Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, today, the House of Representatives took a long awaited step toward improving the lives of America's working- class and middle-class families. For far too long, the playing field has been tilted against workers and the unions that represent them. Today's House passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which I strongly supported, will help balance the inequity in the relationship between management and workers; an inequity that management has far too often used to stifle the will of workers.

An objective review of the recent history of labor relations in this country shows that in the majority of cases employer coercion, intimidation, and harassment have been used as tools to manipulate and successfully thwart union organizing drives.

Workers are often fired or otherwise discriminated against because of their efforts to organize. One out of every four employers illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during an organizing campaign; 78 percent of employers force their employees to attend one- on-one meetings with their supervisors to hear anti-union messages; and 92 percent force employees to attend mandatory, captive audience anti- union meetings.

Clearly, even when a solid majority of employees have requested employer recognition of union representation, the more likely reaction of management has been to launch repressive anti-union campaigns rife with illegal tactics.

During the minority party's 12 years of power in Congress, and now 6 years in the White House, case after case of illegal employer intimidation leveled against union organizing efforts would arise. That little was often done in response only encouraged impunity among the forces opposed to negotiating with workers in good faith.

Now, is the Democratic Party's turn to hold the reins of power in this institution, and with this legislation, the Democratic majority demonstrates its unyielding commitment to workers' rights and a decent life for all working Americans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, my uncle said a generation ago: If we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time, at every crisis, we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made once again for just one more step up the ladder. And once again the President tells us that we are going to win; victory is coming.''

My Uncle Robert Kennedy made this statement in March of 1968. It took another 5 years and 37,455 American lives before a United States President was withdrawing Americans out of Vietnam and stopping that war.

I am here tonight to say that the American people and this Congress are going to say ``no'' to this President when it comes to repeating that mistake.

There are those who will disparage this amendment and who say that this is a nonbinding resolution. But this resolution says that we are going to reject this President's doubling down on the gambling of American lives, and this foolish policy which has sent over 3,125 soldiers to their deaths, over 23,417 wounded soldiers back home, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis to their graves and countless more also injured.

We are saying in this resolution that we either have to start digging ourselves out of this hole, or we are going to start rueing the day when we have failed to act tonight to start changing course.

This administration's bullheaded insistence, bullheaded insistence on ideology over strategy is what has gotten us into this mess, and now that same stubbornness is counseling us to send still more soldiers and more Marines into an Iraqi civil war.

Our service men and women have been heroic. They have been confronted with repeated civilian failures of leadership, ill equipped and under equipped, and yet in increasingly untenable positions they have been unflinching and have been uncomplaining in their shouldering of every burden we have asked of them, and they have done it with dignity and professionalism. But it is not right. It is not right to ask them, to ask the military to bear the burden of the responsibility of solving someone else's civil war. It is not right, and it won't work.

Instead of closing our eyes and crossing our fingers and giving this President a rubber stamp for an endless civil war in Iraq, we should be beginning to move our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership.

Our choice tonight is clear: Keep digging, or climb our way out of this hole. I think this Congress will decide to start climbing our way out.

And there will be many who will say, what will we do then? I will say, well, maybe we will propose to fence off the funds as many have suggested. That will be a debate for another day. That will be a debate for another day whether we will fence off the funds. But tonight will be the debate, and tomorrow will be the decision as to whether we will vote to go in that direction.

So you can say it is a meaningless, nonbinding resolution all you want, but it is the first conversation as to which direction we are going to go, and that is the direction we have to decide, and I vote that we go in the direction of starting to move our way and our troops out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, ``if we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time--at every crisis--we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made again for just one more step up the ladder. . . . And once again the President tells us that `we are going to win'; `victory' is coming.''

My uncle, Robert Kennedy, spoke these words in March 1968, It took another 5 years and another 37,455 American lives before a U.S. President finally withdrew American troops from Vietnam.

I will not stand by, the American people will not stand by, and allow the President to repeat that mistake.

Some disparage this resolution because it's nonbinding. But with due respect, I couldn't disagree more. This resolution represents a fundamental policy choice by this Congress.

It's about whether you agree with doubling down the President's high stakes gamble with American lives.

