Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 981. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 981.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, and 968. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 953, 955, 957, 958, 959, 960, 962, 963, 964 and 968, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote Nos. 954, 956, 961, 965, 966 and 967.

Madam Speaker, I have witnessed the horror of the choice between a back alley abortion and a forced marriage to avoid disgrace. These were the realities women faced prior to 1973. My fear is that if this harmful Stupak/Pitts language is signed into law, we will revert back to those dark times.

Until now, for over 30 years we lived in this House in peaceful coexistence, the pros and the cons getting together on the fact that the Hyde amendment said no federal money can be spent. We on our side simply had the law.

Critical to this debate is to break down the facts. The opposition claims that the Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law. This is grossly incorrect.

Stupak-Pitts goes far beyond current law by placing unprecedented restrictions on individuals' use of their own private dollars. The Hyde Amendment does not apply to private funding nor does it apply to administrative costs. It has only placed limits on direct federal appropriations being used to fund abortion benefits. The Stupak Amendment expands the Hyde prohibitions on the use of Federal funds for an abortion benefit to include ``any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.''

The Hyde Amendment does not include similar, far-reaching language. Seventeen States currently provide abortion coverage in Medicaid with separate State funding.

The opposition claims that this amendment will not change current insurance plans for women. This is blatantly wrong.

A report by health policy experts at the George Washington University School of Public Health concludes that the Stupak Amendment ``will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange.''

The opposition claims that the segregation of funding under the House bill is an accounting sham. This is blatantly false.

In the Capps Amendment, the segregation of funding piece is based on the current model the Federal Government uses to pay for abortions currently permitted in Medicaid. States are permitted to use their own funding to provide additional abortion coverage under Medicaid.

For me, and for many of my colleagues, it means 30 or 40 years of our life is being cancelled out with this amendment.

I am afraid that we are driving young women, poor women, all women of child-bearing age back to the back alley, and I dread to see that day.

Madam Speaker, I have witnessed the horror of the choice between a back alley abortion and a forced marriage to avoid disgrace.

These were the realities women faced prior to 1973. My fear is that if this harmful Stupak/Pitts language is signed into law, we will revert back to those dark times.

Critical to this debate is to break down the facts. The opposition claims that the Stupak/Pitts amendment codifies current law. This is grossly incorrect.

Stupak-Pitts goes far beyond current law by placing unprecedented restrictions on individuals' use of their own private dollars. The Hyde amendment does not apply to private funding nor does it apply to administrative costs. It has only placed limits on direct Federal appropriations being used to fund abortion benefits. The Stupak amendment expands the Hyde prohibitions on the use of federal funds for an abortion benefit to include ``any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.''

The opposition claims that this amendment will not change current insurance plans for women. This is blatantly wrong.

A report by health policy experts at the George Washington University School of Public Health concludes that the Stupak amendment ``will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange.''

The opposition claims that the segregation of funding under the House bill is an accounting sham. This is blatantly false.

In the Capps amendment, the segregation of funding piece is based on the current model the Federal Government uses to pay for abortions permitted in Medicaid.

I am afraid that we are driving young women, poor women, back to the dark alley, and I dread to see that day.

Mr. Speaker, I've witnessed the horror of choice between back alley abortions and sometimes unforced marriages to try to avoid disgrace. Those were the realities that women faced prior to 1973. My fear is if this harmful Stupak-Pitts language is signed into law, we will revert back to those dark times.

Critical to this debate is a breakdown of the facts. The opposition says that it codifies current law. It is grossly incorrect. Stupak- Pitts goes far beyond current law, placing unprecedented restrictions on the individual's use of their own private dollars. The Hyde amendment does not apply to private funding nor does it apply to administrative costs. It has only placed limits on direct Federal appropriations being used to fund abortion benefits. That brings in everyone who has insurance from their employer, which is tax exempt, which means, of course, a Federal subsidy.

The Hyde amendment does not include similar, far-reaching language. Seventeen States currently provide abortion coverage without separate funding.

We must not go back to the back alley.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 930 (H.R. 3570 as amended). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 930.

