Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1403 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1403 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213. Mr. Speaker, the legislation is like many of the bills that we do. It's the product of many hours of hard work. It's also an effort to strike a balance between extending important life- saving assistance to laid-off workers and investing in smart spending that will help our economy.

A significant portion of the bill would go directly to helping our citizens. We extend unemployment insurance, we invest in summer jobs, fund loans for small businesses, and make bonds available to States. But I am pleased that the bill also cracks down on corporations, closing tax loopholes that have encouraged companies to ship jobs overseas, a thing I have devoutly desired for a number of years.

Unlike the previous administration, we use PAYGO rules here to make sure that new spending, other than emergency spending, is fully paid for. In fact, it's worthy to remind my colleagues that the deficit facing the country was created by the last administration, which financed two wars, a prescription drug plan, and a huge tax cut, all of which was unpaid for, and consequently is responsible for two-thirds of the deficit.

In the recent frenzied back and forth over this bill, it is easy to lose sight of the important steps that Congress has taken up to this point to help right the economy. We passed small business tax relief, expanded the first-time home buyer tax credit, changed the way students apply for loans, funded a Cash for Clunkers program, injected money into the economy, and helped to protect domestic jobs at a critical juncture.

With this vote, we can help families across the country continue the path we set out on last year to help dig the country out of a terrible recession. For small businesses, the backbone of the Nation's economy, and the place where most American workers are employed, we use this bill to ensure them an easier time getting loans. The bill also continues the very successful research and development tax credit, a powerful incentive to creating well-paying jobs.

The measure extends the ongoing recovery by investing in Build America Bonds and Recovery Zone Bonds, making it less expensive for cash-strapped State and local governments to finance the rebuilding of schools and sewers and hospitals and transit projects.

The legislation helps American families with sales tax relief, property tax relief, disaster area tax relief, and college tuition deductions. The bill wisely invests in important energy provisions such as the biodiesel tax credit, while making good on our obligations to black and Native American farmers. Finally, the measure also strengthens the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by increasing the amount the oil industry must pay to clean up its disasters.

I also want to pause for a moment to talk about two pieces of legislation that I personally am happy to see in the bill, because I think they'll pay enormous benefits. This bill closes a loophole in the Tax Code that has been used by huge corporations, including publicly regulated utilities. Companies use this loophole to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes when they spin off a subsidiary. These deals cost taxpayers and they hurt consumers, especially when the company using the loophole is a phone company that wants to get rid of the older telephone lines in small towns and rural areas. With this bill we close that loophole, and we will save taxpayers $260 million over the next 10 years.

On another front, the bill also extends funding for the wool trust fund, which helps to keep thousands of textile and apparel workers around the country employed. I was proud to work on this issue because of the relevance it has to Hickey Freeman, a 100-year-

old company and maker of fine men's suits located in Rochester, New York.

The fund provides funds to makers of wool fabric and yarn producers, as well as sheep growers, to help maintain the domestic production of wool fabric. Too many of our industries in the United States have closed up and moved overseas. I frequently say that we can't be a great power if our entire manufacturing sector moves to other countries and we are obligated to buy from other countries for our very livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, Congress can rightly take great pride in some very historic work on behalf of our constituents this year; but we must remind ourselves that many people are still struggling, and we must do everything in our power to fund the necessary programs that protect the unemployed Americans, help small business, enhance job creation efforts, and keep America on the road to economic recovery.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I've heard the phrase all my life, as you have, of ``taken out of context.'' Let me assure anybody who wants to know about that, no reporter has ever said to me, Do you think your backroom deals are going to hold up? And if anyone were to ever say that to me--and I hope to keep that record intact--believe you me, I would not laugh and

say, We're Democrats. I do recall saying to somebody yesterday with pride that we are Democrats, and I am proud that we are Democrats. We are the people who are trying to take care of the people without jobs in this country and to make the climate right to create more.

Now, before I yield to my next speaker, I want to let Members know that I will be offering an amendment to the rule at the end of the debate. The amendment makes three changes to the text that has been posted on the Rules Committee Web site since Thursday, May 20. It strikes two sections from the House amendment--section 511, section 516--and it changes the effective date and the carried interest provision making it effective on December 31, 2010, instead of the date of enactment.

