Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard some pretty imaginative accusations from my Republican colleagues when they were talking about an amendment I offered to the Intelligence Authorization Act. While my amendment is being removed from the manager's amendment up in the Rules Committee, I want to take this opportunity to clear up a few things.

When President Obama took office last year, one of his first Executive orders was to extend the Army field manual's guidelines on interrogation tactics. Those guidelines prohibit interrogators in all Federal agencies from using brutal interrogations in any circumstance. That is the law today.

So to get the facts straight, brutal interrogations are illegal right now. But this Executive order doesn't completely solve the problem. The President can't include criminal penalties in Executive orders, and current U.S. law doesn't outline what constitutes a brutal interrogation.

My amendment would have expanded upon the President's Executive order to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations. And to be clear, I didn't invent

this concept myself. The amendment was based on the Army field manual definition of acceptable and unacceptable interrogation tactics, which, as Senator John McCain has said, is effective 99.9 percent of the time. One of the most important things to remember about these kinds of interrogations is that they simply don't work.

Brutal interrogations are not an effective tool to collect information, and what's worse, they actually may produce unreliable information. As former CIA official Bob Baer has said, ``What happens when you torture people is they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you that.''

An endless string of studies have shown us that when people's minds or bodies are subjected to the kind of trauma these brutal interrogations entail, their brains don't function properly. For example, during training exercises, American special operative soldiers have had difficulty remembering information after they'd been put through food or sleep deprivation.

Why are the Republicans defending a tactic we know doesn't work? Interrogations like those hurt our reputation abroad. The world was horrified when they saw what American soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, ``People are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards.''

Brutality like that hurts our credibility and undercuts our reputation in the global community.

I'm a veteran. I wear my Vietnam pin well and proudly. I served in the Navy. I'm passionate about protecting this country and keeping our soldiers safe. More than anything, this amendment was designed to protect them.

Several soldiers have done a far better job than I can in explaining why we need laws like this. Retired Colonel Stuart Herrington said that cruelty in interrogations ``endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity.'' The golden rule, if you will.

Retired admiral John Huston has said, ``Getting our interrogation policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane treatment of American soldiers who are captured.''

I couldn't agree more. Without clear laws that define acceptable and unacceptable interrogation practices, including criminal consequences for violating those laws, we are putting more Americans at risk of being treated with the same brutality.

Just last week the two former Justice Department attorneys who crafted the legal justification for the use of brutal interrogations got off scot free. The Justice Department absolved them of their wrongdoing and only said they had ``exercised poor judgment'' and hadn't broken the law. They took advantage of a gap in our current law and provided legal cover for abuse during interrogations. My amendment would have ensured this kind of legal maneuvering never happens again.

As the President said when he issued his Executive order last year, ``We are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.''

Mr. Speaker, after more than 70 years of false starts on fixing health care, the Congress is on the brink of passing sensible, comprehensive reform legislation. We are extremely close to giving all Americans access to quality, affordable health care, while reducing the deficit. After a year of trying to instill fear in the American public about the Democratic approach to fixing our broken health care system, my Republican colleagues have really entered the debate. I commend my colleague from Wisconsin for putting forward the Republican plan.

The sweeping Republican bill lets the public know where their party truly stands. Their bill would radically reorganize both the health care system and the Social Security system. Once again, they want to spend more time hating government than helping people.

The Republicans want to give the seniors a voucher. A voucher government. If you qualify, you get a little check and then you are on your own to deal with the insurance companies and Wall Street. The Republicans wish the American people the best of luck. If you aren't lucky enough to outsmart Wall Street and the insurance executives with the rules stacked against you, well, that's too bad.

Under the Republican plan, you will likely end up sick and poor, but they think you will love the free market choices you have had on the way down. Sadly, the Republican plan is filled with the same old policies to dismantle Medicare and Social Security that they have been putting forward for decades.