Madam Speaker, today, I'm proud to reintroduce the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act.

Consider for a moment that a women's lifetime risk of breast cancer is 1 in 7 today, compared to 1 in 22 in the 1940s--over half of the cases are unexplained. And, over the last 30 years, the U.S. has seen a steep rise in the occurrence of childhood cancers, testicular cancer, juvenile diabetes, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, thyroid disorders, cognitive impairment, and autoimmune disorders. Autism cases alone rose 210 percent between 1987 and 1998.

About 100,000 chemicals are registered for use in the United States. However, 90 percent of these have never been fully tested for their impact on human health. Scientists have found that exposure to these synthetic chemicals disrupts hormone function and contributes to increased incidences of diseases. We already know the tragic impact that diethylstilbestrol, or DES, has had on the daughters of women who took this anti-miscarriage drug prescribed until 1971.

While the evidence is mounting that there is an association between these chemicals and hormone disruption, research remains limited,

particularly on the impact on women and on how long-term, low-dose exposure to environmental pollutants impacts children at critical stages of development.

A few years ago, I participated in a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group to find out what toxic substances I, in particular, and Americans in general, have been exposed to throughout our lives. My stunning test results showed literally hundreds of chemicals pumping through my vital organs every day. These chemicals include PCBs that were banned decades ago, as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under federal investigation.

The study also tested ten newborn babies and found that on average, each one had some 200 chemicals in their blood at the time of birth. The fact that we have children coming into this world already polluted and at the same time, do not know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immoral. We must test chemicals before they go onto the market, not after they get into our bloodstreams.

For several years, I have called on Congress to enact legislation that would allow NIH to expand its research on the impact of these chemical pollutants on the health of women and children.

Once again, I am introducing two important bills that I hope will advance this research--the Environmental Hormone Disruption Act and the Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act. The Environmental Hormone Disruption Act authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to conduct a comprehensive program to research and educate the public on the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. The Women's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Act authorizes the NIEHS to establish multidisciplinary research centers to investigate how environmental factors may be related to women's health and disease prevention.

Increased investments in research now could prevent and treat a broad range of diseases and disorders in future generations. I urge my colleagues to support these bills today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1506, which will allow for the National Archives to acquire the Grace Tully collection of documents and memorabilia pertaining to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The passage of this important legislation could not be timelier, and will allow the American people to have access to historical documents that provide unique insight into the life of one of our nation's greatest Presidents.

Grace Tully was one of the most important figures in President Roosevelt's life. She began her professional career working for Eleanor Roosevelt, and worked for FDR from his time as Governor of New York through his death in 1945. From 1941, Grace Tully served as the President's personal secretary and she frequently traveled with the President. Her collection of documents and personal correspondence from this time span one of the most challenging eras in our nation's history and provide unique insight into the thinking of our nation's longest serving President.

The collection includes a draft copy of President Roosevelt's speech to the 1936 Democratic Convention in which he famously said that ``This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.'' Much of the collection gives a behind the scenes look at how the President fulfilled his promise to that convention. It includes personal correspondence that

discussed the creation of Social Security and other programs that were integral to the New Deal. The collection also includes draft copy of the President's 1941 address to a joint session of Congress. The handwritten notes on the draft discuss the attack on Pearl Harbor and the President's timeless statement that December 7, 1941 was a ``date which will live in infamy.''

Beyond major statements and addresses, Ms. Tully's collection helps shed light on the important relationship the President had with Winston Churchill. There is personal correspondence between Roosevelt and Churchill which discuss important topics leading up to the Yalta Conference in 1945. But there is also more lighthearted correspondence including scorecards of poker games between the two heads of state.

The passage of this legislation will allow for the public to have access to this valuable collection, which provides important insight into one of the most important and transitional eras in the country's history. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that as the man in this House who has had reform of health care in his blood, who has worked longer than anyone in America alive today to see this day, I am so happy to see you in the chair. It is an historic day made even more wonderful for us by having you preside.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 903 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for a unanimous consent request.

I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, regular order, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy) for a unanimous consent request.

