Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce legislation that would help improve one of the major new benefit programs--the Post 9/11 Veterans Education Assistance program (P.L. 110-252)--better known as the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill that Congress created in recognition of the continuing sacrifice of the men and women in our Armed Forces.

This new law provides veterans with active duty service after Sept. 11, 2001 with enhanced educational benefits to cover more expenses including a living allowance and money for books. Just over 2 years ago--June 30, 2008--this legislation was signed into law and the first benefit checks were disbursed in August 2009. While there have been problems at the startup of this program which I hope have now been largely resolved, hundreds of thousands of veterans are now attending classes using the post-9/11 GI bill.

One of the new benefits available for our men and women in uniform is a provision allowing servicemembers to transfer unused benefits to their spouses and dependent children. Children can use these benefits up until age 26 to pursue higher education. This provision was included in recognition of the invaluable and uncompensated sacrifices made by the families of members of the Armed Forces, and in particular their children, who provide unconditional love and support to their loved ones serving in the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense June 2007 Mental Health Task Force report noted that ``The well-being of service members is inextricably linked to the well-being of their families.''

The legislation that I am introducing today--the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill Dependent Coverage

Improvement Act--would make this transferable benefit useful for more families. The current Post-9/11 G.I. bill statute allows children of servicemembers to use these transferred benefits up until age 26 but regulations essentially require that transfer to take place prior to that child turning age 23.

Mr. Speaker, I can find no valid policy reason for this gap. My bill would close this gap and allow children of servicemembers to be transferred these benefits up to the current limit on when they can use those benefits, age 26. This change is written in a way so that its impact is limited to just this program.

This gap was brought to my attention by a constituent, a veteran of multiple wars, who tried to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter only to be blocked by the age limitation. I can only imagine his disappointment at finding out that he could not pass these hard earned benefits to the daughter he has loved and supported her whole life.

Age 26 is now widely recognized as a critical age up to which other important benefits for dependent children are being tied, including under the new health care reform law. Earlier this month, the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that this House passed would extend coverage under TRICARE for dependent children up to age 26 to match the requirement in the health reform law. If this fix was appropriate for health care benefits, it certainly ought to be appropriate for education benefits.

When the Post-9/11 GI bill was passed we were primarily concerned with increasing the benefits available to our brave servicemen and servicewomen, not putting up more barriers to keep them from accessing them. Unfortunately, this oversight limits the scope of these new benefits in a way that was certainly unintended. With this legislation, we can correct this so all eligible dependents are provided access to the benefits this bill provides. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today on rollcall 398 through rollcall 401. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on all four.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2194 but not without some reservations which I want to talk about.

As you all know, when this bill first came before the House, I voted against it. I was concerned that provisions in the bill: (1) limited or did not provide the President the ability to waive sanctions to advance important national security goals through diplomacy, (2) impacted disproportionately the general population of Iran who had just courageously stood up to the regime after last year's fraudulent elections, (3) and imposed unilateral measures when almost everyone agrees that if you are to use sanctions, multilateral ones have the best chance of achieving their purpose.

At that time, I said that it was my hope that as this legislation moved forward in the legislative process, further changes would be made to strengthen this bill in a way that would truly enhance, and not hobble, strong diplomatic efforts to diplomatically engage Iran as well as to enact multilateral sanctions.

Today, we have before us a conference report that is better than the bill that came before the House in December. This conference report makes a number of changes to provide flexibility to ensure that the President can continue to engage in international diplomacy, adding elements that were missing from the version that passed the House. It would also include targeted sanctions--including the denial of U.S. visas and asset freezes--that isolate those in the Iranian government or who acted on behalf of that government, based on credible evidence, to order or direct the serious human rights abuses that occurred against Iranian protesters after the June 2009 elections. Such a provision achieves our policy goals without also broadly impacting and punishing the Iranian protestors who were the victims (and continue to be the targets) of that brutality.

I would also state and local governments to divest their investments in companies doing business with Iran, if that is a course they choose to pursue. This authority is similar to that granted by Congress only a few years ago allowing a similar divestments regarding investments in Sudan.

These changes are certainly improvements to the bill that passed the House over my opposition in December. As I have said before, the President's flexibility to conduct foreign relations and diplomatic efforts to achieve a strong international consensus against Iran is not a loophole that needs to be closed but a vital tool that needs to be supported. Diplomacy without flexibility is not diplomacy.

