Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to you about health care reform. This past month, Anthem Blue Cross in California decided to raise their insurance premiums by 39 percent. This is simply unacceptable. My constituents cannot be expected to swallow this price while they struggle to keep food on the table.

I have long been a supporter of comprehensive health care reform because of the unfairness and inadequacy of our current health care system. I applaud the President's leadership in convening this week's health care summit. Though health care reform continues to be a long and arduous process, the American people cannot wait any longer. We must come to a compromise and pass a health care reform bill that will cover as many people as possible with coverage that is affordable. We must prohibit discriminatory practices such as pre-existing conditions and do away with unfair practices such as caps on coverage. Any reform bill must also control costs so that everyone can afford to get the treatment they need. Let's do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to be taking up PAYGO. It is an effective tool for addressing the deficit. It will strengthen fiscal responsibility.

Now, what does the legislation do? It requires that all new policies reducing revenues or increasing entitlement spending be offset over between 5 and 10 years. It ensures that we can afford to fund America's most important priorities such as education, clean energy, health care for future generations. It will force advocates of tax cuts to acknowledge their costs and show how they would pay for them. It would force a serious examination of wasteful subsidies in the budget and tax loopholes that can be eliminated to offset new worthwhile programs.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Republicans and Democrats will join us this week in supporting this proven tool for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get our courage up and continue to reform health care. There are tremendous benefits that will be lost if we don't clearly draw the path to health care reform.

What we are doing is providing protections against insurance companies' discrimination and against losing coverage when you get sick. Insurance security, if you lose your job, will be guaranteed. There will be relief for small businesses and employers. There will be jobs for Americans in the health care industry, no lifetime limits on coverage, and there will be free preventative care.

That is what we want to do for the American people. We must go out and clearly explain the benefits, each and every one of us, to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I stand proudly with my colleagues in supporting H. Res. 1021, which extends our heartfelt condolences and support for the people of Haiti and for those who are there serving humanitarian relief.

This is an opportunity for us, in the midst of all this tragedy, to address one of the poorest nations in the world, and it is located in the Western Hemisphere. It is time for us not only to meet the emergent needs but to fulfill our commitment to this country from now on in perpetuity.

So I commend the speedy work of the Congressional Black Caucus, of all of the Members of this House, and of those on the other side of the aisle for addressing these needs and for collaborating with the world to bring the kind of relief that is needed for our neighbor to the south. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats in Congress have been devoted to job creation as a top priority to help put people back to work and to refuel our economy ravaged by the economic policies of the former administration. The Republican recession is the worst economic crisis the country has experienced since the Great Depression.

The Recovery Act by itself is not enough to restore the economy, but it is helping put America back to work. The Recovery Act has created more than 640,000 jobs since it was enacted in February and could produce as many as 1.6 million jobs. The Recovery Act has reduced job losses, reduced the unemployment rate, and increased the gross domestic product. We should continue to support jobs and jobs now.

Mr. Speaker, the 111th Congress has made historical progress

working with President Obama to take America in a new direction. We are working to turn our economy around and create good jobs, to make commonsense reforms to how Wall Street does business, to make quality health insurance affordable to every American, and to launch a clean- energy jobs revolution that makes America more secure. These efforts are being tackled with fiscal discipline and accountability.

You just heard about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and then there is the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act, stimulating growth and creating jobs with up to 20 additional weeks of unemployment benefits. And then there is the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act to give established small businesses and entrepreneurial start-ups the needed tools and resources to thrive, create jobs, and drive economic growth.

Madam Speaker, Democrats have been focused on helping Main Street, not Wall Street, and momentum continues to build for additional job creation legislation. The Republicans created one of the worst recessions in history and did very little to help a recovery. The Republicans exacerbated the bad economy with tax cuts that favored the wealthy and did very little to help working people. Democrats acted to save the economy from falling apart, to facilitate a recovery and to put people to work.

We will build on the work we have done so far to create and save jobs and get this economy moving. More than half of the Recovery Act still must be spent into our economy, boosting it in the short term and laying a new foundation for long-term prosperity. New extensions of unemployment benefits have been taking effect that will inject demand into the economy. The first-time home-buyer tax credit, which has been extended, will be renewed in less than 2 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of this House for getting the health reform bill out. And what is in it for small business? No entity fares better under reform than small business. That's because the current health insurance system is rigged against small business, which now faces fewer choices, higher costs and, as a consequence, less stable coverage for their workers.

