Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this serious issue to light. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, I have spent much of the 110th Congress focused on issues of information security. In fact, my subcommittee has held eight hearings and conducted investigations into dozens of cyber security issues. And while I believe we have made some real progress in the last year or so, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. I fully agree with Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, when he says that cyber security is the most significant national security issue facing the Nation today, and it's easy to understand why. We rely on computers in every aspect of our lives, from our banking systems and our electric grid, to our military and the functions of our Government. And whether we realize it or not, each of us is dependent on the effective functioning of computers. For many years, these systems were largely closed to the outside world, but in the Internet age, this is no longer true. In the history of the world, never have so many people had so much access to ideas, knowledge, and skills. Unfortunately, never before have so many people also possessed the capability to cause such catastrophic economic and physical harm to the United States. Now, this is not a hypothetical threat. In 2007, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright told Congress that ``America is under widespread attack in cyberspace.'' And though we have not seen the massive denial of service attacks that the Nation of Estonia experienced last year, the Federal Government and the private sector have been the victims over the last decade of an extensive and deliberate espionage campaign that has had a significant impact upon our Nation. As Major General William Lord stated publicly last year, ``China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes''--again 10 to 20 terabytes--``of data from the DOD's unclassified network.'' That's the equivalent of almost half of the Library of Congress. American businesses, too, have been dramatically affected. One estimate suggests that our companies lose an estimated $70 billion each year due to cyber crime, and individual citizens are far from immune either. Electronic identity theft affects, as you know, millions of us every year. There are a variety of motives for these attacks, but the result is clear: the weakening security and economic stability of our country. National security is a nonpartisan issue, and we must all work together to commit the resources and the manpower necessary to respond to this threat. The situation raised by Congressman Wolf today illustrates that while the House of Representatives has strong information protections in place, cyber security threats pose a challenge to computer systems everywhere, and it is an ever-evolving and dynamic threat. And we need to do all we can to stay out in front of it and ahead of it. Now, I'm pleased that the House leadership takes this issue very seriously and is taking action to ensure that House systems are properly secured, and I especially commend House Administration Chairman Bob Brady for directing the Chief Administration Officer to immediately adopt additional protections for House computers. I also want to commend the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) for her due diligence and passion about cyber security as well, and I certainly appreciate the working relationship, good working relationship, that she and I have together. I am ready to do anything I can to help ensure that our House information systems are as secure as possible. Recognizing that this issue is much larger than the House of Representatives, I am also committed to addressing the broader issues of cyber security across the Federal domain and the national critical infrastructure. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our Federal Government is educated and prepared at all levels to thwart cyber attacks and protect the integrity of our networks.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss one of the most critical issues facing American families today--the state of the national economy. I want the American people to know that this Congress understands the struggles facing millions of people. And we have been taking steps to provide assistance to those in need. Just last week, we heard the troubling news that our unemployment rate jumped from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May. Now in Rhode Island, the problem is even worse with an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent. Now I strongly support an extension of unemployment insurance to those who exhausted their benefit. And I am disappointed that Republicans blocked its passage in the House earlier today. Unfortunately, our economic woes are not limited, though, to high unemployment. As health care costs and food prices rise, families find themselves forced to decide between buying groceries and medicine, a choice no person should ever have to make. And compounding problems of skyrocketing energy costs have made it tougher for people to fill their gas tanks while affordable housing has become also increasingly rare. We know what the American people are facing, and we are taking steps to help. Of the many challenges that we are dealing with right now, one important priority for me is to address the housing crisis. Now home ownership has become an unreachable dream for many Rhode Islanders who face the typical monthly housing payments upwards of $2,200. The situation for renters is not much better. The average two-bedroom apartment right now rents for nearly $1,200 a month. Meanwhile our State's foreclosure rate has risen 20 percent in the last few months. I have worked to help Rhode Islanders facing foreclosure, but we need to do more at the national level. I have been proud to support Chairman Frank's efforts to pass comprehensive housing legislation which would significantly increase availability of affordable housing nationwide and help those facing foreclosure to keep their homes. I am certainly hopeful that the Senate will act soon and we will bring swift relief to the American people. Our constituents also face skyrocketing energy costs which are eating up an ever larger portion of disposable income. The average U.S. household spends approximately $1,000 more per year on gasoline than it did 5 years ago. Meanwhile oil and gas companies are reaping record profits while doing nothing to lower prices for consumers. I think this is an absolute outrage. I have strongly advocated a comprehensive energy plan to lower costs, create jobs and improve our environment. As a short-term strategy, this Congress has, among other things, suspended shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide more oil to the market. We cracked down on price-fixing among energy companies and passed legislation to repeal massive tax breaks for oil and gas companies. In the longer term, though, we must invest in conservation and domestic production of clean and renewable fuels. This will reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources while creating new jobs in the green energy sector. Unfortunately, the President's stubborn opposition to commonsense initiatives has blocked any real progress. I'm going to keep fighting to move our Nation forward, toward a more responsible energy