Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 858, honoring and recognizing the service and achievements of current and former female

members of the Armed Forces I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

It seems like all we hear in Washington about health care today is ``public option'' and ``government-run program,'' so I thought it was interesting in a recent questionnaire, 47 percent of my constituents most want Congress to focus on reducing costs. Only 10.5 percent are most concerned with the public option, and I would be willing to bet that these numbers are similar all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should get back to the health care issue most important to Americans: reducing costs. Let's support commonsense changes, like medical malpractice reform and association health plans. We should also focus on eliminating the waste, fraud, and abuse that is so rampant in our medical system. With the money these reforms save, we will be able to expand coverage and be sure no one is denied health care coverage because of a preexisting condition or because they can't afford premiums.

These are simple, tested, commonsense ideas that don't take 1,999 pages to explain. Let's give the American people what they want, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee, and thank you for having this tonight.

You know, I was just thinking; I've got four children and eight grandchildren. So I think as a mom and a grandmother, I've always been very concerned about health care, and I want to make sure that my family has the best that's possible.

When I was raising the children, all we had was Dr. Spock. We didn't have all the technology and all the wonderful drug therapies and the health care that we have now in the United States. I am always concerned about the quality of health care. Sure, we need reform, but we want to make sure that there's that quality of health care that we have now. We've got moms, doctors, nurses, caregivers, taxpayers and women that really play a critical role in the health care debate. Eighty-five percent of women are the primary health care decision- makers in the home, and that's why we take this so seriously.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 82 million adult women are moms, and 32 million women have a child living in their homes. So women are overwhelmingly supportive of health care reform, but they want to know that this reform will improve the quality and affordability of their current health care. For many women and their families, higher health care cost means the difference between receiving care and going without. Unfortunately, the Pelosi health care bill empowers government bureaucracies and undermines a woman's ability to make the best health care decisions for her and her family.

I have got a letter that one of my constituents sent. It's from Maryanne, and she writes to me:

``As a registered nurse and mother of a severely disabled child, I beg you to seriously consider the long-and short-term effects of the new health care proposal. I am horrified to think that medical decisions will be determined by our government. I have seen this fail in many countries. I happen to be of the opinion that the precious commodity of life far exceeds the almighty dollar.''

You know, one of my daughters lives in London. And when this health bill came up, I said to her, Seriously, tell me what is the health care like in the U.K.? What is it like versus here?

And as a matter of fact, every time my daughter brings my three grandchildren home for a visit, she takes them to see the pediatrician that I took her to see just to make sure that they're in the best of health that they can be and make sure that somebody from the United States is looking after them.

And she said, Well, now, in London it's a different system. It started out where doctors don't have this high debt. They don't have the high cost of the medical school that we have here. It's paid for. So they start in the system and they're in the public system. And then some of them become private doctors. Now, my daughter has the public health care, but she also has a private doctor. And she said, Well, in emergencies you're well taken care of. But it's the long term, and she gave me the example, let's say you have a rash on your arm, you go and they say we will make an appointment for you, but the appointment is 9 months later. She also said that if you go on and check on the current wait list in London--for example, the current wait list at the time that I checked was 11 months for a knee replacement, 10 months for a hip replacement, 5 months for a slipped disc, and about 8 months for a hernia operation. And these are just a few of these that they wait so long for.

Now, what that leads to also is rationing. And I had an event this morning where one of the doctors stood up and talked about his belief that there would be rationing, particularly with how many doctors are going to want to remain in a situation like this where they really become staff. You know, we think of them as professionals. I always thought, oh, if I could be as smart as the doctors. To me, it was just the profession that was so outstanding.

And so this leads not only to rationing for these procedures, but also we've had a debate about the end of life and how 80 percent of the costs really are then. And I think as women, when I read in the first bill, and that has changed a little bit to be voluntary rather than mandatory counseling there, in my former life I was a probate attorney and I did estate planning, and what was always so important was to counsel families on aging and to make sure that they had the decision of the family, the decision of the elderly in what they wanted to happen.

So there was always this durable power of attorney that we did so that their wishes would be addressed and a cousin or somebody would say, oh, no, we can't do anything. But the durable power of attorney, the living will, and the do-not-resuscitate, if that's the wish of the person who would become ill in the end of life. And it's so important, but it's important to do it before you ever reach that time. And this bill focuses on that they're doing it as you have already aged. So this is something that should not be put into statute. This is something that families should address, and this is their choice and not some bureaucrat making it happen.