Health insurance reform will level the playing field and provide more stability and security to small business. Small business then will be able to cover all of their employees. It's all about jobs, and the reform will lead towards jobs.

Mr. Speaker, single women are twice as likely to be uninsured as married women, and they need coverage. I support the Democratic bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for about an hour and a half. I have heard the Affordable Health Care for America Act denigrated, demonized. I heard the most disrespectful description of our Speaker, of our President, and I have heard them call this socialistic. But what I never heard from all of those who are opposed, including the medical doctors, was a sense and a feeling for protecting the health of Americans. All I heard was them describing the number of pages. They even gave us the number of times that ``shall'' was used. They talked about this heavy load that they would throw out and abandon. But I never heard them throw in ``for the American people.''

There was something very insensitive about what they were saying. I never felt the depth of concern about protecting Americans' health. I heard misstatements. I even heard lies. And let me explain to you where I was able to pick up on the misconceptions. They talked about taxing, increasing taxes. They talked about small businesses going out of business. They talked about the debt on their children, their grandchildren and those yet unborn. Let me try to clear up some of the mythical misstatements that were used while I sit here in the last hour and a half.

Will the bill raise taxes? Get this: for the average individual, the bill would not--would not--raise taxes. If you are an individual who makes more than $500,000, that's a half a million dollars, or a couple who makes more than $1 million, you would be taxed 2.5 percent. That's not the average family's income. The average family does not make $500,000 or $1 million. It will be taxed, yes, 2.5 percent. If you make more than $250,000 and you do not purchase insurance, then you would have to pay a tax of 2.5 percent.

The Medicare part D prescription drug doughnut hole, this hole is created when a patient's prescription drug costs exceed a yearly limit. This includes those whose prescription drugs costs more than the initial benefit of $2,700. Catastrophic coverage begins after the beneficiary has paid $4,350 for medications. Over time, the bill creates a 50 percent discount for prescription drugs bought in the doughnut hole.

Will this bill increase health care costs? No. This bill is designed to reduce health care costs. The House bill is designed with a public option. Now what does the word ``option'' mean? It means, you have a choice. Option means your choice, your decision. So the House bill is designed with the public option which will compete with private insurers in the exchange and reduce health insurance premiums. Though the program is government run, it will be self-sufficient and not require tax dollars at the initial startup.

I have heard over and over again that the government will get between you and your provider. That is so untrue. People talk about government. These are the people who work for government and who are paid by government. And how do they get their pay? Because some taxpayer paid their taxes, and that's how we all get paid. If you're so against government, why did you run to be part of it? Because every minute you're here, you're using taxpayers' money. That's your salary. So if you don't believe in government, you ought not to be part of it. It was so irrational. I was steamed while I was listening, but I held my cool. Private insurers are unhappy with the public option and are, therefore, attempting to disqualify its advantages.

Now, you cannot tell me that the 10,000 people who were out there yesterday demonstrating just woke up and said, We need to go to Washington, DC, and demonstrate. It was an organized effort, my friends. Some people were paid. There were buses that were paid for to bring people in town. And what I said before, I will say again. Why is there so much anger and hostility over providing health insurance for all Americans? What does that anger portray? Why are people so irrational? Why aren't they more reasonable about what government is trying to do?

This started out covering those who were uncovered, about 38 million, and it's grown into, as our opposition says, a socialistic program to cover ineligible people, to cover those most feared people that are here illegally. I never heard compassion for Americans. So there was an organization that put that group together to come and shout and show their anger. I'm saying, Well, what is it that they're so angry about? They have been told that benefits will be taken away from seniors. Nothing can be further from the truth. Will the House bill negatively affect small business? No. The House bill exempts most small businesses from the employee mandate. Small businesses with a payroll less than $500,000 are exempt. Small employers with pay rolls between $500,000 and $750,000 will have contribution phases from zero percent to 8 percent required contribution. Businesses with payrolls above $750,000 will be required to contribute the full 8 percent of average salary for their employer.