Regular order, please.

Regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I have already yielded to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of Ms. Kilroy, have you had time to raise your objection?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for a unanimous consent request.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) for a unanimous consent request.

I am calling for regular order. I would like to really get on with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for a unanimous consent request.

I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson) for a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. SHEA-PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) for a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my fellow New Yorker (Ms. Velazquez) for a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson) for a unanimous-consent request.

(Mrs. HALVORSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Gwen Moore, for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, because of the kind indulgence of our friends on the other side, we have no further speakers, but we would like to sit quietly and listen to the other side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, once again, to get to this great debate, we are greatly in your debt, Mr. Speaker, to find ourselves here this morning.

The legislation that we take up today is the culmination of a fight for health care reform that dates back at least a century and has been one of the greatest political struggles of our era. It shouldn't be this way. Many years ago, every other western nation enacted broad health care coverage for its citizens but not in the United States. Only in this country has there been such a visceral anti-government urge to resist something that benefits almost everyone. Only here do efforts to bring about improved health care for all Americans crash against entrenched interests and corporate resistance. And only here do arguments about reforming insurance spark ideological attacks from the far right.

One need only to have looked at the windows of the Capitol earlier this week to see the manifestation of that anger. Thousands of protesters showed up to threaten us into not voting in favor of this bill. If they expected us to run for cover or vote against this bill, they are going to be disappointed. Hearing those extreme views only made most of us more confident that we are doing the right thing here today by approving this bill.

Throughout the years, those same voices of opposition, whether it's Republicans or corporate interests, have rallied against reforms. It is worth pointing out for the record that Republicans who want to participate in this process did. We had more than 100 hearings, heard from 181 witnesses, Democrat and Republican, and considered hundreds of amendments. Fully 121 were approved in the committees, including 22 from Republicans. Their input has been heard when they wanted to participate.

In 1912, President Theodore Roosevelt split from the Republican Party to lead a more progressive effort and champion health care for all Americans, but he lost the next election to Woodrow Wilson and the effort failed. Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would lead another charge on this front as part of the New Deal platform. While Roosevelt was able to win passage of Social Security over great and extreme opposition, again by the same people who oppose this today, he was able to enact Social Security in 1935, but he was not able to extend that coverage to all Americans for health.

Still later, President Harry Truman made another try for health care, followed by President Lyndon Johnson, who was able to pass legislation in 1965 that implemented Medicare and Medicaid. Once again, it passed over Republican opposition that extends to this day.

President Richard Nixon followed up on President Johnson's Great Society by seeking to expand Federal programs and favoring broad health insurance. Sadly, those efforts were again derailed.

By the time President Clinton attempted to revisit the issue in 1993, the debate had become so polarized and fraught with special interests that the entire process collapsed almost before it started. I don't need to remind most of my colleagues here about the awful vilification of reform embodied by the ``Harry and Louise'' television ad campaign and by mail house threats to senior citizens that going to what they called the ``wrong doctor'' could result in a $10,000 fine and perhaps prison time.

These ads and those mail-order ads were paid for by big contributions from insurance companies and were led by the Republicans. And the same forces are still fighting us. The insurance industry and the big drug companies have partnered with the extreme right fringe to try to stop this effort in its tracks. We saw a lot of that this past summer.

Let me say this loud and clear: Eliminating the stranglehold that big insurance companies have on health care is one of the best parts of this bill, and, for the first time, 85 percent of the premium dollars have to go for health care, not for outrageous salaries and compensation.

We are poised for victory. We stand here today on the brink of history, with the opportunity to make good on a promise that will forever improve the lives of nearly 36 million Americans who have no health insurance. This is the most important vote we will ever take, and I am proud to stand here today.

With this bill we can end the constant worry by people who don't have insurance to cover sudden illness or an accident, who are the parents of a child who had severe brain trauma before he reached his teenage years and within a year or two could reach his lifetime cap on insurance, and though he was not yet a teenager, would be forever uninsurable in the United States of America.

