Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1168 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, under a structured rule.

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science Committee, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended. The resolution makes in order the amendment printed by the Rules Committee report if offered by Representative Flake or a designee. The resolution waives all points of order against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a growing problem along U.S. coasts and they impact almost every coastal district. Some algae, like red tide, produce toxins that contaminate shellfish and shut down shellfish beds to local harvesters.

Severe red tide blooms can be harmful to tourism across the country. When red tide affects an area, people can't go in the water, seafood isn't bought and sold, and stores and hotels along the coast are empty.

Over the past few decades, harmful algae have begun to bloom more frequently and with greater intensity. HABs are one of the most complex and economically significant coastal management challenges facing the Nation.

We know that algae growth is influenced by a number of factors, including light, water temperature, salinity, and nutrient availability, but the factors that drive outbreaks like red tide are not understood as well, and additional efforts are needed to monitor, control, prevent, and mitigate these outbreaks.

A professor at the University of Maine has done research that shows that the blooms start offshore and are blown towards shore by easterly winds. This sounds simple enough; yet in the field of red tide research, this was groundbreaking work.

Addressing HABs on a national level requires a coordinated approach that involves a number of Federal agencies, including the EPA and NOAA. The underlying bill oversees the development and implementation of regional research and action plans to help coastal managers understand and deal with HAB outbreaks.

New England, and Maine in particular, have been especially hard hit by outbreaks. Severe red tide events occurred in 4 of the last 5 years, causing tens of millions of dollars in lost income to shellfish harvesters.

The shellfish industry is vital to the Maine economy, Madam Speaker. Over 2,000 harvesters and dealers depend directly on access to healthy shellfish beds to make their living and support their families. Maine's Department of Marine Resources estimates total annual economic value of the shellfish industry in Maine to be about $50 million.

Last spring and summer, the shellfish industry in Maine was shut down because of severe red tide bloom. At its peak, the density of the red tide toxin was nearly 100 times the federally mandated quarantine level and closed 97 percent of the State's shellfish beds and 100 percent of the offshore beds in Federal waters. Many shellfish harvesters were stuck on land for months with nowhere to go. This all occurred during the peak of the tourist season, and the results were devastating.

Coastal families rely on the income generated during the short summer months to carry them through Maine's long, cold winters; and the timing could have not have been worse for these hardworking harvesters. Not only were they missing out on the best time to sell their product, but they had no way of knowing when it would be okay to return to the mudflats. The uncertainty made it impossible to know whether to look for other employment or to wait and see if the next week would bring clear water.

Predictions for 2010 indicate that it could be an even worse year for red tide in the Gulf of Maine. According to a recent NOAA report, the cysts that cause red tide are at some of the highest levels ever measured, 60 percent higher than what was observed in the sediments prior to the historic red tide of 2005.

While red tide in Maine is a coastal issue, HABs are increasingly occurring in our inland lakes and rivers. Blue-green algae blooms in some Midwest lakes and the Great Lakes have killed

dozens of dogs and poisoned people all over the region. Frequently, these freshwater algae blooms are caused by a combination of droughts and fertilizer runoff. These outbreaks lead to rashes, sore throats, and other health concerns. This bill helps address algal blooms in lakes as well.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill, and I am glad that Senator Snowe from Maine is a leader on this issue in the Senate and is the author of the Senate companion legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with her to improve the economic health of our coastal communities.

This bill will help shellfish harvesters in every coastal community by improving our knowledge and ability to predict red tide blooms. We need a national strategy to address HABs and to provide for the development of regional action plans to reduce HAB outbreaks.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleague's yielding, and I appreciate his thoughtful comments about red tide and hypoxia research.

I can only answer for the residents of my home State, who are deeply concerned about algal blooms, red tide, the economic impact in our communities, and the importance of passing this legislation so that the research is done.

Madam Speaker, I had no idea that we were here to debate health care this morning, but I appreciate that the gentleman, my friend from California, has brought up the differences between us. I would like to make a couple of points.

First off, we are here today to take up this bill that could have been done under a suspension; but as I understand, my colleague voted ``no'' when this bill originally came to the floor, which is why we're back here today--to pass what is a relatively simple, I agree, piece of legislation but what is very important in coastal districts like mine.

Yes, we do have a disagreement on health care legislation, and I wish that your caucus were doing what my caucus is doing right now, which is going through the health care legislation that we hope to bring to this floor soon, line by line, to make sure that we are confident this is excellent legislation to move forward the cause of health care reform, something on which he and I don't agree.

I support very strongly and am looking forward to the debate that we will have on this floor about that health care legislation, and I am thrilled with the year and a half that I have spent here and with the number of hours that the committees and Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, have put in in crafting health care legislation. Now, we may not agree on the final product, and that will come down to a vote. You're right. It will depend on making sure that we have enough votes on our side of the aisle, and I am glad that we are making sure that everyone feels confident about that vote.

You know, it was interesting. I, as you know, am a freshman, so I wasn't here in previous years when you were. But when you talk about arm-twisting and about getting votes, I am reminded of the stories that I've heard about passing the prescription drug legislation, and about what it took for the other party, in the middle of the night and with a vote open for many hours, to pass a piece of legislation. I have to say, from my perch as a former State legislator from a State where the cost of prescription drugs is crippling the health care costs for many of our senior citizens, I was shocked to see what that final piece of legislation came to be. I am thrilled that our health care legislation, which I believe will be on this floor soon, will fix some of the problems in there, but, I'm sorry to say, not all.

I remember hearing about that legislation. Was it 2 hours or was it 3 hours in the middle of the night when people were convinced to change their votes so as to get the votes, and when every minute counted to get one more vote? That was the legislation that left us with this tremendous doughnut hole of which our senior citizens talk to me every day. Frankly, that's the public opinion polling that I hear about when I go back to my district.

Yet it's not a public opinion poll. It's senior citizens who come up to me and ask, Do you see what it costs me to buy my prescription drugs? Do you see what happens when I get into the doughnut hole?

Here is what they really ask me. They ask, How could the Republican Party, in the middle of the night and in twisting arms for every vote, pass a piece of legislation that doesn't allow us to negotiate with the pharmaceutical manufacturers for the price of prescription drugs? I can tell you, in my home State of Maine, this was an issue for years.

When I first got elected in 1992 to my State legislature, senior citizens came up to me and asked, Do you see what it costs me to buy my prescription drugs? Then, every year, it got worse and worse and worse as the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which are some of the wealthiest corporations and multinational corporations in this country,

were able to sell their drugs at the highest prices in the world to senior citizens in America. Those people had to pay cash for their prescription drugs. Those people had to decide whether to put heating oil in their tanks to keep warm or put food on their tables.

The Republicans came to the point where they could have changed the law like they've done in Canada or like they've done in virtually every other country in the world. They could have done what they're always telling us: Be like a good business, have good business practices. You know, I own a small business. I wouldn't think of buying something I didn't negotiate for. Well, that's what that bill said. It said we won't negotiate. In fact, we'll give them sweetheart deals. We'll say to our senior citizens, You know what? You're going to pay the highest prices in the world, so there will be no cost savings. These are the same Republicans who tell us now there aren't enough cost savings in our health care bill. They use it as an excuse, but that was what was done in the dark of the night, for 3 hours, in holding open a debate.