Additionally, even as I vote to support improvements that I think will be useful to the Administration as it pursues an engagement strategy with Iran working in close partnership with our allies in the international community, I want to make clear that I am not interested in causing more suffering to the Iranian people. I am not foolish enough to think that we can impose ``crippling U.S. sanctions'' that ``go far beyond recently-enacted UN sanctions,'' according to the authors of this legislation, without causing suffering to the Iranian people. While the conference report before us states that the people of the U.S. ``have feelings of friendship for the people of Iran,'' unfortunately even with the most expansive waiver authority, they will still bear the brunt--rather than the reckless Iranian regime--of these policies.

If we must do sanctions, they ought to be clearly targeted at the Government of Iran and individuals within that government rather than the Iranian society as a whole, in order to avoid creating hardship and inflicting harm on the Iranian people. That would send an even more unmistakable message to the people of Iran about our intentions. While not perfect, there appears to have been good faith efforts made in the conference on this bill to do that.

I also hope very much that no one in the international community takes passage of this legislation today as a sign that diplomacy is off the table or that our only other option going forward to address very serious concerns with Iran's nuclear activities is a military strike.

I join many who have expressed concerns that although sanctions when appropriately targeted can be an important tool for pressuring Iran, they are not a full policy and certainly not an end in themselves. We need to invest in these diplomatic efforts vigorously now and continue to work with our international allies and others interested in peace and stability in the region. The aim of those efforts aren't new sanctions, they are to achieve a verifiable end to Iran nuclear enrichment activities, get it to comply with its NPT and IAEA obligations, and prevent a volatile region from becoming even more combustible.

The State Department's Under Secretary for Political Affairs, William Burns, made this point in testimony this week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he stated, ``Let me emphasize that sanctions are not an end in themselves. Our foremost objective--one that is shared by our international partners and our allies in the region--is a durable diplomatic solution to the world's concerns about the Iranian nuclear program and the broader issues at stake with Iran.''

Treasury Secretary Geithner stated last week, ``to be truly effective in ending Iran's proliferation activities and Iran's support for terrorism, we need to have in place a concerted, international approach. This is not something the United States can do alone. We need other countries to move with us.''

Sanctions--even the most effective ones--cannot and should not substitute nor supplant strong diplomacy. Sanctions should not signify an end to diplomacy or alternatively be seen as the last step before a military strike, which almost everyone agrees does not serve U.S. interests or that of the international community.

Eight months ago, there was high degree of skepticism that the U.S. could push through a new U.N sanction regime particularly given known reluctance, if not outright opposition, from Russia and China to such a move. Yet two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 committing the international community to implement ``the most comprehensive sanctions'' that the Iranian Government has ever faced according to the Obama Administration.

Diplomacy and engagement laid the ground work for such an effort but that doesn't mean it must stop now. United Nation's Security Council Resolution 1929 also emphasized ``the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes,'' an emphasis that is regrettably missing from the bill before us today.

That resolution also affirmatively supported and I would say encouraged--at the same time it was authorizing stronger sanctions-- continued willingness on the part of the P+5 nations (China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the U.S.) to ``enhance diplomatic efforts to promote dialogue and consultations, including to resume dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issue without preconditions * * * with a view to seeking a comprehensive, longterm and proper solution of this issue'' and made very clear that the parties were ready to resume formal negotiations.

Lastly, it has been pointed out that this bill before us today is overwhelming silent on this point except brief mentions when it talks about using diplomacy for new sanctions. This is a key oversight in the bill before us and one I hope neither our own Administration nor our key international allies read as an indication that it is okay to trim back their efforts at diplomatic outreach and engagement with Iran.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcalls 368-375 on June 17. Had I been present I would have voted yes on each with the exception of rollcall 374. On rollcall 374, I would have voted no.

Mr. Speaker, today I am so proud and honored to be able to offer this resolution to my alma mater, Marquette University, which, of course, is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its admission of women during this academic year, 2009 to 2010.

Not only have we noted in this resolution that Marquette was the first Catholic university in the world to admit women to be educated alongside men in its undergraduate programs; but in doing so, it paved the way for women's access to higher education in the United States of America.