Well, I think that because of the concern and the outrage really of so many of the American people on that and particularly the seniors that were really put off by that, they have changed it to voluntary, and so it's a little bit better. But still that is something that shouldn't be in statute. If a family wants to go to the doctor and ask what are the things that we should do, but then to have the durable power of attorney so that the hospital, let's say somebody is in the hospital, they know what the wishes are of the patient as well as the family knows what the wishes of that patient are. But this should be done long before we get to that situation.

It is so important and it has really been something that has really hit the fan, and there has been a lot of rhetoric on this. But just take it as this is a decision to be made by the family, the children and the patient; and it should be done early in life.

We have to make plans like that. It's not that something is never going to happen, but let's not mandate it or make it something that a doctor has to do and is paid to do as part of his job. The doctor as a counselor is fine, but the family should come to them and request that, not to say it in statute.

And I'm concerned about the rationing. It makes you think of, well, you're going to float out on an iceberg or something when the end of life comes. And what we want is to have quality of care throughout everybody's life and to make sure that we have the ability to do that. The doctors are the ones that do deal with these issues, but they need to have the map as to what the family wants in that regard.

So I think that women as the caregivers are the ones that have to make those decisions. And it's a tough decision to make, to bring up a subject early on that you really might not want to talk about; but it's something we all need to do, but to do it by our choice and not by a government-run plan telling us to do that.

So with that let me just say a couple of things about women, and there's been a new poll out. In this poll that was released on October 28, in short, women believe that their current health insurance is better for them and their families than what the Pelosi plan has proposed. And while a majority of women view health care reform as an important issue, only 42 percent are satisfied with the proposal that is brought before Congress and only 38 percent would like to change their own insurance to a public option. In fact, while 48 percent of women want slight changes to health care generally, 75 percent of women want few to no changes to their own health care.

That's kind of interesting. You talked about how I was on the Education and Labor Committee. And while we were marking up the bill, I had an amendment that said if you like the health care plan you have now, you can keep it, and that was voted down by the other side of the aisle unanimously.

Women are also very concerned with costs. You know, women care about affordability, and they are concerned with the costs. And only 5 percent of women believe that Congress should spend over $1 trillion on health care reform, which is the cost, and 45 percent of women would be less likely to support a candidate that votes in favor of such a costly health care bill.

Women believe that health care reform is moving too fast, that Congress

should slow down. Only 9 percent of women want reform legislation in the next few weeks. And we're looking at addressing this this week. Twenty percent would like reform by the end of 2009, and 43 percent believe that Congress should pass a reform bill only when quality legislation is developed even if it means no deadline.

So I think we have got a health care plan that if everybody thought it was a great plan, we would be passing it and we would have passed it in July. But this is now July, August, September, October, and now we are into November, and there still are such concerns by the American people on this.

So I hope that we can slow down and really have a dialogue, a debate on this, and find common ground to find a bill that people would all get behind.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1975, seniors will not be receiving a Social Security cost-of-living increase in fiscal year 2010. And now on top of that, seniors are worried about their Medicare plans. In almost every senior center that I have visited in my district in the last few months, 50 percent of the residents have told me they are on Medicare Advantage plans. These seniors like the plans that they have, and they want to keep them.

The administration has said many times that if you like the health care plan you have, you can keep it. That will not happen with Medicare Advantage, and seniors are upset and angry.

Let's support health care reform for all Americans that doesn't harm the plans that seniors rely on. Let's help all Americans.

Madam Speaker, as indicated by the record on Thursday evening October 22nd, 2009, I was absent from votes on personal business for the remainder of the week. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall 809: On ordering the previous question--``nay;'' Rollcall 810: Providing for consideration of H.R. 3619, Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H. RES. 853)--``nay;'' Rollcall 811: Expressing support for Teen Read Week (H. RES. 836)-- ``yea;'' Rollcall 812: On agreeing to the Kratovil amendment--``yea;'' Rollcall 813: On final passage Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H. R. 3619)--``yea.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 562, congratulating Syracuse University for winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men's Lacrosse Tournament.