To understand the clear difference between the different approaches, let's look at health care. Health care is big, and a complex part of our economy, and it needs thoughtful and commonsense approaches. Instead, the Republicans have put forward a plan that would put more Americans at risk, drive millions into bankruptcy, lock in the skyrocketing costs, and enrich the insurance companies. In the Republican plan, insurance companies could get richer while Americans get poorer and sicker.

The Republican approach to health care has two parts. First, the Republicans would give American seniors a voucher for health care and do nothing to keep the insurance companies from taking them to the cleaners. The Republican plan would essentially do away with the Medicare program as we know it today, which many seniors rely on.

The hypocrisy of the Republican plan is maddening. Their say one thing and do another approach is really reprehensible. The Republicans not only want to dismantle Medicare, but at the same time they denounce the Democratic plans to stop wasteful spending in the program.

The second part of the Republican plan puts health savings accounts at the center of the program. Health savings accounts have existed for years. These accounts are small, and history shows that many Americans underfund them or can't use them. When illness strikes, any significant co-payment or deductible can wipe out a family's savings in a minute.

Finally, the Republican plan does more to take our health care system down the road to ruin. It goes another step and privatizes Social Security. After the Wall Street meltdown, the crazy lesson the Republicans learned was to trust Wall Street with the future of our seniors.

This week we learned that by 2019, national health care spending will be over 19 percent of our economy. That is $4.5 trillion. If we don't act to control those costs now, people will no longer be able to afford the essentials like housing and food. When the public has to deal with the market to satisfy basic needs, the government has to

make sure the system is fair and that all Americans have access. When it comes to health care and retirement, we have to have commonsense rules.

We must finish the job on health care, and we are going to do it beginning tomorrow at the White House. The Republicans have shown the public their plan, and it is not the solution. They are a rehash of old theories that make things much worse. Instead, we have to pass the commonsense health reform that is on the table and protect Social Security from crazy theories.

Mr. Speaker, like everyone last night, I was watching the Olympics and I was wondering who was the most famous person in Canada. Fame is a rather fleeting thing; 60 seconds down a hill or on an ice rink.

The most famous person in Canada, by a vote on the CBC, was a politician, a Baptist minister, from Weyburn, Saskatchewan. His name is Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas, in 1947, brought universal health care to Saskatchewan.

Nobody remembers the people who said that they would never have health insurance in Canada. Nobody remembers all the people that fought him. He was elected five times premier of Saskatchewan because the people remembered who brought them health care. Maybe that is why former Speaker Gingrich said, ``We can't let Mrs. Clinton succeed or the Democrats will be in forever.'' Well, that is what we are seeing again, folks. Maybe the Republicans are afraid that they will never get back in.

Nobody remembers who didn't say ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to the Center for Career Alternatives (CCA), a presidential-award-winning non-profit agency in the Seventh Congressional District. CCA will celebrate three decades of success at its 30th Annual Community Awards and Appreciation Banquet on February 24, 2010. For thirty years, CCA has made good on its mission ``to provide the highest quality education, employment, training and career development services leading to individual self-sufficiency and self- worth for a culturally diverse population of disadvantaged youth and adults.''

The success of CCA is due in large part to the vision and leadership of its founder and current executive director, Alan Sugiyama. Mr. Sugiyama, a third generation Japanese-American, was born and raised in Seattle, and is a graduate of Garfield High School. In 1979, he observed that many immigrants and people of color were being left out of important career opportunities and living wage jobs because of a lack of education, training, and connections. He also saw prospective employers interested in hiring a diverse workforce frustrated that they had to go to a variety of isolated agencies to recruit.

Mr. Sugiyama responded by creating a multiethnic organization, reflecting Seattle's diverse communities, dedicated to helping individuals with employment services. From CCA's humble beginnings in 1979 as a career counseling program with two staff, the Center for Career Alternatives now has 43 staff members, who speak more than 20 different languages, and offers 24 programs across five offices.