This, of course, was very controversial, the admission of women in these programs, and the objections among the religious communities in Milwaukee and elsewhere were rampant. But Father McCabe bravely persisted in admitting women to Marquette University for 4 years before he got word from Rome that it was okay to do so. And we certainly applaud that legacy, as well, today.

In the century following this landmark event, the role of women at Marquette has expanded and evolved. Not only is 50 percent of the Marquette student population women, but the university offers a Women's and Gender Studies major and minor. Marquette counts women among its student body leaders, its most outstanding students and its internationally recognized faculty and staff.

In the decades following this historic inclusion of women, the university has become known for its commitment to expanding access to higher education, not only to women, but also to low-income students, to veterans and to students who are the first generation in their families to attend college. This year, Marquette celebrates the 40th anniversary of its Educational Opportunity Program, of which I am among its first beneficiaries, which now serves over 500 high school and college students every year.

I am so proud of my alma mater, and Milwaukee, that they were on the front lines of change, and recognized long ago, before many other similar institutions, that in order to grow and move forward as a society we can't leave half our population behind. Expanding opportunities and access to education for women benefits our families and our society. I am so honored to recognize Marquette in this way.

I congratulate Marquette, its board of trustees, its student body, all of its alumni, and urge passage of H.R. 1161.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1067, the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act.

I am grateful for the leadership that has brought this important legislation--which I am pleased to cosponsor--to the floor and to bring visibility, focus, and renewed attention and resources to what some have called an Invisible Conflict.

For too long, the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, has been conducting a campaign of violence and terror against the people of northern Uganda which has spread to southern Sudan and parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic.

In each of these areas, the LRA is destroying lives and communities. Women and children are particularly targeted by this vicious group and have suffered harsh abuses and atrocities at the hands of the LRA and its ruthless leaders.

Joseph Kony, the man directing this group's atrocious and senseless violence, and two other LRA commanders are wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. The ICC indictment lists 33 charges against him including murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement, rape, intentionally directing attacks against civilian population, and the forced enlisting of children into the rebel ranks.

Just last week, media reports indicated that the UN is investigating new allegations of a previously unreported LRA attack in February in a very remote part of the Democratic Republic of Congo that killed over 100 people.

Unfortunately, unless more attention and resources are paid to stopping the LRA, we will probably only continue to hear more similar disheartening and tragic reports in the coming months and weeks.

It is clear that current efforts to apprehend Kony and other LRA leaders are not working and vulnerable civilians in the region continue to pay the price with their lives for that failure. These terrorists must be brought to justice. The international community needs to step up its efforts to rid the affected communities of this threat and help them rebuild and recover. The U.S. can and must play a key role in that effort.

The bill before us today, S. 1067--the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, makes U.S. policy very clear: to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict in northern and eastern Uganda and other areas terrorized by the LRA and to eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army to civilians using the political, economic, military, and intelligence tools available to our nation in a comprehensive and multilateral effort that will result in greater protection of innocent civilians and lead to the capture of Joseph Kony and other commanders of the LRA.

This bill is the work of exemplary leadership from colleagues from both sides of the aisle including Congressman Jim McGovern who has been a long time champion for ending conflict and promoting peace.

This legislation is also the result of the hard work of thousands of activists across the country--young and old--including from my district as well who want to ensure justice and peace for the many victims of the LRA.

The bill would give the administration a strong mandate to act swiftly and effectively to lead multilateral efforts to protect children and families from LRA attacks and put a permanent end to these atrocities.

It would require the U.S. to create a strategy working with our international allies on a viable plan to protect civilians from LRA attacks, support the capacity of local authorities to maintain the rule of law, prevent conflict, and diplomatically engage on a regional basis to address the threat posed by the LRA.

Lastly, it would express support for U.S. efforts and funding to assist the people of Uganda and the Government of Uganda in rebuilding and recovery projects in areas of northern and eastern Uganda heavily affected by fighting with the LRA and authorize humanitarian aid aimed directly at the families and communities that have been and continue to be victimized by the LRA, including the children pressed into service as soldiers by the LRA.

The tremendous suffering caused by the LRA cannot end soon enough. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am in wholehearted support of this amendment and this bill.

I just wanted to speak briefly on the previous amendment that passed en bloc, which included a provision for which I am responsible. It included the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are not just mere lakes; they are inland seas, and they contain the greatest source of freshwater on Earth. And despite their size, they are extremely vulnerable to stresses from environmental pollution, ecological alterations, and climate changes. In addition to that, they are a great source of economic development.

