John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,'' legislation that establishes an antitrust remedy for anticompetitive and discriminatory practices by broadband service providers. I am joined by Representative Lofgren. Over the last ten years, the Internet has gone from its infancy through a period of exponential growth. Today, it is estimated that over 1.3 billion people use the Internet--that is almost 20 percent of the world's population. In the last 7 years alone, the worldwide use of the Internet has jumped 265 percent. The Internet has become the dominant venue for the expression of ideas and public discourse. From social networking to get-out-the-vote drives, the Internet is now a leading tool for speech and action. Web sites like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Monster have changed the way people of all ages connect socially and professionally. Political candidates raise more money online with each election cycle. Newspaper Web sites and independent blogs have revolutionized the ways in which news and media are disseminated and consumed. And the Internet has opened up new performance venues to emerging artists and entertainers. In these and many other ways, the technological innovation in communication made possible by the Internet has made it among the most powerful outlets for creativity and free speech. However, some of the Internet Service Providers, which control 96 percent of the residential market for high-speed Internet access, and are either monopolies or duopolies in most areas of the country, have proposed to give favored treatment to some Internet content and disfavored treatment to other content. Under these proposed business models, what treatment you get will be determined by how much you pay or, potentially, whether the Internet service provider approves of the content or whether the provider has a financial interest at stake. Under these regimes, many of the innovations and ideas that we have enjoyed on the Internet may never have occurred. We would never have had a Google search engine or YouTube videos if ``pay to play'' had been our national policy. To be sure, if we go in this direction, it will stifle both future technological innovation and free speech. Rather than attempt regulation of the industry, we believe an antitrust remedy is the most appropriate way to deal with the problem. The antitrust laws exist to correct distortions of the free market, where monopolies or cartels have cornered the market, and competition is not being allowed to work. The antitrust laws can help maintain a free and open Internet. The ``Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008'' amends the Clayton Act to require that broadband service providers interconnect with the facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis. It also requires them to operate their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner so that all content, applications and services are treated the same and have an equal opportunity to reach consumers. The bill expressly preserves the ability of broadband service providers to manage their network, so long as it is done in a nondiscriminatory manner, and the bill allows the operators to give priority to emergency communications and take reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to prevent violations of the law. Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone and everything. The Internet was designed without gatekeepers for new content and services and without centralized control. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, start-up companies might never be able to offer their products, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available, and the artists and thinkers of our time could find their speech censored.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4279) to enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I think I have only one speaker left, but might I say a word about the distinguished ranking member, Lamar Smith of Texas, who's worked with us incredibly, with deliberation. He's brought parties together. There has been an enormous amount of work behind the scenes for which nobody knows how much he's done to make this possible. I thank him publicly. I now yield the rest of our time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise now to yield to my dear friend and chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee who's worked on this subject matter for so many years. Howard Berman has been a bellwether in bringing together the groups, and I'm happy to yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we move to dramatically step up our Nation's intellectual property laws and enforcement efforts. With so much unpleasant economic news in the headlines, the measure before us, H.R. 4279, puts resources towards aiding a sector of the economy that employs an estimated 18 million workers. That is 13 percent of our labor force and accounts for half of all of the United States exports driving 40 percent of the country's growth. As a result of less-than-effective enforcement, however, counterfeiting and piracy cost the United States' economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion a year and creates the loss of about 750,000 American jobs. And so H.R. 4279 will do these important things: It will prioritize intellectual property protection to the highest level of our government by creating an office in the White House that will be responsible for coordinating the intellectual property efforts of eight diverse agencies and producing a national Joint Strategic Plan for IP enforcement. It will elevate IP enforcement within the Department of Justice and provide more resources for investigating and prosecuting IP crimes. It will make changes to both civil and criminal IP laws to enhance the ability of intellectual property owners to effectively protect their rights, and it will increase penalties for IP violations that endanger public health and safety. Throughout the process of developing this bill, we heard many expressions of support as well as a number of expressions of concern. But we've been able to work out these issues on a bipartisan basis at every step of the process. I congratulate the distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, for their cooperation in this process. And so now as a result, the measure is supported by the Consumer Electronics Association, the Digital Media Association, the