemplary of her commitment to protecting people against discrimination. I will cherish this opportunity to work with her.

She was also a wonderful and active member of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. She cochaired the task force on Women in the Judiciary with her colleague from Ohio and fellow former judge, Deborah Pryce.

She also led efforts to raise awareness and to fund greater research into uterine fibroids. This is a disease that affects as many as three and four women over the course of their lifetimes. Yet it's rarely discussed in public. She had the courage to bring this otherwise taboo subject to the forefront in the quest to bring relief to millions of women who have and who will suffer from fibroids.

The people of Ohio and of the entire Congress have lost a true champion. For me, there was a personal bond with Stephanie Tubbs Jones. She lost her husband suddenly after she came to Congress, and I had lost mine recently, and so we had a bond, a sad one, but one that we both cherished. We made an agreement that we didn't need to talk. We just needed, when we saw each other, to give each other a hug, and I will cherish those hugs, and that bond still exists.

I send my condolences to her son and to her family members, and I hope they know that the grief is shared by all of us, and our dedication to upholding the causes which motivated and for which she showed such great leadership will inspire us to continue and, in each of our own ways, to make that legacy that was Stephanie Tubbs Jones' live on.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Marian Medical Center, located in Santa Maria, California, and in my congressional district, for the recent completion of a new Co- Generation Energy Plant. This truly is a win-win project that will benefit our community and the environment.

With skyrocketing energy costs, it's very important now that we develop alternative methods of generating electricity. The Marian Medical Center Co-Generation Energy Plant system works by capturing toxic methane gas run-off from the Santa Maria Municipal Landfill and piping it to an energy plant recently built on the hospital campus where it is converted to clean electrical energy.

Piping gas from the landfill to power the hospital will significantly reduce methane emissions and offset the use of non-renewable resources, such as natural gas and oil. The energy plant will also result in significant energy and cost savings for the hospital. It will supply all but 50 kilowatts of the energy necessary to power the medical center and is expected to achieve an annual electrical cost savings of nearly $350,000. Finally, the cogeneration project will provide benefits to the City of Santa Maria, which will be able to make use of and receive revenue for an otherwise unused, potentially toxic resource.

I am so proud that Marian Medical Center is one of only a handful of healthcare facilities in the nation to be powered by co-generated energy. This project is the result of a unique partnership and I want to commend Marian Medical Center and the City of Santa Maria for serving as a role model for other organizations in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for her leadership in the Rules Committee bringing this important bill to the floor, I thank my colleague Rosa DeLauro for her stunning work in bringing this legislation into print, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Last week, I was fortunate enough to participate in a rally with several of my female colleagues in the House and Senate and our hero, Lilly Ledbetter. Lilly's personal experience is a testament to the Equal Pay Act, which guarantees equal pay for equal work, needs some work of its own. H.R. 1338 closes some existing loopholes so that employees can fight for their deserved wages without fear of retaliation.

As we discussed these issues at the event last week, I was inspired and comforted to see such a crowd of young women, many of whom are recent college graduates just starting out in their careers. They can be sure that with the passage this legislation, they may not face the same barriers that women from their mothers' and grandmothers' generations faced.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. Help us secure a better economic future for our daughters, our granddaughters and their friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1108. This bill is about bringing smoking prevention and cessation efforts into the 21st century.

We have known for a long time about the health dangers--in fact, the life-threatening dangers--posed by tobacco use. Nobody uses tobacco because they think it's good for their health. What this bill does is to take the necessary steps which will most effectively help people quit, and most importantly, help them never to begin.

One of the ways that goal is accomplished through this legislation is by

giving greater authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the advertising and marketing of tobacco products. By prohibiting the targeted marketing of tobacco products to children, we can help prevent countless young people from falling prey to deceptive advertising, the kind that describes smoking with the same adjectives used to describe candy and perfume, with the many enticing qualities.

Now, some of the bill's opponents may try to say the FDA is ill- equipped to do this. I just want to remind my colleagues that this bill provides the FDA new resources to handle tobacco regulation, and it's based upon a plan the agency itself devised over a decade ago.

I want to thank many colleagues who have worked tirelessly over years to bring us to this moment on this floor. I want to thank Mr. Waxman for his tireless leadership. I want to thank the leadership of our committee, Mr. Pallone, and most particularly our esteemed chairman, for whom this day will mark a very special moment and milestone.

I urge all of my colleagues in this House to vote in favor of H.R. 1108.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act.

This bill is a powerful response to the foreclosure crisis that has spread across the Nation. The recent troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have shaken the economy and the bill seeks to stabilize them by extending them limited credit and other financial support from the U.S. Treasury. These institutions are the central nervous system of mortgage liquidity in the United States, and ensuring their continued operations is vital to avoiding even more calamity in our housing markets. To help avert future mortgage crises, the bill creates a new, strong regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bill also includes much-needed reforms of the Federal Housing Administration. The changes will help protect lower income borrowers from unscrupulous lending practices that have plagued the subprime market. And the bill provides more funding for housing counseling to help consumers avoid costly mistakes and learn more about the housing market.

