Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my compadre and cosponsor of H.R. 810.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today we are fortunate to take the first step of what I see as a two-step process, and that is passage of this cord blood bill which, as I said, we passed last May in this House by an overwhelming vote. The second step, of course, will be when the other body passes H.R. 810, which also passed last May, and when that bill is finally signed into law. The two bills working together will greatly expand availability of research and of cures for Americans who suffer not just from blood- related diseases but from diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, nerve damage, and so many other diseases that cannot be reached simply by cord blood. That is the day that a true dawning of a new scientific era will occur in this country. This is a good bill today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their co-sponsorship. But let us be clear exactly what this bill does. It authorizes a new granted program to provide subsidies to cord blood stem cell banks to expand the inventory of high quality cord blood units. It sets up a registry for cord blood, which will in some cases take the place of bone marrow transplants which it is beginning to supersede. This will be enormously important, particularly for sickle cell patients who will be helped. The bill also authorizes research on the clinical outcomes of patients who are recipients of a stem cell therapeutics product from biologically related and unrelated donors. That is what this bill does. This bill does not set up any cures for any diseases, nor does it do anything to put ethical controls onto stem cell research and other types of research that are scientifically being explored now and need the oversight of the National Institutes of Health. So this is a good start. I commend all my colleagues. It is going to make us all feel good to go home for the holidays knowing that certain classes of patients will be helped. But I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, let us not stop there. In the second session of this Congress, let us take the bold scientific step necessary to provide cures for diseases that affect tens of millions of Americans and citizens around the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Georgia on the Energy and Commerce Committee for his leadership on issues like this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation; however, I am concerned that the other body has chosen to send us only the cord blood bill today. This bill is essentially the same bill that the House passed last May by a vote of 431-1. The legislation is important, and it will help advance medical research which is why I support it and why we passed it by such an overwhelming majority last spring. What we need to be clear about, though, is what this bill really will and will not do; and we also need to be clear that this bill is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research, the Castle-DeGette bill, H.R. 810, which is an important bill to advance scientific research to affect diseases that will potentially kill millions of Americans. Like adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells have proven over the last decade or so to be a reliable source of blood-forming stem cells that are used as a technique to treat blood diseases like leukemia and lymphoma. That established technique has led to about 600 cord blood transplants which were performed in the United States in 2004 to treat blood disorders. But these cord blood cells are not regenerative and they are not reprogramming, which is why they cannot be used to be made into other types of stem cells that can cure other types of diseases besides blood-related diseases. It is true that cord blood has been reliably used for a number of years, and that is why it is so important that we pass this cord blood registry. But we must not overstate or exaggerate the capabilities of cord stem cells. Significant limitations exists that must be considered. Unlike human embryonic stem cells, stem cells from umbilical blood cord cannot continually reproduce themselves. Instead of proliferating, they quickly evolve into specialized cells. Umbilical cord stem cells cannot be induced to form diverse nonblood cell types, as I mentioned. Although some initial experiments appear to be promising, few stem cell researcher now believe that umbilical cords will be a reliable source of replacement cells other than blood cells. Now, I support this very early research that I talked about, as I support any kind of research that could lead to stem cells that could cure diseases. But these studies are few, and they have not shown conclusive results. Finally, umbilical cord stem cells are in short supply. Only a small number of cells can be obtained from each umbilical cord, making it hard to obtain enough stem cells for treatment. Because of the limitations, we must also support embryonic stem cell research. I do not need to tell the House that, though, because we already did that with support from both sides of the aisle. Last May, this House passed both the umbilical cord stem cell legislation along with H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. H.R. 810, cosponsored by myself and Congressman Mike Castle, expands the number of embryonic stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. The goal of the legislation is to accelerate scientific progress toward life-saving cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases, not just blood-related diseases. Unfortunately, the other body has not yet embraced the wisdom of the people's House. Here is what has happened in our country because of our failure to federally fund embryonic stem cell research: As I think we can all agree, the National Institutes of Health is not only one of the foremost institutions, probably the foremost institution for medical research in the world, but it also stands as the gold standard in the world in defining ethical research. Because NIH is not able to fund embryonic stem cell research, it is limited in its ability to define the ethics for that research, certainly in this country but definitely abroad. Many here have heard about the