policy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the state of our Nation's health care system. Right now, approximately 47 million Americans lack health insurance while the rest watch their coverage costs continue their steep climb. That is why I've introduced the American Health Benefits Program Act, which will provide every American with access to the same quality, affordable coverage as Members of Congress. My bipartisan proposal offers a practical model to begin reigning in costs, improving quality and delivering the same level of health care that this country deserves. American prosperity, Mr. Speaker, depends on individual economic security. Only when Americans no longer have to choose between groceries, gas and health care will our economy truly flourish. I am committed to improving the economic outlook for the millions who are struggling, and I will continue working with my colleagues in Congress on this vital and urgent goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Having served on the House Armed Services Committee, I know that it handles some of the most complicated and contentious issues before Congress, but through a combination of hard work and a commitment to bipartisanship, it has been able to assemble a good bill that all Members should support. I would particularly like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their leadership and their efforts to enhance our national security. The members of this body hold significantly different opinions about what our Nation's role should be in Iraq. Personally, having voted against the authorization of the use of force in Iraq, I believe that our current combat operations are doing significant and systemic damage to our military readiness and that we need a new strategy that emphasizes diplomatic and economic efforts and that allows us to bring our troops home. Despite our differences on Iraq policy, though, my colleagues and I stand in full support of the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation, as well as their families. This legislation recognizes their service by providing a pay raise of 3.9 percent--an increase of 0.5 percent over the President's budget request. It also rejects the President's ill-advised proposal to raise premiums and co- pays for participants of TRICARE, the military health care system. Congress recognizes that other options exist to reduce the cost of health care and that we must not place an undue burden on our military families. To that end, H.R. 5658 establishes several new preventive health initiatives, which will keep people healthier and reduce future costs. As co-chair of the House Submarine Caucus, I am particularly pleased that the bill before us makes a major investment in our national security by providing an additional $722 million for advanced procurement of a second VIRGINIA-class submarine in FY2010--one year ahead of schedule. Last year, Congress provided $588 million to expedite the VIRGINIA-class construction schedule to attain two submarines in FY2011, and this legislation moves the target date even sooner. Submarines are one of the most effective and flexible platforms in our military, but if we don't build more quickly, we will lose our strategic advantage over nations that are rapidly expanding their naval forces. Furthermore, this funding will help our submarine industrial base, which, without additional work, will face layoffs, and our Nation could lose their specialized skills and expertise. The men and women who work at Electric Boat in my district make the best submarines in the world, and I am pleased that this legislation will allow them to expand their contributions to our national security. I am deeply grateful to Chairman Ike Skelton and Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor--as well as my friend and neighbor Joe Courtney and my co- chair on the Submarine Caucus Randy Forbes--for their commitment to our submarine force. This Congress has shown a commitment to our Navy and recognizes the importance of shipbuilding. While I applaud many provisions in this bill that will help restore the size of our fleet, I have concerns about the decision to delay the purchase of the third Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000). Instead of funding the President's full request, the bill provides $400 million that may be used either to purchase long-lead materials for the thud DDG-1000 or to begin procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51). The DDG-1000 is the first installment in the Navy's Family of Ships line, which will develop new technology for later insertion in the next-generation cruiser and other surface ships. Delaying DDG-1000 will prevent the development of new technologies and weapons systems that are necessary to address current and future threats. Additionally, while purchasing additional DDG-51s will help us increase the size of our fleet, they cannot fulfill the mission requirements of the DDG-1000, which was specifically built to have greater capability and a smaller crew. As we move forward with this bill, I ask that the committee keep these concerns in mind. I am very proud to support H.R. 5658, which provides our men and women in uniform with the resources, equipment and services they need to continue their excellent service to the Nation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Skelton-Berman-Lowey amendment, and I want to commend the sponsors for proposing this amendment. Having served on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees, I have seen firsthand the stovepiping that occurs in the various parts of government responsible for national security. I recognize the urgent need to encourage greater interagency cooperation, both in strategic planning and at the operational level. Our Nation has many ways to promote stability and peace throughout the world and protect our Nation. We often see a focus on our hard power assets, such as use of our military, but we also use our diplomacy, financial assistance, or other ``soft power'' assets such as cultural exchanges and communications. We need far better coordination and cooperation between our hard and soft power assets to truly achieve a comprehensive national security strategy for the United States. This amendment would create an advisory panel to encourage collaboration among Department of Defense, State Department, and USAID. This is an important first step in promoting a comprehensive view of national security, and I'm confident that the sponsors of this amendment will build on this effort. I look forward to working with them to encourage more interagency cooperation so that the United States can be more effective in reaching our national security goals.