Madam Speaker, annually, CCA serves approximately 1,600 low-income youth and young adults who have multiple barriers to education and employment. And since 1979, CCA has provided unparalleled comprehensive education, employment and training services to more than 28,000 individuals in King and Snohomish counties at no cost to the individual clients. In difficult economic times, like the ones we face today, the importance of the Center for Career Alternatives' critical services and programs can not be overstated. I extend my thanks and best wishes to CCA's Executive Director Al Sugiyama, the board of directors, staff, and clients on 30 years of changing lives and creating hope.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2949) to amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority for increased fiscal year 2010 payments for temporary assistance to United States citizens returned from foreign countries, to provide necessary funding to avoid shortfalls in the Medicare cost- sharing program for low-income qualifying individuals, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control 10 minutes of the time for debate on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2949.

Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, the largest earthquake ever recorded in Haiti wreaked havoc throughout the country.

Some of those affected by the devastation in Haiti are U.S. citizens who are now being evacuated back to the United States. We need to act today to continue a program that helps these Americans get back home.

The Repatriation Program provides assistance to U.S. citizens evacuating foreign countries due to a crisis by helping them secure and pay for connecting flights, temporary lodging, food, and medical assistance. Recipients of this assistance are expected to reimburse the government for such aid, unless repayment poses a significant hardship.

This program has an annual funding cap of only $1 million, which is far short of the funding needed to help all the U.S. citizens returning home. There were roughly 45,000 Americans living in Haiti when the earthquake hit, and over 14,000 have already been evacuated.

The bill before us increases the program's funding cap to $25 million for this year so that it can continue to serve U.S. citizens returning from Haiti.

It is worth noting that we have raised this program's annual funding cap in response to past international crises. Most recently, in 2006, Congress responded to a request from the Bush administration to increase the program's funding to help Americans evacuating Lebanon.

As sent over by the Senate, this bill also continues funding for another group of needy Americans, low-income senior citizens. A program known as QI that now helps Medicare beneficiaries with their part B premiums if their income is only slightly above the poverty line requires additional funding in order to continue to provide assistance to every State throughout the rest of the year. This legislation provides the necessary funding to address this shortfall and to ensure the program continues to operate.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the cost of both of these provisions is fully offset by a reduction in the Medicaid Improvement Fund, which provides additional funding to HHS for program management.

In short, this bill helps people in great need of assistance without raising the deficit.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to help Americans evacuating from Haiti and to continue assistance to Medicare beneficiaries.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I urge the passage of S. 2949, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1024) expressing

support for designation of January as Poverty in America Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1024.

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

I rise today in support of recognizing the designation of January as ``Poverty in America Awareness Month.''

In 2008, there were nearly 40 million Americans living in poverty, including one in every five children. There were also more than 49 million Americans living in households that the USDA calls ``food insecure,'' which is really just a technical way to say that those 49 million Americans--nearly one out of every four children--had experienced hunger. While poverty affects every segment of our population, these figures are drastically higher for children in single-parent families and in black and Latino households.

At the same time, a recent report showed that the top 1 percent of the richest Americans now hold the greatest proportion of our Nation's wealth since 1928. For the wealthiest Nation in the world, this is completely unacceptable, and we must readjust our priorities. In fact, the way we measure poverty is badly outdated.

The current poverty threshold is calculated by taking the cost of a minimal diet in 1955 and multiplying that number by 3 and then adjusting this amount for inflation. That method may have made some sense when the measure was created in the 1960s because the cost of food actually made up about one-third of a family's average expenditure, but today, families only spend about one-seventh of their income on food, and our current measure fails to capture the costs of basic necessities such as clothing, utilities, and shelter.

What we define as poverty no longer reflects at all what it really means to be poor in this country. Using our current method of measuring poverty, we don't even consider a family of four making just $23,000 poor. There's something wrong with our formula, and a majority of Americans agree with a higher threshold.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, ``You can't solve a problem until you first learn how to measure it.'' We are making great progress in moving toward the publication of a new measure of poverty that reflects the economic and social realities in this country. An accurate measurement is essential in determining how to best tackle this problem. If the moral cause of helping the poor doesn't serve as motivation to help struggling Americans rise out of poverty, maybe the economic argument will.