Mr. Speaker, this calamity isn't confined to financial institutions; it has also spread through our towns and neighborhoods and affected millions of our neighbors. In California foreclosures have risen to a 20-year high and we are feeling this pain on the central and south coast. That's why I'm glad the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act provides several key provisions to help homeowners.

For example, this bill permanently increases the conforming loan limits to $625,000. Median home prices in Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties are well above the national average, and our families continue struggling to obtain affordable housing. This provision will allow them to obtain financing at lower interest rates, while at the same time providing much needed liquidity to our local housing market. While I believe the limit should have been raised to $729,750, as was temporarily done earlier this year, this permanent increase to $625,000 is absolutely crucial for my district. I am hopeful that in the future we will continue our efforts to raise this limit so that it reflects the housing needs of my constituents.

In addition, this bill will stem foreclosures by creating a voluntary mortgage refinancing program that allows families to stay in their homes. Under this program, the Federal Housing Administration will have the authority to refinance up to $300 billion in imperiled mortgages. For borrowers facing escalating mortgage payments or even foreclosure, this provision allows them to refinance their homes into more affordable, fixed-rate mortgages. To protect taxpayers, borrowers will have to agree to certain conditions regarding future sale of the home in order to participate in the program. And to ensure against the risk of taxpayers being saddled with overvalued loans, lenders holding these troubled mortgages will have to write down the loans significantly.

Too many hard working families have found themselves the victim of unscrupulous lenders and watched helplessly as their piece of the American Dream has been snatched away from them. Even more tragically, many homeowners who have had no problem keeping up with their mortgages have seen their home values and quality of life harmed by the appearance of abandoned foreclosed properties in their neighborhoods. That is why the House went against the wishes of the President and included $3.9 billion for cities and towns to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed homes. Abandoned properties can hurt entire communities and this money will prove vital in protecting against neighborhood decline during this crisis.

The bill also creates a $500 million affordable housing trust fund to expand the housing options available for low-income working families and creates a first-time homebuyer tax credit worth up to $7,500. These two provisions will undoubtedly help young families in my district better afford the costs of buying a new home.

Mr. Speaker, the hardworking families in our country need help. The House passed a very similar bill in May, which the President threatened to veto. Now that the housing and finance situation has continued to deteriorate, he has agreed to work with us in helping the American people. I say it's about time, and I hope that we have his continued cooperation as the many provisions of this legislation are carried out in our hometowns.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

The proposal before us today would require the President to release small amounts of sweet, light crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That oil would be replaced by heavy crude, at a later date and at a lower price.

In the face of record high oil prices, this is a common sense step for a number of reasons.

First, earlier releases from the SPR, by each of the last three Presidents, brought down oil prices by between 9 percent and 33 percent within weeks. There is no reason to believe that we won't see a similar result today. Putting more oil on the market is a sure way to reduce prices.

Second, we have the SPR in place for national emergencies. The damage that these high oil prices are doing to individual consumers and to our economy as a whole certainly qualifies as such an emergency. In addition, the SPR is already at a record 97 percent of capacity and this legislation requires that it not drop below 90 percent.

Third, releasing oil from the SPR is one of the few steps that we can take to actually affect prices immediately. President Bush and his supporters continue to call for opening our entire coast to new drilling and to begin exploring in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But this failed ``drill-only'' strategy would have zero effect on oil prices today and is what has

gotten us into this mess in the first place. It would simply be one more gift for a favored special interest of this Administration, the oil and gas industry.

Democrats have a better plan. We are working on legislation to crack down on what appears to be rampant speculation that may be driving up prices by as much as 20 percent, according to some experts. In addition, we have voted to force oil and gas companies to drill on the lands they have leased or lose access to them and to speed up construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. If enacted, that legislation would help increase supply in the medium term.

For the long term, we have enacted expansion of many energy efficiency measures, such as the first increase in auto efficiency standards in 32 years, that will help us use less energy across our economy. And we are moving forward with greater incentives to encourage the use of alternative and renewable resources. We must continue to build on these measures so we can begin a much-needed transition away from an economy based on fossil fuels.

But these measures, as critically important as they are, will take time. In the meantime we have to move to help consumers today. And that is what this legislation would do.

Madam Speaker, high gas prices are hurting the American people and crippling our economy.

While we have seen the price of oil drop by some $20 a barrel in the last week or two, it is still at ridiculously high levels and prices at the pump are still way over $4 a gallon in my district and many others.

And while my constituents across the South and Central Coast are finding it hard to afford to go to the grocery store, take their kids to soccer and even get to work, the big oil companies are once again reporting record profits.

This is an absolute disgrace and this Congress is moving to put an end to that situation with this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill to help American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5501.

Every day, 6,000 people become infected with HIV, over 1,000 of whom are babies.

We have made terrific advancements in treating and preventing HIV/ AIDS, but they mean nothing unless we ensure that the most vulnerable populations have access to them.