There are many unanswered research questions regarding the lakes' ecological stability. But there is already significant evidence that the climate of the Great Lakes region is changing: for example, water temperatures have been higher, and the duration of winter ice cover has declined.

These changes have a serious impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem--and the goods and services linked to the Lakes. To name just a few of the myriad potential effects:

Water temperatures are already rising, and almost all of the climate change scenarios predict further changes in temperature and precipitation. Lakes are very sensitive to climate in terms of the amount of precipitation and evaporation.

Precipitation changes are causing variation in water levels; most predictions are for lower levels but some predict higher levels.

Precipitation is predicted to increase but is predicted to come in fewer and more intense effects--in effect, a higher number of more intense rainstorms--which has a big impact on runoff from the lake, soil erosion, non-point pollution, and more.

Climate change is already affecting the population and distribution of fish and many other organisms; water level and temperature changes may also accelerate the accumulation of mercury and other contaminants.

When lake levels change, costs of shipping in the Great lakes increase, as do the costs of dredging harbors and channels, and adjusting docks and other infrastructure.

Climate change disrupts Great Lakes regional agricultural productivity (largely because of changes in the distribution of rain).

There is a dire need for comprehensive research on the impact of the environment on the Great Lakes region--now, not later. Waiting to begin managing the potential effects of climate change on the lakes only increases the ultimate expense, and the potential for irreversible damages.

If we act fast, we can take action to prevent some of the most damaging effects of climate change, and we an provide immediate relief in the form of cost savings, cleaner air and water, improved recreational opportunities, safeguarded environmental habitat, and improved quality of life for communities in the Great Lakes region.

We also must safeguard Lake Michigan--and in fact, all the Great Lakes--because of the Lakes' vital role these play in the region's economy. Lake Michigan is the lifeblood of the Milwaukee regional economy.

We have to use every tool in our toolbelt to ensure Lake Michigan's ecological stability--not only for the sake of environmental protection, but for the sake of our economic security--from tourism to manufacturing to fishing to shipping.

Southeastern Wisconsin is home to over more than 120 water-related businesses and five of the largest 11 water technology companies have significant presence in the area. UWM is home to the Great Lakes Water Institute, which is the largest research center of its kind on the Great Lakes. The Water Institute represents the only major aquatic research institution located on Lake Michigan and the largest U.S. institution of its kind in the Great Lakes region.

According to the EPA, today, there are approximately 37 million people living in the Great Lakes basin and more than 26 million of these people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water.

Shipping has been responsible for the development of the entire Great a Lakes Region.

Many manufacturing industries are attracted to the Great Lakes area because of the advantages of being near a water source which provides inexpensive electricity and convenient transportation routes.

The Journal Sentinel reports that there are 44,000 jobs directly tied to Great Lakes shipping, and nearly 200,000 jobs in the mining and steel industries that depend on the lakes' cargo.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sande Robinson, Director of the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) at Marquette University. EOP helps low-income, disadvantaged, first generation college students to receive a college degree. Ms. Robinson will retire in June 2010 after 35 years of distinguished service at Marquette University.

Ms. Robinson began her career at Marquette in 1974 and has been a part of the great success of the EOP program during 35 years of its 40- year history. She received a bachelor's degree from Kent State in Early Childhood Education and a Master's degree from Kent State with a major in College Student Personnel. Ms. Robinson's first position was as a financial aid counselor in the EOP; she ultimately became the director in 1986. Even as the director, she maintained close interaction with students by continuing to counsel students as she had since coming to the EOP.

Ms. Robinson collaborates with the national TRIO organization, the Council for Opportunity in Education to ensure the highest standards in available support services are provided nationwide for minority and other underserved students. EOP is one of the TRIO federally-funded college opportunity programs that provide academic tutoring, personal counselling,

mentoring, financial guidance, and other supports necessary for educational access and retention and relevant training for directors and staff.

Ms. Robinson has served as the president of Wisconsin Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel. While at Marquette, she has successfully secured federal funding for EOP throughout its history and served as a member of the Friends of the Haggerty Museum Board, a member of the Diversity Task Force, and many scholarship selection committees. She has been active at the national level in presenting successful models of support program innovation and has been a reader of grant applications for the U.S. Department of Education Student Support Services grant competitions.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I am honored to pay tribute to Sande Robinson who leaves behind a wonderful legacy of assisting hundreds of students in their efforts to receive a higher education and become alumni of my alma mater, Marquette University. Sande Robinson's contributions have greatly enriched and benefitted the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the role that small businesses can play in helping our Defense Department and the men and women in uniform who ultimately are benefited by a properly functioning acquisition process.