Do you know how I first found out about this? I got on a bus with senior citizens from the State of Maine. Let me tell you how it worked. We'd stop in Biddeford, Maine. Then we'd go to Portland, Maine. Then we'd go to Lewiston, Maine. We'd stop at places all along the State of Maine, and we'd drive all the way up to the Canadian border. We'd get all the way to the Canadian border, and we'd visit with a duly licensed physician so that they could have their prescriptions rewritten and they could take them across the Canadian border legally. So then we'd go to a Canadian drug store. This is a busload of senior citizens. We'd go into that Canadian drug store, and they'd buy their prescriptions. I want to tell you about one person I sat next to on one of the many bus trips.

I sat next to a person who had to take Tamoxifen, which is a wonderful drug that we're glad we have for breast cancer, but this person takes 30 pills a month. At that point, I think it cost her about $150 a month for her 30 pills. When we got across the Canadian border, it was $12.35. In my opinion, that was highway robbery. Do you know why that was? Because the Canadian Government, just like every other Western nation, requires that they negotiate for the best prices possible.

So, as far as I'm concerned, that's what should have been in that prescription drug plan that was decided in the middle of the night when arms were twisted to get every last vote. That is what should be: closing the doughnut hole and lowering prescription drug prices in the health care bill that we will debate soon.

As far as I am concerned, I am thrilled that members of my caucus are here today to go through line by line, to make sure that we are getting the best possible health care plan we can get. And I will say, it is not going to be everything I want in a health care plan.

I come from the State of Maine. Our doctors think that single payer ought to be the health care plan in Maine, and I am right there with them, but I know that is not what we are going to get to vote on here on the floor. But I am anxious to make sure that we get the best possible compromise, and I would be thrilled if some of the members of your caucus would vote for that bill. I would be thrilled.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, thank you so much for yielding your time and for allowing me to address this topic, and even though we are here to address algal blooms, I appreciate the chance to go back and forth on this important topic.

Thank you. And just to answer your point, I, too, think it is essential that we continue our research and development here in this country. Frankly, much of it is done around the world on research and development. But I don't think that negotiating for a better price, that lowering the prices to our senior citizens, would cost us research and development. And, frankly----

First off, I would prefer to answer you on my own time, because it seems to me when you yield me your time, you usually answer for me. So I would rather wait until I have my time.

I have to say I am unprepared to answer your question about the research and development tax credit for the pharmaceutical industry--I know that I have industries in my State that benefit from that tax credit--before I say yes or no about the solution that you are proposing.

But I do want to go back to one other thing----

See, I don't think you are letting me finish my answer, so you go ahead.

Madam Speaker, I will just say a couple of more things again.

I am thrilled that the President has decided to focus all of his energy on health care. I think that the people of this country have waited long enough for health care reform, and I am anxious to see it come to this floor. I am anxious to see us bring it to final passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I will continue to reserve my time.

I thank my colleague from California.

We have had a lively debate this morning on a whole variety of issues. I had no idea I was going to have the pleasure of coming to the floor to talk about the bus trips with senior citizens, about the prescription drug debate in the middle of the night and many of the things that have been part

of our process for years before I was ever here. And I thank you for that opportunity to go back and forth on those issues.

I appreciate your thoughts and our differences of opinion on this issue of health care reform. I want to reiterate we are here today on the issue of algal blooms and red tide and a variety of things that are important to my constituents here in Maine.

The reason this bill is here on this floor today is because many of those on the other side of the aisle, including my Republican colleague, whom we have been going back and forth with today, Mr. Dreier, voted ``no'' on the bill when it first hit the floor and we are taking up again.

I would like to close and stick to the topic for a minute and let us move forward with our business today making sure that we continue to bring more bills around jobs here, and I hope that we have some Republican votes on our future jobs bill and certainly on our health care bill.

In closing, I just want to say that the 2009 red tide in Maine hit our coastal communities hard. Most shellfish harvesters are self- employed and make the majority of their living in the summer months. Every day, shellfish harvesters were calling the State agencies and asking for help with mortgages payments, utility bills, doctor bills, car payments, and even food. In my State and in many coastal States, these are jobs. These are jobs that keep families working through the summer and help them get through the winter.

The economic impact of closing much of the coast to shellfish harvesters, aquaculturists and related businesses was conservatively estimated to be between $1.6 million and $2.5 million each week. This is real money to coastal States in every corner of this country.

This bill will make a difference for coastal communities. With improved testing and tracking, scientists will be able to accurately identify localized areas. This means that smaller portions of the coast will be shut down instead of entire regions. In addition, it will build on so much of the good work that has already been done, improve our prediction and monitoring capabilities, and take steps to mitigate the impact of red tide and other HABs. We need a national program dedicated to coordinating and integrating Federal resources to minimize or even prevent HABs in both fresh and saltwater. Enhanced coordination will help resource managers make better decisions, and with better decisions will come less economic hardship in our coastal communities.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Thank you very much to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time, for his excellent opening statement, and for his response to

our colleague from the Rules Committee as well. And I thank him for being here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution. It is a rare occurrence that Members of this body have the opportunity to devote 3 hours of debate to such an important issue, and it is even more unusual that Members are given a chance for a clean up-or-down vote on ending the war in Afghanistan. Each time an emergency war supplemental, a Defense appropriations bill or a Defense authorization bill has come to the floor, continued funding for the war in Afghanistan is hidden behind spending to create jobs, to provide humanitarian relief or to increase medical benefits to our troops, all of which I support. And privileged resolutions like this, which exercise the constitutional right of the United States Congress to decide whether or not to continue the use of the military force, rarely sees the light of day.

This country has spent over $250 billion, Mr. Speaker, on the war in Afghanistan. The share of my home State of Maine is almost $700 million. And in the next few months, the administration will likely ask this Congress to spend another $30 billion to fund a surge of troops in Afghanistan. At a time when we cannot find $30 billion to create jobs, continue unemployment benefits or help small businesses, we need to ask ourselves, Is the cost of this war worth it? Is it right to spend more money and lose more lives on a strategy that isn't working? Can we afford to turn our backs on the challenges we face at home and to pursue failed policies abroad?

I am an original cosponsor of this concurrent resolution because I firmly believe this war needs to end. We have asked our men and women in uniform to return to combat again and again. They have fought with bravery and helped the people of Afghanistan with compassion. They have risen to meet every challenge and paid every price to defend this country. But the cost of this war is too high. The economic situation in the country is too dire, and the lives of our brave men and women in uniform are too precious for this war to go on and for this issue to be muddled and tucked away in large spending bills.

It is time to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. It is time for this Congress to demand an open debate on Afghanistan and a clean vote on any future bills that fund this war. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Thank you to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren). I will not give you all of the answers I am sure you are looking for, and I feel confident that, when this bill is debated on the floor, there will be many more questions raised from the members of the committee who sat through this debate.

I can only say, as a member of the Rules Committee, I, too, sat there while this conversation was going on. I am not an expert in this particular area. I am very pleased, and I want to talk a little bit about how pleased I am that we are taking on this exemption of the insurance companies.

I did hear people say, and the reason that I voted the way I did yesterday, is that I heard that the Lungren safe harbor amendment was a loophole in the McCarran repeal. I heard that consumer groups had said that this was anti-consumer. A safe harbor isn't needed because the bill does not prohibit information sharing. On the other hand, putting in a safe harbor statute would automatically immunize the insurance companies, and it would not permit a case-by-case review of companies that go too far.

Honestly, I am not in a position to argue this amendment, but I know it will be discussed when the bill is discussed.

I want to go back to the original issue, because that is why I am standing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4626, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act.