What is the public option? Now, remember ``option'' means choice. ``Option'' means decision. It's a government-run health insurance option. It's like going into a market and having all these plans laid out and you make the choice. If you like your insurance, you keep your insurance. If you don't like your insurance or you want to buy insurance, you come to the marketplace. Taxpayers will not have to pay for the public option. It is a mechanism with which the government can encourage healthy competition in the health insurance market. Also an option that will be accepting of high-risk individuals. Now let me tell you what the immediate reforms will include:

There will be a ban on lifetime limits. There will be immediate sunshine or light against insurance price gouging. It will be transparent. We're creating a review-and-disclosure process for rate increases.

It will prohibit health insurance companies from rescinding existing health insurance policies when a person gets sick.

There will be limits on preexisting conditions. Insurance companies can only look back 30 days rather than the current 6 months.

Complete ban, existing conditions exclusive occurs in the exchange will begin in 2013.

It will prohibit domestic violence from being included as a preexisting condition.

It will immediately ensure the medical loss ratio of 85 percent of premium health care dollars.

Dependents can remain on their parents' insurance until the end of their 26th year.

It will extend COBRA coverage until the exchange is up and running.

Grants to States for immediate health reform initiatives will start immediately. And I want to say that again because I've heard people say that States will lose and be burdened. Grants to States for immediate health reform initiatives.

It improves benefits, reinsurance for early retirees.

It creates an immediate fund that will finance a temporary program for those who are uninsurable.

It creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program.

It increases funding for Community Health Centers.

It expands primary care, nursing, and public health workforce by increasing the size of the National Health Service Corps.

It increases Medicaid reimbursements to 100 percent Federal funding. And in 2013 the exchange will be up and running. Individual and employee mandates take effect.

Preexisting conditions cannot be used to refuse a health insurance policy.

It expands Medicaid to 150 percent of poverty.

It will be open to small employers with 25 or fewer employees.

Affordable credits issued to those below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level.

The public option then is operational, and the exchange expands to everyone over the next 5 years until 2018, when all employers will have to meet the essential benefits package.

So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying this will be an historical movement for Americans. We are looking forward to a tremendous change in where we place our emphasis. We plan to build a stronger, healthier America, and I would hope that all Members of this House will recognize that we are bringing a health care benefit to our Nation so it will stay the greatest Nation on Earth.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honor for me to come down and join my colleague, Keith Ellison. He has been a driving force to bring reality to the public.

Congressman Ellison, I want to thank you for your diligence. What really gets to me is the misstatements, the fear that has been put out to the public. And think about this: Why are people ranting about health coverage and not reasoning about it?

They have made fun of our President, Barack Obama. They have disrespected him on this floor when a Member hollered out for the first time in the history of this House, ``You lie.'' I hope the world saw that and questioned what that was all about.

When they talk about Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to be Speaker, and talk about PelosiCare, that it is going to take benefits away from seniors, those are lies.

I tell people when they come up to me, remember, we started off trying to cover Americans that had no insurance, somewhere around 38 million. Private insurance companies make profits off your health care. They make profits off the condition you are in. Why should health, good health, be profit-making? We should address the health needs of Americans.

Now, you are going to hear the opposers say, You are putting our kids and our grandkids in debt. Well, they never said that when we fought an unnecessary war in Iraq, costing us $15 billion a month. If we were to send additional troops to Afghanistan, it is going to cost us $5 billion. And what do we get as a result of that? Do you think we are going to be able to stabilize these nations thousands of miles away at the expense of our people and our country?

Just today, there was a horrible massacre on one of our greatest and largest bases, Fort Hood in Texas. Think about all the medical personnel that would have to be there to care for those 31 that were injured. Twelve people lost their lives. And one of the suspects is a mental health professional, a major who is a licensed psychiatrist. What does that tell you?

So what are we trying to do? If we want to be the strongest Nation on

Earth, we have to be sure Americans are strong. We have to provide for those less able than many of us.

You are going to hear people say you don't want government running your health care. They don't do anything successfully. Then you are already condemning our victory that some people are expecting in Iraq and Afghanistan and so on. If government doesn't do anything successfully, then we all ought to go home. We are a fraud.

But ask this question: What is Medicare? What is Medicaid? What is Social Security? These are government-run programs as part of that safety net.

In the richest country on Earth, why should anyone go hungry or go without health care? If we had a government-sponsored option, and let me just define for the people who don't understand the meaning of ``option,'' ``option'' says you make the decisions. It is a misstatement to say that government will get in between you and your doctor. That is so untrue, and the people who are saying that know it.