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today the House is addressing two of the most important issues facing our Nation: The Iraq war and the poor state of our economy. We have the opportunity to force a change in our Iraq strategy while providing much-needed assistance to returning troops and Americans struggling to make ends meet. In October 2002, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and more than 5 years later, it is abundantly clear that our Nation needs a new approach in Iraq so that we can bring our men and women in uniform home. I am extremely proud of the service and sacrifice of our troops and their families, and the best way to demonstrate our support is by welcoming them home with the services and resources they need. I strongly support the amendment before us today that requires U.S. forces to begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of withdrawing nearly all troops by the end of 2009. Recognizing the toll that extended deployments are having on our readiness, the amendment also requires the Department of Defense to adhere to its policy of providing sufficient rest and recuperation time for troops returning from combat. Repeated and unpredictable deployments have placed enormous stress on our military and their families, and if we don't make changes soon, we risk losing the men and women who have made our armed forces the best in the world. Another amendment before us would recognize the service of our troops by establishing a new GI Bill of Rights. Under this plan, which is supported by a broad array of veterans groups, servicemembers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan would qualify for educational assistance based on the amount of time served. Those serving three years on active duty would receive benefits to cover the costs of a 4-year education, based on the costs of the most expensive in-state public school. This new program will allow our military returning from combat to advance their careers and develop skills that will help improve our economy. Finally, the measure recognizes the importance of providing assistance to our citizens struggling in the recent economic downturn. Congress has been working swiftly to address the housing crisis and the skyrocketing costs of food and energy, but we need to make sure that we help those who need it now. This legislation provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to those who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits--a provision that could help as many as 24,400 Rhode Islanders. Unemployed Americans want to get back to work, but in many places jobs are scarce. We must not punish them for the failings of our economy, and this emergency spending measure demonstrates Congress's commitment to those in greatest need. We have a chance today to reject the status quo policies of the Bush administration by setting new priorities for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to prevent further blank check funding for Iraq, endorse a responsible new strategy for bringing our troops home and provide support to Americans struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, better known as the Farm Bill. This measure, which reauthorizes federal agriculture and nutrition programs for five years, reflects Rhode Island's priorities: protecting our farmers and surrounding environment and caring for the most vulnerable members of our society. There has been much discussion about reforming the Farm Bill, particularly with regard to how payments are structured to producers of certain commodities like cotton, rice and sugar. H.R. 2419 begins this process by lowering the annual adjusted gross income of farmers eligible for subsidies from $2.5 million to $750,000 and also excludes farmers making more than $500,000 from non-farm income. This structure will prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits, and will also make payments transparent. While I believe we should go further with reform, I look forward to building on this restructuring in future legislation. This legislation increases funding by nearly $8 billion for the conservation title, which includes programs important to Rhode Island, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. I am also pleased that H.R. 2419 includes funding for specialty crops, which will benefit our fruit, vegetable and nursery crop farmers. These farmers, who make up a large percentage of Rhode Island's farming landscape, will now receive equal assistance and access to conservation programs. H.R. 2419 includes over $10 billion in increased funding for the nutrition title, which includes food stamps and other programs aimed to combat hunger and improve nutrition for children, the elderly and low- income Americans. Unfortunately, these members of our society face a stigma when they realize they must turn to the government for assistance, and this Farm Bill works to end that by renaming the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and replacing food stamp coupons with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards. This bill also reauthorizes programs such as the Community Food Projects program, which awards grants to non-profit groups that establish community food projects targeted to low-income individuals, and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, which provides vouchers for low-income seniors to purchase fruits and vegetables at farmers' markets. This measure also increases funding for school nutrition programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which will help purchase fruits, vegetables and nuts, and create more avenues for produce to flow from local farmers to schools. This is especially important in Rhode Island, where state lawmakers and local organizations have already taken the initiative in improving the eating habits of our students. In 2007, 26 of 38 RI school districts participated in the Farm to School Program, where produce is purchased from local farms. This Farm Bill will help those school districts continue in a healthy direction. H.R. 2419 also helps northeast dairy farmers, including those in Rhode Island, by extending the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, which compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a certain level. Further, this measure encourages the expansion of renewable energy research and production, contains a new section for horticulture and organic agriculture, and includes funding to make sure our food supply is safe and stable. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill; however, this Farm Bill helps farmers meet growing environmental challenges, gives consumers more healthy food choices, and promotes critical renewable energy development. It was also imperative that the Farm Bill take into consideration the country's current economic state. This bill will help stock food banks across our country by increasing funding to the Emergency Food Assistance Program by $1.26 billion. I look forward to passing this measure into law.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, which will help cities and towns, but most importantly, individuals and families that have been adversely impacted by the foreclosure crisis. In my home state of Rhode Island, this problem is particularly acute. Foreclosures have increased by 20 percent in the last few months, and it is our most vulnerable communities that have been disproportionately affected. Last weekend I teamed with Rhode Island Housing--a nonprofit organization dedicated to keeping housing affordable--to hold a workshop for those facing foreclosure. While we helped many local families, it is time for the Federal Government to do its part on a national scale. I commend Chairman Frank and Chairman Rangel for their leadership in bringing this critical measure to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, on May 6, 2008, my vote on the Kind Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, rollcall vote 258, was recorded as a ``no'' vote when I intended to cast a ``yes'' vote. I wish to clarify on the record my support for the House-passed funding levels for the Grassland Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as the Senate's sod saver provision.