I have seen firsthand how health insurance companies have used their exemption from antitrust regulation to profit off the backs of hardworking individuals and small business owners in my home State of Maine. If you want to buy an individual insurance policy in my State, it doesn't seem like you have much choice. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maine became so big and swallowed up so much of the market that, at one point, nearly 8 out of 10 people buying an individual policy ended up with them as their insurance provider.

How did Anthem reward them? With skyrocketing rate increases that are impossible to keep up with.

In Maine, Anthem's rates have gone up 250 percent in the last decade--10 times the rate of inflation. Last year,

they asked for a 19 percent rate increase. People in Maine were shocked. Anthem, apparently, was just getting started. This year, Anthem is demanding a 23 percent increase in their rates.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing rising as fast as the premiums big insurance companies charge is their profit margin. Last year, profits for the five biggest insurance companies rose by 56 percent over the year before. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone else in this economy who got a 56 percent rate increase last year or a raise.

Anthem has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of Mainers who are struggling to pay premiums. Last year, when they asked for a 19 percent increase, our insurance superintendent, Mila Kofman, denied the request, allowing them 11 percent instead, which seemed reasonable. So what did Anthem do? They immediately turned around and sued the State of Maine. As our attorney general, Janet Mill, said, ``In this economy, it's hard to believe the greed of it.''

Also last year, I learned that Anthem had suddenly and quietly changed a policy that allowed them to deny claims at our State's VA hospital. The VA staff caught the switch, but very quickly, the hospital was out $500,000. You might ask yourself, How can a company get away with that? How can a company get away with denying claims for veterans and with demanding outrageous rate increases while pocketing record profits?

The answer is pretty simple. They don't have any real competition.

I say enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Anthem clearly demonstrated that their monopoly on the individual insurance market in Maine leaves consumers with little choice but to either pay escalating premiums or to go without coverage. You will hear this more than once today, and we already did from the Chair. Unbelievably, health insurance companies and Major League Baseball are the only two entities exempt from antitrust laws, and it is high time we gave the insurance companies a little competition.

I know it's not what Anthem wants. It is why they have lobbied so hard against health care reform that would lower health care costs overall. It's what the American people want. The American people believe in fair play, a level playing field, and in free and open competition, not a system where one massive corporation can run roughshod over consumers.

We need to put families before insurance companies and people before profits. H.R. 4626 is an essential step in achieving meaningful health reform and in giving Americans choice. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this rule, this unamended rule, and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Well, thank you very much. I didn't even have to ask and I appreciate your offering.

Thank you.

I knew you wanted to hear my very brief answer on this, and I just want to clarify. I appreciate your desire to discuss the process, and I hope you take as much time as you choose to do so. But I just want to clarify----

And I will just be brief. I want to have plenty of time for my colleagues who want to talk more about the substance of this issue. But I would say, I felt there was plenty of time for the process in the Rules Committee. There was a lively conversation with some of my colleagues and your colleagues, bipartisan, back and forth. But I disagreed. I did not think that we needed to change this exemption about data in the rule, in this particular amendment. I am happy to allow the Justice Department to have a decision about this later.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the clarification on the issue of a change.

I will just clarify my own remarks, that I agreed with the sentiment that came out in this final rule that we did not need to make this exemption for the data.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle.

We've heard a variety of reasons and excuses today about why this bill shouldn't pass, whether it was about the committee process or a loophole, debating it back and forth. But the fact is we cannot have meaningful health care reform in this country until we finally decide to put an end to insurance company greed and insurance company monopolies. We must stop companies like Anthem who demand rate increases that are many times the rate of inflation, which puts health care insurance out of reach for many, many Americans.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 973 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 973.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 973 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver applies to any resolutions reported on the legislative day of December 16, 2009. This will allow the House to consider today important legislation, including legislation to ensure the funding of our military in addition to measures to put people back to work.

Madam Speaker, we must act quickly to deliver the bills before us today that will fund our military and get people back to work. Today the House will take up several measures that will fund our military and make critical investments in the Nation's infrastructure in order to put people back to work. We have the opportunity today to take the bailout money that was used as a lifeline to Wall Street and give that money back to the American people and those who have been hit hardest by these tough economic times.

The legislation that we will take up later today will divert the TARP money to programs that will create and save jobs across the country. We do this by investing $75 billion of TARP money into highways, to transit, to school renovation, to hiring teachers, police and firefighters, to supporting small businesses, job training and affordable housing.

For those hit hardest by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief by extending programs like Unemployment Benefits, COBRA and FMAP, which is health care funding for our States, and the child care tax credit. These are measures that we must pass to build a foundation for long-term economic recovery.

This is not an ordinary day; and given the importance of this legislation, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so that we can move quickly to enact these critically important measures.

I wish, as so many of my colleagues wish, that we weren't faced with such difficult problems. I wish that when the Democrats took over the majority, we weren't saddled with two wars, a recession and a $1.3 trillion deficit. But wishing won't make these problems go away. There is real urgency in the actions before us today, and I truly hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this rule to allow us to move forward.

Later in the day, we will debate the merits of all of this legislation and the grave implications of not passing these bills. But right now, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and allow us to move forward on the debate to complete the work that we were sent here to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

My good friend from North Carolina has suggested that this isn't an emergency. I would say that I hear every day from constituents in my district who feel that we are in a time of emergency. In Maine, we have 20,000 unemployed workers who are facing the end of their unemployment benefits. A very critical thing that we are about to talk about today is the extension of unemployment benefits.

Now, we are anxious for the economy to improve, but the fact is in my State unemployment benefits are the fourth largest payroll. That is a tragedy that we have to deal with. We have to make sure that those people, in the middle of a cold winter, don't go without their vital support and that our State doesn't go without a critical part of our economy.

Many of those people can't even stand a delay because the fact is if they go for even a few days or weeks without their benefits, they've already hit the end of their credit card limits, they've already gone as far as they can possibly go. Many workers have talked to me about the fact that they are using their COBRA subsidy; they were laid off, and the fact is this extended that as well.

As far as I'm concerned, there are many critical things in this bill. This is the time to get it passed. People say to me all the time, When are you going to get something done in Washington? As far as I'm concerned, this is something we have to get done, and we need to get back to work today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague, the ranking member on the committee, both for his history lesson and also for extending holiday greetings to those across the country. I do appreciate that, as a new Member, I often learn bits of the past from the things that he discusses with us, and I want to join him in thanking our hardworking staff. He is absolutely right. We were here late into the evening, and we were here early in the morning. I know that my colleagues put in many hours and that our staffs work very hard, and I want them to know I appreciate greatly their hard work on our behalf and for dealing with many of the challenges we often have before us which make our procedural challenges even more difficult as we try to determine how to get so much work done that is before us and with so much more to do. That is why we are here today--to talk about this same-day rule, to talk about the work that is before us.

I yield as much time as he is interested in consuming to my good colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am happy to yield back again to my wonderful colleague from Colorado.

We will yield to everybody.

I want to answer one thing. The two of you have been entered into a colloquy, a very interesting one, going back to Kennedy.

I am happy to engage in a colloquy with both of my colleagues here, but let me just make one point to my much more senior and well-informed Members.

No, I don't think, actually, they are all older.

Anyway, I just want to say that, while this has been a very interesting history lesson and while I greatly appreciate my colleague from Colorado and his understanding of the financial services industry and of this world that we've been working so hard on to both regulate and to deal with, much of my colleague from California's remarks have been referring to President Kennedy and to President Reagan, which were very different eras.

