Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Friday, March 25th, marks the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire.

The tragedy of the Triangle fire is not just the deaths of 146 workers--mostly young women in their teens and early twenties--but the fact that those deaths were avoidable. If the owners of the factory hadn't locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, if they had installed a stable fire escape or put in sprinklers, many of those lives would not have been painfully and tragically lost. If the owners of the factory hadn't fought long and hard against their employees' right to join a union of their choice, those workers might not have been locked in and prevented from fleeing the fire, as the owners were able to do themselves.

The depictions of the tragedy by eyewitnesses are difficult to read. The fire broke out on the Saturday afternoon, at the end of the workday. Survivor Yetta Lubitz said that the warning and the fire arrived at the same time. Within three minutes, the only unlocked exit was blocked and the fire escape soon twisted and collapsed from the heat. Within 30

minutes, 146 lives were lost, including sixty-two people who died by jumping or falling from the ninth floor.

The International Ladies Garments Workers, the National Women's Trade Union League, and other unions didn't just mourn the victims--they organized. The day after the fire, 15,000 shirtwaist workers demonstrated in support for a 52-hour week and a 20 percent pay raise. On Sunday, thousands gathered at the Metropolitan Opera House and passed a resolution calling for a Bureau of Fire Prevention and a permanent citizens' committee to push for labor reforms. Soon after, Governor Al Smith acted to create the Factory Investigating Commission, chaired by Robert Wagner, who would become a U.S. Senator and the sponsor of the National Labor Relations Act. One of its key investigator staffers was Frances Perkins, who became Secretary of Labor,

The impetus for reform came from the workers themselves. Their activism resulted in the passage of major worker protections not just new fire safety laws but laws against 7-day work weeks and child labor. The Triangle tragedy resulted in more workers having the right to union representation, collective bargaining rights, and a voice at work.

In 1961, on the 50th anniversary of the Triangle fire, ILGWU President David Dubinsky attended the memorial service and said, ``We want a fitting memorial to the martyrs we honor today. No better one can be found than to increase the respect for and the safety of workers.''

100 years later, those words continue to ring true. Today, we confront a coordinated effort to roll back the hard fought gains that were won not just because of the horrific nature of the tragedy that occurred but because of the organizing power of unions, workers and their supporters. Just as the Triangle Fire spurred people into action, the anti-working family agenda of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has mobilized millions. The message is clear: we will not go back to the days when workers had no voice, no dignity and no safety. We will not go back.

Friday, March 25, marks the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The deaths of 146 workers--mostly young women--were avoidable. If the owners of the factory had not locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, if they had installed a stable fire escape or put in sprinklers, many of those lives would not have been painfully and tragically lost.

The International Ladies Garment Workers Union didn't just mourn the victims--they organized. Their activism resulted in the passage of major worker protections--not just new fire-safety laws but laws against the 7-day work weeks and child labor. The Triangle tragedy helped expand the right to union representation--a voice at work.

One hundred years later, we confront a coordinated effort to roll back those hard-fought gains. Just as the Triangle fire spurred people into action, the anti-working family agenda of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has mobilized millions. The message is clear: We will not go back.

I do. First of all, let me thank you for focusing not just tonight but so many days on the floor of this House on jobs, especially since the new majority has done nothing, absolutely nothing to create jobs for the American people since they have been in charge and, instead, want to gut Federal programs in a way that economists say will eliminate jobs and slow our economic recovery and put hardship on the American people.

Yes. I do want to say, first of all, that Democrats have a plan, and we know what it takes to make investments by building strong infrastructure and what our plan is called. And I want to thank our leader, the whip, Steny Hoyer, for summarizing it in the best way possible, and that is: Make it in America. I know he will talk about that, that we mean both making stuff here, which we ought to do, and I think Americans everywhere--and certainly in my district, they start nodding as soon as I say, ``We need to make it in America,'' and everybody, regardless of party, regardless of income starts to nod.

But this week, I am reintroducing a bill that I have had called the Patriot Corporations of America Act, which provides incentives to and rewards companies that are good corporate citizens of the United States of America. Right now, sadly, the United States gives billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks and government contracts to companies that outsource jobs, that exploit workers, that avoid their fair share of taxes. And this only encourages those companies to invest abroad instead of making it in America and using the best workers in the world--American workers.