Economists estimate that persistent child poverty alone costs our society an estimated $500 million a year in lost productivity and increased spending on health care and the criminal justice system. More and more Americans are slipping through the mesh of our badly tattered safety net, and we are at risk of losing an entire generation.

As Congress discusses PAYGO and the deficit reduction agenda, I often hear the rhetoric that we can't drive up the deficit on the backs of our children. But we cannot abandon the needs of vulnerable groups with little political voice and certainly few lobbyists on K Street. Because the voices of the least among us are too often drowned out, we must take opportunities like this to draw attention to the realities facing poor Americans. Awareness is a critical step in finding solutions to improve the well-being of those living in poverty, so let us affirm the recognition of January as Poverty in America Awareness Month.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, tonight I am introducing a resolution to urge the Senate to change its filibuster rule.

The filibuster has in effect created minority rule. It wasn't the intent of the framers of the Constitution to allow any one person the power to bring the legislative process to a halt, which is exactly what the filibuster has given each Senator the ability to do. The framers very clearly outlined the five instances when they believed a supermajority was needed. The day-to-day business of Congress was not one of them. But the use of the filibuster has

become such common practice that it now requires a supermajority in the Senate to pass virtually every piece of legislation, no matter how mundane. The filibuster has begun to erode the integrity of our democratic process.

My colleague, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, who has been a leader on this issue since 1995, recently announced he will introduce legislation to change the filibuster rule, and I am offering a resolution urging the Senate to do the same.

The filibuster was not intended by the framers of the Constitution, and it is certainly not good for the country when we try to solve the difficult problems that face us today. The time has come for the Senate to change its rules.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 4284 to extend the general system of preferences and the Andean trade preference program for 1 year. I have called for an extension to our preference programs in the past. We need to make these programs long and stable. This extension is only for a year, and that's okay in this instance, because we need to force more action on broader preference reform.

In difficult economic times like today, developed countries sometimes decide to pull back. But I think that in a globalized economy we need to push forward on improving trade with poorer countries of the world.

Our preference programs have done enormous good for the poor of the world and for American business. Now we need to make them even better.

For development to really accelerate, we need to get more countries involved in trading more products. I have introduced a bill with the support of Chairman Rangel and Congressman Levin that will go far in modernizing our preference programs for American businesses and the poor of the world.

Now, while there are details to work out, there is broad agreement that our trade programs need to be stable, they need to be simplified, they need to be more effective, and they need to help more people.

I think we agree that the stability of our programs is essential to them being effective. No one who has ever run a business would want to invest in a climate that is so unstable, that goes year by year, you are never sure can you plan on it next year. That simply is very difficult for businesses to deal with, and our programs, therefore, need to be long term.

Second, our programs are too complicated and too hard to use. Simplifying our programs and doing more to help our partners meet the important standards we set are keys to their success.

An interesting fact sort of clarifies it in your mind. Cambodia pays as much tariff on $1.5 billion worth of exports in

the United States as does Great Britain on $50 billion. Now, if you are trying to help Cambodia, you ought to think about those kinds of numbers. We need to address the capacity building. We all know that the wisdom of trade, not aid, is obvious. Preferences help our trading partners quite a bit. But without thoughtful capacity building, we can only help them so much. We need to pool these efforts together to help poor countries grow and to give American businesses more customers.

Finally, we need to find a way to strengthen the programs we have while at the same time helping more people. Trade is not a zero-sum game. We can strengthen our current programs while also helping other desperately poor countries who right now get no benefits. We can help different countries like Lesotho, the Philippines, and Cambodia at the same time.

I think this is a good start, and the House ought to pass this bill, and next year we will deal with a larger bill.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer special recognition to Seattle's Downtown Emergency Service Center, DESC, on its thirtieth anniversary. For three decades, this non-profit organization has committed itself to serve the most vulnerable homeless populations of Seattle with shelter, services, advocacy, and housing.