I just want to remind my colleagues on the floor that we are here at the end of the Bush administration. When President Obama came to office, yes, the Democrats had been here for 2 years before and there were things that we were unable to fix when we were simply in the majority. The fact is that President Obama and this particular Congress--and I came here as a freshman--inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, two wars that weren't paid for, a broken health care system, and a 1950s energy policy. That is what we have had to deal with. As my colleagues know, this has not been an easy year. We are here over and over again, attempting to deal with this.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Thank you to my colleague from North Carolina for her thoughts. While we don't always agree, I appreciate her reminding us about the soldiers who have fallen, about their families, about her visit to Arlington Cemetery.

I want to concur. I had the privilege of visiting the cemetery myself this week. Not only did I also grieve for those families who were there visiting the gravestones of their loved ones and their family members, and many who were just there to think about the people who they didn't even know who served for us.

I was also tremendously proud to see the thousands of wreaths that decorated those graves that had been brought down from my home State, the State of Maine, in honor of our fallen soldiers. There were 16,000 that were brought to Arlington Cemetery, and there were many people who traveled with them to make sure that we show the proper respect for our military, for our soldiers, and for those who served their country in the past and virtually every day.

I want to just say that we are here today in part to talk about making sure that there is adequate funding for our military. Yes, we all wish that our colleagues in the Senate had acted faster on this bill, that we weren't dealing with continuing resolutions, but this is the particular situation that we are in. It is very important that we finish our work before the end of the year, before the end of the holidays, that we recognize our soldiers, our current military, and many of the other needs in this bill, many of which will be discussed as soon as we finish the debate on this same-day rule.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that the rule before us this morning simply allows the consideration of these measures to move forward.

We have heard a lot about the process this morning. I want to simply state for the record in the 109th Congress, before I was a Member of this body, the Republican majority reported out over 20 rules that allowed for same-day consideration.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and for the underlying measures before us today. These programs are too important. Our constituents are in too much turmoil to slow this process down any further.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 976 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have been here before. This is the same point of order that has been raised against almost every appropriations measure during this Congress, and each time it is used to discuss something other than its intended purpose.

I would want to respond to my good colleague from Arizona that I, too, share concerns about the earmarking process, and I encourage him to become a cosponsor on the fair elections bill. As we have in Maine, public financing takes away much of the scrutiny around the link between campaign contributions and earmarks.

But once again, this particular debate is about delaying consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether. I hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion.

This rule provides for enactment of legislation to fund our Nation's defense. The brave men and women who serve in the military, particularly those who are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, deserve a swift enactment of this legislation.

This legislation that we will take up later today will also divert TARP money to programs that create and save jobs across the country. We do this by investing $75 billion of TARP money into highways, transit, school renovation, hiring teachers, police, firefighters, supporting our small businesses, funding job training, and affordable housing. And for those hardest hit by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief by extending programs like unemployment benefits, COBRA, FMAP, our health care funding for the State, and the child care tax credit.

Those who oppose this measure can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this critical legislation today.

I have the right to close, but in the end I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and consider the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this and the other important items covered by this rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 976.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 976 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, House Joint Resolution 64, H.R. 4314, and the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.

For the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment, provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and waives

all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XI.

The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 64 under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4314 under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the bill.

For the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment. It provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2920 as passed by the House.

The rule also provides that measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

The rule waives the requirement of a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee for the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

The rule provides that the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the Congressional Record explanatory materials on the Senate amendments and the motions regarding H.R. 3326 and H.R. 2847.

The rule provides that, on any legislative day before January 12, 2010, the Speaker may dispense with organizational or legislative business.

The rule provides that, before January 12, 2010, the Chair may declare the House adjourned.

The rule provides for pro forma sessions until the House adjourns sine die.

And finally, the rule provides that, on any legislative day of the first session of the 111th Congress, the Speaker may declare the House adjourned.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows the House to consider the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, which is the last appropriations bill for this fiscal year.

The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 provides over $363 billion towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their families at home. To help protect our troops, this bill provides increased funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund and for the procurement of new Humvees and of new heavy and medium tactical vehicles. This is particularly important given the casualty rate and the difficulties our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan.

H.R. 3326 increases pay for all servicemembers by 3.4 percent, and it fully funds the requested end strength levels for active reserve and selected reserve personnel. The bill provides over $29 billion for top- of-the-line medical care, including $120 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health, and it increases funding for the wounded, the ill and injured warrior programs.

The conference agreement also includes over $472 million for family advocacy programs, and it fully funds the family support and yellow ribbon programs. The bill also includes $20 million for the Army National Guard family assistance centers and reintegration programs; but this bill cannot provide for the common defense without a common effort.

In my home State of Maine, there are men and women who work every day to help in this effort. The funding in this bill would have been wasted if it weren't for the efforts of the welders, designers, and metal workers of the Bath Ironworks; of the skilled factory workers and assembly men at Vintech in Biddeford, Maine; of the world-class machinists and engineers at Pratt and Whitney in North Berwick; or of the dedicated laborers and nuclear engineers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

This is a clear example of why the bills before us today are so interconnected. Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.

Madam Speaker, if you were sitting at a boardroom table on Wall Street today, you might hear the employees with Goldman Sachs discussing their $1 billion in profits or bonuses or you might hear employees of Citibank discussing raises for their top executives. You might also hear that the stock market has gone up 60 percent since the spring. You might even hear terms like ``economic recovery'' or ``rebound.'' So, if you are sitting at that boardroom table on Wall Street, you might think that the economy has fully bounced back and that we are out of the woods. You may start to believe that there is nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

Yet, if you were at a kitchen table on Main Street in my home State of Maine, you would hear a very different story. Rather than talk of large profits, you would hear families discussing a savings account that has all but disappeared. Instead of listening to talk of raises or bonuses, you would hear families debating cutbacks on food or cutbacks on health care. Instead of hearing phrases like ``economic recovery'' or ``rebound,'' you would hear terms like ``high unemployment'' and ``mounting debt.''

For the big banks on Wall Street, the economic recovery may be at hand, but for the millions of unemployed workers and for the thousands of small businesses that are struggling to get by, the economic recovery is still a long way off. In my State and all across the country, there are millions of Americans who want to get back to work, but they need us to lend the same helping hand that we gave to Wall Street in its time of need.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows for the consideration of the Jobs for Main Street Act, which will move us down that road. This legislation invests in our Nation's infrastructure, and it puts more Americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and repair our national transportation system. This investment provides a measurable return, not only by creating and preserving jobs but by literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. This bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers, and of firefighters. For those who have already lost their jobs, the Jobs Act extends unemployment benefits for 2 months, and it maintains the current COBRA subsidy.

These programs--these investments, the economic lifelines--have a real impact. Just this week, I heard from a constituent of mine who said these words: Something needs to be done. There are less than 4 weeks left for my husband's unemployment. After that, we won't be able to pay the rent, and we will be out on the streets with a child under 2 years old. Every day, I wonder what is going to happen next, and I even have nightmares. You bail out these large banks which then only raise our interest rates and lower our credit lines--and for what? That doesn't help the little guy like us. Do something to help us.

Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity and we have the obligation to take the bailout money that was used as a lifeline to Wall Street and to give that money back to the American people and to those who have been hit the hardest by these tough economic times. The COBRA subsidy we passed this spring began expiring a few weeks ago. If we don't act now, it will completely disappear by January 1. In my State, full payment for COBRA uses up nearly 90 percent of the average unemployment benefits. That means out-of-work Mainers end up with only about $150 a month left after paying the full cost of their health insurance.