I chaired the Health and Human Services Committee in the California State Senate in Sacramento, California, for 17 years; and we put in place a program. We were always coming up against HMOs, health maintenance organizations. If a doctor prescribed a particular drug for his patient, they would have to call in to some other office, maybe it is the secretary or whatever, and say, Can the doctor prescribe this medicine for the patient? If it wasn't on the formulary, it won't happen.

So I know the experiences because being there 17 years and having people come and testify in front of us because an HMO said I want 150,000 patients in my pool, and they are all-out in south central Los Angeles, our hospital closed out there, they were assigned to a hospital maybe 30 or 40 miles away, a mother with her three children would have to spend 3 hours trying to get health care. It is not accessible.

I know of what I speak. I lived through it. We designed policies so we could address the human needs of all of our people. And we can't have a successful democracy if we discriminate. What I mean by discrimination, we fought the battles in the 1960s discriminating against people of color. Now we are trying to fight the battle of poor people, fight for them who cannot afford this expensive insurance.

In my State of California, if we didn't have this plan, your insurance would go up by $1,800 for the year for a family of three. So I am doing everything I can. You know, we live in a State that is the first State in the Union to be a majority of minorities. What most people don't know, don't want to know, is most of our immigrants don't come from across the southern border, they come from across the Pacific Ocean. Vietnam--you have heard of some of these places--Korea, Japan, China, and they come with their own needs. We try to accommodate human beings in our State. Our State is the largest State in the Union, and we are suffering like many other States, but we are suffering to provide the necessary needs of our citizens.

We say for all Americans, we can quibble over whether they are here legally or whatever, but what we are trying to do is provide quality health care for Americans.

So I don't understand those people who are ranting and are outraged. They believe the lies they have been told.

I always say be a seeker of truth. I taught school for many years. I told my youngsters, you need to reason. Let's think this through together. I can tell you anything. Seek the truth. Check it out. When it is said that we are going to take benefits away from seniors, that is untrue.

When it is said that government, who fails at everything it does, you know, how are they going to do this, we are not running the program. What we do is allow citizens to come to the marketplace and choose a plan, A, that they can afford; B, that is accessible; C, that will allow them to get into the coverage even if they have asthma, even if they had breast cancer, even if they have diabetes, they can come in and be covered.

You can say to seniors under our plan, when you hit that doughnut hole, you won't go through the hole and hit rock bottom because we are going to close that hole.

The Republicans were in the White House, they had the Senate and this House. I was in here. We were in here until 6 in the morning. I

watched them browbeat one of the Members. She had voted, and they brought her back and huddled around her, and she was in tears until she changed her vote.

That was the worst thing we could do for seniors because when they fall into that hole after they have spent $2,700, they fall into that hole and they cannot afford to buy food or to pay their rent if they are going to buy their prescriptions that keep them living day by day.

Why should an American, and particularly our seniors, have to make that kind of choice? We are not playing with this. You know, I have heard people say they have done it in secret in some dark, smoky room. It has been up on their e-mails, it has been up on their computers for weeks. There is a process that you go through and you do not violate the process in Congress. Every bill that comes out of a committee has to be heard, and most Members have time to speak to that bill and most Members vote on the bill with an audience out there.

And if the bill gets a number of votes, then it leaves that committee. It might go to another, but everyone knows the process.

Now they are saying well, you've taken three bills and you are blending them together and we don't know what is in those bills. I have even heard Members come up with these thick stacks of paper and say look at this. Well, when you write law that you expect to impact on Americans, you better put everything in there you mean, and that is where you use the word ``shall.'' I heard the minority leader say, Do you know how many times they used the word ``shall''? Well, if you want it to be law, you need to say ``shall.'' If you don't mean for it to become law, then you can make it permissive and say ``may.'' Let's explain the process to our people. Let's not keep the people ignorant. Let's educate them. As an educator, that is what I want to do.

To finish, I want to let our seniors know that the majority of people in this Congress know that our health care system in this country is broken and we want to strengthen what is working. Medicare has provided health care for Americans age 65 and older for the last 44 years, and it is working. When they say they want a coverage like ours, we are covered under Medicare. And it will be strengthened under the House's reform legislation. The reform will mean better benefits at lower cost and will preserve Medicare solvency for years to come. And without reform for all Americans, health care costs will keep rising and could jeopardize Medicare's ability to keep covering the costs.