This resolution poses a simple choice. After 4 years, after 3,125 deaths, after more than 23,417 wounded, are we digging our hole in Iraq even deeper, or are we strong enough to start climbing out?

We need a stronger America, a more secure America and that begins with a rejection of the failed strategy in Iraq.

It has now been nearly 4 years since the President declared that in Iraq, our mission was accomplished.

Four years of disintegration. Four years of unfounded insistence that the turning point is right around the corner.

Are we digging deeper, or climbing out?

We have watched a child hug their parents tight on the tarmac--only to have to let go as Morn or Dad is deployed for the second, third, or even fourth time.

We have stood at the graveside with a grieving family as a Gold Star mother accepts a folded American flag.

We have visited our Nation's newest veterans in the hospital, their bodies and minds scarred by the horrors of war.

Are we digging deeper, or climbing out?

Each day we all see, with our own eyes, the carnage and the chaos that has become the norm in Iraq.

The administration's bull-headed insistence on ideology over strategy has led us to where we are today. And now, that same stubbornness is counseling some to send still more of our soldiers and marines into an Iraqi civil war.

Our current course is failing in Iraq. It's failing the bigger struggle against our terrorist enemies. It's failing our troops and their families. And it's failing our core values as Americans.

I won't settle for that failure. We must change course. We must begin to climb out of the hole in Iraq.

Democrats, Republicans, generals, and most importantly, the American people now see that it is time for a new plan; it is time to embrace a new approach.

Our service men and women have been heroic. Confronted with repeated civilian failures of leadership, underequipped, and in an increasingly untenable position, our troops have not flinched, they have not complained, they have shouldered every burden we ask of them with dignity and professionalism.

But it is not right to place upon our military the responsibility of solving someone else's civil war. It's not right, and it won't work.

Instead of closing our eyes, crossing our fingers, and giving the President a rubber stamp for endless war in Iraq, we should begin moving our country back to a commonsense policy of strength through leadership.

Our strong leaders of the last century, like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, recognized that while American military might was important, American values were our greatest strength.

We rallied the world in the Second World War and defeated the Soviets in the cold war on the strength of our Nation's democratic ideals. For the entire 20th century, we led by our example, and by the force of our principles.

While military action will continue to be a necessary component of our current struggle, ultimate victory against this generation of enemies will similarly be won not on the battlefield, but in the minds of millions around the world. That victory is impossible while we are in the middle of Iraq's civil war.

Our choice today is clear. Keep digging or climb out? If we decide to begin climbing out, as I think we will, there are debates yet to come about the best way to do that--whether we should fence off funds to prevent an escalation, for example. I look forward to those conversations. But today is a more fundamental question about the direction of our country.

We can withdraw from Iraq without withdrawing from the fight. We can be strong enough to climb out of that hole. For our troops, for their families, and for our Nation's strength and security, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 74 and No. 75 I was unable to make the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both No. 74 and No. 75.

Madam Speaker, imagine having a child with a potentially fatal disease. Imagine the pain of watching your child suffer, even while effective treatments are out there, only not available to your family. Now imagine that you had to choose between watching your child in agony, maybe even slowly dying, or getting her the care she needs but only by relinquishing your parental rights.

This kind of choice is barbaric, senseless, and common.

I rise in support of the Keeping Families Together Act, a collective effort initiated by myself, Representative Ramstad, Representative Stark, and Senator Collins dedicated to improving the lives of children and adolescents living with mental disorders. The time is now to close systemic shortfalls in our social service and health care systems that revictimize children who suffer from chronic mental health disorders.

Every year in this country, thousands of families are forced to relinquish custody of their children to the state in order to secure vitally necessary--even life or death--health care for their seriously ill children. These needed services are extremely expensive and private insurance often runs out prior to children being adequately treated. The financial burden of caring for a child with a chronic mental illness often exceeds what a family can bear. Many of these children remain Medicaid-ineligible because their parents' income and assets prevent them for qualifying for this assistance. These are not families who want to turn their children over to state authorities. These are reluctant families. Families who have suffered, and have arrived at the all too painful reality that they have exhausted all resources available short of turning their child over to the State.