The Patriot Corporations of America Act would help us reverse course by providing incentives to companies that create a real partnership with American workers and invest in our economic future. It would be paid for, this legislation, by closing corporate offshoring loopholes and reining in some of the new tax breaks for millionaires.

This bill would reward companies that voluntarily meet the following patriotic standards by moving them to the front of the line for government contracts and giving them a 5 percent reduction in their taxable income. To qualify as a patriot corporation, businesses must produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the United States; spend at least 50 percent of their research and development budgets in the United States; limit top executive pay to no greater than 100 times that of their lowest compensated full-time workers-- pretty generous, actually; contribute at least 5 percent of payroll to a portable pension fund; pay at least 70 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums; maintain neutrality and employee organizing drives; and comply with Federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety, consumer protections, and labor relations, which they're supposed to do anyway.

So I think it's time for the United States to reward companies that show a dedication to the American workforce, and that's why I call it the Patriot Corporations of America Act. I certainly would invite all my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this kind of legislation that helps to make it in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the enactment of Illinois Senate Bill 3539, which abolishes the death penalty in Illinois. As a lifelong resident of Illinois, I want to thank Governor Quinn and each and every state legislator who courageously voted for this important bill.

I strongly oppose the death penalty because I have always believed that the government should never take a person's life as punishment for a crime. This is especially true in our judicial system which is wrought with inequity and unfairness that can lead to the conviction of innocent people. In fact, since 1977, 20 people sentenced to death in the state of Illinois were ultimately exonerated. This is a shameful record that troubles me deeply. Imagine if any of these persons were executed before evidence could be presented to prove their innocence.

The enactment of Senate Bill 3539 in Illinois is a tremendous step forward for justice. Already, Illinois had set an important example for the rest of the country, when in 2000, it placed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Today, with the stroke of his pen Governor Quinn has helped turn the tide against the use of capital punishment in America and I sincerely hope that other states will soon follow.

Mr. Speaker, the existence of the death penalty is not necessary to ensure that the most heinous crimes go punished and I will continue to fight for a fair justice system that does not use death as a means of achieving justice.

Ask Americans if we should reduce government spending and most say yes. I agree. But let's dig a little deeper. Let's make the kind of choices that families make.

H.R. 1 that the Republicans have offered in cuts will result in 218,000 fewer children getting the proven benefits of a preschool program called Head Start. H.R. 1, at the same time, does nothing to cut the $4 billion that we are giving every year to the Big Oil companies. If we want to talk about oil prices, our taxpayers give $4 billion to the wealthiest corporations in the history of the world.

We are cutting about $5.7 billion from Pell Grants in H.R. 1. I voted ``no.'' What are we doing about billionaires who are getting tax breaks to leave to their heirs? Eleven billion dollars a year for the wealthiest Americans and their heirs.

We have to make the kind of choices that help middle class Americans. We can tighten our belt, but we don't have to do it on the backs of the middle class.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.

We all agree that the 1099 reporting requirements added by the Senate to the Affordable Care Act need to go. That is not in question. None of us wants to burden small business men and women with unreasonable reporting burdens. All of us are committed to eliminating this requirement.

In fact, we could have and should have solved this problem last year, when the House voted on H.R. 5982, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. Unfortunately, all but two Republicans voted against that bill. That bill, like today's bill, would eliminate the 1099 provision. Unlike today's bill, however, it paid for the $24.9 billion cost of repeal in a very, very different manner.

H.R. 5982, the Democratic approach, would have paid for reform by eliminating tax loopholes that allow corporations to ship jobs overseas. It would have solved the problem while also eliminating incentives to locate operations overseas. Creating American jobs should be our number one priority, and H.R. 5982 would have helped us do that.

H.R. 4, the Republican approach, doesn't close corporate offshoring loopholes. Instead, it puts the $24.9 billion cost of repealing the 1099 reporting requirements squarely on the backs of middle-class families. It undermines the entire approach of the Affordable Care Act--to help individuals and families obtain affordable, quality health care--by imposing taxes on those who receive assistance to help pay premiums and cost-sharing requirements.