Now, there is not an elected official anywhere who won't tell you that small businesses are the key engines of economic growth for communities across our country, including Milwaukee, which I have the honor to represent. We've heard this statement countless times.

According to the Department of Defense, small business is the key to sustaining and improving our industrial base and to maintain competition and innovation. Yet despite congressional efforts to encourage the participation of small economically and socially disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by veterans, small businesses, in Defense Department acquisitions, concerns remain about bundled contracts and the ability of those businesses to fully participate on a level playing field against larger defense contractors.

I know I have heard these concerns from businesses in my district, including just this morning. I'm sure that my colleagues can share similar stories. When the rubber hits the road at the Department of Defense, small businesses find a giant pothole waiting for them in pursuing contracts.

If we are to reform this broken acquisition system, which is the goal of this bipartisan bill, we need to ensure that it is working for small businesses as well. We can't do that without assessing how well it is working for those businesses now, and that's what my amendment intends to do.

My amendment calls upon the Department, when developing measures to assess contractor performance as called for in this bill before us, to specifically measure how the prime contractors themselves are involving small businesses, including those owned by veterans, women, and socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, as well as subcontractors. If I'm not mistaken, Federal law requires that large Federal prime contractors receiving Federal contracting exceeding $550,000--and $1 million in the case of construction--on a contract which offers subcontracting opportunities must have subcontracting plans with goals that provide maximum opportunities to these small businesses.

I am so pleased that the bill already would require the Department to look at the excessive use of contract bundling which has previously been identified as an obstacle for small businesses competing for DOD contracts. And I also know that in the report accompanying this bill, the House Armed Services Committee urged the Department to develop a metric for small business utilization as part of the new assessment tools the bill requires. My amendment supports that goal.

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

It is time that the rhetoric meets reality. Small business is the key to economic growth in our country and ensuring that small businesses can compete and that the Defense Department gets the products, services and goods it needs on time and on budget, which are not mutually exclusive goals. But unfortunately for small businesses, business as usual at the DOD and too many other Federal agencies means little or no business for them.

Innovation is not the exclusive domain of large companies. Small businesses are innovative. In fact, they may have a greater incentive to be innovative because that innovation is what may allow them to successfully compete against larger firms. When we put all of America's ingenuity to work, it benefits our military, our taxpayers, and our communities.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Dorothy Height gave not only her height but loaned her depth and breadth and width and weight and length of service to the civil rights movement and to gender equality. Mother to no children, wife to no one, she was queen mother, nurturer, and lover of the civil rights movement through seven decades of advocacy. Although she was the queen, she treated each one she encountered with equity, and it was my privilege to bow down to her each time I encountered her.

Thank God for the life of Dr. Dorothy Height, and thank God for her legacy. May her life be more than a memory. May it be a compelling force to press on in the unfinished work of the civil rights and gender equality movement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 62 anniversary the State of Israel.

At the same time we celebrate this occasion, we also are recollecting the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps and celebrating the annual Days of Remembrance commemorating the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust as well as the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution. It was out of this torturous past that this new nation was formed.

On May 14, 1948, the people of Israel proclaimed the establishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel. Literally, within minutes, the United States recognized the modern nation of Israel and welcomed it into the international community. That was the beginning of a longstanding and cherished friendship between the two nations that endures to this day.

The State of Israel remains one of the United States' strongest allies and its endurance is a testament to the ideals of freedom and democracy. Our nations share the common goals of peace, freedom, security, and prosperity for their citizens and for the region. It is this commonality that allows this relationship to endure despite changes in Administrations, of Congresses, and even disagreements that emerge from time to time.

Despite many difficulties and challenges, thanks to its greatest resource--its people--and the help of supporters throughout the world-- Israel has built a vibrant democracy and a thriving economy and society.

We must continue to strongly support Israel's right to exist, its prosperity, and security. One of the best ways to ensure this is for the United States to continue to work to bring life to the peace process between Israel and its neighbors.