It is estimated that lacrosse may have developed as early as the 12th century. It originated among Native American tribes in North America. In 1637, the game was first named lacrosse. The game underwent many modernizations during the 19th century, and the first intercollegiate lacrosse game was played in 1877. By the early 1900s, students across North America were participating in the sport in high schools, colleges, and universities.

Syracuse University was founded in 1870. Today, the university serves over 19,000 full- and part-time undergraduate and graduate students. Syracuse University offers degrees in over 20 majors from 10 different schools and colleges. Syracuse Orange has 12 women's intercollegiate athletic teams and 8 men's intercollegiate athletic teams.

SU has 27 team national championships, including 11 men's lacrosse NCAA national championships. Syracuse University's men's lacrosse team added an 11th NCAA championship to their record this year. That is the most NCAA national lacrosse championships ever won by a single team.

Syracuse's team was coached by John Desko. In the final championship game, SU won against Cornell University in overtime in a thrilling game that ended 10-9. Junior Cody Jamieson scored the winning point 1 minute 20 seconds into the extra session.

It is truly an honor to stand before the House today to congratulate Syracuse University for winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men's Lacrosse Tournament. I extend my congratulations to Syracuse University, the players, the coaches, and the students. I wish all involved

continued success and ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 824, congratulating the Northwestern University Wildcats on winning the 2009 NCAA Women's Lacrosse Championship and to commend Northwestern University for its pursuit of athletic and academic excellence. As a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law myself, I am especially proud to join in honoring these talented women and the school they represent.

On May 24, 2009, the Northwestern University women's lacrosse team, the Wildcats, capped a perfect 2009 season by routing third ranked North Carolina 21-7 to capture its fifth straight national championship, finishing the year 23-0.

The Wildcats continued to etch its place as one of the top programs in the history of the sport, becoming just the second team to win five consecutive national titles. They are just two shy of Maryland's seven straight wins from 1995 to 2001, and the victory over the Tar Heels, 16-5, was Head Coach Kelly Amonte Hiller's 20th consecutive tournament victory.

At Northwestern University, these dynamic women demonstrate excellence on the athletic field as well as in the classroom. Founded in 1854, Northwestern University combines innovative teaching and pioneering research in a highly collaborative environment that transcends traditional academic boundaries. It provides students and faculty exceptional opportunities for intellectual, personal, and professional growth.

Northwestern is recognized both nationally and internationally for the quality of its educational programs at all levels. U.S. News & World Report consistently ranks the university's undergraduate and graduate programs among the best in the country. The Northwestern women's lacrosse team serves as an important role model to young athletes.

Congratulations to Northwestern University's president, Morton Schapiro; athletic director, James Phillips; head coach, Kelly Amonte Hiller; senior, Hannah Nielsen, who won the Tewaaraton Trophy given to the Nation's top player; the entire Wildcat team; the faculty, staff, and Northwestern students on this victory.

Today, we recognize and commend Northwestern University for its pursuit of athletic as well as academic excellence. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 824.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 817, supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its devastating effects on families and communities and support programs designed to end domestic violence.

As the gentleman from Puerto Rico just mentioned, one in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. Boys who witness domestic violence are twice as likely to abuse their partners and children when they become adults. The cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year. As evident by these staggering statistics, domestic violence has a far-reaching effect on society.

Let me repeat the definition that the gentleman from Puerto Rico stated: domestic violence is the willful intimidation, assault, battery, sexual assault and/or other abusive behavior perpetrated by an intimate partner against another. It is an epidemic that affects individuals in every community regardless of age, economic status, religion, nationality, educational background or gender.

When we think of domestic violence, we often think of women being victims. However, men are victimized as well, and children are also affected. We think of violence as just violence, not domestic violence. But violence really begins at the home, and it really begins at the back of someone's hand, or whatever, rather than a stranger, and it goes throughout the community. Male victims are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to the stigma associated with being a male victim or not being believed or being denied the status of a victim. But both men and women experience the same dynamics of interpersonal violence, including experiences of disbelief, ridicule and shame that only enhance their silence.