Under the Republican bill, individuals and families who are eligible to get assistance at the beginning of the year are subject to taxation if they are fortunate enough to get a raise or a better job by the end of the year. Even if they are a few dollars over the eligibility limit, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that they could be subject to taxes up to $6,000 under H.R. 4. The assistance, by the way, is given directly to the insurance company but the tax penalty would come directly out of the pockets of families.

The Republican bill not only would impose harsh penalties on middle- class families, it would also undermine the second principle of the Affordable Care Act: to expand coverage. Again according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would take away coverage from 266,000 Americans who would no longer take insurance because of concerns that they could potentially be required to pay substantial taxes the following year.

I wish I could vote today to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements, just as I voted to repeal them last year. I cannot, however, solve the burden on small businesses by imposing a burden on middle-class families, particularly when we have so many better choices to pay for repeal.

Mr. Speaker, recently Dr. Ellen Chadwick, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Wilmette Illinois, warned about the severe consequences that would arise from cuts in critical global health initiatives, especially those that protect the lives and well- being of children. In her letter to the editor, which appeared on February 24 in the Chicago Tribune, she lays out the many reasons why we need to continue our modest contributions to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

As Dr. Chadwick points out, the United States spends less than one quarter of one percent of our budget on global health assistance, but the benefits we obtain are enormous. She writes that our funding ``saves lives, preserves families and communities, and builds extraordinary good will toward America.'' It is also an investment in global and national security, since global health crises such as the AIDS epidemic can destabilize entire regions.

Like Dr. Chadwick, I believe that we can achieve our fiscal goals without jeopardizing the lives of children around the world and without creating global insecurity. As a member of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Reform and Responsibility, I put forward my own plan to achieve deficit reduction. My plan maintains global health funding and protects the middle-class and the poor here at home. Instead, it reduces the deficit by restoring economic prosperity, cutting unnecessary weapons systems and wasteful spending in the Department of Defense, raising revenues from those who can afford to pay more, and eliminating waste and other inefficiencies in government.

I hope that my colleagues will take a moment to read Dr. Chadwick's letter and, after doing so, will reject the harsh cuts to global health included in H.R. 1.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 24, 2011]

``Don't Cut Global Health Care''

(By Dr. Ellen Chadwick)

As a pediatric infectious diseases specialist, I am gravely

concerned about federal budget cuts passed by the House that

will have a devastating impact on a group that cannot speak

for themselves in the halls of Congress--poor children in

sub-Saharan Africa. The House version of the annual federal

funding bill ravages global health programs, reducing their

funding by more than $1 billion, with most cuts targeting the

President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program

and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Other

programs that contribute to maternal and child health in

developing countries are also affected. Cutting these

precious resources will be measured in lives lost, as cuts

will mean fewer HIV-infected pregnant women tested and

treated for HIV, fewer infants treated to prevent HIV and

more HIV-infected children without access to care, support

and education. Finally, these cuts will result in growth of

the population of children orphaned by AIDS, already

estimated to be 16 million globally. Meanwhile, these cuts

will make little difference in our budget deficit.

The investments Americans make in global health see

incredible, tangible results measured in lives saved. In 2010

alone, the PEPFAR program provided more than 600,000 HIV-

positive pregnant women with antiretroviral treatment,

allowing more than 114,000 babies to be born HIV-free. The

Global Fund has provided this treatment to an additional 1

million mothers, and HIV treatment to more than 3 million

HIV-infected people around the world. What is more, for every

dollar we invest in the Global Fund, our international

neighbors contribute an additional two, making our leadership

that much more important and rewarding. After 30 years of

AIDS, we are finally beginning to believe in the promise of

an AIDS free generation in the hardest hit regions of the

world.

The House's proposed funding cuts stand to decimate these

important programs, with deadly consequences. According to

PEPFAR estimates, 400,000 men, women and children would be

dropped from lifesaving treatment. Another 414,000 supported

by the Global Fund would be without medicines,

representatives there estimate. More than 32,000 babies could

be infected with HIV every year due to reduction in services

to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Without treatment,

one-half of these HIV-infected infants will not live to see

their second birthday.

Even without these cuts, the unmet need is already great.

Children in sub-Saharan Africa lack the same access to

treatment that adults get--for example, in Uganda 43 percent

of infected adults have access to medication while only 18

percent of infected children have access. Children with HIV

are also especially vulnerable to tuberculosis, making

treatment of both infections particularly difficult.