While recognizing that success ultimately depends on the parties themselves finding compromises and agreements, active U.S. engagement as an honest broker and mediator remains critical.

This will not be easy. Neither was establishing the State of Israel. Nor has it been easy to create a democratic state in a region where many of these tenets remain largely unknown and if known, unpracticed. Yet, 62 years later, Israel stands firm.

Again, I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate the 62nd anniversary of its independence.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most destructive threats to the ecological integrity and health of estuaries across our Nation, as well as other water bodies such as rivers and lakes, are invasive species. Invasive species destroy ecosystems and have a devastating effect on the health and balance of these systems, including the estuaries that we are trying so hard to protect through the National Estuary Program. For example, the San Francisco Estuary has been called one of the most invaded estuaries in the world.

Once these species are established, Federal and State authorities spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eliminate them, and failing that, to manage them and repair the enormous ecological and economic damage they have done and are doing to these important ecosystems. As I speak, the Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking efforts to prevent the latest of these threats to Lake Michigan in my district, the Asian carp, from overrunning this ecological and national treasure.

This amendment would include assessments of the pathways by which these unwelcome guests are getting into estuaries in the long term monitoring and assessment efforts authorized through the National Estuary Program. For example, one pathway of introduction for nonnative species in an estuary is the ballast water in ships that they may discharge as they move through these bodies of water. By strengthening monitoring of this threat in the estuaries, it is my hope that it will help improve data available to the various stakeholders, to EPA's national program office and Congress on how nonnative species are affecting our estuaries, track whether this problem is getting better or worse, and guide the development of targeted and effective solutions to help address and defeat these invaders.

I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for his support of this amendment as well. I know he shares my concerns about the problem of invasive species in ballast water, and I sure look forward to working with him on another bill to address those concerns more specifically.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, with a large number of concentrated health insurance markets across the country, it is imperative that health care reform initiatives focus on enhancing competition among insurers and providing American consumers with affordable health care coverage. Many health insurance markets in the United States appear to have one dominant insurer, and in many other markets, the top two insurers serve most enrollees. According to the American Medical Association, in 2007, at least one insurer had a combined HMO/PPO market share of 50 percent or greater in 64 percent (200) of the local markets (or Metropolitan Statistical Areas) of the United States. And the two top

insurers accounted for at least 60 percent of enrollment in almost 75 percent of these markets.

Moreover, it can be extremely difficult for new firms, even large national health insurance firms, to enter these markets. A new health insurer in an area will have difficulty attracting customers until a large number of health care providers have signed up. But providers may be reluctant to sign up at competitive rates without assurance that the plan can offer a volume of patients. And both consumers and providers may be skeptical of a new health plan with which they have little experience.

As a recent Congressional Research Service report states: ``The health insurance market has many features that can hinder markets, lead to concentrated markets, and produce inefficient outcomes.'' Dominant insurers may raise premiums or reduce quality of service. They may also reduce or prevent innovations that could benefit consumers or engage in exclusionary practices to make entry more difficult.

HHS or the Exchange Controller, therefore, must take steps to encourage the entry of new, credible insurance companies and prevent dominant insurers from hampering competition. This includes seeking the advice and counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, regarding practices that may cause or continue undue market concentration. This will be achieved in part by ensuring that the antitrust laws remain intact through a savings clause, which was included in both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. However, improving competition in health insurance markets requires a one-two punch. It also must include seeking the advice and counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, regarding practices that may cause or continue undue market concentration. More competitive health insurance markets will generate significant benefits for American consumers. It is the best way to ensure that all consumers, including individuals who will now be required to purchase health insurance, will be able to obtain quality care at affordable prices.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear the most specious, inaccurate, contradictory, and downright laughable arguments against health insurance reform.

Take, for example, the argument that we need to start over because the Congressional Budget Office score had been done 17 months earlier and now was old and stale. And, oh, by the way, the debate has dragged on for 17 months. Yet, the minority simultaneously complains that somehow we are hurrying and ramming the bill through.

Once the CBO score was recalculated demonstrating phenomenal deficit reduction, the complaint became that the CBO is playing number tricks. Of course, the minority trusts CBO when the scores work for them.

The minority's plan is to allow insurance premiums to rise unregulated by government intervention, let a family of four's premiums double every decade, and end Medicare as we know it.

If the health insurance reform debate wasn't so serious, these arguments would be laughable.