embryonic stem cell studies that have been done in South Korea, and frankly, Mr. Castle and I, the research community and others have warned for a long time that when you take embryonic stem cell research offshore, not only do you lose your ethical ability to oversee that research, but you also lose the ability to make sure that the studies are done in a scientifically sound manner. We saw what we hoped to be some tremendous advancements in South Korea last year, but now what we are seeing is news out of South Korea that the scientific method and also the ethics have been called into question. If we allowed ethical stem cell research, looked over by the National Institutes of Health, in this country, this would not happen, and we would have advances in science fueled by the engine of the NIH but also overseen by their ethical guidelines. That is why we need to pass H.R. 810. We need to make sure that we bring the ethics as well as the scientific method back under the umbrella of the NIH so that we can continue to be a leader in this research in the world. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the other body of Congress to move forward on swift passage of H.R. 810 so that we can retain our leadership position in the world. Again, I support the bill that is before us today. It is a very important registry for cord blood, and it is also important for expansion of cord blood for blood diseases that affect so many, including in the minority community, but we also need to move forward with H.R. 810 so that we can have scientific progress that is done in an ethical manner and that will cover the waterfront in curing diseases that will affect millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the vote today on H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005'' due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``no'' on this bill as I have steadfastly opposed similar versions of the PATRIOT Act when they have come up in the past. Make no mistake, like all Americans I believe we should give law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate and fight terrorism. However, we can do this without sacrificing our American values. One of our most precious values is the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion. I voted against the original PATRIOT Act when it passed Congress in 2001 because it went too far in creating the potential for government abuses and violations of civil liberties. The bill today makes permanent almost all of the provisions enacted in 2001. While some have been altered to make them slightly less egregious, not enough has changed to allow me to lend my support to this reauthorization. For example, section 109 of H.R. 3199 makes some changes to section 215 of the original PATRIOT Act, which expanded what the government could seize under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, of 1978 to ``any tangible things.'' These include library, medical, tax, and gun records. The bill today maintains the weak threshold adopted in the original PATRIOT Act by again failing to require the materials requested be tied or connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist organization. The broad standard in current law makes it dangerously easy for the records of innocent Americans to be viewed by government. Additionally, recipients of requests for information under section 215 are prevented from telling virtually anyone about the request and they cannot challenge this ``gag order'' in court. While this bill at least includes a 4-year sunset for section 215, there is no sunset for section 505, which expanded the power of government to obtain information via national security letters, NSLs. NSLs allow the government, with no prior court approval, access to financial records, credit reports, telephone records, and information from internet service providers. As with section 215, this bill fails to require the materials requested be tied or connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist organization. Tragically, this weak standard is made permanent. There is no sunset. Also, as is true under section 215, there is a ``gag order'' under section 505. While H.R. 3199 adds a new ability to challenge this ``gag order,'' it is a sham. Violating this gag order even carries criminal penalties. The bill also fails to adequately reform section 213 of the original PATRIOT Act, which expanded ``sneak and peek'' warrant authority. This allows the government to search American homes or businesses with delayed, not prior, notice. While the bill today does change the delay in notice allowed from a ``reasonable time'' to no more than 30 days, the bill allows for unlimited extensions. Limitations on instances in which delayed notice searches are allowed to remain broad. To protect our rights and privacy, the ability for the government to get into our personal lives and records without prior notice needs to be more narrowly crafted. These are just some examples of the problems with H.R. 3199. I am confident that if we work together, we can develop laws which would allow us to combat terrorism without making it too easy for government to intrude into the private lives of Americans.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 547. Let me be very clear. In no way do I endorse the actions of the Palmdale School District at issue in Fields v. Palmdale School District. The problem is that H. Res. 547 goes beyond passing judgment on the actions of the School District and directs the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit how to do its job. Under the Constitution, I do not feel it is appropriate for Congress to infringe on the rights and duties of the federal judiciary, a fellow independent and co-equal branch of government. Additionally, I am confident our courts are fully capable of adjudicating matters without congressional input. Simply because I may disagree with a particular ruling does not change my otherwise strong faith in the men and women serving on our nation's federal and state courts.