Over the past several years, I have conducted clinical

research and provided training to clinicians in Africa to

increase capacity to care for kids. I have cared for many

infants and children with HIV/AIDS. With antiretroviral

treatment, I watch these children quickly spring back to

life. Even more rewarding is the satisfaction of the new

mother who is told that her child is not HIV-infected because

treatment from pregnancy through the breastfeeding period has

protected her child. U.S. support for global health--only one

quarter of 1 percent of our federal budget--saves lives,

preserves families and communities, and builds extraordinary

good will toward America.

The House of Representatives will not have the final word

on cuts to global health. The Senate will take up the budget

next, and can and must refuse to embrace these draconian

cuts. I hope that Illinois' two distinguished senators will

lead the charge in protecting the mothers and children in

Africa whose well-being depends upon their actions.

Thank you. I would like to say to the Republicans, be careful what you wish for. Your star is fading on this effort to repeal, to defund the Affordable Care Act. Only about 18 percent of Americans now are for full repeal of this bill.

And are you the ones that are going to go and tell the American people that insurance companies can drop you when you get sick? Children with preexisting conditions? Well, they can be denied coverage.

You go and explain that insurance companies can impose devastating annual and lifetime caps, and that pregnant women and breast cancer survivors can be denied coverage, and that being a woman will continue to be a preexisting condition. That's your mission if you were to succeed.

In passing this legislation, the American people finally said, this Congress said, that health care is a right, that it should not impoverish individuals. Vote ``no.''

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, House Republicans have made their agenda really clear. What's obvious is that it's really not about creating jobs. It's not about addressing the economy, but rather the extreme agenda is to undermine women's access to reproductive health care and attack women's health providers that women rely on in their communities.

We've seen an all-out assault on Planned Parenthood. Instead of attacking unemployment, Republicans are waging a war against women. This is not about Federal funding of abortion, and it is not about quality of care. This is about cutting off women's access to

affordable care in an effort to score political points. This amendment does nothing to improve the economy. It will result in lost jobs, and it will take away the only source of primary and preventive care from millions of American women.

Planned Parenthood, a trusted organization by women, plays a critical role in our Nation's health care system, and the Pence amendment would have a devastating impact on communities across the country. Planned Parenthood serves over 3 million Americans every year. More than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive care. Planned Parenthood provides lifesaving cancer screenings, routine gynecological examinations, contraceptive services, immunizations and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

Planned Parenthood saves money. So this is not about saving Federal dollars. It saves money. For every dollar spent on the services I mentioned, and others, $3 are saved.

One in five American women has received care from a Planned Parenthood health center at some point in her life, making it one of the largest women's health care providers in the country. And now is not the time to constrict women's access to and funding for Planned Parenthood. And American women will suffer if the extreme Republican agenda becomes law. Six in 10 women who access care from women's health centers like Planned Parenthood's health centers consider it to be their main source of health care. This amendment intends to literally wipe Planned Parenthood off the map.

Planned Parenthood is an invaluable community-based provider, and it is critical to achieving the goal of improving quality health care in this country, including efforts to improve women's health, lowering the rate of unintended pregnancies, and decreasing infant mortality.

I find it ironic, very disturbing, that the very same people that want to take away family planning funding and access to safe and legal abortions, which are not funded by public dollars, have also proposed a nearly $750 million cut to the Women, Infant and Children program to pregnant women and newborn children. This, like the repeal of health care reform, is part of the Republicans' divisive social agenda that goes too far.

Now is the time to be working on the issues that are most important to Americans, creating jobs and improving the economy, rather than legislation that takes health care away from women.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Jewish Disability Network, a coalition of over 20 Jewish organizations, for its advocacy on behalf of the rights of disabled Americans. This February marks the third Jewish Disability Awareness Month, organized to push for greater recognition of the needs and concerns of disabled Americans.

Jewish tradition recognizes the importance of inclusion and prizes the ability of every person to participate fully in their community. Today, over fifty million Americans are living with a disability. Tragically, too many of them face barriers that lock them out of employment, housing, education, or health care. They are denied the opportunity to be productive and our society is denied the benefits of their abilities.