We need to act now, and we need to act fast to ensure that Main Street recovers. If we do not act, we will have only assured that Wall Street keeps

their bonuses while American families lose their benefits. We will have only watched Wall Street get rid of their debt while watching small businesses take on more.

Madam Speaker, we have already put more than enough into shoring up Wall Street. Now we need to focus on creating jobs for the average American that will rebuild our economy from the bottom up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Arcuri.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to one of my colleagues, I do want to mention one point of concern I have in the bill.

The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 is the first step towards cutting wasteful defense spending, but it is by no means perfect. It is no means the last step that we must take. The conference agreement provides $465 million for the development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This provision represents businesses as usual in Washington for providing funds for an engine that's already being built and already being built well.

There is no need to devote our precious Federal dollars to a wasteful alternative engine program at this time when Americans are struggling to find jobs to pay their medical bills and to put food on the table. Every defense bill that we spend wisely contributes to our national security, and every defense dollar that we waste hampers our economic security.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss at least one thing my colleague and friend from North Carolina mentioned. I'm a Northerner, so I can't claim to be an expert on crocodiles, but I assume that when you're talking about crocodile tears, you're talking about being insincere, and I want to say I receive letters from my constituents every day about the urgency of what we are doing today. And I have to say that like it or not, I cannot get through the pile of letters without crying tears for real. It's very, very difficult to think about the small businesses, laid-off individuals, individuals worrying about their jobs, what they're going through in my district and the urgency with which they view the actions that we are about to take today and the importance of moving on from this rule and getting to the actual debate.

I want to read one of them that is in front of me here before I yield a little time to my colleague from California.

This one says: ``My housemate and I were both laid off, me in September 08 and she in February 09. We have applied diligently for work in and around Portland with no luck. We had to cash in our meager 401(k)'s, and have been very thankful for the COBRA subsidy so that we could afford insurance during this most harsh of times. But our money is running out fast.

``As you know, the subsidy is about to expire, and we cannot afford the huge jump in premium. We cannot afford both the mortgage and the insurance. We cannot afford our prescriptions, and our health care will be at stake, as if things weren't bad enough. We will lose our home.

``PLEASE help push through the COBRA extension and continuation of the ARRA COBRA subsidy. It is an immediate fix for so many families who will surely gain employment over the next 6 months now that the economy has finally taken an upswing.''

Madam Speaker, those are the things that make us all cry real tears and make us want to pass this rule and go on to passing this legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is about investing in jobs. It is about investing in infrastructure, and it is about rebalancing our economy. So it's not just the big banks and Wall Street firms that benefit from an economic recovery. This bill is about helping the American family.

This week, a New York Times/CBS News poll surveyed unemployed Americans. Not surprisingly, they found that being unemployed takes a toll far beyond what can be measured in dollars and cents. Half of the people surveyed said they had begun to suffer from depression and anxiety, half said the recession has caused them to make major life changes, and nearly half said they have seen changes in their children's behavior that they know is a result of their difficult financial situation.

We are not just helping men and women who've lost their job, who have suffered from uncertainty, emotional pain, and indignation, but we are helping their families. We are helping their children. It is time for us to invest in the jobs and policies that will get the American Dream back on track and restore the promise of opportunity and prosperity for everyone.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado, my good colleague on the Rules Committee, both for yielding me the time and for all of his hard work on the Financial Services Committee, and to the Chair, Barney Frank, as well. I know these committee members have worked long and hard on this particular bill that is soon to be before us.

For too long we have looked the other way as the big banks and the credit card companies ran roughshod over American consumers. By exploiting loopholes, they have acted recklessly and irresponsibly to line their pockets, leaving America's families and small businesses to pay the price.

Effective Wall Street reform is vital to creating jobs and growing our economy. This bill puts in place commonsense rules to ensure that these same irresponsible actors that caused the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression are not allowed to jeopardize the recovery we have worked so hard to begin. This bill, Madam Speaker, H.R. 4173, holds the big banks and the credit card companies accountable.

Today we can create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to make sure that credit card companies stop misleading consumers with hidden fees buried in the small print or teaser rates that lure people in and let the banks make huge profits. Americans look to the FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to keep the food we eat, the medicine we take and the toys we buy for our children safe; now it's time to make sure that the financial products and services that we buy are secure, understandable, and transparent.

With this bill, we can ensure that hardworking families in Maine and across the country are never again on the hook for risky and irresponsible schemes by putting an end to taxpayer bailouts and ``too big to fail'' firms that threaten to bring down our entire economy. We can inject transparency and accountability into a financial system that has far too long been allowed to operate behind closed doors, trading complex financial instruments in secret without the necessary regulation and enforcement.

Madam Speaker, the big banks, irresponsible mortgage lenders, and predatory credit card companies have made a mess out of our economy, and they have expected the American taxpayer to clean up. We can't let that happen again. It is time to ensure that those who acted so irresponsibly are finally held accountable and made to play by rules that are fair.

I realize this bill is not perfect. It could go further, and I think many rightfully agree we should go further. But this bill before us today is a critical first step in restoring confidence in our financial markets. We must act now to create jobs and grow the economy. This is the fair and commonsense regulation that the American public expects and deserves.

Madam Speaker, $2.5 billion--that's my State's share of the wars we've been fighting for the last 8 years, and now this country is being asked to spend another $30 billion a year to send more troops to Afghanistan. It's too much, Madam Speaker, for a war that just isn't working.

At a time when we are struggling to put Americans back to work, we just can't afford to escalate a war that we need to be winding down. At a time when we have asked our men and women in uniform to return to combat again and again, we cannot afford to send them back one more time to fight to protect a government that is now considered the second most corrupt on Earth. At a time when we are working to bring affordable health care to every family in this country, we just can't afford to spend $1 million per soldier to occupy a country that doesn't want us there.

Don't be mistaken, Madam Speaker. When we need to protect our vital national interests, there is no cost too great, and the greatest Armed Forces in the world will rise to meet any challenge. But this is not the time to pay that price. This is a time to end this war and bring the troops home.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 909 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 909.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 909 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009. The rules waive all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science and Technology Committee modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the substitute amendment, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report and waives all points of order against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all five of the amendments submitted for consideration. The Chair may not entertain a motion to rise unless offered by the Chair of the Committee on Science and Technology or his designee, and may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting clause.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3791 reauthorizes funding for two vital programs that support our local firefighters and our communities: the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program. These two programs go hand in hand by providing assistance that keeps local fire departments prepared and able to respond, while assuring that each department is adequately staffed to meet the needs of the community. The AFG program provides funding for local fire departments to purchase equipment, vehicles and training, and the SAFER grants program helps local departments maintain and hire firefighters.

The success of both programs has been indisputable and their impacts have been felt in each of our districts. Since 2001, the AFG program has provided over $4.8 billion in funding to local fire departments to purchase emergency response training and equipment. Since 2004, the SAFER program has competitively awarded $700 million to local departments for hiring, recruitment and retention of fire fighters. The effect of both programs can be simply stated. Each dollar saves lives and jobs.

While this funding has been essential, the unmet needs of our local departments remain staggering. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Emergency Management Agency received over 20,000 applications from fire departments requesting over $3 billion. In the same fiscal year, FEMA also received over 1,000 applications for SAFER grants, requesting over $500 million. The National Fire Protection Association estimates that 65 percent of fire departments in the United States do not have enough portable radios to equip all firefighters, and that 36 percent of all fire departments involved in emergency medical responses do not have enough adequately trained personnel to respond to these emergencies.