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65, ``Disapproving of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.'' The BRAC Commission was tasked in the current round of base closures to target and eradicate inefficiency. Unfortunately, there was a host of friendly fire and significant collateral damage. I strongly support our military's attempts to streamline its infrastructure and reduce its operating budget, especially considering the deficits this Administration is running up. However, base closures can not impede the ability of the United States of America to protect its people. The Department of Defense, DOD, knows this, and rightly placed paramount emphasis on military value in its recommendations. The Secretary of Defense proposed to consolidate the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS, from an unnecessarily redundant twenty-six locations to three central sites. The DFAS center at Buckley Annex, housed in my district in Colorado, was chosen as one of these three sites in part due to its superlative performance on the military value test. In fact, when the BRAC Commission considered the DFAS realignment Denver's site ranked first in this category. For reasons other than military value, the BRAC Commission recommended closing DFAS Denver and moving the Air Reserve Personnel Center to Texas. Our city has suffered large base closures in past BRAC rounds. Now, despite a proud history of support for our nation's armed forces, Denver will have virtually no military presence left when these recommendations are executed. Mr. Chairman, given the carefully analyzed proposal submitted by the Secretary of Defense, this is a result that I simply cannot support. I ask my colleagues to support this Joint Resolution, and show their disapproval of these inequitable and inefficient recommendations.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 397, the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' This bill denies for all Americans the right to bring civil suits against gun manufacturers and dealers for negligence or gross negligence in all but a very limited number of cases. As an example of what this means, say a gun store owner left his shop unlocked and unattended, even just briefly, with guns available for anyone to take. If someone took one of these guns and used it to injure or kill, the victim would have no recourse. Imagine if I changed my example to one involving a store selling other lethal items, like chemicals. Would people not want to see owner pay for the victim's injuries? Of course. In fact, the victim in my second example would be able to sue. That's because the immunity S. 397 grants is unique--no other group has such broad and sweeping legal protections, What makes this industry so entitled but others not so? And, the lawsuits blocked by this bill have in the past, and would in the future, force the industry to change its behavior and protect our safety (such as in the case of the DC sniper). Don't take my word for it. Mr. Robert Ricker, a former gun industry lobbyist for almost twenty years, in a sworn statement said the following: ``Leaders in the industry have long known that greater industry action to prevent illegal transactions is possible and would curb the supply of firearms to the illegal market. However, until faced with a serious threat of civil liability for past conduct, leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market. . . .'' I know its not a popular viewpoint today, but I believe in our American judicial system. I believe that generally cases without merit are dismissed, cases with merit are properly adjudicated, and sometimes parties will settle for their mutual benefit. As such, Congress need not step in and make decisions on liability, as in this case, for judges, juries, and states across the nation. Let's let our system work as intended. I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary and unwise piece of legislation.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed something many politicians do not realize: the American people are not stupid. This winter, as their car gasoline prices remain high, their home heating bills from natural gas and heating oil go up, they are going to understand this bill has no connection to lowering gas prices and no connection to Hurricane Katrina. What this bill does do is it rides roughshod over environmental laws, and it rides roughshod over local control of new refineries. Just wait for the public outcry if this bill passes when people find out that refineries can be put up in their backyards with no local input and especially when they find out that these refineries' profits went up 255 percent last year. So what should we be doing? Number one, we should genuinely address price gouging. The provisions in this bill are toothless at best. If we really want to stop price gouging, what we should do is pass the Democratic substitute, which would actually beef up the FTC's ability to prosecute this practice. Number two, I have been saying this for the 9 years I have been in Congress: we need a forward-looking energy policy that puts real teeth into conservation and renewables so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What does this bill do about conservation? Members will be pleased to know it encourages carpooling and van pooling. I am going to tell the Members the other soccer moms at my kids' school would be appalled to know that this is all Congress is doing to encourage conservation. What about renewables? Well, I offered an amendment both in committee and at the Committee on Rules which was denied. All this amendment says is let us increase the use of renewable energy in this country. I think that the majority of Coloradans who voted for an initiative on a ballot last year would agree with this along with the rest of Americans. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a comprehensive energy policy that is more than a sop to Big Oil. Vote for the substitute and ``no'' on final.