DESC began as a partnership among the City of Seattle, the Greater Seattle Council of Churches, and Washington Advocates for the Mentally Ill to address the shortage of shelter and services for a growing population of homeless persons in the Seattle area. On November 19, 1979, with fourteen staff, DESC opened its doors to nearly 200 homeless adults as an overnight emergency shelter in the ballroom of the Morrison Hotel, in Seattle's historic Pioneer Square. A year later, DESC became a Mental Health Care licensed agency. Since its early years, DESC has been a leader in developing programs that provide a full continuum of care to address the root causes of homelessness.

In 1985, DESC was selected as a pilot location for the national ``Health Care for the Homeless'' program to integrate chemical dependency, mental health, and nursing with shelter services. In 1989, DESC enhanced its local outreach program by sending clinically trained staff to the streets to seek out and establish first contact with Seattle's most vulnerable homeless men and women. That novel practice has become the standard outreach strategy used in most major U.S. cities today.

In addition, DESC began developing permanent supportive housing for the hardest-to-serve homeless men and women. In 1997, it opened the Lyon Building with 64 apartments for homeless adults affected by HIV/ AIDS, mental illness and/or addiction, implementing a ``Harm Reduction'' model. That same year, it also introduced the ``Housing First'' model to Seattle with the opening of the Kerner Scott House: 40 apartments for formerly homeless, mentally ill, and/or addiction- challenged adults. In 2005, DESC expanded its ``Housing First'' model with the opening of the 1811 Eastlake, a 75-unit building for late- stage chronic inebriates, typically high users of public services.

Over the years, DESC has received dozens of awards and widespread recognition for its innovative housing projects and intensive services. In 2004 and in 2005, it received the Metlife Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing, making it the only organization to win the award in two successive years. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded its ``Best Practice Award'' to DESC for innovation in developing services that later became industry standards. Most recently, DESC won the 2007 Maxwell Award of Excellence for its 1811 Eastlake project. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2009 revealed that the 1811 Eastlake program has saved taxpayers $4 million dollars annually.

Madam Speaker, for more than thirty years, DESC has served disabled and vulnerable homeless adults through a continuum of care model that not only helps people survive but breaks the vicious cycle of homelessness. Today, it has become one of the largest multiservice centers for homeless adults in the Pacific Northwest, employing more than 300 employees who provide permanent supportive housing, clinical and emergency services, and overnight shelter. DESC is an invaluable asset to our community, to the Seattle-King County Coalition to End Homelessness, and to our nationwide efforts to address homelessness. I extend my best wishes and commend DESC's Executive Director Bill Hobson, its Board of Directors, its staff, and its clients on ``30 years of opening doors to end homelessness.'' I know DESC will continue to lead the way with thoughtful, innovative answers to our most challenging social issues.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise my voice in strong support for H. Res. 890, a resolution introduced to welcome Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to the United States. As co-Chair of the caucus on Indian and Indian Americans, I extend our hand in friendship to our close friend and strategic ally in South Central Asia. I've known Prime Minister Manmohan Singh since he was the finance minister in 1990 who really brought about the Indian miracle.

The President has chosen to recognize the close ties between our nations by honoring India with its first official State dinner at the White House next week, and I look forward to participating.

In the 21st century, the world's oldest and largest democracies have much to share and learn from each other. Over the years, I visited India 22 times, but perhaps the most memorable visit came this year as a part of the congressional delegation with John Lewis.

We were there to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the historic visit to India by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his wife. At the end of the visit, Dr. King said, ``The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence; it is either nonviolence or nonexistence.'' That truth is self-evident today.