The choice between custody and care is one that no parent should be forced to make. Clinical child experts tell us that the best place for a child to receive care is in the context of a supportive family relationship. Intuitively, we know this to be true. The family is the primary institution of care and nurturing for children, and families should be empowered to provide the needed care for their children through access and support.

The cornerstone of the Keeping Families Together Act is the provision of competitive grants to states, conditioned on the existence of state laws and policies to ensure that children receive appropriate mental health services and that their parents do not have to relinquish custody of their children. These Family Support Grants will in part: (1) establish interagency systems of care as an alternative to custody relinquishment, (2) facilitate the design of a statewide system of care which would involve collaboration between state child-serving agencies, parents, providers, and other stakeholders, (3) only fund activities which demonstrate benefit to children who are already in or are at risk for entering state custody solely for the purpose of receiving mental health services.

This bill would establish a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, make recommendations to Congress, and guide the implementation of the grant program. States will be required to report annually on the success of the programs and activities implemented by the State under the grant.

The Keeping Families Together Act seeks to redress the inexcusable emotional disruption that is inflicted upon thousands of children and their parents by maintaining a system of care that forces good families to relinquish custody of their children to the bureaucrats and institutions of the state. Nobody can think that kind of system is good for anyone, and it's no wonder this bill has broad bipartisan support. It is counterproductive, and clinically counter-indicated, to separate emotionally vulnerable children from their core system of nurturing and support. The Keeping Families Together Act provides the safety net that families need and deserve, because parental rights should never be a trade off for children's health care.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this law this year and keep these families together.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our Nation's oil companies made $97 billion in profits, five times the profits they made in 2002. In the last 3 years, their profits per gallon of gasoline

went from 15 cents per gallon of gas that you pumped in your car to 50 cents last year.

So just think of it. Today, when you put your gallon of gas in the car, oil and gas is taking 50 cents a gallon for profits. That is scandalous.

Now, if you want to challenge me, I ask the press to challenge me. And if oil and gas wants to disprove my facts, I ask the oil and gas industry to disprove my facts. Open up your books, oil and gas companies, and disprove what I have to say to you today.

Otherwise, let's pass this bill and give back to the people of this country some of the excess profits these companies have been taking from the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4, legislation that will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan and my good friend, the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his good work on this legislation in bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important day, because this is a day where we take this Congress back from the special interests. We take it back from the drug companies and the HMOs, and we give it back to the people of this country and to the taxpayers. We take it from the drug companies who are charging excessive costs for profits for these prescription drugs to the detriment of our senior citizens who are paying exponentially high drug costs in the donut hole, and our taxpayers, who are paying 80 percent higher for these costs, and now we are going to be able to save those taxpayers and those consumers dollars by negotiating lower drug costs.

The taxpayers and the consumers are winners under H.R. 4. I urge its passage.

I am thrilled to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4, legislation that will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan, and my good friend and Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his work to bring this issue to the floor today.

I hear my friends on the other side of aisle singing praises for Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug plan.

But I wonder if the constituents I speak with receive the same benefit that these members are describing.

When I meet with seniors back home in Rhode Island, I hear about confusing formularies and crippling costs in the so-called ``donut hole.''

I hear about nursing home patients who are no longer able to afford their new co-pays.

And then I hear a statistic stating that drug prices under Part D are more than 80 percent higher than prices negotiated by other agencies in the federal government.

When the Medicare Part D law was written, the drug companies had the loudest voice at the table.

Today, we are here to bring the voice of our seniors back to the bargaining table, and back to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 4 and to put the needs of the American people before those of special interests.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from Colorado and the gentleman from Delaware for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today. I must also extend my thanks to our distinguished Speaker for her commitment to returning the House to the hands of the American people during the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress.

I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Each year, dozens of health advocacy groups flood my Washington, D.C., office to discuss the importance of medical research. While all experiences are memorable, the difficulties faced by the children with Type I, or juvenile diabetes, really stay with me.

Last year, a brother and sister, ages four and five, visited my office and shared with me their hatred of needles, and how much they would like to enjoy birthday cake and other foods with their friends. They didn't understand why they were chosen to be sick. They didn't understand why there are people in D.C. blocking bills that would help them get better. These children had one simple request, to pass a law to increase the most promising research tool available that may lead to a cure for their disease.