Only 21 percent of people with disabilities are employed full or part-time. One in six people with disabilities has not completed high school, 28 percent live in poverty, 19 percent have gone without needed health care at least once during the past year, and 34 percent lack access to adequate transportation. We are making progress through legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and through continued investments in IDEA, job training, health care and technology assistance. Those commitments must continue and we should reject budget cuts that would reverse the gains we have already made.

We must strive for inclusion. A 2010 survey by the Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability found people with disabilities are less likely to socialize with friends and family, to go to restaurants or to attend religious services on a regular basis. Jewish Disability Awareness Month seeks to focus on the barriers that create isolation and remove them. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a leader of the Jewish Disability Network, puts it this way: ``Stumbling blocks come in many forms, from less-than-accessible buildings, Shabbat services, prayer books and web pages to health care that is harder to access or isn't sufficient for people with disabilities. We are obligated to remove these stumbling blocks.''

Jewish Disability Awareness Month is an opportunity not just to highlight problems but to promote solutions. Doing so is not that difficult, nor does it need to be costly. One-third of disabled workers can be accommodated for no cost, and 80 percent of job accommodations cost less than $500. The average added cost for homes built with accessibility features is between $100 and $600, while retrofitting a home can cost several thousand dollars. Enactment of legislation like my Inclusive Home Design Act can help bring and keep people with disabilities in our communities.

Today, the Jewish Disability Network will hold a Congressional briefing on ways to expand access to employment and education and protect the civil rights of the disabled. This month, congregations across the country will undertake activities to engage people with disabilities in their communities: taking disabled seniors to a meal or museum, providing lunch and learning sessions for parents of disabled children, or helping young disabled adults develop leadership skills in a social context. Throughout the year, the Jewish Disability Network works to put its principles of participation and inclusion into practice.

I am proud of those efforts, and I encourage my colleagues to learn more about them. Again, I want to congratulate Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, senior adviser for disability issues at the Religious Action Center; David Feinman, senior legislative associate of the Jewish Federation of North America; and the many others who are leaders in this critical initiative.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Flake amendment, and I strongly oppose the underlying Republican no-jobs continuing resolution.

If people out there have the gnawing feel that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and they're stuck in the middle and stuck getting the bill, the fact of the matter is they're right. This bill is just another example of the Republicans' true agenda, which is helping out big business and the rich while sticking it to the middle class and those who aspire to it.

The cuts that they're proposing would actually cause a devastating wave of unemployment at the State and local level, particularly in the public sector. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that passage would cost us nearly 1 million jobs. Who are we talking about? You know, it's cool these days to go after public sector workers, but what we're talking about are the teachers--I was one once a long time ago-- the teachers who teach our children and grandchildren, the very police who keep our streets safe and put their lives on the line, and the firefighters who answer our 9/11 emergency call. We're talking about workers who are the backbone of our communities.

Over the last 2 years, the Democratic Congress and President Obama were successfully able to stave off a second Great Depression, but we're still in the early stages of recovery, unemployment is still too high at 9 percent, and American families are still suffering. The proposed cuts would cost us 1 million more jobs, be devastating to our recovery, and hurt Americans trying to take care of their families and make ends meet.

Let's just take a look at some of the things they want to cut. How about the National Institutes of Health would be cut $1.6 billion? This is funding that goes to vital medical research, including cures and improved treatments for devastating diseases. High speed rail development, which would provide desperately needed jobs, but beyond that, reinvigorate a keystone of the American infrastructure, it faces $2.5 billion in cuts.

In addition to the important jobs program, what really hurts is Republicans want to put assistance to poor families on the cutting board. They want to cut $1 billion for community health centers, the only access to health care for many poor families. And how about $747 million for the Women, Infants and Children, the WIC program? That's food assistance for low-income pregnant women and their children. The 300,000 beneficiaries in my State of Illinois receive a grand average benefit of $44.62 a month. That's it, per person, per month, and that minimal subsidy would be cut.

House Republicans' proposals to slash Federal spending programs are irresponsible and indiscriminate, eliminating programs that create jobs and cutting assistance for low-income and middle class families. There is another way to deal with the deficit and to balance our budget.

We need to enact a Democratic initiative to make it in America. We should be making things here. We should revive our manufacturing sector rather than providing tax breaks that encourage companies to go offshore.