Rising costs hits seniors, their wallets, too. And so with the average part D plus part B premium consuming an estimated 12 percent of the average Social Security benefit in 2010, and it will be 16 percent by 2025, so we know that the debate on reform has been intense, but it is a good thing. Let's get this all out in the open and then let's correct the misstatements. Let's be sure that we educate the people with the truth, and just know that nothing has been done behind closed doors that you have not heard.

We can debate it on this floor, and we are going to do that. So I want to end by saying we can have a better America. We can keep our people healthy. We can have peace, but it starts here. And we need to come together as a House of Representatives; not as Democrats, Republicans, Independents, fighting each other. We can express our positions, and we can do it with comity. We can do it with collegiality. We can do it by listening to someone else's position.

I am going to truly close, but when I held my last community forum, I said: All of you have the right to be heard, but you don't have the right to disrupt and block me from hearing you. So if you do that, then you will be escorted toward the door. If you have a question, write it down. Be proud of your question and put your name on it. If you don't put your name on your question, it goes to the bottom of the list. So we will listen to you and respond to you, but you cannot block the communication.

So what we are doing is trying to communicate with Americans out there in the field. We are going to express the truth the best we can. Thank you so much for having tonight's Special Order. We really appreciate your commitment and your dedication.

Would you yield?

You know, it's always very interesting to me. I sat on the Judiciary Committee for 17 years and I carried the California trial lawyers' funding bill every other year. And of course opposition would say, frivolous. Well, if your right leg was amputated and the condition was in the left leg, they amputated your right leg, the first thing you would do is run to get the most high-powered lawyer you could and you would sue the doctor and the hospital out of business. So you can say frivolous cases, but when it comes to your own health and the health of your loved ones--and I haven't seen a company without its set of lawyers. So we use them when we want to be sure that the law works on behalf of ourselves and our loved ones. If it's for somebody else, it's frivolous. So let's think about what we're saying with tort reform.

And we can lower the cost if we have quality health care, meaning we have quality personnel. And do you know there are provisions in our bill that will help to subsidize medical students that want to go into primary care? And so we want to build a whole cadre of quality health providers that will practice medicine on behalf of the human interest to keep our people healthy.

So when we talk about tort reform, let's think it all the way through and don't treat it in a frivolous way.

Thank you very much, and good night.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, our House bill, 3962, will make health care affordable for middle class families, provide security for seniors, and guaranteed access to health insurance coverage for the uninsured.

I'd like to go through these charts to let the viewing audience, Americans, and particularly Californians, know what will be provided by the Affordable Health Care for America Act. And this is a blend of three different bills that came out of various committees in front of the public, voted out by the committee, amended, and now combined in one bill.

Our first interest is making health care affordable for the middle class families. We want to guarantee security for our seniors. We want responsibility to our children, and it will not add a dime to the deficit.

The health insurance reform means ending discrimination for people who have preexisting medical conditions. You can never be denied coverage because you have a preexisting condition. No dropped coverage if you become sick. You know, so many people get into the health care system when they're acutely ill, and that means they cannot go to work. Then they find that they're having trouble paying their house note, paying their car note, even buying food. And we want them to know that there will be no dropped coverage if you become ill or you lose your job. No copays for preventative care. And we want Americans to go see their health care provider as often as they need to so they can stay healthy. We want to prevent conditions that require medical care. But if you should fall ill, you can be covered for your medical treatment.

Yearly caps on what you pay and no caps on what insurance companies pay. Reining in health costs for families is one of our major targets, reining in health care costs for businesses and for government.

You know, people talk about not wanting government in between their doctor and themselves. Well, just think about that statement. What is Medicare and Medicaid? What is Social Security? These are government programs. We call them the safety net so you will not fall through the cracks and into devastation. We want fiscal responsibility and we want to reduce the deficit. We want to eliminate from health care waste, fraud, and overpayments to private insurance companies. Why should health care of Americans be for profit? Health care ought to be guaranteed to every American. There's major emphasis on innovation, on keeping people well, and prevention.

Now, misinformation is out there galore. You need to understand this: If you have insurance, you like your insurance, you keep it. And if you have a doctor, you can keep that doctor. Certainly you can keep that plan. And, remember, this bill came about because there were 38 million people in America that were uncovered, and every American should have health coverage.