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, today we are introducing the Homeland Security Network Defense and Accountability Act of 2008, a bill designed to improve the cybersecurity posture of the Department of Homeland Security. The security of our federal and critical infrastructure networks is an issue of national security. The United States and its allies face a significant and growing threat to our information technology, IT, systems and assets, and to the integrity of our information. The acquisition of our government's information by outsiders undermines our strength as a nation and over time could cost the United States our advantage over our adversaries. This is a critical issue that we can no longer ignore. One of the first things that Chairman Thompson tasked me with when I was named Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology was to lead a bipartisan inquiry into the cybersecurity posture of our federal networks and our critical infrastructure. Viewing the potential for cyber attacks on federal networks as an emerging threat that warrants attention, Chairman Thompson challenged me to address the four areas that the 9/11 Commission determined our systems failed: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management. The same can be said of the federal government's approach to cybersecurity--and as a result, our critical information and technology systems are vulnerable to cyber terrorists. So far in the 110th Congress, we have held seven hearings on cybersecurity, heard from hundreds of experts on how best to tackle this issue, reviewed information security best practices in the public and private sectors, investigated cyber incidents across the spectrum, from the State and Commerce Departments to our Nation's electric grid, and uncovered and assisted law enforcement in investigating breaches at the Department of Homeland Security. It has become clear that an organization is only as strong as the integrity and reliability of the information that it keeps. Therefore we must make cybersecurity a national priority. This legislation represents a small but critical step toward improving the cybersecurity posture at the Department of Homeland Security by addressing two key issues: ensuring a robust defense-in- depth of our information systems, and holding individuals at all levels accountable for mitigating vulnerabilities. Early in our investigative process, I announced that the Committee's oversight goals were to increase public awareness of the problems associated with federal network security; fix those vulnerabilities that are, or could be, successfully exploited; and hold individuals, agencies, and private sector entities responsible for their actions. Though much work remains to be done, I believe that we are moving in the right direction. The Department has already begun acting to improve its information security as a result of several Committee hearings. By fully implementing and carefully considering the intent of this bill, I believe the Department of Homeland Security will continue to make great strides in improving its information security posture. I hope that one day DHS will be considered a global leader in cybersecurity. This measure is comprised of several important pieces. First, this bill would establish authorities and qualifications for the Chief Information Officer, CIO, position at the Department of Homeland Security. In March 2007, Secretary Chertoff issued a management directive giving the Chief Information Officer hiring authority for CIOs and approval authority over agency CIO budgets and IT investments. This bill statutorily authorizes that directive, but includes additional requirements for information security qualifications. In a number of hearings, we expressed concern that the lack of an information security background can hamper the CIO's understanding and efforts to secure the Department's networks. We cannot allow future Presidents to repeat the mistakes made by this Administration in appointing unqualified individuals to this important office. This bill would also establish specific operational security practices for the CIO, including a continuous, real-time cyber incident response capability, a network architecture emphasizing the positioning of security controls, and vulnerability assessments for each external- facing information infrastructure. As we learned through our investigations of cyber incidents on DHS networks, the absence of a 24 hour/7 day a week real-time response capability can lead to devastating consequences, and we simply cannot afford significant time lapses in our response to cyber incidents. This legislation also includes testing protocols to reduce the number of vulnerability exploitations throughout the Department's networks. Through our investigations and oversight hearings, we identified a significant gap between requirements under the Federal Information Security Management Act, FISMA, and the current threat environment. As we have learned, agencies that receive high FISMA scores are not necessarily secure from the latest attacks. This provision will require the CIO to consult with other federal agencies and establish attack- based testing protocols to secure Department networks. Today, one of the biggest problems with FISMA is that while we continue to identify vulnerabilities in our systems, we fail to provide adequate funding to mitigate those vulnerabilities. This bill will hold both the CIO and the agency head responsible for developing and implementing a vulnerability mitigation plan that includes budget and personnel marks. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet can lead to significant problems if one party is infected with a virus or rootkit that can penetrate another person's network undetected. That is why our bill requires the Secretary to determine if the internal security policy of a contractor who provides network services to the Department matches the requirements of the Department. Network service providers for the Department are also required to implement and regularly update their internal information security policies, and deliver timely notice of any computer incidents that could affect the Department's computers. This section is similar to provisions contained in the security controls developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, special condition ``SA-9.'' Finally, we seek a formal report from the Secretary on several critical issues. I was disturbed to learn that the Department still has not conducted a risk assessment on its unclassified network, despite a series of breaches, and we seek a detailed counter-intelligence plan from the Secretary to investigate all breaches, as well as an outline of a program to increase threat information sharing with cleared contractors. DHS must also examine a similar undertaking, and consider offering training to contractors using the attack-based protocols established in consultation with the defense and intelligence communities. We also ask the Secretary to update us on how effective the Department has been in meeting the deadlines established by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, for Trusted Internet Connections, TIC, encryption and authentication