Both India and the United States must deepen our ties--even if we respect different cultures--if we are to make this a safer and better world. And we are up to the challenge. The

Prime Minister has made significant economic progress for the people of India and that has resulted in new business opportunities for American companies and U.S. jobs. In Seattle, the heart of my congressional district, Boeing builds airplanes for a major customer, Air India. That is just one of the examples of the business ties that bind us together.

We also cooperate in science, technology, trade, and education. All of this draws us together in countless ways.

Recently, I joined Her Excellency, Meera Shankar, the Ambassador of India, for the unveiling of a statue of Gandhi at the King County Public Library. And last weekend in Seattle, we celebrated the festival of Diwali.

In the 21st century, the Internet has removed the borders that separated nations, but it will take people to unite us into one world. That is what makes a State visit like this so important. Leaders working in good faith on behalf of the people can bridge any divide no matter how wide and deep. As Nelson Mandela in South Africa once said, ``It always seems impossible until it's done.''

This resolution is a down payment on the future, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican health plan and proposal has been in effect since 1995. A friend of mine came to New York, had some problems, got on the phone to call a doctor, and the first question that is always asked is what kind of insurance do you have. When he said he didn't have any, they said, Well, we can't take care of you unless you come to the office with $250 in cash. We'll see you if you do that. He said, I don't have that kind of money. They said, Then go to the emergency room. That's where 50 million people in this country are today. Go to the emergency room if you can't come with the cash to hand it to the doctor.

My office phone today has been ringing off the hook with people demanding that we have health care now. The Republican alternative doesn't help anyone, except protects the insurance companies. The bankruptcy of this plan is pretty clear to everybody. Health analysts, the media, The New York Times, the CBO all agree that the Republican plan would leave 42 million people with nothing.

Now, the Republican plan does nothing to help the seniors. It really isn't a plan. It's just a bunch of stuff they scraped up off the floor that they had laying around for 12 years and did nothing.

Now, why don't they put forward a plan? Well, I will tell you. I've cracked the code. This plan they brought out here, they either haven't read their own bill--because you couldn't keep a straight face and come out here and say it was a plan--or they would rather spend more time hating government than helping people. Remember what they did in New Orleans. That's what their attitude about government is. Don't make it work for the people. Just let people understand, You're on your own, folks. That's our plan. We believe in freedom; you're free to be on your own. But most people can't take care of their health care problems on their own. They're lucky if they can.

Vote against this proposal, and vote for the bill.

The phones in my office have been ringing off the hook because my constituents want secure quality affordable healthcare now. Meanwhile the Republicans have put forward an alternative that doesn't help anyone but protect insurance companies.

The bankruptcy of the Republican plan is not just my opinion-- analysts, the media, and the Congressional Budget Office all agree the Republican plan will leave 42 million out in the cold. The Republican plan does nothing to help people with pre-existing conditions or to help seniors. The Republican plan is no plan.

How could they have put forward a plan that doesn't solve any of the healthcare problems Americans face? Well, I may have cracked the code. Either they haven't read their own bill or they'd rather spend more time hating government than helping people.

The Republican approach is just a continuation of the status quo while the Democratic plan covers 96% of Americans. My constituents have demanded action. The time is now.

Madam Speaker, here's what you are hearing from opponents to health care reform: Nothing scares Members of Congress more than freedom-loving Americans. We should surround the Capitol Building until they give us freedom. This bill is legislative malpractice.

Now these are all catchy phrases. They are catchy phrases that are purposely designed to hide the fact that the Republicans have no viable alternative health care plan. Critics have panned the plan that they have offered. Headlines in The New York Times screamed, ``Budget monitor says GOP bill leaves many uninsured.'' Headlines from The Washington Post booms, ``Congressional Budget Office thrashes the Republican health care plan.''

The verdict is in: The Republican plan is woefully inadequate. It is not a cheap alternative. It would cover only three million uninsured. It maintains the status quo for insurance companies. It has no serious reforms to eliminate the perverse incentives in our present payment system.

So the Republican are left with catchy phrases. The American people see through it. That is why they are still supporting this bill. The American people know that the time to enact quality health care is now. Tomorrow is the day.