The numbers speak for themselves. During these tough economic times, the needs of our local fire departments have been exacerbated and local resources have been stretched to the breaking point. Communities in rural areas, which have always been strapped for resources and struggled to compete for Federal funds, have been hit exceptionally hard by this economic downturn.

In Portland, Maine, one of the more urban areas that I represent, nine firefighters in the Portland region were recently laid off due to significant budget cuts. But the local unions stepped up and unanimously stood up to support their laid-off colleagues out of their own pay checks.

While this is a great example of people pulling together during tough times, and it may exemplify part of what we admire about first responders, this is simply an unacceptable solution. The Federal Government has no higher charge than to provide for the common protection and the common good of its citizens and to support this work at the local level. It is time to reinvest in our emergency responders and renew our commitment to these critical programs.

This funding is also critical in rural towns across the country. Raymond, Maine, in my district, for example, is a town of less than 5,000 residents and a fire department that is mostly made up of volunteers. In 2008 when they realized that their SCBAs, self-contained breathing apparatus, on all of their trucks were outdated and didn't meet the current requirements, they turned to this program. And thanks to a $150,000 grant, Raymond, Maine, was able to purchase the equipment they so desperately needed. Stories like this are now more common because of the SAFER program.

The safety of our homes and our neighborhoods has never been a partisan issue, and the bravery and service of our local fire departments has never been in question. This is clearly demonstrated by the broad bipartisan support for this bill and the strong endorsements from the International Association of Firefighters and the National Volunteer Fire Council.

I look forward to the passage of this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all of the many topics he brought up this morning. I'm sure he and I will have another time when we get to discuss the trade issues in this country. And I also appreciate that there will be time in our committee to talk about the issues around amendments and open rules.

I will say that there are job components, particularly in this bill when I brought up the firefighters in Portland, Maine, who had recently lost their jobs and are now helping some of their brethren with their own paychecks. I know that funding through this helps many of our firefighters to maintain their service. I do want to also say, I know we all extended our sympathy at the time, but I appreciated that you spoke to us about the extreme fire issues in your district. And I also want

to send my sympathies to those firefighters who are lost and their families. And I know that was a perilous time.

I appreciate the fact that while I represent a very rural district, even in your urban district, we have very many similarities of issues that we have to deal with.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to say to my good friend from California, I apologize for not yielding earlier, and I appreciate your comments.

At this moment I have no other speakers. I would inquire whether the gentleman is ready to yield back his time.

I thank my colleague for co-managing this rule. I appreciate his concerns about jobs. I know it's a top priority for our caucus and one we will be talking about in the coming weeks and days. I want to finish my remarks by focusing on the important contribution of firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, the fire service in this country is being asked to do more than ever before--from hazmat response and safety planning for schools to EMT duties and homeland security responsibilities. These days, fire departments do much more than spray water on burning buildings. Or, as one of my firefighter friends says, much more than ``putting the wet stuff on the red stuff.'' These increased responsibilities are why these programs are so vitally important.

My home State of Maine has used these programs to great success. During fiscal year 2008, Maine received almost $5 million in AFG funding and close to $1 million in SAFER grants. But these numbers alone do not tell the whole story. The real success of these programs is told through the stories of those whose lives have been saved and those whose jobs have been preserved.

In 2005, a Maine fire department received an AFG grant to purchase smoke alarms and install those in homes that did not meet the level of protection recommended by the National Fire Protection Association. Just 2 months after the local fire department began installing the smoke alarms, firefighters were called to a house where smoke had been detected in the basement. The family of six living in the home was awakened by a smoke alarm and they were able to escape before any of them suffered a serious injury. The smoke alarm had been bought and installed with funding from the AFG program.

The town of Saco, Maine, recently used these programs to install an exhaust system for the fire station so the building doesn't fill up with diesel exhaust every time the fire trucks start up. And the town of Brunswick, a community facing the challenges of a Navy base closure, the department was able to hire critically needed firefighters thanks to a SAFER grant.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think some of the real success stories lie in our rural communities, communities often staffed by volunteer fire departments. Just like bigger communities, those small-town fire departments are being asked to do more, but acquiring the equipment they need is often beyond the scope of small-town municipal budgets. Through these programs, small-town volunteer fire departments in my State have been able to acquire the turnout coats, the breathing apparatus, and the hazmat suits to do the job effectively and safely.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of this bill and I will continue to be a strong supporter of the men and women who put their lives on the line to keep our businesses, our homes, and our communities safe.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here in your presence today and to be here with my colleagues. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for allowing me this time.

I am so proud to be here casting the vote that so many of my constituents have waited way too long for. There has been a lot of hard work, a lot of facts and figures that have gone into the discussion of this important piece of legislation before us, and certainly over the last 10 months that I've been here. I want to spend my time talking about the story that is always on my mind when I'm talking about health care and is certainly on my mind today.

As a young father, my brother was diagnosed with malignant melanoma, a disease that I hope no one else ever has to face or face in a loved one. He had recently left his job to stay home to take care of his 2- year-old son. His wife had better pay. His insurance, of course, was temporary and soon withdrawn, and he had no public option to choose. He did what so many young families did. They spent down their savings. They sold everything they had. They became poor so that they could qualify for Medicaid because no doctor would see him without insurance. The fact is, he passed away 14 months later, and I have often wondered would he have survived had he had the medical care that he needed.

That would be a very sad story if it had been 2 years ago, but in fact, my brother's death was 20 years ago, and back then we talked about the importance of making sure that no one was ever denied insurance because they had a preexisting condition. We talked about the fact that no one should have to go into personal bankruptcy or be poor because they don't have health care insurance.

I am here today, looking forward to casting my ``yes'' vote on this rule, on this health care bill, in the memory of my brother and of so many of my constituents and their families who have suffered through exactly the same thing, because I believe that this bill moves us much closer to a time when no one can be denied health care coverage because of a preexisting condition; no one can be told you can't have health care coverage; no one will have to go into personal bankruptcy. I am here in the memory of my brother. There can be no more delay.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 875 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on H. Res. 875.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 875 provides for consideration of H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes an amendment that removes direct spending from the bill, thereby making the underlying bill PAYGO compliant. The bill makes in order 16 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, except for the manager's amendment which is debatable for 20 minutes.

Additionally, the rule provides authority for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through Friday of this week for a measure addressing unemployment compensation.

Madam Speaker, today we will pass a very important piece of legislation that will directly help small businesses from around our country. H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, increases the loan limits available for small businesses through the SBA; it promotes increased private investment in small businesses; it provides increased resources for businesses working in the field of renewable energy; and it supports our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking the capital they need to start or to grow their businesses.

What this bill does beyond anything else is provide much-needed support for Main Street to help small entrepreneurs grow, save, and create jobs. As President Obama said last week, supporting small businesses needs to be our highest priority because when small businesses are succeeding, America succeeds.

When I return to my home State of Maine, I hear from small businesses week after week that access to capital is one of the most difficult challenges that they face. The credit market has been drying up, and small businesses have been hit hard.

Earlier this year, my office hosted an event focused specifically on connecting small businesses with capital, including SBA programs. The response was overwhelming. We had hundreds of small businesses RSVP to attend, so many that we needed to reserve an overflow room to accommodate the demand. These were businesses of all types and sizes, and many of them had driven hours to come to the workshop. They came to this meeting because they felt they had nowhere else to turn.

SBA programs have been an important resource for businesses during this economic downturn, and this bill will take important steps to increase access to and the success of these programs. I want to take a minute to give you a couple of examples from my State of how SBA loans are working to support small businesses.