Advancements in science and technology have put our Nation in the position to make breakthroughs for these children. How did the President respond to their request? He made this bill the first veto of his Presidency. Everyone in this Nation knows someone, or has a friend or family member, who could benefit from stem cell research.

It is time for a new direction for America and it is time for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to become law.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, on December 8 and 9 in Taiwan, there will be an important gathering of legislators from Pacific Rim nations to discuss the role of congresses or legislatures in the growing number of democracies developing across Asia.

The meeting has been convened by the Pacific Congressional Caucus, an arm of the Democratic Pacific Union, DPU, a regional organization of Pacific Rim democracies.

Legislative leaders from 20 nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and the host Taiwan are expected to participate. It is unfortunate that, because of our legislative schedule, no member of this House or of the other body are able to attend.

However, Mr. Speaker, I did want to take note of this important meeting that will focus on the role of Congress in the various democratic governing models, such as the parliamentary system and the presidential system. Another important set of discussions will focus on the issue of legislative elections in various democracies, how they are conducted, and how they are financed.

I congratulate Taiwan's political leaders who were instrumental in creating the DPU and the Pacific Congressional Caucus. Taiwan's Vice President Annette Lu was the prime mover in bringing the DPU into existence and the Speaker of Taiwan's Legislative Yuan, Wang Jin-Pyng, was instrumental in establishing the Pacific Congressional Caucus and in organizing such meetings as the one this weekend.

This effort in Taiwan has been truly bipartisan, with Vice President Lu a member of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, and Speaker Wang a key leader of the Nationalist Party, known as the KMT.

Because Taiwan is one of Asia's most dynamic democracies, it is fitting that Taiwan has been instrumental in forming the DPU and the Caucus and in organizing this symposium. I congratulate Taiwan and wish all the participants a rewarding series of meetings.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud today to introduce the Personalized Health Information Act, which I hope will be a step in helping us redesign America's health care system.

Our health care system today delivers some of the best care in the world, but can hardly be described as the best health care system. We spend more than 50% more on health care per capita than other industrialized nations, and yet our health outcomes are much worse. We all know the burden that health care costs are putting on America's families and businesses.

Many of us have extolled the potential of information technology to begin transforming health care. I.T. can unlock data that is trapped in paper, catch human errors, help providers deliver the latest evidence- based medicine, improve public health, reduce duplication and administrative costs, and provide new research capabilities. I.T. is by no means a silver bullet, but it is a tool that can be used to reorient health care, so that--finally--the system delivers the right care to the right people at the right time, as efficiently as possible.

I've introduce other bills on this subject, and House and Senate negotiators are currently trying to work out a compromise health I.T. bill, but this bill today is a new approach. Those other bills, mine and others', have generally focused on the challenges of putting technology in providers' hands and building the related infrastructure. That goal is critical, and we pursue it vigorously. But it also is long-term.

I believe that there are other, parallel steps we can take that can begin harnessing the power of technology to improve health outcomes and efficiency right now. And I think we can do so in a way that will begin changing the dynamics around health I.T. in a way that makes the longer-term goals more attainable.

Web-based, consumer-controlled patient health records, PHRs, have been recognized by many to have great potential. After all, a PHR that contains a person's basic demographics, insurance information, and a current medications list would be extremely valuable, even if it contained nothing else. That PHR would mean every provider would have important basic information at the point of care. It would cut down on medication errors, and streamline administration.

The problem is that while many organizations offer PHRs, few people actually use them. The Personalized Health Information Act is designed to jump-start the use of PHRs.

This bill seeks to use the doctor-patient relationship to make the PHRs of value to the patients. Right now, most individuals see PHRs

as a lot of work with little benefit. If doctors begin using them with patients, however, the patients can get something out o them. So this bill will ask doctors to use PHRs to replace those dreaded clipboards when patients come to the office. If physicians do that, PHRs become more attractive. The patient can take ten minutes to put their information into a PHR, and use it with any doctor. If their doctors use them, the person will never have to fill out another clipboard again.