The amendment provides for a separate vote on section 523, which is the SGR, the so-called doc fix, and a vote on the remainder of the modified House amendment. This does not add money, Mr. Speaker. It subtracts it.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to quote from the Dallas Morning News for my colleague, Mr. Sessions:

``Texas employers expanded nonfarm payrolls by 32,500 jobs in April, the Texas Workforce Commission said Friday. That's the State's fourth straight month of job gains.

``The State has now gained 91,600 jobs in the first 4 months of the year.''

Houston Business Journal this morning: ``As the U.S. economy expanded for a third consecutive quarter, Texas posted some of the strongest numbers in the country.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 10 seconds.

``Unemployment remained at 8.2 percent, giving Texas the lowest rate amongst large States, while existing home sales in the State grew in the first quarter by 16 percent compared to the same time a year ago.''

And I would like to put these into the Record.

[From the Houston Business Journal,

May 28, 2010]

SigmaBleyzer: Texas Leading Economic Recovery

(By Casey Wooten)

As the U.S. economy expanded for a third consecutive

quarter, Texas posted some of the strongest numbers in the

country, according to Houston-based private equity firm

SigmaBleyzer LLC.

The Texas Business Cycle Index, which tracks movements in

employment and GDP, increased for the third straight month.

Texas non-durable manufacturing also grew by 2.1 percent

and 1.7 percent in 2008 and 2009, versus negative 3 percent

and negative 5.6 percent nationwide.

``Strong foreign demand for U.S. goods is also driving

improvements in industrial production,'' the report said.

Moreover, higher oil prices supported a nearly 10 percent

growth in the Texas mining industry in March 2010 compared to

the same month a year before.

Unemployment remained at 8.2 percent, giving Texas the

lowest rate among large states, while existing home sales in

the state grew in the first quarter by 16 percent compared to

the same time a year ago.

U.S. GDP grew at an annualized rate of 3.2 percent for the

quarter while Texas GDP grew at about 2 percent, but didn't

drop as much compared to the rest of the nation during the

lows of the recession.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Jackson Lee, who is also from Texas and I hope will give us good news.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to refute the notion that all new hires in the United States are census takers.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to this rule. I want to briefly explain the amendment. It is very simple. It strikes two sections from the House amendment printed in the Rules Committee report.

No. 1: It strikes section 511, the COBRA extension.

No. 2: It strikes section 516, the State Medicaid Assistance, or

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Pingree for yielding.

I want to take just a second to respond to my good friend Mr. Diaz- Balart, and he is.

We had many, many fewer Republican amendments even offered. I think there were less than a quarter. The number of Democratic amendments was overwhelming. Almost every Republican amendment that was germane was made in order. We do believe in a spirit of bipartisanism.

But today I want to rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. After spending nearly a decade working to combat sexual assault in the military services, with my colleagues Susan Davis and Jane Harman, I am thrilled with the most comprehensive overhaul of the Department of Defense sexual assault policy ever.

Last week, we introduced legislation to ensure better training for JAG officers and victim advocates who handle sexual assault cases, create confidentiality protocols, to protect the victims' rights and raise the likelihood of victim reporting, and to ensure that victims are afforded expeditious state-based transfers to spare them from their alleged offenders.

I am pleased to see that this year's Authorization Act includes 28 new sections to amend the sexual assault policy within DOD, and that 5 of the 6 provisions that Representative Harman and I introduced are included.

While I believe the National Defense Authorization Act is critical to our efforts to overcome the problem of sexual assault in the Armed Forces, the task force's recommendation to ensure the ease of base or organization transfer for victims is absent from the bill that came from the Rules Committee.

See, I didn't get what I wanted either, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

I worked in conjunction with Representative Harman to draft an amendment to NDAA, and I am proud to ask for this Congress to support it.

The Harman-Slaughter amendment calls for an expedited priority consideration of an application for permanent change of base or unit transfer for victims of sexual assault to reduce the possibility of retaliation against the victim. DOD reports that an estimated 90 percent of the cases of sexual assault go unreported in the military, and half of the women who do not report rape or sexual assault do so because of fear of retaliation.