mandates. Regrettably, poor information security practices plague the entire federal government, not just DHS. NIST continues to serve as an excellent guide for robust cybersecurity practices; unfortunately, federal agencies are often quick to cut cybersecurity budgets in favor of tangible products. If we care about information security, then we must not allow agencies to bleed money out of these programs. Of course, legislation alone will not accomplish our goals. The Homeland Security Committee continues to conduct robust oversight over this Administration's Cyber Initiative. While I support the aim of the Cyber Initiative, I continue to have significant questions about the scope, budget, and secrecy of these efforts. Furthermore, there are several critical issues that each federal agency must immediately address to improve its security posture. We must start conducting robust damage assessments that can measure exposure to current attacks, and continue to fix those vulnerabilities. We must enhance and educate the federal workforce to limit successful exploits. We must support focused R&D efforts to solve the big challenges that face us in the world of cybersecurity. We must support and enhance initiatives like the Federal Desktop Core Configuration, the OMB-mandated security configuration for all Microsoft Windows Vista and XP operating system software. We must continue to monitor the efforts of the Administration to collapse federal connections to the Internet, known as the TIC Initiative. And finally, we must hold accountable those responsible for these efforts--whether they are our CIOs or Chief Information Security Officers, OMB, DHS, the Defense Department, the Intelligence community or contractors charged with securing our networks. Information security must become a prime concern for each of us if we are to ever be successful in defending ourselves from attack. Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Network Defense and Accountability Act of 2008 is a robust and carefully crafted bill, and is the result of a bipartisan effort to treat information security and cybersecurity with the same attention and effort that our adversaries would use to exploit us. I thank Chairman Thompson for co-sponsoring this bill with me, and I send the bill to the desk and ask that it be properly referred to the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which extends crucial Federal protections against discrimination based on an individual's genetic information. The new millennium has seen unprecedented scientific advances in genetic research that have brought a renewed hope of solving today's most difficult medical puzzles. Since the human genome was fully mapped in 2003, many in the scientific and medical communities have viewed genetic medicine as the next step toward finding better diagnoses, treatments and possible cures for a wide spectrum of diseases. These advances have also raised legitimate ethical concerns about the potential misuse of genetic information in workforce and insurance related decisions. Although current law already addresses certain aspects of this issue, the importance of protecting individuals from discrimination and safeguarding the right to privacy cannot be overstated. This bill will guarantee more comprehensive protections from discrimination in health insurance and employment on the basis of genetic information. Specifically, it will prohibit group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to develop a disease in the future. Furthermore, it bars employers, employment agencies, labor organizations or training programs from using an individual's genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions. Genetics is a field of study that offers tremendous promise for medical advancement, but we must give thoughtful consideration to the implications of these emerging discoveries on society. No individual should fear discrimination based on genetic technologies. H.R. 493 will allay concerns about the potential for discrimination, encourage individuals to participate in genetic research, and take advantage of genetic testing, new technologies, and new therapies. I thank Congresswoman Slaughter for her leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 2830, which will allow the Coast Guard to appropriately balance its dual missions of safety and security. In the past few years, we have increasingly depended on the Coast Guard to ensure our shores against drug smuggling, acts of terrorism, and other suspicious activity, while simultaneously keeping recreational and commercial boaters safe. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has been required to do more with less. This important measure will reverse that trend by providing an additional 1,500 Coast Guard personnel and $8.4 billion in increased funding to ensure that the Coast Guard can carry out all of these responsibilities successfully. I am particularly pleased this bill will increase oversight and efficiency of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or the TWIC program as it's known, which has encountered numerous problems since its inception nearly 6 years ago. Many businesses, particularly those in my home State of Rhode Island, particularly those hiring seasonal and temporary employees have experienced economic hardship under the program. But the bill before us will help fix many of the problems associated with the TWIC program. Finally, H.R. 2830 will require the Coast Guard to protect and enforce security zones around all existing liquefied natural gas, or LNG facilities, and encourages State and local entities to assist the Coast Guard with this important mission. This provision will allow LNG facilities to safety operate in densely populated areas, such as those in my home State of Rhode Island. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I commend both Chairman Thompson and Chairman Oberstar for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Our voices, as well as those of Armenian-Americans across the nation, are essential in the effort to bring needed attention to such a historic tragedy. The Armenian- American community has made tremendous contributions to our country, and their efforts and passion will help ensure that those who lost their lives will not be forgotten. Today, we pay tribute to the memory of those who died, reflect on all those who have suffered from such prejudice, and vow to raise awareness so that such an atrocity never occurs again. As a member of the Armenian Caucus and a cosponsor of the genocide resolution, I will keep fighting to ensure that the Armenian Genocide is appropriately recognized. It is a shame that we have not learned from our mistakes in the past regarding genocide, but it is not too late to heal these wounds and also help end atrocities occurring as we speak. With the Olympics taking place this year, it is my hope that all nations can come together and play a constructive role in ending violence in places like Darfur. In the spirit of the Olympics, we must come together as one and make clear that we all stand with the world against genocide and human rights abuses. It is our duty to end this human suffering, and I will continue to work with my colleagues in Washington, DC, to promote healing and peace throughout the world. I am also very proud that my fellow Rhode Islanders have been actively involved in calling attention to this issue, and I urge them to continue to make their voices heard. As an ardent supporter of Rhode Island's Armenian-American community throughout my public service career, I join my colleagues today in honoring the victims of the genocide by paying tribute to their memory, showing compassion for those who have suffered from such prejudice, and never forgetting the pain that they have endured.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Absolutely.