Even better, the PHR can be a communications channel between doctor and patient. The physician, or other entities like the person's health plan or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the American Heart Association, can send messages to the patient. For example, the patient can receive a reminder that she is due for a mammogram, or her prescription needs to be refilled. If physicians are willing, many PHRs can be used to allow e-consults and online scheduling as well.

If we can bring a critical mass of consumers into PHRs, it could create a strong consumer demand for health I.T. that could dramatically accelerate adoption. And polls show that consumers do want the capabilities that PHRs provide. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal poll found that approximately three-quarters of respondents said in each case that they would like to be able to email their doctor, to schedule appointments online, to receive test results electronically, and to receive electronic reminders. Unfortunately, fewer than ten percent can do any of those things right now.

Once physicians begin tapping into this pent-up demand by offering to use PHRs, I believe large numbers of patients will enroll. And conversely, as patients begin using PHRs, they will want their physicians to do so as well. Banks initially paid customers to use ATMs, but now they compete on how many ATMs they have and the functionality of their online banking offerings. Similarly, once health care consumers begin seeing the convenience and benefits of information technology, providers will want to be able to meet that demand. In this way, widespread use of PHRs could help give providers the incentive to make the investments in electronic medical records and other information technologies.

PHRs carry the potential for significant health and efficiency gains by changing patient behavior. Research shows that when patients receive reminders and other messages, they better comply with prescriptions, preventive care, and other health care recommendations. When that happens, patient health improves, and it also brings financial benefits to health plans, purchasers, and pharmaceutical companies. Everyone wins.

The Personalized Health Information Act would tap the value-added of PHRs by creating a public-private PHR Incentive Fund to pay physicians and other providers an incentive of at least $2 for every patient with whom they use a PHR. The doctor simply needs to use the PHR in lieu of the clipboard, ensure that the patient's medications list is updated after the appointment, and use the PHR for communicating with the patient in appropriate circumstances. These requirements would be carried out by office staff and put minimal burden on doctors. Medicare would contribute $2 to the Fund for each beneficiar enrolled, and private plans, drug and device manufacturers, and other private parties could do the same.

To qualify physicians for the payment, PHRs will need to meet certain minimum standards. They need to be entirely in the control of the individual, and will have to guarantee the portability of the data, so that the individual can take the information at any time. They'll have to meet interoperability standards and privacy and security standards. The PHR will also need to be able to send patient-specific messages in appropriate situations. Partners in the Fund would be able to have messages sent to patients with whom they have relationships via the PHRs, with strong safeguards to ensure that the messages are independently verified to be objective, accurate, and relevant to the patient. Absolutely no marketing or solicitations would be permitted. The individual must have the right to opt out of these messages, either entirely or from particular sources, at any time. In addition, the bill creates a Consumer Protection Board to ensure that these standards are met.

By paying incentives to physicians from a public-private fund, the Personalized Health Information Act captures the value that PHRs can create while tapping the strongest force in health care: the doctor- patient relationship.

This bill is not a silver bullet, Mr. Speaker, and will not solve all of the challenges inherent in moving from a 20th century pen-and-paper system to a digital system for the 21st century. But it can inexpensively and quickly give millions of consumers and physicians a stake in that transition.

Before I close, I want to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Edward Fotsch, who has done much to develop the ideas underlying this bill and has helped pull together feedback and input from physicians, consumer groups, payers, pharmaceutical companies, and others. I also need to express a debt of gratitude--again--to former Speaker Newt Gingrich and David Merritt at the Center for Health Transformation, who have been unlikely but terrific allies in the quest for, as Speaker Gingrich would say, a 21st century intelligent health system.

There are too many Americans who are being let down by a health care system that is unable to consistently and efficiently deliver the world-class care that it is capable of. I hope that this legislation will bring us one step closer to the health care system we need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on sovereignty in this country on behalf of Native Americans, our very first Americans, the people who had America before Europeans settlers came here to take their land.

When the European settlers took their land, they took it and made one promise: We will give you what little land you have left, we will let you stay on that land and we will let you be in charge of it. And we will incorporate that into our various systems of government where we have a State government, we have city government, we have county government, and we will have tribal governments. But for purposes of tribal governments, they will have sovereignty that will surpass States so that the only relationship that these tribal governments will have will be the relationship between them and the Federal Government superseding States.