Net Coalition, the Internet Commerce Coalition, the Coalition for Consumers' Picture Rights, the Printing Industries Association and more. That is in addition to the support we've already had from the Teamsters, the Directors Guild of America, SEIU, AFTRA, Unite Here, AFM, OPEIU, the Coalition Against Counterfeiting in Piracy, the Motor Equipment Manufacturing Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, PHARMA, and NBC Universal. Intellectual property protection is among the key issues that will determine American competitiveness in the 21st century. The ability to create, innovate, and generate the best artistic, technological, and knowledge-based intellectual property is the formula for continued growth in the global economy and is fundamental to the promotion of human progress. This committee of ours, the Judiciary Committee, has given these items involved in the measure extensive consideration, lots of compromise back and forth, and we feel that this bill will make important contributions to the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. It was reported by voice with strong bipartisan statements of support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I follow suit and yield back any time remaining on this side.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5690) to exempt the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or events, provide relief for certain members of the African National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and incorporate extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, the African National Congress is a rare example of an oppressed people fighting for their freedom and then leading a successful and peaceful transition to a modern nation. The fight went on for years, underground and in exile, against the morally bankrupt apartheid system in South Africa. And once they prevailed, their response to gaining political power was not retribution and reprisals, but truth and reconciliation. Notwithstanding this peaceful transition, the United States had not gotten around to giving ANC leaders the opportunity to enter this country because certain provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act currently require us to consider them still as terrorists. After the attacks on 9/11, Congress sought to exclude and remove terrorists from the United States by strengthening the terrorism bars in our immigration laws. In doing so, however, we inadvertently covered groups and individuals whom we did not intend to, including allies and even victims of terrorism. These bars have been used against the brave men and women who fought side by side with United States forces in Southeast Asia. They've been used against those who used armed resistance to defend themselves against brutal and repressive regimes, such as those in Cuba and Burma. They've even been used against women who were raped and enslaved by armed militia in Liberia. And as we recognize today, they've been used against members of the African National Congress, including the great leader, Nelson Mandela. This has had profound effects, preventing us from protecting vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers and resulting in embarrassing denials of visas for Nelson Mandela himself and other foreign heads of state. We all know how Mr. Mandela and other ANC leaders suffered unjust incarceration for decades at the hands of the apartheid regime. We know how the apartheid regime labeled its opponents as terrorists, as communists, and anything else they could invent to accuse them of that was negative in an attempt to deflect criticism of their own institutions of repression and racial separation. And yet these people who steadfastly fought for freedom and chose a path for peace once they came to power are now blocked from entry to the United States. And so that's where this measure comes in. Congress has begun to take corrective action, and last year were removed a number of freedom-fighting groups from treatment as terrorist organizations. Today, we do the same for the ANC and its members. In addition to specifying that the ANC is not on the list of terrorist organizations under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the bill would also give discretionary authority to Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to admit individuals regardless of activities undertaken in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa. Finally, the bill would require the Secretary of State, in coordination with other agencies, to ensure that government databases are updated so that they are consistent with the exemptions provided in the bill. I'd like to thank committee chairman of the Judiciary, Howard Berman, but also in his capacity as the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and in memoriam, I'd like to remember the chairman that preceded Mr. Berman, Tom Lantos, for their work on this bill. I would like to insert into the Record at this point an exchange of letters between our two committees. And thanks again to the ranking member from Texas, Lamar Smith, whose bipartisan discussions have enabled us to reach this point. This is a noncontroversial bill that repairs something that should have been taken care of earlier. It closes the books on the evils of apartheid. And so I'm very proud to bring this to the floor with the Members that I have mentioned. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, May 5, 2008. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill, H.R. 5690, legislation to exempt the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or events, provide relief for certain members of the African National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes, which I introduced earlier this year. The bill contains provisions within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and was referred to the Committee when introduced. In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important legislation and clear it for the President, I am willing to waive this Committee's right mark up this bill. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I would ask that you place this letter into the Congressional Record when the Committee has H.R. 5690 under consideration. Sincerely, Howard L. Berman, Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to recognize the subcommittee chairman from whence this bill came, and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has worked with Steve King. And I suggest that there may be a codel going to this part of the globe, and I would certainly like to invite the distinguished gentleman Mr. King to consider joining us on such a codel. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 3\1/2\ minutes. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the gentlewoman from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee), who for many years worked as chief of staff with our former colleague Ron Dellums on this subject. So in her capacity as a Member of Congress and former staffer, she has stayed on the course for all of these years, and I yield her such time as she may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady, Barbara Lee, of Oakland, California, for closing our statement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of the ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' and I rise to remind the Chamber of the worsening health care crisis that we face as a Nation, and propose a solution to one of the biggest challenges of the 21st Century facing us. Lack of health insurance often denies necessary medical care. Forty seven million Americans are uninsured. This problem is not limited to the poor or the unemployed. Researchers have estimated that about four- fifths of the uninsured are either employed or members of a family with an employed adult. As well, there are an additional 50 million Americans who are underinsured; that is, they have coverage that would not protect them from catastrophic medical expenses. Simply put, an increasing number of Americans lack adequate health insurance because they and their employers simply cannot afford it. Despite the challenges of the war in Iraq and the slumping economy, we all agree that the uninsured need to be covered. Even the health insurance companies have their own plan for covering the uninsured. I'm glad that we're on the same page, after all these years. The real question we face is, how do we go about covering the uninsured? And how do we ensure that every American has access to quality medical care when they need it? I strongly believe in a single-payer national health insurance, an approach that has been too often marginalized in debates on this issue, even though it has been successfully employed in almost every industrial nation except our own. Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress to consider single-payer, not only as a viable option to cover the uninsured, but as the preferred solution to fix our broken health care system. And make no mistake about it, it is in very bad shape. According to a January 2007 article in the Journal of Health Affairs, France, Japan and Australia rated best, and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions, in 19 leading industrialized nations. The article revealed that if the United States health care system performed as well as those top three countries, there'd be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States each year. Equally disturbing, the Institute of Medicine reports that 20,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of having no health insurance. How can we, in the Congress, who receive fairly decent health care, tell 47 million uninsured Americans that they cannot have access to health care? With the knowledge that 20,000 Americans die each year without health insurance, how can we, in Congress, who do have health insurance, not place universal health care as a front burner issue in this chamber? This is a moral challenge that we all must pick up. And incrementalism will not work. Expanding a broken system or fixing parts of it will not work. We must approach the health care solution the same way a physician approaches the treatment of disease. Doctors do not employ treatments only because they are easy or feasible. They choose evidence-based solutions based upon peer-reviewed research in order to employ the most state-of-the-art care available. And so I propose we take the same approach to crafting a universal health care plan. So today, I ask the following question: What further disaster must befall us before we face the crisis of the uninsured and the underinsured? How many more people must die due to the inability to receive care in the world's healthiest Nation before we, in Congress, take action and create a truly universal health care system? For those who believe that we are not ready to have a universal health care system, and must delay the formation of a comprehensive, national health insurance program, I ask you to consider the following evidence that demonstrates why we can ill afford delaying action on a universal health care system. Health care horror stories are cases in which the result is so tragic that it shocks the conscience. We hear about them almost every day, in the newspapers, magazines, the Internet, television, radio, personal encounters with our friends and neighbors. In the movie ``Sicko'' we, as a Nation, saw firsthand how even those with health insurance suffer under the current, for profit, employer- based private health insurance system. In my office, I receive scores of health care horror stories each month, and have binders in my office of health care tragedies that we have collected over the last 8 years. In fact, when Michael Moore was doing research for ``Sicko'' he received 25,000 health care horror stories himself, after he made an appeal for those horror stories on his website. I'd like to read a health care horror story sent to us by Adrienne Campbell from Michigan, a story, that, unfortunately, millions of Americans who are underinsured or uninsured can relate to. Here's her story. My sister, who is 22 years old right now, was diagnosed with cervical cancer, the same cancer I had at the same age. She graduated from college back in December, so she is off my dad's insurance. Jobs are hard to find here in Michigan, so she's working two part- time jobs, and neither of them provide insurance for part-time workers. She has to go through what I did, but instead of actually being able to get medical treatment right away, then having to pay for it, she has to put off until she and the hospital can work out a payment plan. They told her the soonest they might be able to perform the surgery will be in April. We've been calling around seeking other options. She's at Stage 4. I was at Stage 2, when I went through my ordeal, so she's in much worse condition than I was; which worries me. This is unacceptable. It's like I am living my horror all over again, only this is my sister. This is why we have to fight. We have to shake things up this election year. There's nothing you can do for my sister at this point, except keep her in your prayers, and I hope that she can get surgery soon. But, for those women who may get cervical cancer down the road, let's fight for universal health care so they don't have to go through the money worries. I love my sister, Victoria, or as my daughter calls her, Aunt Gickie, because she can't say Vickie. Please, just keep her in your prayers and thoughts. Thanks for letting me vent. I love her too much to see this happen to her. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a health care system in this country. What exists is a fragmented, nonsystem of health care. It's a wasteful and inefficient patchwork of different plans and schemes that allow too many people to fall between the cracks. The complexity of this nonsystem is what makes it unsustainable. Private health insurers are in the business to make a profit. Make no mistake about it. In fact, the real problem is that insurance companies are not as much in the business to provide care as they are in the business to deny care. They keep profits up by avoiding high risk patients, limiting the coverage of those they do insure, and passing costs back to patients through copayments and deductibles. They deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including such costly diseases as athletes foot and yeast infections. They employ an army of adjusters who go through mountains of paperwork, all mostly working to figure out a way to deny a claim. We have the story of insurance company whistleblower, Dr. Linda Pino, who tells us she was paid a bonus on how many claims that she could deny, and threatened with demotion if she authorized payment on more claims than her peers. These practices are harmful. They're expensive. All those adjusters and paperwork cost a lot of money. Add to that insurance costs the insurance company's spending on advertising, huge executive salaries, and profits for shareholders, and the result is an average overhead of 15 cents on the dollar. Compare that with Medicare's overhead which is between 2 and 3 cents. The complexity of this nonsystem not only leads to gaps in coverage and navigating nightmares, but it's underscored by the duplicity and waste created by the multitude of health insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, who's been on this plan for--several Congresses ago he was and is the original co-founder and original signer with me to this bill. He's worked relentlessly in the Congress and across the country in making it clear that we're working on a system that some day is going to bring so much joy and benefit to the millions of Americans in this country. He's a fearless, dedicated, articulate leader, and I would now yield to my colleague, Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. CONYERS. In addition, we are creating a system of preventive health care. We are creating a system in which people, when they initially get sick, can go to a doctor instead of being forced to go to emergency rooms where they get temporary treatment, and then they're back at home or on the streets again. We will make the country healthier. And national health care is an ambition that is very much related to national security. So I'm pleased that all of these things can occur with the consideration of House Resolution 676. In the last 10 years, the cost of health care to businesses has increased 140 percent. We need an efficient universal health care system that protects American businesses from skyrocketing health care costs so that, as a Nation, we can remain competitive in the global marketplace. The rising cost of health care in this country has played a significant role in the current economic climate, specifically with regard to the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries. Between 2000 and 2007, United States health premiums have risen 98 percent, while wages have only increased by 23 percent. The average family health insurance plan now costs more than the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker. Our fractured non-system of health care is crippling our economy. But don't take my word for it, just ask the United Automobile Workers and the AFL-CIO, or even the automobile makers themselves. Health care has become such a central issue for General Motors that Economists magazine only partly in jest called the company a pension hedge fund wand health insurance business that happens to make cars. Ford and General Motors pay nearly $1,500 in health care costs for each vehicle they produce, while BMW pays $450 in Germany, and Honda only $150 per vehicle in Japan. A General Motors executive told former Senator Tom Daschle, a proponent of universal health care, that the high cost of health care is the single largest impediment to creating more jobs in the United States. An IBM executive, Senior Vice President for Human Resources Mr. J. Randall McDonald, recently predicted that 5 years from now this problem will have to be cured or the competitiveness of the United States will be drastically impacted. Small business employees are one of the fastest growing segments of the uninsured and now comprise about one-fifth of the total uninsured population. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius told the New York Times, ``Affordable coverage for small business owners and self-employed individuals is probably the biggest challenge that we have in Kansas and most states.'' Incredibly, one-fifth of working age Americans, both insured and uninsured, have medical debt that they are paying off over time. More than two-fifths of these people owe $2,000 or more. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, accounting for half of the personal bankruptcies. If unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country, then how can we in good conscience delay any longer in Congress to create a truly universal health care system? High deductibles in private health insurance plans are another barrier to consistent care. Eleven million people with health insurance have per-person deductibles of $1,000 or more. One recent study found that 44 percent of adults with deductibles of $1,000 or more did not fill a prescription, declined to see a specialist, skipped a recommended test or treatment, or didn't see a doctor when they had a serious medical problem. There are additional sums spent by hospitals and doctor's offices to deal with each insurance company's rules, regulations, and forms to fill out. After a number of our satellite industries take a cut, we're looking at up to 50 cents on the dollar being spent on administration, marketing and profits. All this is money we could be spending on health care. Drug prices in this country are about 60 percent higher than prices in Canada or Britain, and this is not because Big Pharma is doing so much research and development. In fact, data from the pharmaceutical companies' own annual reports show that they spend almost three times as much working on marketing and administrative costs as they do on research and development. It is not because American companies are carrying the burden of doing research and development for the rest of the world. Drug companies in the European Union put out about the same number of new products each year that American companies do. And our drug industry's research and development gets huge taxpayer subsidies from government-supported research done by the National Institutes of Health and American universities. In fact, only a very small percentage of the new drugs produced in America are in fact innovative developments. Most are varieties of old drugs developed simply to extend patent protections so that they can keep on charging those high, excessive prices. The reason drugs cost more in America than anywhere else boils down to a single factor: Profit. The drug companies have the highest profit margins of all American corporations. Their profits as a percent of sales run about 19 percent, compared to a median of about 5 percent for Fortune 500 companies. Mr. Speaker, the American people are concerned about the direction in which our economy is heading. As we spiral headlong toward a recession, if we're not already in one, both large corporations and small businesses have to make difficult decisions to keep their business afloat. For most Americans, the loss of employment means the loss of health insurance. The bottom line: If we can streamline the operations of the health care system by decreasing wasteful overhead and appropriately allocating funds, we can not only ensure the coverage of everybody in the United States, but we can provide for true health care. And that is an important point; coverage does not equal care. My plan, H.R. 676, is simple. And its simplicity is the very thing that will allow it to succeed where others will fail. Many of the plans generally add an individual mandate and even more insurance options. Others suggest financial mechanisms like tax credits or savings accounts. These other plans will not guarantee coverage that is universal, affordable or comprehensive. They fail to do anything to decrease administrative costs or complexity, in fact, they add to it. They can't control costs, and so ultimately they will be unsustainable. Now, I began from the premise that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege, a basic human right. This is the consensus opinion of the international community, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other documents. I also believe that government has a fundamental role to play in guaranteeing this right to each and all of its citizens. This is the view of the other industrialized nations, all of which have single payer health care systems that cover all their people, cost far less than ours and, sadly, get more and better results in terms of health outcomes. I believe that health care must not be a market commodity. The market dictates that one's ability to consume a particular product is constrained by one's ability to pay for it. This approach may be feasible when one is talking about buying hamburgers or tennis shoes, but it is unacceptable when it comes to health care. Our access to health services should be determined by only one thing, what our doctor thinks we need. Profit should not be a factor. Let me clarify: I do not advocate socialized or government-run health care, such as the National Health Service in Great Britain. I propose a plan that is publicly financed, but privately delivered, like those in Germany or France or Taiwan. The role of the government in the H.R. 676 proposal is limited to collecting revenues and disbursing payments to providers. Doctors, hospitals and clinics will continue to be run privately. I believe they will be required to operate as not-for-profit organizations. In a single payer system, we could do just that. We will do just that. Revenues would flow into the system through an automatic payroll tax, very little paperwork required. Doctors would bill the government electronically and they would be reimbursed electronically, cutting out the middle man, and the savings would be tremendous. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and consultancies such as the Lewin Group consistently find that the savings under a single payer plan would be more than enough to cover all of the uninsured. So, in fact, it's possible to cover all Americans under a comprehensive health plan without spending any more money than we do now. We would just be more efficient with it. The two other major drivers of health inflation are the increasing use of expensive prescription drugs and the proliferation of new and expensive medical technologies. A single payer system would address both these costs. By leveraging the buying power of the Federal Government, we can negotiate huge discounts both for drugs and for other major drivers of health inflation such as medical technology. We can bring down the cost of medical technology by allocating it more efficiently. As it is, we have no organizing structure to manage the distribution of health care resources. The result is that we have a glut of medical imaging machines, specialists, and other medical services which are seen as generating the most potential profit for their owners; hospital A has one MRI machine, hospital B then feels it must have two MRI machines, and so on. To end up with MRI machines all over town standing vacant while we continue to spend enormous sums on acquiring more is unwise and impractical and should be ended. Under a single payer system, we can distribute resources more efficiently so that we are buying MRI machines based on the need for them, not based on how much profit they can generate for a particular hospital. A