Unfortunately, the youngest victims are the children who witness the abuse. Research has shown that children witnessing domestic violence and living in that environment may experience some of the same trauma as abused children. They may become fearful, aggressive or withdrawn. Adolescents may act out or exhibit risk-taking behaviors. Domestic violence harms the victim, the children, the abuser and the entire health of American families and communities. So we must raise awareness about this issue. The health of our country depends on it.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 817, and I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) being down here and speaking about his bill and about the background of domestic violence because it's been obviously going on for a long time. We have made great strides. As I have witnessed, we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, several times. But it's been a long time coming and a long time to be recognized. And that's why this awareness month is so important so that we can really take a look and see how can we really end this and how can we do it to help the police, the families. But we have got to have the education, I think, that will help to stave that off. And the more we can do to recognize the causes of it and how to deal with it, the better.

I thank the author and I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for managing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

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

I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) for yielding me the time, and I also want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for managing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 16, which offers support to the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month as recognized this September. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), for introducing this resolution with me for the sixth year. During previous years the House has passed identical resolutions by voice vote or with as many as 412 ``yes'' votes. This year's resolution has 59 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

I also want to thank the gentleman from New York, Chairman Edolphus Towns, and the gentleman from California, Darrell Issa, for moving this resolution through the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. And last, I acknowledge and thank Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska for introducing a companion resolution in the Senate, Senate Resolution 211, making this a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

Mr. Speaker, life insurance too often is thought of only when it's too late. How many times have we heard friends or loved ones sadly reflecting that the deceased had no life insurance or had too little life insurance? Today, only four in 10 adults in America own individual life insurance policies. And among those who do have life insurance, the amount is often too small to safeguard the financial future of their loved ones. Due to insufficient coverage, many families, upon losing loved ones, often are forced to work extra jobs or longer hours, borrow money, or move to less desirable housing because there was no insurance.

House Resolution 16 calls on the Nation to observe the month of September as Life Insurance Awareness Month, and the issue has been elevated by a broad coalition of providers and advocates, including members of the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, and the American Council of Life Insurers. Our collective goal for the month is to make families more aware of their life insurance needs and encourage them to seek professional advice, as well as take the actions necessary to provide financial security for their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on both the Financial Services Committee and the Education and Labor Committee, especially my colleague from Texas, Ruben Hinojosa, and I have been working very hard to increase the level of financial literacy across the Nation. We recognize that by empowering consumers with the knowledge and understanding of how financial products work and how they can work towards financial security, we are taking a critical step that will help protect consumers from unexpected financial hardships and prepare them to succeed in today's complex financial marketplace. It is my hope that recognizing Life Insurance Awareness Month will help motivate Americans to seek information about the benefits of life insurance so that the premature death of a loved one does not bring with it economic hardships that too often accompany tragedy.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the goals and ideals of this year's National Life Insurance Awareness Month.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act, and I'd like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Gordon, and the ranking member, Mr. Hall, and my colleague particularly, Mr. Peters, for bringing to the floor such a good bill.

H.R. 3246 will advance technologies of the future by reauthorizing the Department of Energy's vehicle technology program and build on an existing energy infrastructure to demonstrate and deploy more fuel- efficient automobiles and heavy equipment.

Over the years, the Department of Energy has worked with the industry to develop, demonstrate, and deploy vehicle technologies for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles. Some of those research needs have been addressed through public-private research programs like the 21st Century Truck Partnership, the FreedomCAR, and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives.

Unfortunately, in the past, our research priorities have shifted inconsistently between passenger and heavy-duty vehicles. As a result, many long-term goals remain unfulfilled.

H.R. 3246 offers the research parity and focus to advance technologies all across transportation sectors by including medium- to heavy-duty trucks and nonroad equipment. While the total number of heavy trucks is small compared to passenger vehicles, their fuel consumption and emissions justify a consistent investment in basic research and development of hybrid models and other advanced truck technologies. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that will address the unique needs and demands on construction, industrial and agricultural equipment. Therefore, we must examine the full range of components within nonroad equipment systems to produce the greatest overall efficiency benefits at the least cost.

I know everyone here recognizes the essential role nonroad equipment plays in improving our infrastructure. Fuel remains a primary driver in the cost of major construction and infrastructure projects. With advances in nonroad equipment technologies, we will further our drive for efficiency and fuel savings beyond the engine alone so that we can see tremendous benefits in project productivity and energy efficiency.

For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I support H.R. 3246 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Kennedy amendment even though I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just have a question of the designee, Mr. Gordon.

I am not sure that this amendment is necessary as I believe that a qualified plug-in electric vehicle manufacturer is considered an automotive manufacturer.