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Albert Charles Smith of Denver, Colorado. Mr. Smith is retiring from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after over 42 years of exemplary federal service. Often in our deliberations in the United States Congress over budget and policy issues of the Federal Government we neglect to recognize the contributions of the thousands of hard working federal employees who serve our Nation. In particular, I would like to highlight the contributions of the employees of the Environmental Protection Agency. Charged with protecting our environment and human health, the EPA is charged with protecting the air we breath, the water we drink, and the land and food we need for sustenance and our livelihoods. While it is easy and important to get caught up in human events, it is also vital that we revere our planet and its fragile environment. It is not often enough that we take the time to stop to thank and recognize the employees of the EPA for their unselfish and committed contribution to our nation and our environment. Mr. Alfred Charles Smith is one such federal public servant deserving of our attention. In the early 1950's, Mr. Smith served honorably as a corporal with the United States Army in Korea and Japan. He then went on to earn a Bachelor of Science degree in Bacteriology from Ohio State University, a Masters of Science in Chemistry from John Carrol University in Ohio, and a Juris Doctor degree from the Cleveland- Marshall College of Law. His first federal agency position was with the U.S. Department of Interior from 1966 to 1970. When President Richard M. Nixon established the EPA, Mr. Smith was one of its original employees--first as a chemist in EPA's Chicago regional office, and later as a supervisory attorney and Regional Judicial Officer in EPA's Denver regional office. Most notable of his many awards and recognitions were the Agency's Gold Medal in 1975 for work in EPA's oil and hazardous materials spill response program; and in 1988, he was awarded EPA's Silver Medal for innovative use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in resolving a public water system's supply and health problems. Mr. Speaker it is my honor to recognize Mr. Smith and his commitment to our Nation and its natural resources. Mr. Smith's personal and professional contributions to the Environmental Protection Agency, to the Federal Government and to the people of the United States over the course of his varied and meritorious career have earned him great respect and appreciation from his friends and colleagues. We will all miss his knowledge, expertise and commitment to public service.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the American health care system is in crisis, in part, because of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates. This crisis, however, is not the result of frivolous lawsuits, but of insurance industry practices. The so-called solution that we are debating today, carving out enormous new liability exemptions for health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and nursing homes would not lower doctors' malpractice insurance rates by one dollar. Too many doctors are struggling to keep their practices afloat under the burden of enormous insurance premiums but, instead of helping them, what we are doing today is penalizing the severely injured patients and the families of those who die a result of medical negligence without providing any relief to the doctors from high malpractice insurance rates. A new study, and we have been talking about it today, by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that since 2001, there has been a 25 percent decrease in the average number of medical malpractice claims per physician. Now, if medical malpractice claims have decreased, why do insurance premiums continue to increase? We have been talking today about MICRA, the California insurance program. Now, it is true, the State capped medical malpractice payments in 1975; but despite this, as we just heard from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), malpractice premiums rose 450 percent over the next 13 years. Only after 1988, when California also implemented insurance reform, did the rates go down. But, today, instead of insurance reform, we are focusing entirely on capping damages. Now, even the spokesman for the American Insurance Association, Dennis Kelly, said these words. He said, ``We have not promised price reductions with tort reform.'' So I want to ask my colleagues, why are we doing this bill today? What is the real reason for this bill? If the malpractice insurance companies are not going to reduce insurance premiums for these beleaguered doctors, why are we passing this bill? And what is the cause of the increasing insurance rates? Some suggest that rate hikes are due to insurer investment losses. Others point to old-fashioned price gouging. This year, for example, the Washington State insurance commissioner ordered insurers to refund more than $1 million in premiums to physicians because rate hikes were unjustifiable. But I tried to do an amendment, I did it in committee last time when we heard it, and I tried to submit it to the Committee on Rules: let us do a study. Let us figure out why these rates are high and why Dennis Kelly says they are not going to go down. The Republican majority refused to even allow a study of malpractice insurance rates and why they are so high. That is what this bill is really about. Because billion-dollar insurance companies have Federal antitrust exemptions, they are allowed to legally fix prices, and this has helped the industry gain a record $25 billion in annual profits. Now, there is one thing we can agree on across the aisle: Congress must stop this price-gouging of physicians. But granting blanket liability protection to negligent nursing homes, to pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, without addressing insurance billing practices, does nothing to solve the problem for these doctors. And what is worse, the immunity for these other industries will be broader than any State tort reform law. It will do nothing to help the doctors; and in the end, it will serve to severely limit the rights of many millions of Americans. It undermines our health care system to penalize victims of medical negligence in the name of relieving doctors' burdensome malpractice premiums when, actually, nothing is being done to reduce those premiums. Unfortunately, I think this is as a result of an aversion of some in Washington to what I would call fact-based policymaking. Now, there is a solution. We could work across the aisle to reduce medical malpractice insurance rates, and we could do this by passing bipartisan insurance reform. This would get to the root