I offered a plan last year as part of President Obama's 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make investments that get us out of the economic doldrums, boost job creation, and reduce the deficit--and not on the backs of low-income and middle-income Americans.

We can do it. We need to stop the Republican efforts and protect job- creating programs that benefit the middle class and the safety net programs that help the most vulnerable in our society because that's who we are as Americans.

The Republicans refuse to make the investments necessary to get people back to work because they refuse to give up tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Their policies are a prescription for disaster, one that puts families, communities, and our Nation at risk.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 514, which reauthorizes and extends provisions in the Patriot Act that I strongly disagree with. I opposed the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 for the very same reasons that I rise today.

As a proud member of the Intelligence Committee, I am confident that we can protect our citizens and do it without treading on their rights.

Among the provisions extended in this bill is section 215, which allows the government to gain access to anyone's private, confidential records, including their medical, financial, library, and bookstore records, without first presenting evidence linking those records to a suspected terrorist or spy. It also fails to allow for court oversight of these secret orders, and prohibits the recipient of such orders from challenging the legality of the order for a year.

I think that the challenge here today is, how do we balance the security of our country with protecting the rights of ordinary citizens? I know that we can do better than we do in this legislation, and so I urge each of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 514. Instead, I think we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence community the tools that it requires while protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the Northwestern University Dance Marathon, one of the largest entirely student-run philanthropies in the world.

Created in 1975 by students at Northwestern, the annual Dance Marathon is just one example of Northwestern University's strong commitment to bring the university body together with the nearby community to raise money for a good cause. Last years' Marathon rose over $850,000 for charity and organizers expect an even bigger amount for this year's charitable recipient, the Children's Heart Foundation.

I would like to thank all the dancers, supporters, and organizers of this terrific event. This year's Northwestern University Dance Marathon, will take place from March 4th through March 6th, 2011. It is a great opportunity to spend time with members of the community on behalf of a great cause.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with everyday Americans in Chicago who shared with me their personal stories, tragic stories but common stories, about how our flawed health care system has devastated their lives. At its core, access to health care is a moral issue.

Midge Hough told me how her 24-year-old daughter-in-law, Jennifer, and her unborn child both died because Jennifer could not find health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Her preexisting condition? A prior pregnancy.

By the time emergency health care was mobilized, it was too late for Jennifer and her baby. She left behind her husband and a 2-year-old.

Today, the Affordable Care Act mandates that pregnancy is no longer considered a preexisting condition.

David Zoltan has diabetes, and because of his preexisting condition he couldn't get insurance after losing his job 2 years ago. He is holding the insulin that he needs to live; but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, David has coverage under Illinois' preexisting-condition plan and no longer ends up in the emergency room to get his lifesaving insulin.

The Republican plan puts the insurance companies right back in the driver's seat to decide who they will and won't insure based on profitability, how much they will charge, what benefits they will cover.

The Affordable Care Act ends insurance company abuses, creates rules of the road, and puts Americans in charge.

The Republican plan is not health care. For millions of Americans, it means no care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake, to remember those who died, and to pay tribute to the remarkable perseverance of the Haitian people.

A year ago today, a massive earthquake caused almost unimaginable loss of life and devastation in Haiti. Some 250,000 people were killed, over a million displaced from their homes, and much of the capital was reduced to rubble.

I traveled to Port au Prince in early March, and I was inspired by the hope and courage of the Haitian people, even in the face of unimaginable loss. In the days and months after the earthquake, Americans responded with immense generosity, donating their money, time, and expertise to help alleviate human suffering in Haiti. More challenges followed, however, in the form of violent storms, political upheaval, and a cholera epidemic that has already claimed the lives of over 3,500 people and sickened 150,000 others.

Today is also a somber reminder of how much more we must do. The heartfelt outpouring of support from around the world in the days following the earthquake has not translated into meaningful progress toward reconstruction and development on the ground. One year after the earthquake, it is simply unacceptable that over a million displaced people still live under tents, while much of the capital is still covered in rubble. It is unacceptable that so many Haitians lack access to clean drinking water, sanitation supplies, and medical care.

Recently, my good friend Dr. Paul Farmer published an article in Foreign Policy magazine outlining five lessons of the Haiti earthquake. I hope my colleagues will have the opportunity to review this important article below.