Do you think that there definitely needs to be something written into the amendment saying that a qualified plug-in electric vehicle manufacturer is considered an automotive manufacturer?

Reclaiming my time, as I said, I am not necessarily opposed. I just wanted clarification whether you thought that these vehicles would not be included in this bill, if they were not addressed.

Reclaiming my time, I would not oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Holt amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Holt amendment. I think that this amendment makes clear that the pilot program was intended to include agricultural and construction nonroad equipment.

Therefore, I do support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Marshall amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of the Marshall amendment. As the amendment states, there are unique challenges facing rural areas, especially in regards to refueling and infrastructure for alternative-fuel vehicles, such as those that run on natural gas and hydrogen or electric or plug-in electric hybrid vehicles that require an electrical outlet.

I thank Mr. Marshall for trying to ensure that rural Americans have the same benefits in this area as their urban counterparts.

With that, I would support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Cohen amendment even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do support the amendment. I think it simply lays out examples of electromechanical storage technologies to make sure that they are included in this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Donnelly amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have some real concerns with this amendment. I just wonder if this bill is really the proper place for this amendment that includes recreational vehicles in a title of the bill that is intended to provide research, development, demonstration, and commercial application on medium to heavy duty commercial and transit vehicles, and I'm afraid that this amendment would divert funds from an area of research that would be more beneficial to the population at large. And I would have a question to ask of the sponsor for clarification.

There is a definition of the recreational vehicle. Would this include not just a commercial truck or bus type of vehicle, but does this include all RVs that could be a pickup or a van that they would be attached to?

Reclaiming my time, so in other words, this would be the same kind of chassis that would be in one of the commercial trucks?

Another concern is that this is for recreational vehicles and this is limited taxpayer money. Do you think that the American people would like to see this included as the type of research and development that we would be asking to designate----

I yield.

Mr. Chairman, the RV is an optional purchase for a consumer, usually used for vacation purposes. We've been talking about recreational. And, again, I really have some concerns of spending taxpayer funds on research and development. If the gentleman could convince me that this would lower the fuel consumption so much that it would save--

Do you have any idea how many recreational vehicles there are that would benefit from this research?

Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. And I'm afraid I must still stand in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Sestak amendment even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sestak amendment.

As we conduct research and development and produce and manufacture advanced batteries, it makes sense to, at the same time, look into ways to not only reduce waste streams, emissions, and energy intensity, but also to improve the calendar life and cycle life of these advanced batteries.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the Massa amendment, and I am not necessarily in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns about the gentleman's amendment. As I read the amendment, I note that Mr. Massa is adding language that would support public-private partnerships dedicated to overcoming barriers in commercial application of transformational vehicle technologies that utilize such industry-led facilities.

Perhaps the gentleman could explain in a little more detail who would be able to take advantage of this change and what types of activities it would allow.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, can you give me an example of a barrier?

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, you said it would help the American manufacturers. Is it one specific manufacturer, or who would this benefit? I want to make sure that it is not just a specific manufacturer.

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, I just want to make sure that we all understand the intent so we can make an informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to this bill.

Could you give me a little more on who benefits from this and the barriers?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I know you are talking about the commercialization, which is what we sometimes call the ``valley of death'' for companies to get out beyond the demonstration to the marketplace which is probably the hardest for so many companies. And you think that this will help a lot of different companies be able to do that?

I yield.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this bill. Sixty years ago, the only student loans available were private loans. Unfortunately, the system left out many students with either limited financial resources or poor or nonexistent credit. So in 1965, Congress created the Federal Family Education Loan Program which has successfully administered and regulated federally backed private student loans for the past 44 years.

But President Clinton decided that we could save money by creating a new federally run program to provide student loans at public option. At present, just under one-third of colleges have chosen the public option, also known as the Direct Loan Program. However, Democrats have decided that by leveraging the borrowing power of the Federal Government, which Congress has more aptly demonstrated, they can save money, as scored by CBO.

We all know that because of the Federal Government's size and ability to raise taxes at any time to pay off its debts, it can borrow money at a cheaper rate than private banks. By requiring all students that use Federal loans to borrow directly from the government, this bill allows the government to make a greater profit off students, count it as a ``cost savings,'' and then spend it on other educational priorities.