We will stop telling women, as we discussed last night in the Rules Committee, that they have to pay 48 percent more for health insurance because, as it was explained last night, it is all right to do that because women have different diseases. We want to have an end to that.

How many small businesses in little towns in America have had to close up or to end coverage for employees because they could not afford exorbitant insurance premiums? Small business has to compete with big business and

gets no break on providing insurance for their employees.

And now this year we have literally thousands of organizations on our side favoring the bill. From AARP, who would never go for any bill that in any way would hurt senior citizens because that is their life's work, the Consumers Union, the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, they have all joined in this cause.

The reason we are here at this moment is because of the leadership of our Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, who is a powerful leader, a compassionate woman, and an inclusive colleague who deserves all the credit for bringing us here to this momentous event that we face today, the most momentous in the history of America.

Before we vote, it is also fitting that we recall the words of the late Senator Kennedy, who spoke as far back as 1978 about the lack of health care coverage in this country. Senator Kennedy said, ``One of the most shameful things about modern America is that in our unbelievably rich land, the quality of health care available to many of our people is unbelievably poor, and the cost is unbelievably high.''

I agree with Senator Kennedy. We cannot afford not to pass this legislation.

Now is our chance to fix our health care system, improve the lives of millions of Americans, and make more corporations in America competitive in a global economy.

With great heartfelt thanks to our great Speaker pro tempore this morning, Mr. Dingell, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a Member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining?

Then I will continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 30 seconds because I need to answer Mr. Stearns.

Mr. Stearns asks why are the veterinarians covered. Have you ever heard of swine flu? Have you ever heard about food safety? Have you ever heard that 70 percent of all of the antibiotics produced in the United States are given to cattle and poultry even though they are not ill? But swine flu should make you worry a little bit, don't you think?

I want to spend the rest of my 30 seconds saying this morning we have heard all kinds of nonsense about the dire things that will happen from this bill. This bill does not add one cent to the deficit certified by the CBO. In fact, it reduces it.

Mr. Speaker, 68 percent of Americans want this bill very seriously, and I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Dr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, that's not the way it is. There are no illegal aliens in this bill who get anything at all.

I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful, exciting day for us and the culmination of nearly 100 years of work that we will join the community of nations that believe that the people who live within them are deserving of decent health care, all of them, regardless of their financial situation.

This is such a step that I am proud that my life has brought me to this moment today; and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you share with every fiber of your being the same idea that we have finally reached the day when we will all brace ourselves to meet the duty ahead and will say to the future that this was our finest hour.

I request a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years, we lived in this House in peaceful co-existence with the pros and cons getting together on the fact that the Hyde amendment said that no Federal money can be spent--the strongest conscience clause in the world--which is now being strengthened, by the way, in this bill. We on our side simply have the law.

I am very concerned about this bill because, in my own case and in the cases of many of my colleagues, it means 30 or 40 years of our life is being canceled out with this amendment. After the things that we have fought for, we are driving now, I am afraid, young women and poor women who cannot afford to buy their own insurance policies out of their pockets back to the back alley. I dread to see that day.

Mr Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 841, 842, and 843. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes Nos. 841, 842, and 843.

Mr. Speaker, while working with Secretary John McHugh for many years as a fellow Upstate New York Representative, I had the privilege of getting to know him not only as a Representative but as a friend. Throughout his time in the House of Representatives, Congressman John McHugh has more than demonstrated his qualifications to serve as the Secretary of the Army.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there are few things that say more about our country and our trust in the public's right to know than the Freedom of Information Act. It is one of the most powerful statements of openness and transparency that we have. It affords ordinary people the ability to peer behind the curtains of power and see inside the many bureaucracies that define the Federal, State and local governments in this country. It is a symbol for all, that despite anything else that our government does in the name of the people, there should be no secrets.

Over the years, FOIA laws have been used for a wide range of purposes. FOIA helped us to discover the ugly truth about the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the 1960s. And FOIA was also used to uncover data showing that Ford Pintos were built with serious dual system defects that made them more prone to fire and explosions.