This was a part of the Constitution. It was decided by the Constitution and this legislation undermines that premise and forces tribes to negotiate with local counties, which is undermining 200 years of Federal policy for tribal sovereignty.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on this because its substance is bad, and the fact that it is being rushed through is bad as well.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned prescription drugs a number of times. I think it is analogous to this debate, because that was a debate that took place late at night, and you used the elderly and their need of prescription drugs to pass a trillion-dollar bill that benefited the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies in this country.

The people of the United States know that, and they are going to see it again tonight. You are using people in order to pass your agenda for the very wealthy in this country and it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this issue for several years. I have met with countless groups across this country. I have forged bipartisan relationships to bring a solid piece of legislation before this House, and today I am disappointed to say that this legislation does not meet the mark.

The Congressional Budget Office itself has said this legislation, quote, would not significantly affect either the rate at which the use of health technology will grow or how well that technology will be designed and implemented.

So what is the point? If we cannot get this technology in the hands of the providers, what are we doing here? This legislation does not require us to adopt standards that are interoperability standards for all on a date certain. We need to do this within the next year and a half. We could do this within the next year.

We should be taking this opportunity and passing real health care information technology legislation; but, instead, we are passing a shadow of a bill that misses the opportunity to pass real opportunities for savings, both in people's lives and in countless dollars across this country.

Mr. Speaker, we spend twice what every other industrialized nation spends on health care. It is the worst system when it comes to employers paying incredible premiums. We see employees paying incredible premiums. We are seeing providers complain. Nobody is happy with the current health care system; and, yet, what are we doing about it? We are missing the opportunity today.

We could provide technology today that would help us implement quality standards so that when you are being treated, whether it is in Iowa or Rhode Island or New York, you get the same standard of care. But are those quality provisions in this bill? No, they are not.

We can make sure that we have provisions in this bill to have the privacy protections in place, as Mr. Markey just talked about. Are they in this bill? No, they are not.

How can we have an IT bill that does not set a date certain for technology, that does not have quality provisions in place so that we can use technology to bring the best and evidence-based medicines to the bedside? How can we not have provisions to protect privacy in an age when we are going electronic in health care records?

Mr. Speaker, this bill falls way short of our opportunities to make a fundamental change in our health care system. I am sorry I am going to have to oppose this rule. I am going to have to oppose this bill because I think it falls way short of the opportunities we have been given to make the most of this chance to get a better health care system today. We are squandering that chance. For that reason, I will oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Stark for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking today about the potential to revolutionize our health care system by means of technology that we are using in almost every other industry currently in our society except the industry that probably could benefit the most from it, and that is our health care system.

We are after this for many different reasons, but one of the reasons I am after it for is because I want to reduce the cost of health care for my constituents. My constituents, whether they be businesses that are paying exorbitant premiums for their workers, or the workers who are paying high premiums themselves, or whether it is not only the consumer, but it is even the providers that are getting shortchanged on their reimbursement, no one is happy with the current health care system.

So, Mr. Chairman, what we could do today is do what has been already outlined by the Rand report, which says we could save $162 billion in direct costs because we would now not have to duplicate care if we have care now that is tracked, so we don't have to go to four different doctors and not have each doctor repeat the same test.

We can now make sure that the best in care gets to everybody, because now the evidence base will be available to all doctors, no matter where they live in this country, so people will get the same and the best of care.

But, frankly, Mr. Chairman, this bill doesn't do it. This bill doesn't do it. Why? Because it doesn't implement the quality standards to ensure that people get that good care. It doesn't ensure that we move quickly to the adoption, because, one, it sets up the adoption date too far in the future. Why are we waiting? If we are acknowledging this is important, why are we putting this off?

Next, when it comes to making sure that there is privacy, I don't frankly understand how we can go into an electronic age in medical records and not ensure that people's personal medical privacy is protected.

For those reasons, I will be voting against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a few questions to my colleagues about this privacy law.

Do you think it should be a violation of Federal health privacy law to be able to hack into an electronic database for health information? I think it should be against the law. But it is not against the law.

If a hospital employee accesses your health record, for example, for a famous movie star and sells it to a tabloid, do you think that is wrong? Well, that is not against the law now. If you can allow a hospital information to be accessible through an information network, this is now permissible.