We too often hear that the reporting process is more traumatic for the victim than the attack itself, and this provision is critical to help address the fear of retaliation that victims face.

The report estimates that 90 percent of sexual assault cases in the military go unreported. That is an extraordinarily high number. According to the DOD, half the women who don't report rape or sexual assault are scared, as I said before.

Furthermore, in half of all sexual assault cases in 2008, the commander took no action, and only 13 percent of reported cases were prosecuted and referred to courts marshal. These figures are far below the civilian prosecution rate. In fact, some women have told us that when they reported sexual assault or rape, they were told by the commander, ``You don't want to ruin that young man's career, do you?''

These disturbing findings indicate the need for policies to protect the rights and the welfare of the accuser.

I want to share a story by a young woman, a lieutenant in the Air Force, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a fellow officer. According to her testimony, military criminal investigators and JAG officers told her, If I were a defense attorney, I would tell you that you gave the offender mixed signals and that ``no'' was not enough. She recalls she did not just say ``no''; she physically held onto her underwear.

But even after she reported the rape, she was forced to salute her rapist every day. She trained for over a year for a highly classified mission, but since then has lost her security clearance. She concluded her testimony with, I feel like I am being punished for a rape that happened to me.

It is a very serious problem, and getting more serious. I thank the military for the work it is doing to try to control this, but surely when our young women and young men go off to protect the United States of America, they should be free from assaults from their fellow soldiers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of seniors, Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security and Medicare are among the most important programs ever created by our Government. Older Americans have worked hard and sacrificed themselves to ensure a better, stronger country for future generations. They deserve a secure, healthy retirement.

Together, Social Security and Medicare have helped tens of millions of seniors avoid poverty, enjoy better health, and maintain a respectable standard of living. For countless seniors, Medicare has literally saved their lives, giving access to medical treatment they would otherwise have been unable to afford.

These programs are a measure of what we truly value, and who we are as a Nation.

It was not always this way. Prior to the establishment of Medicare in 1965, a serious illness or hospitalization could easily bankrupt not only a senior, but his or her entire family. A single serious illness-- a round of pneumonia, or a broken hip--could render an elderly man or woman destitute. Too often, our elders simply went without needed medical care, suffering and even dying because decent health care was out of reach.

I bring this up today to underscore the need for vigilance in protecting Medicare and Social Security from those that seek to privatize these vital programs. Indeed, the retirement and health security of today's retirees, today's workers, and future generations rests on the decisions that Congress makes on these programs.

During the year-long debate over health care reform, we heard a great deal of rhetoric from our Republican colleagues about the need to protect Medicare. Yet when given the chance to strengthen Medicare by providing better benefits, lowering costs, and preserving Medicare's solvency for years to come, my Republican colleagues unanimously voted no.

In opposing Health Care Reform, my colleagues said no to free preventive care for seniors, no to ending the `donut hole' for prescription drug coverage and lowering prescription drug costs, and no to more time with and better access to primary care physicians.

Further, while erroneously assailing health reform legislation as detrimental to seniors and Medicare, the ranking Republican member on the House Committee on the Budget introduced H.R. 4529, the Roadmap for America's Future, which purports to rescue and strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, allowing them to fulfill their missions and making them permanently solvent--all while putting the federal budget on a sustainable path. If this were true, I would be the first in line to cosponsor the legislation.

However, analysis of the ``Roadmap for America's Future'' by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed the plan ``would raise taxes for most middle-income families, privatize a substantial portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, and terminate the Children's Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would erode over time and thus would purchase health insurance that would cover fewer health care services as the years went by.''

What I find most disturbing about this proposal is the failure to acknowledge a connection between the recent volatility of the stock market and the effect that would have on privatized Social Security accounts. When a trillion dollars of wealth can disappear in 30 minutes, as it did on May 6, 2010, we know that the stock market is not the place for seniors' life savings. Privatization, or partial privatization, of the Social Security system would have been disastrous for millions of senior citizens that depend on their Social Security checks every month. Likewise, replacing Medicare with a voucher system and letting seniors fend for themselves on the private market would leave our seniors with less and less care every year.