of the crisis by reducing artificially inflated insurance rates for doctors and not punishing injured patients. One further note. I hear all day that States are having a terrible problem: doctors cannot get insurance, OB/GYNs are leaving. If this is a State problem, I say to my colleagues, if States are having these issues, I want to know why we are trying to address it at a Federal level. This is not traditionally a Federal issue. The States can do it. One further note. Anyone reading this bill would know, for the gentlewoman from South Dakota's (Ms. Herseth) State and every other State, this bill would supersede any other rate or caps they might have with the Federal law. That is wrong. I think we should abide by States' rights and defeat this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas says that this bill does not preempt State law. In fact, the bill includes a sweeping preemption of State law which is designed to override State laws that protect consumers and patients while keeping in place State laws that favor doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers, and other health care defendants. In fact, the only laws that this bill does not supersede are the ones that protect those groups, and that is at the great risk to patients. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Congress is faced with an irony today. We have identified a problem, and the problem is that doctors are going out of business because of their high medical malpractice insurance premiums. So what are we going to do? We are going to pass a bill that caps damages for victims injured by medical malpractice, but we are going to do nothing to reduce the premiums for these doctors. So doctors get no relief, and victims of malpractice get less. But wait, there is more. There is so much more to this bill. We have not heard one word today about the pressing problems the pharmaceutical industry has and how we need to give them immunity so they will keep making drugs. But yet that is what this bill does. We have not heard one word today about how all of the nursing homes are going out of business because of the lawsuits against them, but we are giving them immunity today. We have not heard a thing about the medical device manufacturers and how they will not make the titanium hip replacements or the insulin pumps, but yet we are giving them immunity today. This bill goes further than any State law. It goes further than any law anybody would contemplate, and it is just a giveaway to the insurance industry, to the pharmaceutical industry, to the nursing home industry, and to the medical device manufacturers. If we pass the Conyers-Dingell motion to recommit, we will send this bill back and we will do something that will really give relief to the doctors who face these high malpractice insurance premiums. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. If that fails, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the comprehensive energy bill before us, a bill that purports to address the energy challenges facing this country, yet ignores the most fundamental issues and fails to set us on a path to a more sustainable future. Despite the fact that the transportation sector is the biggest emitter of harmful pollutants into our air, this bill fails to increase the efficiency of our cars. The technology is there, the demand is there, but the will is not. Although the bill offers incentives for consumers to purchase hybrid vehicles, this country's broken fuel economy program prevents it from having an effect. When an auto maker sells more fuel efficient cars, they are then given flexibility to crank out more gas guzzlers, which boggles my mind. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also fails to require our utilities to derive even a small percentage of their power from renewable energy, as voters in Colorado overwhelmingly approved last year. Enactment of a national renewable portfolio standard would spur innovation in the marketplace, attract new capital investment, create jobs, and reduce pollution. This legislation, which acknowledges that global warming is a problem, sets up yet another federal advisory committee to ``develop a national policy to address climate change.'' Maybe I am mistaken, but isn't that Congress' job? We had the opportunity in this bill to create a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions that are warming our earth, polluting our skies, and endangering our national security by keeping us bound to foreign oil. Again, we had the opportunity, but with this bill, we are passing the buck for another Congress to deal with, when the problem is even more out of control. This bill weakens some of our most basic environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It presents some nice handouts to industry, such as billions in giveaways to oil companies that are already drowning in profits due to high oil prices, while the Nation is experiencing huge deficits and slashing education and health care programs. This bill fails to recognize that high energy costs are a function of both supply and demand. While it is quite generous in increasing the production of fossil fuels, it does not even acknowledge the oil scarcity problem. Instead of drilling and more drilling, we should be helping to curb the Nation's appetite for this rapidly declining resource by encouraging the development of alternative technologies. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this bill is a marked improvement over previous iterations. I applaud Chairman Barton for his devotion to ensuring an open, transparent process with full debate on the issues. He has great courtesy and respect for the deliberative process, and I thank him for that. The bill he has put forward takes steps towards greater energy efficiency and conservation, ensuring the reliability of the electricity grid, and providing customers with incentives to purchase vehicles powered by alternative fuels. But the problems with this legislation far outweigh its benefits, and as such I am forced to oppose it. I wish this Congress had the courage to enact reforms that would set this country on a more sustainable energy future, but instead it seems content to stick with a status quo that emphasizes extraction over conservation, pork over investment, and development over efficiency. Americans deserve better.