Mr. Speaker, one can't help but feel grief and anger and desperation in all of what went on at Fort Hood.

But the larger issue here, and I think the one we must not lose sight of, is what Dr. Hasan was dealing with was posttraumatic stress disorder. I sat for 2 years at the Long Beach Naval Station and listened to these stories from young men and women coming back from Vietnam day after day after day, and I can tell you the impact is huge.

The biggest loss from this event will be if we do not deal with the fact that stigma about going to see mental health professionals prevents many of our people from getting the help they need.

I had dinner the other night with the Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Chiarelli, who has made it his goal to deal with posttraumatic stress disorder for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This issue, because we sort of say, well, you're supposed to be tough and pull yourself together and never admit you've got a problem, is with all kinds of people in the military. A military psychiatrist is as vulnerable to it as is a grunt out on the field dealing with war at every corner. And as we talk about this today, I don't want people to draw conclusions and make decisions about why this happened and all the rest. It's human breakdown. It happens to people all the time in the military. When you put people in the kind of stress that we put those people in and send them back again and again and again, leave their families, see the awful things of it, you cannot expect everybody to be able to keep it together. We need to be sympathetic and put the money up for the help that these people need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

We've waited for 6 weeks for the Senate to dither around on this bill. The decisions made in it could have been made in a week if they really were thinking about the half million people who have lost their benefits over the last 6 weeks. Since the House acted, that's happened. There have been no jobs, no benefits, and no hope. Now, today, we can restore that by the bill that's before us, and also perhaps give them some hope that this won't happen in the future.

This legislation returned from the Senate will provide an additional 14 weeks of unemployment benefits in every State and a total of 20 weeks in high unemployment States. I welcome the additional weeks in the bill compared to the legislation we sent over. It seems the least we can do after we've made them wait for 6 weeks. However, I heard concerns that the complexity of the Senate amendment may present some administrative challenges for State government, so I hope every State is actively planning on how to deliver these benefits in the quickest possible time frame. This is a wake-up call to State unemployment insurance programs.

I would ask my colleagues to keep in mind that Congress must act again before the end of this year to continue the extended unemployment benefits that we are now improving.

The cost of this extension of unemployment benefits is completely offset by an 18-month continuation of a tax called the FUTA surtax, which has been in place for over 30 years. In addition to helping unemployed workers, this bill now includes the extension and expansion of two other relief provisions. One helps and encourages those buying homes and another helps struggling businesses.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has lost 8 million jobs since the great recession started in December of 2007. Even as we see signs of economic recovery, such as last week's announcement that the GDP rose substantially for the first time in over a year, we know it will take considerable time to restore those lost jobs. There are predictions that it will rise above 10 percent nationally and will not come down until late in 2010.

We must continue to provide the lifeline for the unemployed workers who have lost their jobs from no fault of their own and who are searching for new employment. Sending this bill to President Obama today will accomplish that goal for over 1 million of our fellow citizens before the end of the year. Additionally, it would help keep families in their homes and prevent foreclosures. This is the right thing to do, and we shouldn't have waited so long to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Indiana, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I am now going to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

Thank you.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Joe Courtney, the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I have the time remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Brady's work on bringing this bill to the floor, but I would say that in 1935 there was no unemployment insurance, there was no welfare, there were no jobs, and the Federal Government stepped in and acted to change all of that.

Now, we clearly need to stimulate the economy; and if we don't stimulate the economy, we will continue to have businesses sitting back waiting forever and watching their health care costs go out of sight.

The bill tomorrow on health care is really to help businesses get control over one cost item in their budget, and in my view, that is the kind of thing we should be doing to help create more jobs. If we sit here, we can build this bridge of unemployment insurance, but it is a bridge to nowhere if the economy does not start to turn around, and that means dealing with the things that are destroying this economy.

The health care costs of every single business are rising totally out of control, and you can't expect them to invest if we haven't done something about getting control of health care costs.

