Civil Rights

Yesterday, I, along with 20 other members of the House, requested Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include possible crimes committed by the Bush Administration, specifically those that may have resulted from lying to Congress about pre-war intelligence.  At the heart of the CIA leak case is the fact that the Bush administration lied about pre-war intelligence and then later attempted to discredit a credible source who was going public with information that exposed those lies. If the president and other senior administration officials had not falsely claimed that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa then there wouldn't have been the need for Joseph Wilson to investigate those claims on behalf of the CIA, members of the Bush administration wouldn't have plotted to leak the identity of Valerie Wilson in retaliation for her husband's public statements, and Patrick Fitzgerald would be sitting at his desk in Chicago working solely as a U.S. Attorney.

The Financial Services Diversity Resolution addresses diversity in one of America's most thriving industries, and draws attention to the low presence of minorities in the financial services industry, and minorities and women in upper level managerial positions. The resolution encourages financial services institutions, both public and private, to adopt certain diversity initiatives including appointment of board members, career mentoring, partnerships and diversity in recruitment and training. I would hope Members from both sides of the aisle, especially those on the Financial Services Committee, would support greater opportunities for all Americans in the industry we oversee.

I introduced the Protection for Participants in Research Act of 2006, to provide clear and consistent protections for human subjects who take part in clinical trials. This act provides clear guidelines to researchers and ensures that the United States can continue to lead the way in medical research.

I think that the American people are quite relieved that the terrorists are interned in Guantanamo, not in the United States. I do not think the suicides will generate any sympathy for them and I think that this is one of the issues which works in Bush's favor. Iraq is costing him votes. But anything about homeland security, including Guantanamo, gains him support.

As a nurse, I am always looking for ways to improve patient care.

Recent innovations in health information technology have shown a great deal of promise in enhancing the quality of care by reducing clerical errors, facilitating communication between hospitals and other health care facilities, and improving the transfer of x-rays and other images. This new technology has the potential to save lives by reducing medical accidents attributed to human error, such as illegible hand-written prescriptions, and save money by reducing paperwork and increasing the speed with which medical records are accessed. Unfortunately, these innovations are also fraught with potential problems, particularly with regards to protecting the privacy of patients as their personal medical records are more easily accessible to a larger number of people.

Just recently we saw the names, birthdates, social security numbers, addresses and disability information of 26.2 million veterans and active duty military stolen from a single laptop belonging to the Veterans Administration. This lapse in judgment compromised the sensitive personal records of millions of veterans and their families, leaving them extremely vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. I fear that if we don't take necessary precautions, the same security breach could affect the rest of the public. We must ensure safeguards are in place to protect sensitive medical information from being accessed by the wrong parties or being used to discriminate against individuals.

Last week in the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce committee we considered a bill on health information technology. I offered an amendment to this bill that would have expanded and improved existing federal medical privacy law. My amendment would have improved privacy protections for patients in several ways. First, it would require health groups to get consent from patients before sharing medical information. Second, it would allow patients to control the sharing of particularly sensitive records -- such as mental health or HIV/AIDS cases. Third it would ensure that patients are notified in the event that their information has been inappropriately accessed and it would provide a means of legal recourse for patients whose medical records are compromised.

Unfortunately my amendment was rejected in the subcommittee on a party line vote of 12 to 10. I am hopeful that when the Health Information Technology bill is considered by the full Energy and Commerce committee later this week, my colleagues will act to protect the sensitive private medical records of our constituents.

Two nights ago Congress passed legislation that could very well lead to serious, negative changes in the way the Internet works in the future. I voted against this flawed bill.

The main point of the bill, the COPE Act, is to provide the phone companies with national video franchises so they can provide alternative cable TV choices. The bill passed 321 to 101.

As I considered this legislation, I talked to constituents and industry experts both in Washington, D.C. and back home. Everyone I talked to expressed support for the broad concepts of increasing competition to cable, lowering prices, and offering consumers better choices. Yet many had grave concerns that the legislation as written failed to ensure better services for all consumers and potentially threatened next generation technologies.

One of my biggest problems with this bill is that it fails to insure "network neutrality" on the Internet. Net neutrality has become a buzzword of sorts as the debate over this bill intensified both on Capitol Hill and on the Central and South Coast.

The phone companies have made clear their intentions to establish a system where they decide the speed at which different bits of data can move across the network, in essence creating a "fast lane" and a "slow lane" and maybe many in between. If they do so, the cable companies will quickly follow suit.