It is interesting that after the government's student loan ``public option'' failed to gain widespread acceptance, the other side of the aisle now proposes to eliminate all other choices so that students are forced into the public option. Even more interesting is that the other side of the aisle has proposed another ``public option'' that will supposedly save money by using the government's size to underpay doctors and hospitals, which forces private plan owners to make up the difference. I fear that in a few years, the public plan may soon be the only affordable option available to most Americans.

I don't want a single-payer health care system, and I don't want a single-payer student loan program. Just as 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with their current health care, over two-thirds of all colleges have elected to go with the privately administered FFEL program. We should let colleges continue to select the student loan program that works best for their students, not the one chosen by bureaucrats in Washington.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this bill to make sure that the student loan ``public option'' is not the only option.

Mr. Speaker, tonight when the President addresses the joint session of Congress, I hope that he will turn a new page in the health care debate, setting aside demands for a government-run, taxpayer-funded health care system and instead he will express support for real reforms that will reduce costs and increase access to quality health care for everyone regardless of preexisting conditions.

I hope to hear that the President finally will fix the medical malpractice crisis that continues to drive costs up and drives doctors out of Illinois and other States. I hope the President will finally commit to our small businesses by allowing them to band together in an association health plan so that they can provide affordable health care to their employees. And, finally, I hope that the President will join Members on both sides of the aisle to end waste, fraud and abuse plaguing Medicare and robbing seniors of much-needed health benefits.

It is my hope that after tonight's address the President and congressional Democrats will focus on bipartisan, commonsense reforms that will actually increase health care affordability and accessibility for all.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the improved Oversight by Financial Inspectors General Act of 2009. I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Driehaus and Mr. Lee, for introducing this bill and thank the chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Mr. Moore, for his work on this issue.

H.R. 3330 makes technical corrections to the monetary thresholds that trigger Inspectors General to launch an investigation in the failure of a financial institution. Financial Inspectors General must dedicate resources and personnel to investigate failures like that of AIG because their finding can present critical evidence about what caused the financial crises. Congress, Federal regulators, and the administration can better target reform to our broken financial regulatory system.

In May, the Financial Services Committee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on the role of financial services Inspectors General. We heard from Inspectors General about their difficult task to tackle the waste, fraud, and abuse that is at the heart of our financial crisis.

Fraud and abuse were two of many significant factors that contributed to the financial crisis, especially in Chicago. In March, the U.S. Attorney General in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald brought mortgage fraud indictments against two dozen players. They are brokers, accountants, loan officers, processors, and attorneys.

Mortgage fraud comes in all shapes and sizes. Scam artists inflate appraisals, flip properties, and lie about information including income and identity on loan applications. Some use the identity of deceased people to obtain mortgages, and other desperate thieves bilked out of their homes and home equity the most vulnerable homeowners and seniors in dire financial straits.

To get the economy back on track and credit flowing again, we have to address what was at the root of the mortgage meltdown in the first place, and that is mortgage fraud.

Inspectors General hold key positions to investigate mortgage fraud and really get to the bottom of the turmoil that plagues today's financial markets; what went wrong, who broke the law, were the laws enforced, were laws and regulations adequate. To restore confidence in our markets and address any failings in our system of regulation, including enforcement, we must determine the answer to these questions. The sooner we get to the root of these matters, the sooner we can get the financial institutions off the Federal dole and our financial markets and economy back on track. H.R. 3330 will help us get there.

I applaud all of the Members who have worked so hard on this issue and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: U.S. Representative Judy Biggert

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: RDTE,A

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Argonne National Laboratory

Address of Requesting Entity: 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439

Description of Remarks: Provide an earmark of $5,000,000 for Argonne National Lab, which is collaborating with the Commonwealth of Kentucky in an industrial consortium to advance battery materials and manufacturing. The main objective is to make breakthroughs in new battery materials and electro-chemistry critically needed to move forward to practical, competitive transportation solutions and for efficient storage of electricity generated from distributed renewable energy sources.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: U.S. Representative Judy Biggert

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: OM, AF

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Chemring Scot Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 2525 Curtiss Street, Downers Grove, IL 60515

Description of Remarks: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 for Chemring Scot Inc. for the procurement of Joint Aircrew Combined System Testers (JCAST). The JCAST is a self-contained, portable tester, eliminating the need for multiple pieces of equipment to test aircrew flight equipment.