Mr. LANGEVIN. That's right. Using bulk purchasing power is the thing, by getting more people into one insurance pool, we spread risk around, and it achieves cost containment and stability in the system.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am honored to be able to speak this evening about the issue of universal health care, one of the biggest domestic challenges that is facing our country at the present time. I am also pleased to be joined this evening and who will be speaking in just a few minutes, by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on the issue of universal health care. Mr. Speaker, again I am very pleased to have this time to speak on a topic that remains of paramount concern to individuals and families across the country, and that is again the issue of health care in America. Health care costs, Mr. Speaker, are rising in the United States at an alarming, alarming rate. Yet despite the fact that we spend more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country, we produce very disappointing outcomes by a number of important measures. One major attributable factor is the high level of uninsured in America. Furthermore, the U.S. remains the only developed nation that does not guarantee health coverage as a right to all of its citizens. Today, there are nearly 47 million Americans who lack health insurance coverage, leaving one in six without access to proper medical care. What makes these figures more shocking is that over 80 percent of the uninsured come from working families. As the cost of health care continues to rise, it is clearly burdening our families and placing American employers at more and more of a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, I believe it is our duty as policymakers to offer a new vision and new solutions to fix our ailing health care system. Providing quality, affordable health care to every American has been a long-time priority of mine. And it is in this spirit of furthering the national dialogue on this important issue that my colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Chris Shays and I have worked together to introduce H.R. 5348, the American Health Benefits Program Act of 2008. This bipartisan universal health care proposal is based on a tried- and-true program that has stood the test of time, and that is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or FEHBP as it is called. Currently over 8 million Federal employees, retirees and their dependents receive health insurance coverage under FEHBP. This includes Members of Congress. This program uses a system of managed competition between private insurance carriers and provides enrollees with a large menu of coverage options. Its use of bulk purchasing power helps contain costs and brings stability to the system. In 2007, this resulted in an average premium increase of just 1.8 percent compared to the private market average of 6.1 percent. And by the way, I have yet to come across an employer, at least in my home district, or anywhere in the country, for that matter, who has only realized a 6.1 percent increase in their health care costs. Generally it is in the double digits and sometimes you can be talking about 20 or 30 percent or more increases to a given health care plan in any given year. Our proposal basically would use that successful model to provide similar benefits to all Americans, establishing the first ever American health benefits program or AHBP. Now the development of AHBP will be guided by eight fundamental principles, and they are on this chart to my right: choice, shared responsibility, affordability, portability, continuity, preventive care, and health care reinvestment. I believe these are the types of principles that we have to have in any type of system and they are certainly the core tenets of our universal health care proposal. Now under AHBP, employers who wish to continue negotiating with private insurance carriers may do so as long as the coverage they offer meets a basic standard set by AHBP. However, employer-sponsored coverage is proving to be more and more cost-prohibitive for businesses as health care costs continue to outpace inflation and insurance options drastically fluctuate from plan to plan. That's why AHBP allows companies to choose to pay a fixed predictable payroll tax according to their size and average employee earnings. We have a chart here which says that depending on the average number of employees that a company has, as well as according to their average salary, they would pay a certain percentage of their payroll tax. For example, on the very lower end where you have the small businesses that have the lowest average earnings, that company would only pay a maximum of 4 percent of payroll. On the higher end, you would have the companies that at the very highest end would pay no more than 10 percent of payroll. There would be a certain cap on the average earning itself. So my point is that there is a range of options here. There is a range of plans to choose from, but this is also an affordable way for employees to have health care coverage. Basically we are separating out the coverage from the workplace itself. We need to get away from the issue of just employer-sponsored coverage. I think it is the best way to go, and it is a sensible proposal. For many businesses this may cost less than they currently spend on premium contributions and health care and health plan administration. Payroll tax revenue under the system we are proposing will basically create a funding stream to allow for a fixed government contribution of 72 percent toward health care premiums of every participating American. Individuals in AHBP will have the responsibility to pay for the remaining share of their premiums, to the extent that they can afford it, again with the lowest income earners receiving subsidies to ensure affordability. This new program is not a single-payer system. It is not one size fits all, and it does not reinvent the wheel. Medicare, Medicaid and veteran services and other public programs that are tailored to specific populations will remain intact. Additionally, no one will be denied coverage or discriminated against based on their health status or preexisting condition. That is a very important tenet of this proposal. AHBP will use basically an expanded system of managed competition to ensure that private insurance carriers compete for enrollees on the basis of benefits as well as efficiency, service and price. It will offer portable and continuous coverage and incentivize investment in disease preventive and long-term preventive care which decrease the costs of care over time. Investments in health information technology will also lower costs while increasing quality and efficiency. Mr. Speaker, instituting meaningful systemic reforms will require a fundamental shift in how we view employer-provided coverage and health care delivery. While it is critical