We want to emphasize for seniors we strengthen Medicare and we improve the benefits. There is one Member that is telling everyone that we're going to take away the benefits from our seniors. That is so untrue. We want to improve benefits, including closing the doughnut hole, and we will get into that a little later.

If you don't have or you lose your insurance, a new health insurance exchange. It's more like a one-stop-shopping marketplace, and it includes a public option. Now, what does ``option'' mean? It means a decision. It means a choice. It means you have the right to make your own choice. And a public

option for consumers means competition for better prices and better coverage. We want to be sure your coverage is affordable and accessible and of quality. And there will be affordability credits to help Americans and small businesses buy insurance.

Now, if we don't have health reform, there will be skyrocketing health care costs, and it will increase by $1,800 each year for the average family. Care and medication already postponed by more than half of all Americans may become more unaffordable, and Americans face a 50/ 50 chance of losing their insurance in the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to our Member from California, Judy Chu, who might make some comments, and then we might have some questions back and forth.

Congresswoman Chu, do you find in your districts the demographics that have changed in the last few years, that people in your district are going into the health care system more acutely ill?

You know, California being the largest State in the Union and being the first State to become a majority of minorities, people come over the Pacific as well as over the border. Many people think that many of our immigrants come from over the border. But those who come from across the Pacific have many different ways of receiving health care, more traditional and so on. So they try to treat at home. Then when they come into the system, they are more acutely ill. So I have been concerned about the formulary and having brand names on the formulary to treat these odd kinds of conditions, rather than always pushing generics.

So I understand that the bill that will come in front of us very soon will allow for not only generics but these brands to be prescribed by their physicians. I know that in my district, the 33rd Congressional District in Los Angeles--I include Hollywood, Hollywood Hills and so on--there was a young man at an event taking pictures, and when I finished explaining the bill, H.R. 3200 at that time, he sat down beside me, and he said, Thank goodness the government is looking at health care reform because I require a medication--and get this--that costs $74,000 a month. I thought I didn't hear him correctly. I said, Are you talking about $74,000? He said, Yes. I said, Well, what is this condition? He said, I have a condition that I was born with that starts the skeletal system, the muscular system and vital organs to deteriorate. My copayment is over $696 a month. Thank goodness for the government helping me live.

Helping people live is so important, and I know that you have heard from people in your district, much like the ones I have described.

Isn't that wonderful. I have not been able to understand, you know, during the month of August why there was so much ranting over health care. It appeared to me that some mean-spirited persons went out and gathered people up, misinformed them and told them government is trying to take something away from them. What we're trying to do is to give something. I understand one of our own Members has asked for people to come from across the country tomorrow to confront us in the halls and say, Don't

take away my health care. My response would be, We want to guarantee you health care at very little cost, at high quality.

I think it's foolish. You know, why the ranting and not the reasoning? As you know, our President has said not a penny over $1 trillion. In fact, not a penny over $900 billion. We are reinventing, innovating the system so that we can guarantee Americans the best, the most affordable, the most accessible quality.

Judy, you bring so much credibility because you were a statewide officer in California, and you dealt with a lot of these fiscal issues. So we're very pleased to have you here. I represent Hollywood, and anything can happen there. We had a rally out in front of the Catholic church on Sunset Boulevard, Blessed Sacrament. Right behind the church was Selma Avenue School, the last school I taught in. We had the Catholic priest who was emceeing; we had a rabbi, female; we had a Muslim priest--Muslim minister; and we had Protestant ministers there; and they were testifying.

One gentleman came up--he had a heavy accent. He said, I am an American citizen. I have worked four jobs. My 2-year-old daughter got sick. I did not make enough money to pay for insurance coverage. My daughter died. There wasn't a dry eye because everyone in the audience could put themselves in that position. There was a real tall gentleman off to my left. He had a placard that he kept pushing up, and it had the face of our President, Barack Obama, with a Hitler kind of moustache. So disrespectful. So when I got to the mic--you know, I'm Catholic. I made the sign of the cross. I spoke to him in Latin and pax Domini. He put that sign down, and a woman in front of him kind of hid it. I found out he was an actor, and someone paid him to come.