A company named ALCOM was established by Tom Sturtevant and his stepson, Trapper Clark, in 2006 and is one of the largest manufacturers of aluminum trailers in the northeast. With an SBA loan under the 504 program, this business was able to construct a new, 70,000-square foot manufacturing facility with much-needed space for expansion while enhancing the flow of inventory, and they were able to hire 15 new workers. This is a family-owned business with good-paying manufacturing jobs that has been able not only to survive in the current economic climate, but grow thanks to an SBA loan.

Julia McClure opened Sweets & Meats, a market in Rockland, Maine, earlier this year, thanks to financing she received through the SBA's 7(a) program. Women-owned enterprises is the fastest growing business group, and this grocery store, specializing in local meats and produce, is a great example of how the SBA has worked to support these entrepreneurs.

Casco Bay Molding in Sanford, Maine, is an injection molding company founded by Andy Powell. After working to develop a customer relationship with Flotation Technologies, another Maine-based company and a world leader in buoyance systems, these two companies worked to design and implement a new line of proprietary, deepwater oil and gas exploration and harvesting equipment.

This new demand meant that Casco Bay Molding needed to upgrade to compete with much larger molding shops in the region. With a loan under the SBA 504 program, this small business was able to upgrade their equipment, meet the demand, and employ five additional people in their community in good-paying manufacturing jobs. Furthermore, by helping Casco Bay Molding to succeed and grow, this loan supported other local businesses, like Fiber Materials, providing them the benefits of an expert injection molding operation within close proximity to their manufacturing facility.

This is a great example of the exponential impact that investment in small businesses has in all of our communities, one that expands small businesses, creates new, good-paying jobs, rewards ingenuity, and supports Main Street through this economic downturn.

The problem is there are not enough of these success stories. Small businesses are desperate for credit to expand and grow, and SBA programs, as they currently stand, simply cannot meet this demand. That is why this bill is so important. It will expand and develop these vital programs, including the 7(a) and 504 programs, to better meet the needs of all small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, all across this country, small businesses have struggled during these difficult times through no fault of their own. They didn't cause this economic crisis, but they can help to lead us out of it, and we have to help them access the funding they need to survive, grow and to expand their businesses. The jobs they create today will bring economic growth and prosperity to our communities tomorrow if we just give them the chance.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill today and the underlying bill. As Rumery's Boatyard, another SBA loan recipient from Maine told me, it is imperative that we support our small businesses and ensure that they are ready to go once the economy fully recovers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to one of my colleagues, I do want to point out that while my good colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has indeed stated many issues of concern to small businesses, that the amendment he proposed in the Rules Committee was nongermane and also violated the PAYGO rule. I suspect that's why my colleagues on the Democratic side voted against that particular amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the gentleman who just spoke does have one amendment in order under the rule.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Small Business Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I want to again highlight what we are considering here today.

This is a bill that will support small businesses when they need it most--access to the financing they need to survive, to grow, to expand, and to create the jobs that will drive our economy. I know this is essential as I have heard from businesses throughout the 125 towns in my congressional district.

In fact, I have owned small businesses for most of my adult life. For many years, I owned a business that sold our products around the country and grew to employ 10 people in a town with just 350 residents. I currently own an inn and a restaurant that uses produce grown in my community and seafood caught locally. I know what it is to be the last person to lock the doors at the end of the day, to meet a payroll, and to argue with the bank about borrowing money to expand.

Mr. Speaker, I have been lucky to own a small business which has been an important part of my community and which has provided jobs, but I never would have been able to survive without access to the investment the business has needed to grow.

When facing the economic climate that we currently do, it is vital that we do everything in our power to support the small businesses that create 64 percent of the new jobs in this country, that comprise more than 99 percent of all employer companies, and that are the backbone of the communities that we live in.

This bill is an important step in supporting those small businesses-- with $44 billion in lending that will help save or create 1.3 million jobs each year and by ensuring that small businesses have the necessary capital to stay in business and to expand as the economy recovers. This bill is more than simply an investment in small business; it is an investment in American job growth.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, this beautiful picture is of the Kibby Mountain Wind Project, which went online last week and became the largest wind power development in Maine's growing wind energy industry. This is just one example of how Maine is becoming a leader in wind energy.

Also last week, the Obama administration selected Maine to become the home for a national deepwater offshore wind research center. Our State has committed to building 3 gigawatts of land-based wind power and 5 gigawatts of offshore wind power in the Gulf of Maine, developing new technology and creating new jobs in the process.

All across Maine, small and large wind power developments are popping up. This summer, I watched along with my friends and neighbors as three turbines have gone up in our island community, a project that will make my town energy independent and save us money over the long run.

Maine is showing the Nation what clean energy is all about. We can create homegrown solutions to our energy problems, freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, making us self-sufficient, and creating good-paying jobs that can't be exported.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to be here on the floor tonight with a gathering of my freshman colleagues. We thought we would spend our hour talking about the very important issue of health care.

As everyone knows and as everyone sees in the newspapers pretty much every day, that is the topic on the mind of Congress and, certainly, on the mind of America. I know, for me, it's the issue I hear most about back in my district when I'm having a town hall meeting or am meeting with constituency groups--doctors, nurses, practitioners of any kind-- to talk about their concerns about health care. It's the number one thing people bring up to me.

Certainly today, being from the State of Maine, the Finance Committee in the Senate--which isn't the House, but it's also going to eventually coordinate it with us--was voting out their bill. My colleague from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, voted in favor of the health care bill, making herself the first Republican to vote affirmatively on some of the proposals that we have before us. While she and I may differ on some of the policy issues, we all represent the State of Maine, and she spoke today about the great urgency of passing a piece of health care legislation. That is certainly of great concern to us, so I am glad we have an hour to talk a little bit about it.

There is such a range of issues to talk about. I know I want to mention a little bit about some of the concerns about insurance companies and the importance, at least for me, of voting for a plan that has a very robust public option. Before I turn it over to one of my colleagues, I just want to tell a couple of quick stories about the issues that we have been facing in the State of Maine.

Like a lot of States, we have a very small number of insurance companies. Many States find that 70, 80, sometimes more than 90 percent of their market is all taken up by one insurance company. I'm sure Representative Tonko from New York has some stories to talk about this as well and just about the issues that we have about why we need more competition in the market.

Interestingly, in Maine, our Attorney General has just entered into a very fascinating case with Anthem Insurance Company. Anthem is one of the few companies that does business in the State of Maine, and they recently asked for a rate increase. I think they asked for 18 percent. The State granted them 11 percent. They turned right around and sued the State of Maine, and said, You know, if you're not going to give us what we need, we're going to have to sue you on this. I'm just looking here through my papers.

I have some interesting information about just how much profit this particular company is making, and I will come across it in a minute here.

What really struck me as profound is that many of my constituents' stories--as I mentioned, I run into constituents in the grocery store, everywhere I go, and certainly people have been contacting our office about the challenges of health care reform. Many of our constituents' stories are about the dealings that they have with their insurance companies. As somebody said to me recently, you know, insurance is great until you need it, and then 9 times out of 10, you find out that your company isn't there when you need it. Now I want to tell a couple of stories about what I've heard from my constituents.

Representative Tonko, perhaps you'll want to weigh in on this conversation. Then we can go back and forth a little bit about what we're hearing.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to weigh in with a couple of thoughts about that. You're going through the litany of why we think it's so important to reform the insurance market, and so many of the things that you talk about are, again, the very things that I hear about from people. The issue I heard someone say the other day was ``job loss.'' Job lock. You know, people will say to me, I am ready to start my own business, but I don't dare leave my job because I can't go without the safety net, and I certainly couldn't afford to pay for these health care costs at this moment in time.