that businesses maintain a role, I believe it is essential that we change our perspective of health insurance as a privilege or benefit tied to employment. Instead, we must look at it as a right and a responsibility to be shared by the community. Individuals and employers, health care providers and the government, all have key roles to play in reaching a truly inclusive and efficient health care model. The unsettling truth is that society already pays for the uninsured. Some think that there is no cost associated with the uninsured. That is completely not true. Society already pays for the uninsured, but it does so at tremendous cost and with staggering inefficiencies. Individuals without health insurance are most often forced to seek care from doctors and hospital emergency rooms only after their illnesses reach catastrophic levels, drastically increasing the risk of complications and the cost of treatment. Our most recent estimates place total uninsured medical expenses at nearly $125 billion a year. That is staggering. Approximately $41 billion of this total comes in the form of uncompensated care which is predominantly borne by the government and financed by the taxpayer. Beyond this, the cost is also reflected in the form of higher health insurance premiums that everyone pays. This cost is only compounded by the lost income due to reduced employment and job productivity. However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing costs are not the monetary costs in nature, but the immeasurable price that we pay in human lives each year as a result of inequitable, inadequate care. A recently released analysis estimated that 22,000 deaths nationwide occurred last year resulting from adults not having health insurance, averaging one death every 24 minutes. This is simply an unacceptable price to pay for delaying necessary reforms to our health care system, and we need to change it. The challenges we face in fixing our ailing health care system are great. However, the costs of inaction are even greater. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for policymakers at all levels and across the ideological spectrum to take action toward developing a health care system that really works for our Nation, one that offers Americans choice, calls for shared responsibility, and is affordable to all. I believe our proposal introduces a practical model for universal health care while leaving room for further discussion on this very complex issue. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It's not a conservative or a liberal issue. It's an issue that matters most to the American people. And on that note, I am pleased to yield this evening to the gentleman from Connecticut, my partner in this bipartisan universal health care bill and this effort to finally, once and for all, solve our Nation's health care crisis, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for his words and also his passion and support on this bipartisan universal health care bill. Your input has been invaluable in crafting this bipartisan bill and bringing it to where it is today, and we hope that this, now, continues, where we begin the process of fixing our health care system, bringing it to the top of the public policy agenda. It is clearly long overdue. The American people are asking, they're demanding that we fix our health care crisis, and that we cover the uninsured, not only cover the uninsured, but making health care affordable. This is something that's long overdue. I think it's a national disgrace that we have 47 million people in this country without health insurance. And as we have both pointed out, that because of that, it's a major contributing factor in that we have the highest cost and the worst outcomes in comparison to other industrialized nations. Again, the high number of uninsured is a major contributing factor to that statistic. So the fact that we have a bill now is exciting because it's based on a template, a tried and true program that's already working. When I first came to this debate, I said, this is one of the most, the biggest challenges facing our country right now. And I said, why can't we solve it? And is there anything out there that is working now that serves as an example of what we could base a universal health care system on? And after studying it and looking at it, I said it's really right before us, and that's the Federal employees health benefits program. Right now, we have, the Federal Government, as mentioned earlier, negotiates a variety of different health care plans for more than 8 million Federal employees, dependents and retirees. You've got everything, and the choices of options that are available, from the very basic plan with the small premium and the small copay, up to the more classic comprehensive Blue Cross-type plans and everything in between.

Mr. LANGEVIN. That's right. Absolutely. And it's equally important to recognize that this is not a big government-run plan. We're not creating another big government bureaucracy. It's government negotiated but it's private competition. It's managed competition. Private insurers would be able to compete for now enrollees based on benefits, efficiency service and price. So the insurance companies have an incentive now to economize, find efficiencies. They would have to deliver on what has been negotiated in the various plans, and that would be clearly spelled out, but they would now be challenged to find ways to do things like invest in preventative and early care, which there really isn't necessarily the incentive, I believe, right now for insurers to do that, because, for example, when it's tied to employment, you know, we all, people change jobs several times throughout their careers. There's no guarantee that an enrollee that starts with an insurance company today is going it would be Insurance Company B, you know, wouldn't be with the Insurance Company A years down the road. They would be with potentially another insurance company, which means, you know, why should Insurance Company A invest in all this early preventative care, when, down the road, when someone gets older and we all become greater consumers of health care, that, why would they, that company wouldn't benefit from the investment that they made, where under this system they would. You may change plans within a particular company, but you may very well be with the same insurance company or plan throughout most of your life.