I would like to kind of give the viewing public some idea of how the health reform bill will impact on my district. Forty-eight percent of the district has employer-based coverage. These constituents can keep their own insurance if they like. In my public forum, I had the audience raise their hands if they were insured, and most hands went up. How many of you like your insurance? Most of the hands went down. So I said, If you like it, you keep it. If you don't, you have a marketplace to choose the plan that best fits your family's needs.

So the bill that will be in front of us in a few days improves employer-based coverage for over 304,000 residents in the 33rd Congressional District of California. That's Los Angeles, Culver City and Hollywood. It provides credits towards insurance costs for up to 173,000 households. There are 22,200 individuals who have preexisting medical conditions that could prevent them from obtaining health insurance. The bill ensures that they will be able to obtain insurance, where they have been denied in the past. It will improve Medicare for 75,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug doughnut hole for 6,100 seniors.

It provides a tax credit for 15,100 small businesses in my district that have 25 employees or less and pay an average wage of less than $40,000. It allows 16,300 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage by joining the exchange. It provides coverage to 138,000 uninsured individuals, and that includes 30 percent of the district's residents below the age of 65. It protects 1,100 vulnerable families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs. It reduces the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $29 million. That is the direct impact on my district.

In the State of California, more than 20 percent of the population is uninsured. Workers at private sector businesses of all sizes are experiencing an increased likelihood of being uninsured, although it is most pronounced in businesses with fewer than 10 employees. More than a third of the uninsured have family incomes of more than $50,000 per year. Of families with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 in the State of California, 27 percent are uninsured. Seventy percent of uninsured children are in families where the head of the household has a year- round full-time job.

Mr. Speaker, we are so pleased that this House can come up with a piece of legislation that will guarantee our children, our working- class families, and our seniors full coverage so families won't have to go bankrupt because they had preexisting conditions, and the poorer the family, the less health care they have had because they simply can't afford it.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent on us--it should be bipartisan because I don't understand why people would rant and rave over providing all Americans with affordable health insurance.

If we are going to be the strongest country on the globe, then we need to ensure that we have a healthy population. If we choose to go thousands of miles away and fight unnecessary wars, and we want victory, then we have to be sure our military is healthy. We have to be sure that our families can sustain themselves while their loved ones are over fighting for this country. If we want to ensure a victory, then let's provide the infrastructure on our land that will help Americans be the strongest people on Earth.

It is an embarrassment, and right now the Inter-Parliamentary Union is meeting here in the Capitol Visitor Center. When we went over a few months ago to join them, they said, Why is America not at the table with us? We were embarrassed to say that we're caught up in a health care debate whether to give health insurance to all Americans. How can we pride ourselves of being the strongest leader, and we cannot even provide health care in an affordable fashion to our citizens?

I want everyone to hear this. A robust option, a robust health option, says that you can make a choice. You can look at a marketplace of plans that will address your family's needs. You can buy into that plan. It also says that seniors, when they get to that doughnut hole, when they have spent 24 or $2,500, they are not going to fall into that hole where they have to make decisions whether to pay their rent, pay their house note, their car note or buy food, because this bill will help you lift that burden. We are going to pull people out of the doughnut hole.

We are going to say to you, if you lose your job, your coverage will continue. We want to say to you Americans, if you fall ill, you don't have to be bankrupt. We want to say to America that we care about your health. We are willing to put our policies on the line for you.

Do not be confused, and do not let the opposition misstate the benefits. You will receive more health benefits under this plan. Just know, we are providing for you the best health care insurance, and we are keeping it within the budget that our President has set.

I do hope that if you come here to the Capitol, or you go to the offices of your Representative, or if you write them, e-mail them or call them, encourage them to vote for a policy that will insure all Americans. We want to be sure we are the strongest, the healthiest and the happiest nation in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to stop ranting and start reasoning. Health care providers have pushed against the public option, citing payment as one of their primary concerns. Instead of seeing the issue within the lens of payments based on Medicare rates versus negotiated ones, I believe we can attract health care providers to the public option with a new incentive to break the stalemate. Malpractice is a primary psychological, emotional issue with doctors, dentists, hospitals, administrators, and pharmacists.

Additionally, it is a principal issue of economic obsession with providers who bitterly resent paying for liability insurance. When it comes to you, it is not petty. If there is malpractice, you certainly want to contact an attorney.