Since its inception, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, has saved countless lives and increasing our investment through this reauthorization will save millions more.

I am especially proud to see that this reauthorization places stronger emphasis on prevention.

Without increased efforts to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, we will never adequately address the long-term needs of the global HIV/ AIDS population and global health overall.

This bill takes important steps to increase prevention efforts by overturning the ineffective one-third abstinence-only requirement that currently applies to global HIV/AIDS prevention funding; providing an increased focus on women and girls who are at-risk; and setting a target for PEPFAR to provide 80 percent of pregnant women with the tools they need to prevent maternal-to-child transmission of HIV.

Finally I am thrilled to see an increased investment in helping countries to expand their healthcare workforce as they face drastic shortages in skilled healthcare workers.

During my recent visit to Africa with the House Democracy Assistance Commission, I had the opportunity to visit with doctors, nurses and ministries of health in several countries.

They are desperate for more professionals who can treat individuals affected with HIV/AIDS, especially in countries like Malawi where 15 percent of the population suffers from HIV/AIDS.

Our investments and improvements of PEPFAR fulfill a moral responsibility that we are accountable to.

Our steadfast commitment to PEPFAR is also one of our proudest foreign policy accomplishments over the past few years as we provide the necessary humanitarian assistance required for countries to sustain themselves in the long-term.

Finally, I would like to also applaud the provision removing the ban on visas for HIV-infected individuals wishing to come to the United States. This mean spirited statute should have been repealed long ago and I am glad to see that it is finally being ended. Only a few countries have such a policy and America should not be one of them.

I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support this legislation and I look forward to the success we are sure to see in addressing the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to submit for the Record a letter from several health organizations supporting the Public Health Emergency Response Act of 2008, which I introduced earlier today.

July 22, 2008.

Hon. Richard Durbin,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Lois Capps,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Capps: The

undersigned organizations join in supporting your

introduction of the Public Health Emergency Response Act

(PHERA), legislation that would put a turn-key process into

place which would ensure that victims of a public health

emergency have immediate access to medically necessary

healthcare services and help ensure that we have a

functioning health care system.

A public health emergency, such as a natural disaster,

biologic attack or infectious disease outbreak, could strike

at any time. The September 11th attacks and Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita have underscored the need for rapid access

to healthcare services during and immediately following a

public health emergency. Following Hurricane Katrina,

Congress ultimately approved $2.1 billion for grants to

certain states to cover the Medicaid and SCHIP matching

requirements for individuals enrolled in these programs, and

the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured. However, it

took six months for Congress to pass the Deficit Reduction

Act, which provided for these funds. This unnecessary delay

could have been prevented. PHERA would put into place ahead

of time a framework for providing reimbursement for

uncompensated care in the event of a major public health

emergency.

The temporary benefit established through this bill would

help remove a disincentive for uninsured individuals to

promptly seek medical care. Any delay in seeking care could

result in lives lost, particularly during an infectious

disease outbreak when immediate identification and isolation

are very important, and delay in seeking care could render

treatment ineffective. At a time when our health care system

could be overwhelmed with patients, it is vital that

reimbursement issues not dissuade providers from offering

care. A study by the Center for Biosecurity estimated that

U.S. hospitals could lose as much as $3.9 billion in

uncompensated care and cash flow losses in the event of a

severe pandemic. By helping to reduce the burden of

uncompensated care, PHERA would help ensure the solvency and

continuity and our

health care system during a catastrophic emergency.

Specifically, PHERA would provide a temporary emergency

health benefit for uninsured individuals and individuals

whose health insurance coverage is not actuarially equivalent

to benchmark coverage, in the event that the Secretary of

Health and Human Services (HHS) declares that a public health

emergency exists and chooses to activate the benefit. It

would clarify who is eligible for this benefit, including

individuals displaced by a public health emergency, limit the

amount of time for which the benefit would last, and

stipulate what providers would be covered under this Act. It

would not use Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP funding. The

funding mechanism would be the Public Health Emergency Fund,

a no-year fund available to the Secretary. The bill

authorizes funding for the administration of the fund,

together with a public education campaign on the availability

of the benefit, but further funding would not be necessary

until Congress appropriated funds in the event of a declared

public health emergency.

Past experiences have shown that Congress will step in to

help defray the costs of uncompensated care resulting from a

catastrophic emergency. Determining the scope of such

coverage ahead of time will help ensure the solvency of our

health care system and help eliminate a disincentive for

individuals to promptly seek care. PHERA would help ensure

that when tragedy strikes, time and lives are not lost as

Congress debates a course of action. It would create the

turn-key process ahead of time, thereby allowing for timely

care to individuals affected by a crisis.

We appreciate your leadership in introducing this

legislation and look forward to working with you on this and

other public health initiatives in the future.

Sincerely,

American Red Cross.

Center for Biosecurity,

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

Infectious Diseases Society of America.

National Association of Community Health Centers.

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Trust for America's Health.