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Right. And that's an important point to make. There are some employers that, though they offer health insurance, the company may only offer one plan, and it may not fit the needs of all of the employees. It may be good for some but, again, not everyone. Under this plan, there would be a variety of plans to choose from: again, a very basic plan with a small premium, a small copay, up to the more comprehensive-type programs, and several options in between. And it's basically bringing everyone into one insurance pool. So you're bringing a younger, healthier population into the program; you're spreading risk, which leads to more stable costs; and we talked about the fact that the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under last year only had a 1.8 percent increase in its health care plans on average and the private sector had about a 6.1 percent increase. And I think that's even modest. So, again, a good model here. I'm glad that you raised the issue of the commission because it is important to look at the reasons for the rising costs of health care and then look at what options we can employ to achieve cost containment and bring stability to the system. Things like employing health information technology, the electronic medical records that we're talking more and more about these days, the cost of prescription drugs and how that system is run, and how we pay for prescription drugs. I'm looking at performance-based outcomes that the commission would look at. Again, all important tenets of achieving cost containment. And you rightly pointed out that employers, in determining whether they like the system or not, are going to look at the range of costs or percentage of payroll that they would contribute based on the size of their company. Employers, I suspect right now, hopefully this will encourage them to ask, what are we paying as a percentage of payroll right now, and that figure will determine, in many ways, whether this system works better or worse for them. I suspect that in many cases it will be better. And we pointed out that the smaller companies with the lowest average salaries would pay no more than 4 percent of their payroll toward this payroll tax. And the larger companies with the highest salaries would pay no more than 10 percent of payroll and not to exceed more than $12,000 per employee.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Right. And I think that is an important point, if I could just interject. The high costs of health care now are putting not only a tremendous burden on our individuals and families, but it's putting our companies at a significant competitive disadvantage in terms of those companies overseas whose nations have universal health care. And so it is not particularly burdening in individual business itself in foreign countries where it is here where companies bear much of the costs of providing universal health care. So we're helping to change the dynamic, if you would, of how health care is provided in America. And, again, we're changing it from an employer kind of run system, a sponsor system, to now a universal health care model that everybody is participating in, and it's not necessarily tied to employment. Again, businesses still have an important role to play, we all do. Businesses, government, health care providers.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Right.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank my colleague. And I couldn't agree more. We want people to look at this plan, tell us what part of it they like, what they don't, what works, what doesn't, so that we can improve upon it. And certainly it's important for people to get educated because this is an issue that is clearly confronting our country. It is serious, it is challenging, but the time to solve it is now. We're beginning the process. We invite the American people to be partners with us in this effort. I look forward to traveling the country with you as we talk to groups across the country and hopefully enlisting their support, and ultimately the support of all the Members of this House and the Senate. I look forward to the day where we can pass this bill in both Chambers and put it on the President's desk for the President's signature, and again, truly make a difference for the people that we serve. I think it's the right thing to do. With that, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his friendship, his valuable input and support on this bipartisan universal health care bill. And I also want to take a minute just to thank the Speaker for giving us time to discuss this very important issue.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut again for his words and his support in helping to craft this bipartisan universal health care bill. Like you, I believe that the American people deserve the same kind of health care coverage as Members of Congress. And this is a bill that achieves that goal. It's something that is long overdue. It's something that is vitally important to every family across America, making sure that our families are taken care of, our businesses can stay competitive, and that we're offering something that is affordable, not only for the short term, but for the long term. In closing, for individuals, the American Health Benefits Program offers choice, affordability, and portability. You can take the coverage with you if you change jobs. And on the side of how we provide this coverage, it's managed competition whereby insurers would now have to compete for enrollees based on benefits, efficiency, service and price; again, a good model for guaranteeing coverage, but making sure that it's affordable, with an important component of cost containment, making sure that we're looking at using the most innovative technologies out there, such as health IT records, and other things that would make sure that we're providing the most efficient and affordable care possible, but comprehensive care. I think my friend has some other comments that you would like to make as we close?

Mr. LANGEVIN. I couldn't agree more. This is one of the most challenging issues facing us in our time right now. It's going to take time and effort to get the message out and hopefully encourage support for our plan. I'm glad that you and I have made a commitment to travel the country so that we can help to bring the plan before people, hopefully to educate the American people about what we're proposing, and offering this as a viable solution to our Nation's health care crisis. It's clearly long overdue. And in my home State of Rhode Island, it's the number one domestic issue that I hear most about. It is directly tied in many ways to the health of our economy and making sure that our companies can be competitive in this global market. It's important to individuals and families. And no person should have to worry if they're going to lose their home because they come down with a catastrophic illness or a family member comes down with a catastrophic illness, but that happens every day across this country right now because of the present health care system. And again, it's not that there is no cost associated with the uninsured. If someone is that sick and they need to be treated, they're going to go, very often, to the hospital, to the emergency room where they're going to be seen. But usually by then it's at the end stage of an illness where a person is so sick that they have to be likely hospitalized, or the cost of treating them is far more expensive than it otherwise would have been at the earlier stages when early intervention, early care would have made all the difference if it were with a prescription or some other treatment. Now we're offering a system to change that.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. I thank my staff as well. It is something that often gets overlooked, and I want to make sure that it's not because your staff and my staff have worked so closely on this, as well as the effort that you and I have put in. A lot of great work has come from this collaborative effort. And I thank you again for your support and your input.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, on April 8, 2008, I was unable to vote due to official business outside Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 161, 162, and 163.