regional board could determine, with the input of doctors and other providers, what number of machines would be appropriate for the population based on demographics and other factors. Allow an explanation of how a single-payer system under H.R. 676 would work. Existing public health care spending, including government spending for Medicare and Medicaid, would continue, but it would flow into a single trust fund. We would add a payroll tax of about 3.3 percent each to workers and employers. In addition to the 1.45 percent Medicare tax, the total health care tax would be 4.75 percent. This is cheaper than what the private health insurance companies charge; so families and businesses will be spending less than what they are spending now if they have insurance. We also get revenue from other sources like one quarter of 1 percent tax on certain stock and bond transactions. All these revenue sources add up to more than enough to cover current spending. But just in case there are additional expenses in a particular year, we also authorize an annual appropriation. Revenue flows from the Federal trust fund into the accounts of the currently existing Medicare regions. Reimbursement is then negotiated with doctors and other providers at the regional level, with current levels being the starting point. Doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, while hospitals and other large institutions are paid with monthly lump sums known as global budgets based on current expenditures. Global budgets are cost-control mechanisms that are very effective in other single-payer systems. Every American would receive a national health insurance card at birth or would be able to apply for one at the post office or other government facility. The application form is limited to 2 pages. Everyone living in the United States would be eligible. All medical necessary services would be covered, including inpatient and outpatient care, mental health care, dental care, and prescription drugs. Patients can go to the doctor or health care provider of their choice. Private insurance companies are prohibited from duplicating the coverage provided under the plan. They may still offer coverage for nonmedically necessary services, such as cosmetic surgery. They are not prohibited from being hired by the government to do billing services, but overhead costs would be strictly regulated. This plan relies on the existing Medicare infrastructure for administration. There is no ``new government bureaucracy.'' In fact, there will be far less bureaucracy in health care after the role of the insurance companies has been limited. Just to let you know, there are nationally recognized health economists and physicians who believe that if we spent more efficiently the money we are already currently spending on health care, then we would cover every American with quality and affordable health insurance right now through a privately delivered, public financed, single-payer system. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your cooperation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague that I am so flattered that he remembers the days when we started out with just a few Members. We're up somewhere about 90 now and growing every week, every month. More and more people are joining us. And in addition, there are growing numbers of medical professionals, doctors, researchers, health care experts, who are all recognizing how important what you have said is in terms of how we move out of the situation that we're in. Your description of the pain and suffering of so many of our citizens because of the lack of health care leads to situations so horrible that they truly shock the conscious.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Congressman Kucinich. And as our numbers grow in the Congress, you know that the American people have already indicated in policy after policy that they want a universal health care plan. Many are willing to even pay more to get it, but they don't have to. And this is a labor of love which I am so proud that nearly 100 of our colleagues are now working with us. And I yield again to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill cosponsored by Representative Bill Delahunt and Ranking Member Lamar Smith. H.R. 1777, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2007,'' removes the current sunset attached to an exemption in the antitrust laws that permits schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in making their determinations. The exemption also allows for agreement on the use of a common aid application form and for the exchange of student financial information through a third party. In 1992, Congress passed a similar temporary exemption, which was first extended in 1994, then again extended in 1997, and once again extended in 2001. The exemption passed in 2001 expires later this year. During the years of its operation, we have been able to witness and evaluate the exemption, and we have found that it seems to be working. The need-based financial aid system makes financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. The schools have been concerned that without this exemption, they would be required to compete--through financial aid awards--for the very top students, which could result in a system in which the very top students receive an excess of the available aid while the rest of the applicant pool receives less or none at all. Ultimately, such a system could undermine the principles of need-based aid and need-blind admissions. Because the exemption has thus far appeared warranted, I support H.R. 1777 and hope that it will continue to protect need-based aid and need- blind admissions, and preserve the opportunity for all students to attend one of the Nation's most prestigious schools.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of Equal Pay Day, which was yesterday, April 22, 2008. Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men's and women's wages. The day, observed on a Tuesday in April, symbolizes how far into the year a woman must work, on average, to earn as much as a man earned the previous year. Because women earn less, on average, than men, they must work longer for the same amount of pay. In other words, the average American woman must work 16 months to earn what a man did in 12. The wage gap is even greater for most women of color. President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, but the wage gap between men and women has been closing at a very slow rate. In 1963, women who worked full-time, year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In 2006, women earned 77 cents to the dollar. The wage gap exists, in part, because many women and people of color are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. More than half of all women workers hold sales, clerical and service jobs. Studies show that the more an occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays. Part of the wage gap results from differences in education, experience or time in the workforce. But a significant portion cannot be explained by any of those factors; it is attributable to discrimination. In other words, certain jobs pay less because they are held by women and people of color. Democrats are taking action to address the wage gap. The House has already passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restores basic protections against pay discrimination by rectifying the May 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court decision that overturned precedent and made it much more difficult for workers to pursue pay discrimination claims. The Senate is scheduled to consider this legislation this week. The House is also considering the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing more effective remedies to women who are not being paid equal wages for doing equal work. I strongly support both of these measures. Equal pay is not simply a women's issue, but a family issue. The wage gap hurts everyone--husbands, wives, children, and parents--because it lowers family incomes that pay for essentials: groceries, energy bills, doctors' visits and child care. Furthermore, 41 percent of women supply their families' sole source of income. It is estimated that if we do nothing, it will take until 2057 to close the pay gap. To force women and their families to wait nearly another 50 years to receive equal pay for equal work is absolutely unacceptable. I pledge to continue the fight for pay equity until all Americans, regardless of gender or race, receive equal pay for equal work.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as Americans mark Earth Day, they can also mark the new direction Congress has begun to reverse the failed energy policies of the past, committing instead to clean, and renewable energy for the future. It may have taken the president almost 8 years to acknowledge global warming, but this is a problem that Congress did not wait to address. Congress passed the historic and bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to begin to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, respond to the global warming crisis, grow our economy, and lower energy costs. The Act will save 5.3 billion metric tons in energy- related CO2 emissions from 2008-2030 and reduce oil consumption by 2.4 million barrels a day--almost a 25 percent reduction over today's usage. The Congress has taken the steps the current Administration has failed to take. It pleases me that on this Earth Day in 2008 we can acknowledge and celebrate the positive direction we are taking in addressing our energy use, climate change, and its impact on our economy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act. This important bipartisan bill extends a moratorium until April 1, 2009 on seven Administration-imposed Medicaid regulations that if implemented, would severely reduce Federal Medicaid funding. Without the moratorium, Medicaid funding to States for vital programs and services would be cut by $18 billion over the next 5 years. These cuts include restrictions on Medicaid payments for graduate medical education (GME), rehabilitation services, and outpatient hospital services, among other services. It would be irresponsible to think about cutting funding to academic medical centers and residency training programs when we currently face a shortage of physicians. If these cuts were allowed to go into effect, we would be unable to provide necessary medical services to many people who depend upon Medicaid. Constantly cutting funds to the very services which keep our fragmented, non-system of health care afloat is inhumane and nonsensical. The tactic of underfunding Federal programs in an attempt to undermine their effectiveness demonstrates the Administration's lack of commitment to the programs that faithfully and effectively serve the American people. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 5613 is simply a necessity. We must halt the underfunding of important Medicaid programs. I wholeheartedly support the passage of H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, today I rise to support H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Federal Student Loans Act of 2008. As current turmoil in the U.S. financial markets make obtaining and affording student loans more and more difficult, today we take an affirmative step to relieve that pressure on students and families by providing greater access to Federal loans. This legislation: reduces borrowers' reliance on costlier private college loans and encourage responsible borrowing; gives parent borrowers more time to begin paying off their Federal PLUS college loans; helps struggling homeowners pay for college; provides the U.S. Secretary of Education additional tools to safeguard access to student loans; and encourages Federal financial institutions to exercise their existing authorities to ensure borrowers have access to Federal loan funds in the upcoming academic year. Here in Congress, we must ensure that access to higher education is as unfettered as possible. As our economy goes more and more global we have to assure that our future generation will be able to effectively compete on the world stage. I strongly support this bi-partisan legislation that makes access to college more affordable thereby giving greater opportunities to many more to pursue the American dream. The Ensuring Continued Access to Federal Students Loans Act will achieve its goal at no additional cost to the government and with so much money being spent on building infrastructure in Iraq by the Executive branch it is encouraging to see the Congress show fiscal restraint and responsibility. I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for their work and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor so families can receive relief before this coming August.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.