This is a bad idea for two reasons. First, it means that small players on the Internet will find it harder to use the world wide reach of the Internet to bring their new ideas to market. This could prevent the next Google or MySpace from emerging due to the inability to pay phone and cable company fees for the "fast lane" of internet access.

Second, the lack of nondiscrimination among data bits allows for the distinct possibility that the phone and cable companies could block or slow the sites and services of their competitors.

I don't see in the phone and cable industries the kind of wide open competition that is present today on the Internet. And given that lack of competition, I question the commitment of those companies to protecting a system that allows open competition and fosters innovation. The absence of net neutrality poses serious threats to the next generation of internet innovators and to consumers who should be allowed to choose the best product regardless of whether it is offered by an established firm or a new technology start up.

I was a strong supporter of an amendment offered by my colleague Rep. Markey that would have ensured "Network Neutrality" by maintaining our current system of nondiscrimination for access to the World Wide Web network. Unfortunately, this amendment failed last night. Thus legislation that was supposed to be about creating more competition and giving consumers more choices and lower prices will likely produce fewer choices and higher prices.

I am extremely disappointed that the House voted for the COPE Act yesterday without any essential net neutrality protection. By blocking the Markey Amendment, the Republican Congress has allowed 'the pipes' to control content in a way that goes directly against the level playing field and innovative spirit created by the Internet. Because no net neutrality provisions were adopted, the broadband duopolies and monopolies will be able to turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable television. I hope the U.S. Senate will stand up for freedom and, unlike the House, insist on net neutrality to save the Internet as we know it.

First and foremost, we are a nation at war. One of our most important weapons in this war against terror is information. The Terrorist Surveillance Program is crucial to gathering intelligence on terrorist activities.

The terrorists are smart and have adapted to our old modes of information gathering. For now, we are far better at gathering information than our enemy. It is an advantage we must exploit, and it is keeping us safe. Every time a leak of properly classified national security information occurs, our ability to gather information on those who would do us harm is eroded.

Preventing the NSA from legally using the tools at its disposal to monitor terrorist activities will only make the United States more susceptible to attack.

This weekend's raid in Canada proves the point that terrorists are plotting to attack us, right under our noses. Through my briefings in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am confident the NSA is acting not only within the law, but also in the best interest of Americans. Our civil liberties are not being violated. The American people are not the target of any of our information gathering efforts; al-Qaeda is the target.

It is no accident we are almost five years removed from 9/11 and our nation has not been hit again. We are using every legal source of information to fight this war and help keep this country safe. The American people in poll after poll have supported this, and they have every right to expect the government to use every tool we can to protect them. The Terrorist Surveillance Program is one of the many legal tools we have, will and must use!

For more than ten years, I have sought to change the laws that govern the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I have sought these changes in an effort to stop the well documented and widespread abuse of poor women in the garment and tourism industry there, and to better secure America's borders.

But for more than ten years, my efforts, and the efforts of so many others, have been thwarted. Our efforts have been thwarted by the corrupt partnership of two of Washington's most powerful players - Rep. Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and by their allies in Congress.

But now, a window of opportunity is opening. Rep. DeLay is resigning from Congress this Friday, and Jack Abramoff will be in prison beginning on June 29th. I believe that finally there just might be an opening for Congress to properly consider this issue that has been callously pushed aside for so long.

Today, my colleagues and I are re-introducing legislation to apply U.S. immigration and labor laws in the Mariana Islands. I also delivered letters to Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, and Resources Committee Chairman Pombo asking for quick consideration of this issue right away.

I’m generally hesitant to amend the Constitution; there are few things as permanent as a constitutional amendment, and it’s something that clearly shouldn’t be done lightly. However, when activist judges repeatedly take steps to overrule the clear voice of a majority of the People, we are left with very few options.

On two separate occasions, the people of Montana have clearly said that marriage should be defined as it has always been in this country, a union between one man and one woman, which is what I’ve always believed. This has been the case in many other states as well. Unfortunately, the overwhelming consensus of the people is not good enough for some. As we have seen in a number of states over the past several years, a handful of judges and other public officials have taken it upon themselves to decide what should constitute marriage. Words must have meanings that can’t be changed based upon the political whimsy of a court, mayor, or any other public officials that are more interested in scoring political points than they are in doing what is right. I’m concerned it’s only a matter of time before the recently enacted Montana constitutional amendment is challenged.

The ultimate decision in an issue this important must fully reflect the desire of the People, not just those of us in Washington, and certainly not that of a handful of activist judges. That’s why I voted today in favor of a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage laws, protects the will of the people, and sends a clear message, we do not like judicial activism.