So this is only one part of the issue. We have many other issues we are going to have to deal with on the floor, but I am grateful today for your help in passing this piece of it.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, we have been waiting for 10 months for the Republican health care plan. All we hear is the Party of No--no, no, no; go slow; don't do anything. That's all we've heard. But, finally, they came out with a plan, and I thought we ought to take it seriously and read it, so I did.

Sadly, the proposal from my Republican colleagues was not worth the wait, and CBO agrees.

The Congressional Budget Office indicated that the Republican bill will not--will not--significantly decrease the ranks of the uninsured. Instead, under the Republican proposal, the ranks of the uninsured will decrease by only 3 million people, leaving 52 million people without coverage.

Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which covers 96 percent of all Americans.

The Republican proposal would not address the ability of insurance companies to exclude individuals based upon preexisting conditions. According to the Republican leadership, they purposely failed to address this issue because it supposedly cost too much.

The Democratic proposal would prohibit insurers from excluding individuals from purchasing health insurance based on preexisting conditions by 2013.

The Republican proposal would allow insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines. Sounds like a good idea. But most experts agree that that would create a ``race to the bottom,'' where insurers will set up shops in States with the fewest consumer protections.

Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which will allow insurance companies to sell insurance across State lines so long as the States involved have set up interstate compacts. Under these interstate compacts, participating States would ensure consumer protections would be followed and monitored at all times.

Now, the Republicans got this one pretty close to right. They will allow dependents to remain on their parents' insurance until they are age 26.

Contrast that with the Democratic proposal, which keeps them on until age 27. So they copied us at least on that point.

The Republican proposal will cut the deficit by $68 billion over the next 10 years. Sounds great, right?

Contrast this with the Democratic proposal, which will cut the deficit by $104 billion over the next 10 years. For the Republicans who sound off about fiscal responsibility all the time, the Democratic proposal is clearly the more responsible for deficit reduction.

The Republican plan purports to end ``junk lawsuits.'' However, the focus is solely on capping certain damages for pain and suffering. This is an old approach, and it will help insurance companies flaunt State consumer protection laws.

The Democratic proposal, on the other hand, would ensure providers are accountable for providing quality care by developing payment policies that have quality as a central tenet of reimbursement. The Democratic proposal seeks to recognize the autonomy of States.

The CBO found that the Republican plan would have virtually no effect on reducing premiums in the large group market in which most Americans are involved, where most people purchase their health insurance.

Contrast this with the Democratic proposal that seeks to increase transparency with regard to insurance premium increases and decrease the amount insurers can dedicate to profits.

The Democratic proposal ends the antitrust exemption for insurers, which has caused a significant lack of competition in the insurance marketplace whereby one or two insurers provide virtually all of the coverage for enrollees in some markets. This is focused insurance reform rather than business as usual, which the Republicans seek to promote.

The Republican plan was introduced to the world on November 4, 2009, after being slapped together because they realized that something was going to happen out here and they had no alternative to saying no. It has all the failures I have described relative to the Democratic proposal.

Contrast this with what has been a deliberative, thoughtful process that has created a bill that has been reported out of three committees and is at the precipice of enacting the most far-reaching, consequential health reform in a century.

The American people have been waiting for 100 years. They got the Republican proposal a day or so ago, and it is totally inadequate. Despite claims of my Republican colleagues to the contrary, in all aspects, the Democratic proposal is simply better. It will provide universal coverage, and I hope that the Republicans can see the wisdom of voting for it this Saturday.

It provides nearly universal coverage, deficit reduction, and reforms designed to effectuate cost control over the next decade.

My Republican colleagues have tunnel vision and are focused on what they believe to be the one positive about their bill: it costs less than the Democratic proposal. Well, it still costs $8 billion, and insures virtually no one according to multiple media outlets as well as the CBO.

The Republican plan ensures that insurance companies maintain the status quo in the insurance market, and provides no consumer protections. Sometimes, you get what you pay for.