In some ways, FOIA is simply a reminder to the public that there is an avenue to pursue if they believe the government is keeping a secret. At the heart of FOIA is the concept that the people's right to know is more important than the government's desire to keep things secret.

The FOIA laws in this country have enabled reporters and citizens from all spectrums access to information that otherwise might never see the light of day. Signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, the FOIA laws allow for the full or partial disclosure of information and documents with only a narrow list of important exemptions.

And so it was with some dismay when I learned recently that the House and Senate conferees on the Homeland Security appropriations bill had slipped in a provision that gives the government the option of making old photos of detainee abuse exempt from the FOIA laws.

This case has already followed a lengthy path beginning with a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Pentagon. Last spring, when it appeared that the lawsuit might go against the government, the administration responded by asking some Members of the House and Senate to insert language into the legislation to make sure that the photos stay secret.

Joining the ACLU against the Pentagon was the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, Cable News Network, Inc., the E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Co., Inc., the Hearst Corporation, Military Reporters and Editors, the National Press Club, NBC Universal, Inc., The New York Times Company, the Newspaper Association of America, the Newspaper Guild--CWA, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, The Washington Post, and me.

Never mind that the photos in question likely have very little value given that a similar set of photos showing the abuse were released under the Bush administration. Despite some complaints that releasing photos would place service men and women in danger, the fact is there was absolutely no increase in violence or attacks after the previous detainee photos were released. I assume that if we were to release the new photos, the result would be the same. Americans were simply able to find out what was being done in their name.

Many observers argue that releasing the photos was actually a clear break from the abuses of the past and a signal to our allies and to everyone else that the days of this type of detainee mistreatment were over and that the United States is willing to come to terms with past practices. Indeed, we have said so.

In June, I and other House leaders prevailed and the FOIA exemption was dropped from the legislation. However, the conferees, apparently under direct orders, quietly put it back into the bill this month. It's hard for me to express how disappointed I am with that decision. I am sorry because I believed that we had turned a page from the cloud of suspicion and secrecy that marked the previous administration. It runs so counter to our principles and stated desire to reject abuses of the past.

The FOIA laws in this country form a pillar of our First Amendment principles. It is unfortunate, given that this administration promised that openness and transparency would be the norm. We should never do anything to circumvent FOIA, and I believe our country would gain more by coming to terms with the past than we would by covering it up.

I hope the President will follow judicial rulings and consider voluntarily releasing these photos so we can put this chapter in history behind us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my great gratitude to Mr. Costello for the incredible work that he's done on this in such a short period of time. And those of us who live in the area of the Colgan crash are greatly in his debt. I thank Mr. Petri for all of the good work. I think this is indeed one of the best safety bills that we've done since I've been in Congress.

Nothing in the bill before us can do anything to bring back the lives that were lost on that cold night in Buffalo back in February when Colgan Air Flight 3407 fell to the ground and exploded into fire. But I am happy to be here today because the House is moving forward with legislation that includes the strong new set of guidelines for improving passenger and crew safety.

This Act will mean safer flights for all of us. As we learned during the NTSB hearings into this issue over the summer, there are far too many pilots flying regional planes who are overextended, undertrained, or exhausted.

The bill establishes comprehensive preemployment screening for prospective pilots and requires airlines to establish pilot mentoring programs so that the highly experienced pilots can mentor more junior pilots, surely an issue in the Colgan crash. In fact, junior pilots will no longer fly alongside a junior pilot under the bill.

In addition, there are new mandates that grew out of the NTSB safety hearings earlier this year: requiring the FAA to ensure that pilots are trained on stall recovery and upset recovery, mandates that the FAA convene a multidisciplinary panel on pilot training for stick pusher operations, and then take action to implement the recommendations of the panel.

It came as a surprise to me that the NTSB ideas were only suggestions to the FAA. So obviously we're going to have to make sure that they're implemented.

There is also a section in the bill to create the new database which Mr. Costello has explained, but most importantly, it requires the Secretary of Transportation to give us an annual report on what they're doing to address each open NTSB recommendation pertaining to small air carriers like Colgan.

I am so grateful for this bill.