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, having voted in favor of every free trade agreement considered during my tenure in Congress, I have been and continue to be an avid supporter of free trade. However, I cannot, in good faith, vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) as it stands today. Instead of helping to improve labor and environmental standards and increase the enforcement of those standards in Central America, CAFTA is a rubber stamp of the status-quo. CAFTA fails to strengthen existing labor and environmental laws and deliberately excludes meaningful penalties for Central American governments that fail to enforce such laws. What is worse, CAFTA removes the current ability of the United States to withdraw trade benefits when countries in the region refuse to improve labor and environmental standards. By removing this important--and proven-- oversight mechanism, CAFTA could perversely weaken the few protections that exist for workers and the environment in Central America today. CAFTA also includes an investment provision similar to North America Free Trade Agreement's (NAFTA) Chapter 11, which puts profits of multinational firms before the public safety and public health of citizens in the United States and in Central American countries. With CAFTA in its current form, the Administration makes its priorities clear: corporate need and greed above all else. At the same time it leaves workers behind in Central America, CAFTA fails to help workers here at home. When drafting CAFTA, the Bush Administration refused to expand Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to service workers who stand to lose from CAFTA, and similarly, it did not increase the amount of assistance for those workers who are currently eligible under the TAA program. More generally, this Administration repeatedly refuses to fund education and training programs that would help to ensure the future competitiveness of the American people. It is unfortunate that I, along with my other like-minded Democrats who support free trade, do not have the opportunity to vote on a free and fair trade agreement with Central America. I believe that free, fair trade can be a powerful means to improve living standards abroad and to broaden economic opportunities for people here at home. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration negotiated this agreement behind closed doors without soliciting the bipartisan input of Congress. While the Administration has had numerous opportunities to make simple, but important changes to CAFTA, it has consistently refused, and instead, has insisted on supporting the deeply flawed agreement we have before us today--an agreement that I oppose in its current form.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 525 and a ``yes'' vote on the Kind-Andrews substitute. This debate is, frankly, misdirected. The question is not who recognizes that there is a health care crisis in this country and who does not. This is not a contest to see who among us truly understands that small businesses are finding themselves in an increasingly difficult predicament when it comes to providing health care insurance for their employees. We all care about this issue, and we all have constituents who need help affording health care insurance. Small businesses, which do face unique challenges across the board compared to large corporations, are the backbone of our economy; and we should be doing more to help them. And providing better and more health care coverage is one of the biggest problems they face today. So I ask our friends on the other side of the aisle, why do we have before us a bill that does nothing to really address the problem for small businesses and very well may end up hurting the people who we say we are trying to help? There is a reason why the National Governors Association and 41 attorneys general are against this bill. There is a reason why numerous advocacy associations, consumer groups, and others oppose this misguided legislation. This bill has been hailed as the answer to covering many of the 45 million Americans who are currently uninsured; but in truth, a very small percentage of the population would be helped in any way. This is because association health plans would help a relatively small number of the youngest and healthiest among us who will gain access to cheap minimalist plans. But that would come at the expense of the vast majority of workers whose premiums would actually increase. It would also make it nearly impossible for those with previous health challenges or chronic diseases to obtain any coverage at all. Let me give an example. I am the cochair of the bipartisan Diabetes Caucus in Congress. Forty-six States have mandated that insurance plans must cover diabetic supplies? Why? One little vial of strips, test strips costs $50, and insurance companies simply were not giving that benefit in the past. That is why 46 of the 50 States said, you have to pay for this. Now, if diabetics test their blood, long-term complications like heart disease, kidney failure, end-stage renal disease, all of those are eliminated; but they have to have insurance coverage for these supplies. This legislation wipes out that requirement. It says, you do not have to pay for that; you do not have to follow that State law. That is not only wrong for those beneficiaries who are diabetic; it is shortsighted in the long run for the cost of our health care system. We need to address the real access and affordability issues that affect employees of small businesses, and the only way we can do that is by passing the Kind-Andrews substitute. This substitute will give small employers the ability to provide the same access to health benefits as Federal employees. It will also allow States to establish small employer health pools. It would also minimize adverse selection and use state-licensed insurers without preempting State laws. Sounds like a good substitute to me. If we pass the substitute, we can make a true impact on the status of millions of uninsured workers across this country; and for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 525 and a ``yes'' vote on the substitute.