Progressives have always championed community health centers. My proposal expands the liability program used by these community health centers.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 761) remembering and commemorating the lives and work of Jesuit Fathers Ignacio Ellacuria, Ignacio Martin-Baro, Segundo Montes, Amando Lopez, Juan Ramon Moreno, Joaquin Lopez y Lopez, and housekeeper Julia Elba Ramos and her daughter Celina Mariset Ramos on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of their deaths at the University of Central America Jose Simeon Canas located in San Salvador, El Salvador on November 16, 1989, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

On November 16, 1989, in the midst of El Salvador's 12-year-long civil war, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her teenage daughter were murdered in San Salvador by members of the Salvadoran Army. On the 20th anniversary of this heinous crime, the resolution we consider today calls upon us to remember and honor their lives and their work.

The six priests were well known internationally for their work in support of human rights, social justice, peace and caring for refugees and the internally displaced. They worked tirelessly to end the conflict that had torn apart their country for over a decade. As scholars, researchers and advocates, they identified and addressed the many economic and social problems that affected the majority poor of El Salvador.

Upon learning of their murders, Speaker of the House Tom Foley appointed a special task force on El Salvador consisting of 19 Members of the House and chaired by Congressman Joe Moakley of Boston, Massachusetts. The special task force was charged with monitoring the Salvadoran Government's investigation into the eight murders.

Six of our colleagues who served on the Speaker's special task force still serve today in the 111th Congress. They are Congressmen Steny Hoyer, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jack Murtha, David Obey and John Spratt. We honor them for their service then and today and for their dedication to the cause of peace, justice and human rights.

The Moakley Commission, as the Speaker's special task force came to be known, issued a series of reports that identified members of the Salvadoran military's high command as those responsible for murdering and obstructing the subsequent investigation into the crime. The international outcry in response to the murders and the subsequent investigations served as a catalyst for negotiations that resulted in the signing of peace accords in January 1992, bringing El Salvador's long nightmare to an end.

So even in death, these brave men and women contributed to achieving the very peace to which they had dedicated their lives. Since that terrible November day in 1989, these eight individuals have been remembered in El Salvador and around the world. Annual

observances have been held by the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States which have taken up many projects in support of human rights and social justice in honor of the fallen Jesuits.

By passing this resolution today, the House adds its voice to that remembrance and extends our sympathy to the family members, friends, colleagues and religious communities who knew them, worked with them, loved them and miss them. We also remember our former colleague, Congressman Joe Moakley, and the seminal reports issued by the Speaker's special task force that played such an important role in bringing to trial those responsible for the murders and advancing negotiations to end the war.

I want to thank my good friend and gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for introducing this important resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to Mr. James McGovern from the Third District of Massachusetts.

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 672) calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to release imprisoned bloggers and respect Internet freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my good friend, Representative Loretta Sanchez of California, for her leadership in introducing this important resolution.

This resolution calls on the government of Vietnam to release imprisoned bloggers and respect individuals' rights to freedom of speech and expression.

Over the past decade, Vietnam has seen an explosion in Internet use due to the country's increasing economic integration and a decline in the cost of access to the Internet. Today, an estimated 24 million of Vietnam's 88 million people are online. A major leap forward for freedom of expression in Vietnam has been the rise of the blogs. Blogs have taken an important space in Vietnam society, providing a rare platform for Vietnamese citizens to exchange ideas and debate issues outside of the State-controlled media.

Rather than embracing this new form of communication, authorities in Hanoi have chosen to join the likes of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in employing a mix of detentions, regulations, and intimidation in order to monitor users and censor views.

On October, 2008, the government passed a new edict that gave the police broad authority to move against online critics, including those who oppose the ``State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.'' Since 2002, about 30 ``cyber-dissidents'' have been jailed in Vietnam. Seven of those 30 remain behind bars, and these people were expressing

their views peacefully and posed no threat to Vietnam's national security.

According to the 2008 press freedom index by Reporters Without Borders, Vietnam was ranked 168 out of 173 countries.

Vietnam must stop criminalizing free speech and begin upholding the international covenant on civil and political rights to which Vietnam is a signatory. Censoring private blogs and forcing technology companies to cooperate with authorities to restrain critical speech threatens not just the Vietnamese people but Internet users everywhere.

I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Loretta Sanchez.

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

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

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