Technology

While the President possesses the inherent authority to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy outside the country, Congress regulates wiretapping within the United States. And Congress intended to fully occupy the field when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requiring court approval for domestic eavesdropping.

There is no limiting principle to the Administration's argument that as commander in chief the President can do as he chooses during the war on terror. We are left solely to rely upon the good faith of the executive, and that is not good enough. When the executive shows that it is infallible, a good faith standard may be enough; but they are no more infallible than Congress. The Constitution doesn't say, as my opponents on the floor argued 'trust us.' In fact, in its system of checks and balances, the Constitution actually says, 'don't trust us,' and sets each institution as a check on the self-aggrandizing tendencies of every other.

Electronic surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and others seeking to harm our country can and will continue; it can and should be done in compliance with the law.

We have tried to target things that do not belong in a defense bill. This is a bill meant to fund defense operations, and I feel to see what they have to do with each other.

For example, there is an appropriation for the Mystic Aquariam, which is in Connecticut, but the money is going to Ohio. Why should we be funding this with defense money?

There is a technology transfer center in Illinois. This may be a good thing, but why are we funding this with the defense bill.

I truly believe that nuclear energy is a viable energy source that has been neglected for too long.  We need to have a responsible debate about it.  We are just frozen in time on this issue.

Having a social security number visible on a health care or identification card poses an unnecessary risk to an individual’s personal information. My bill would remove that threat from ever being realized. With all the technological advances we have these days, there’s no need to put Americans’ personal information in jeopardy. Why not remove these risks and protect people when and where you can?

Creating the building blocks for huge information systems to store and exchange the medical secrets of millions of Americans WITHOUT building in privacy from the start is incredibly reckless and risky. It's sort of like hopping on a super-charged motorcycle and then thinking about the need for a helmet AFTER you hit the car. It's too risky, as I'm sure Pittsburgh Steelers' fans everywhere would agree.

The Markey-Capps amendment, which was defeated on a party line vote, would:

Give patients the power to keep their medical records out of these electronic databases unless they first give their permission;

Require patients to be notified if their health information in the system was lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose; and

Require the use of data security safeguards such as encryption.

To achieve the benefits of health IT systems, we need to hard-wire health IT systems with strong privacy protections and the House should put those safeguards in place before any bill like this passes.

The House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee on Thursday considered a bill (HR 4157) that would promote the use of health care information technology and establish national standards on privacy and implementation of electronic health records. I am a strong supporter of the movement toward electronic health records. I believe this will help with patient care by ensuring that doctors have quick access to complete and accurate patient info. For example, it will be less likely that double tests will be ordered or for a patient to have a problem filling a prescription because of bad handwriting. The legislation, which I co-sponsored, would also establish a committee to make recommendations on national standards for medical data storage and develop a permanent structure to govern national interoperability standards. Interoperability of data storage is essential because electronic records will be ineffective if different systems are used that can not share information or have different privacy standards. The bill also would clarify that current medical privacy laws apply to data stored or transmitted electronically and would require the HHS secretary to recommend to Congress a privacy standard to reconcile differences in federal and state laws. I recognize the need to protect this extremely sensitive information.

Yesterday, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I opposed the Better Health Information Technology Promotion Act. My Republican friends have repeatedly said that this should not be a partisan issue and I entirely agree. I am sorry, however, that we were not able to work together and agree upon legislation that would bring our nation's health system into the 21st century. I am dismayed that we were not able to come together the same way our Senate colleagues were able to. As a result, I believe the legislation before us fell far short of the bill passed unanimously by the Senate, and will do little to advance the widespread adoption of Health Information Technology. The bill left a lot of room for improvement and is far from "superior", which is the word used to describe it in our Subcommittee markup last week. For one, this bill provides no funding to help providers implement health information technology.

Read more...

I had hoped the Committee would craft a Health Information Technology bill that would give health care providers the resources necessary for adoption of new technology. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask. Instead of authorizing grant funds to help providers, this bill was riddled with exemptions and lacked important privacy protections, which is why I voted against it.

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.

With tens of thousands of patients dying every year from preventable medical errors, it is imperative that we embrace available technologies and drastically improve the way medical records are handled and processed. The success of my bill, The Federal Family Health Information Technology Act of 2006, will set the stage for Health Information Technology implementation nationwide.