I want to read you a little bit that I heard from a constituent recently, someone from York County, which is the southern part of my district, who told the story that very much echoes what you were just talking about.

He was self-employed. He had a business he'd been doing for 10 years. His wife worked for a small nonprofit, and the nonprofit wasn't able to afford her health care coverage, so they did what a lot of people do, I find. They went to Anthem, which is the insurance company that we've been talking a lot about in my State, and their family of three--they have a 2-year-old daughter now--got an insurance policy that cost them $400 a month, but it also had a $15,000 deductible.

Now, I hear about so many people who have this $15,000 in their deductible. It's really just kind of insurance for keeping your home. As you mentioned, it will keep you from going to bankruptcy court.

So their $15,000 deductible actually amounted to a $30,000 deductible for their family. Basically, they just hoped that nothing would ever happen, because they didn't have the cash to pay the $15,000 or $30,000 in medical bills that they'd have to pay to get up to their deductible.

He told a story about how, when his daughter was born--their newborn baby--there were some complications, so they thought, well, at least we've got this insurance because, as we know, infant bills in the hospital can go very high if you have to be in the neonatal unit or anything else. Well, it turned out that his wife and daughter both had some medical issues, and they had gotten a specific rider when they'd gotten the health care plan, but it turned out that it only covered their daughter and not his wife. By the time they brought their baby home, they were $15,000 in the hole because of issues that had come up with his wife during childbirth, so they had to take money out of their 401(k), and they had to borrow money on their credit card. They are just hoping that nothing else happens because they'd have to still pay another $15,000 in their deductible.

Well, that's a great example of people who think they have health care coverage. They thought they got a special rider to make sure that pregnancy, childbirth--everything--was covered. It turned out it really wasn't there when they needed it. I don't know about you, but I hear about so many different people who go to look at their insurance policies and realize that there are all kinds of hidden issues or their insurance companies just say, ``Sorry. We don't cover you.'' That's just something we have to stop.

Absolutely. That is why we are here tonight really to be able to engage in this robust public debate.

Absolutely. I think first and foremost to be talking about the real issues.

We are also joined tonight by another freshman colleague, Representative Jared Polis from Boulder, Colorado.

I am pleased to see that we are joined by our colleague from Wisconsin, Representative and doctor, if I am correct, Steve Kagen.

It's wonderful to have both your experience as a physician and also your experience in the House in moving forward on these issues. I know you have been working very hard.

I just want to mention that we are also joined here tonight by Mary Jo Kilroy from Ohio, who is another new member of the House. Being from Ohio, I know you must have a lot of constituents who are worried about economic issues and jobs and making sure that they have that all- important insurance coverage and are able to keep their jobs to have it.

I want to give a few minutes to my colleague from Colorado, but in making this transition I just want to say when we stand around and talk about the possibilities when people share their individual stories like Representative Kilroy has here, I get very excited thinking about the prospects here.

You mentioned it earlier. Sometimes we are bombarded from the other side and the talk show hosts and everyone else who just try to use scare tactics, build up fear in our constituents and seniors and others. But I get excited when I think about, wow, we could really reform the system. We could do something around access to health care that people have been talking about doing for decades, and this could be the Congress that really starts making those steps forward.

I think that is why we are all standing here tonight and working so hard on this, because we see the possibilities here of really changing people's lives and ending some of these ridiculous stories that we have been hearing.

Thank you for your thoughts.

We are lucky to be joined freshly off the podium by our colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Dahlkemper, who I know has been working very hard on this issue in a variety of ways.

Thank you for adding your thoughts. Certainly those are themes that we hear about a lot. One is this important point that every single day in this Congress there are people working on one or another aspect of this bill, trying to put together all of the good ideas, trying to make sure that we come to some form of consensus over the variety of opinions.

But your mention of the issue of young people who don't have coverage is a story that we all hear about often, and many of us who had our own children in their twenties have known that tragic moment when they turn 23 or they end college and they are no longer covered by your plan. And, as you said, in today's job market, many young people don't have coverage or work for a company that doesn't find themselves in a position to cover them. So it is increasingly an important issue, and one I think the people are trying so hard to work on.

Also this issue that others have already brought up tonight, I am also a small business owner, and the cost of coverage--I heard a statistic in the State of Maine that the average cost of covering your employees is about equal to the profit you make in your small business. And that is lucky for some small businesses, if they can even make as much profit as they are paying out every year in employee coverage.

As you mentioned, it is important to make sure you cover your employees. Many companies can't afford it, and often you lose employees to somewhere else where they can go to get that coverage. So you might have a great worker, and you may lose them if you don't find a way to keep them covered, which is getting near to impossible with the rising cost of insurance, as we have talked about many times.

And I often think about my own State. We're 38th in per capita income. The economy is struggling. Our unemployment rate is right up there with a lot of other States in this country, and we're just hoping that we can start to bring it down. But the fact is, if we could pass universal access to health care coverage, it would be the single biggest change to my State's economy and I certainly think this country's economy.

I just want to bring up one tidbit, and then I know that my colleague from Ohio has a couple of things to say. But when I first came to the floor tonight, I was talking a little bit about Anthem in our State which is actually owned by WellPoint. And I don't want to make any particular insurance company the villain, but often we're told, you know, why don't you just leave the system alone, yet day after day we hear about insurance companies that cancel your insurance and a variety of other things. And I had just been mentioning a case that's going on in the State of Maine.

Maine was asked by Anthem for an 18.5 percent rate increase, and the State said no, something about 11 percent might be more moderate, just trying to hold down the cost for small business and individuals. Well, Anthem immediately sued the State and said they needed that full amount to earn a reasonable profit. Of course, WellPoint last year earned $2 billion and paid $1 million in bonuses to many of their executives in our State.

So you've got the people in our State, 38th in per capita income, many of whom have recently lost their jobs, saying, Wait a minute. I can't afford this increase, yet I can't afford to be without health care coverage. And here's a company that earned $2 billion last year telling me they can't live without making more in profit.

Well, this system just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I mean, it's one thing when you're talking about making Rolls-Royces or fancy diamond rings. Maybe you deserve to make exorbitant profits, and we don't need to meddle in the economic system there. But this is about basic health care coverage for individuals, and that's really what we're charged here to do--make sure that everybody, whatever their condition, whatever their age, has that kind of health care coverage.

And I have to really hand it to our Attorney General, Janet Mills. She was on CNN the other day talking about how we're going to fight this. We're not going to take this, and, you know, that's not a position our State should have to be in. That's not a position individuals should have to be in, you know, just to get their basic health care coverage.

Well, thank you so much for being here. I know our hour is getting close to ending, and I appreciate your characterizing our thinking as uncluttered. I have to say sometimes at night, even the freshmen start to clutter up a little bit.

But I know, Representative Dahlkemper, you've done a lot of work around this wellness initiative, and that's something that I hear about really across the board from people who think that's a great way to hold down costs in health care. Many of the businesses in my State that have adopted wellness programs have really seen cost reductions, and I know you can speak to this.

Absolutely.

Representative Kilroy, were you hoping to squeeze in a few last words?

Representative Tonko, any last words?

Well, thank you to all my colleagues for being here tonight. You're absolutely right. We've talked about a variety of issues, and I want to just end on the same note that you did. This is what is right about being an American and what we're all proud to be working on, even if it takes a few long hours and a lot of tussling back and forth, but we're all grateful to be here and actually to have this opportunity.