All of these things are permissible under the HIPAA law. And if you do not like that, you are going to hate what this bill does to HIPAA, which is going to magnify it 100 times. There is going to be no protection for privacy whatsoever.

And that is why I ask all of you to join us in the motion to recommit. Your constituents will thank you for it if you vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Companies that are in the business of storing patient health information online are not covered under HIPAA. Are not covered under HIPAA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment with the President's decision to use his veto power to reject the Congress's will to see H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, become public law, and I stand in support of millions of Americans who will benefit from the promises of embryonic stem cell research. Each year, I meet several hundred, perhaps thousands, of constituents who share with me how Federal support of embryonic stem cell research could vastly change their lives. There are a few constituents in particular who stand out on this issue. Late last year, Maddie and Tommy Poulin, just 4 and 5 years old, traveled from Rhode Island to Washington. These two young children talked with me about what their life is like with Type I Diabetes. In a journal they left with me, Maddie included an entry that said, ``I really hope you can help us find a cure, we're not asking for a lot, we just want to live without needles.''

Stem cell research also holds promise for those suffering from Parkinson's disease, like my good friend, and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell. Senator Pell's contributions to our country are too numerous to list, but I know his legacy is honored everyday when individuals are able to attend college with the assistance of a Pell Grant. He stood up for those without a voice for over 35 years, and now it is time for us to stand up for him.

Sue Sgambato, a cancer survivor living in Rhode Island, visits my office regularly to advocate on behalf of patients in our State. Rhode Island has one of the highest rates of cancer in the Nation, and stem cell research may provide clues on how to beat this devastating disease. I cannot and will not stand by and let one more person be diagnosed with cancer, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, or multiple sclerosis without holding the President responsible for his action today.

It is absolutely tragic that President Bush has used his very first and only veto on an issue of such importance to American families. Every family in America has a loved one who is suffering from a disease that could benefit from the advances of stem cell research. This veto is only the latest action that President Bush has taken against medical research. He has also level funded the National Institutes of Health, and cut programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), limiting our Nation's ability to find better treatments and cures for diseases.

President Bush had a choice today, and he chose politics over people. I want to assure my friends in Congress, as well as the people of the First District of Rhode Island, that today's veto is not the end to this debate, it is only the beginning. Congress has voted overwhelmingly in support of stem cell research, and this bill remains a top priority for a majority of elected officials. I promise that I will continue to do everything within my power to get this legislation back to the President's desk, and to get this language into our public law. We will be back, and we will succeed.

Madam Speaker, if this issue were not so serious it would be a joke. The Republican majority today is talking about a Pledge of Allegiance where they are saying that we should include the words ``under God'' as they have been historically in our country. They preach God all the time. They even call themselves the Christian Coalition. But you look at their policies, and you would not see anything Christian about their policies.

My Aunt Rosemary was mentally retarded. If she didn't come from my family and have all of the financial support to give her, all of the support she needed, under the Republican Medicaid budget, she would have to live in the right State in order to get the support of services she needed because this Republican Congress has cut funding for the developmentally disabled in this country.

The very people who are treating the most vulnerable people in our society, the handicapped, the people who are living in group homes, in institutions, those people are being paid the least. They are being paid the minimum wage. They are taking care of God's children, God's children, and yet this majority says they want to make sure they stand up for God.

Where is their religiosity when it comes to standing up for the children of God? Where is their sense of justice when it comes to making sure that we treat others with the dignity and respect that God would have us treat one another with?

This is a joke, Madam Speaker, that this majority would talk about God and yet not even work to raise the wages of the very people that are taking care of the children of God.

Madam Speaker, in 1960 my uncle, President Kennedy, in one of his remarks in the inaugural address said, ultimately, our truest test here on Earth, we need to make sure we do God's will, because God's work is ultimately our own.

I find it so interesting that when it comes to our implementing the kinds of things that this gentleman would say we are somehow being inconsistent; it is really my point that the gentleman is being inconsistent, saying that he is for making sure we have God in our Pledge of Allegiance, but that God does not exist anywhere else in the Republican majority positions.