We must work to build capacity in Haiti; work with the government to provide real, long-term development; create real jobs and viable homes; and foster economic growth and vitality for Haiti and the Haitian people.

Mr. Speaker, today we remember those who were killed. We must also re-dedicate ourselves to providing real, long-term assistance and support for Haitians looking to rebuild their country.

[From Foreign Policy Magazine, Dec. 2010]

5 Lessons From Haiti's Disaster: What the Earthquake Taught Us About

Foreign Aid

(By Paul Farmer)

1. Jobs are everything

All humans need money--they need it to buy food and water

every day. And no matter how hard the government or the aid

industry tries, people will want for all three things until

they are employed.

The world pledged some $10.2 billion in recovery aid to

Haiti after Jan. 12's devastating earthquake. Imagine how

many people that money could employ, putting them to work on

tasks like removing rubble (only 2 percent of which has been

cleared to date), rebuilding key government buildings, and

planting trees in a country that is almost entirely

deforested. And yet so far, just 116,000 people have been

employed in this way. Haiti has 9.8 million people, and at

least half were unemployed even before the earthquake. If we

focused our efforts on the singular task of getting them

jobs--even if we did nothing else--Haiti's reconstruction

could be a success.

2. Don't starve the government

The international community doesn't know best. Local people

do. NGOs like the one that I am lucky to work with cannot

replace the state--nor can the United Nations or anyone else.

We don't have the expertise, and we won't stay forever. We

don't have the same stake in building a community that the

locals themselves have. And if aid is to work, it can't fall

apart when the experts leave.

On this, almost everyone agrees. But the opposite approach

has characterized Haiti relief. The dollar figures tell the

real story: A mere 0.3 percent of the more than $2 billion in

humanitarian aid pledged by major donors has ended up with

local authorities. That money will hardly compensate for the

20 percent of civil servants who died in the quake.

Some donors argue that the Haitian government is rife with

corruption and mismanagement--and that infusing it with money

will only make matters worse. But we need to strengthen the

public sector, not weaken it. And that will take a working

budget. It's impossible to be transparent and track your

budgets when you lack computers, electricity, and even the

personnel to do so. Until the government has the resources it

needs, Haiti will remain the republic of NGOs.

3. Give them something to go home to

Today, some 1.3 million Haitians live in tent camps amid

often squalid conditions--yet no one has been able to

convince them to resettle. Why don't they want to leave?

Because there is nothing to draw them back. Many of these

displaced men and women didn't own the houses that collapsed

around them; they rented them--often under very unfavorable

conditions. They were in debt to bad landlords. They had no

schools or clinics.

Enticing them to return home will mean providing exactly

what they lacked before: housing, education, and health care.

Ironically, Haitians are getting some of those things now in

the camps. They have shelter in the 69,700 tents distributed

by donors; they have the food and hygiene kits that NGOs

offer. The tent camps may well become semipermanent homes if

those services don't also exist in the cities, villages, and

towns.

4. Waste not, want not

At least half of aid money probably never reaches its

recipients, eaten up by overhead; often it's even more. I

know of no other business or enterprise in which this would

be an acceptable operational strategy. Equally frustrating,

sometimes the money doesn't show up at all. Of the donor

dollars promised for 2010, Haiti has so far received a mere

38 percent, or $732.5 million, excluding debt relief. Nine

months after the disaster, not a cent of the U.S. donation

for Haiti's reconstruction has been disbursed; it's tied up

in appropriations. Imagine trying to re-engineer a devastated

country when your budget is at the mercy of political whims

in foreign lands.

5. Relief is the easy part

Disaster relief is not reconstruction. We haven't rebuilt

Haiti despite giving 1.1 million people access to drinking

water; we didn't remake the country with the 11,000 latrines

that have been installed. ``Building Haiti back better''

means sustaining those temporary gains and adding education,

health care, services, and good governance.

What's most important in getting started? Economic growth.

Yet it is a challenge hardly mentioned in aid documents or

strategies--coming up only twice in the United Nations' most

recent 44-page report. Poverty of the kind that was so

acutely revealed this January can't be defeated until there

is a brighter economic future for the millions of Haitians

who are ready to seize it.