America's seniors have worked long and hard to build a prosperous Nation, yet too many seniors in this country saw their retirement savings get decimated by President Bush's economic crisis. I rise today to assure seniors that I and the Democrats in Congress will continue to stand firmly opposed to any and all efforts to privatize Social Security or turn Medicare into a voucher program. Moreover, we will continue to take a leading role to improve--rather than undermine-- Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1363 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides the Committee on Education and Labor with deposition authority in connection with its investigation of underground mine safety. The resolution also requires the Education and Labor Committee to report to the Rules Committee on its use of the authority by the end of this congressional session.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today with a pretty straightforward mission. We want to empower the men and women who are investigating the causes of the serious safety problems facing miners in America.

As we saw recently with the terrible disaster at Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia, there's some combination of industrial wrongdoing there and inadequate regulation that we must address. The explosion at Upper Big Branch in April killed 29 coal miners, ripped apart an entire community and State, and was the worst mine disaster in this country since 1970.

Why is Congress involved? Because one of our most serious responsibilities as lawmakers is oversight and investigation. And from what we've been able to tell from the facts so far, there is an urgent and compelling need for the public to know all the facts surrounding this and other recent mining tragedies.

I come to this issue with a personal feeling. Many of my constituents back home and some here know that I was born in Harlan County, Kentucky, in the midst of some of the best bituminous coal on Earth. Some of my earliest memories are hearing the whistle blow at night over at the mine. Even the smallest child, as I was then, knew what that whistle meant. It meant serious trouble at the mine.

The pain and suffering endured by miners in Kentucky and West Virginia and everyplace else should inspire us to do everything in our power to make this dangerous and volatile work environment as safe as we possibly can. The bottom line should never supersede a human life.

The resolution before us today would give the House Committee on Education and Labor staff authority to take depositions as they pursue their investigation. We know that greater review of this issue is sorely needed. There are far too many unanswered questions surrounding underground coal mine operator compliance with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, and the safety of every single miner in this country depends on answering those questions.

Getting to the truth on mining safety is not a partisan issue, and empowering staff to get the truth is in everyone's interest. Granting a committee this sort of authority is not without precedent. In numerous times over the years, Congress has approved resolutions such as this to provide temporary powers to committees trying to get at the truth. And every piece of information that comes from the questioning will be obtained by and shared with members of the committee from both parties.

The House gave the Education and Labor Committee similar authority during a probe into a mining accident just a few years ago. It was in the 110th Congress that the Education and Labor Committee was given staff deposition authority in their 2007-2008 investigation into the deaths of nine miners and rescue workers at the Crandall Canyon Mine near Huntington, Utah. That led to strengthening mine safety with laws that may be too lax in enforcement.

Among the issues the committee wishes to delve into is the growth of the number of mine safety enforcement cases that are pending before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The Commission is meant to serve as an independent agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review to contested citations, penalties, and worker retaliation cases.

In reality, though, the increased enforcement and tougher penalties that followed several high-profile mine accidents in 2005 and 2006 has swamped the Commission. Mine owners have tripled the number of violations that they appeal, and they contest 67 percent of all penalties that are assessed. As a result, the government is facing a lengthy backlog of cases at the Commission that has surged from 2,100 in 2006 to approximately 16,000 in February of this year.

This deposition power for the committee will help to prod reluctant witnesses who have important insight into this issue but might otherwise not be willing to offer testimony. This is an important tool, and I urge my colleagues to rise and support me on this plan here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and a champion of all working people, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Workforce Protection Committee, Ms. Woolsey.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Holt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield to the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Because he didn't really get the chance to finish, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman another 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the time remaining, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May

I request from my colleague if he is ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, this has been a most interesting debate. As I started, I am terribly concerned about what caused the awful mine disaster in West Virginia. I look forward to finding out why that was. Lack of government oversight, without any question in my mind, will be a large part of it, just as we're finding out in the oil spill.

This has also been an interesting afternoon of playing charades. I have a 6-year-old granddaughter who loves to play a game with me. She will tell me a tall tale, and then I pretend to believe it. Then, at a moment of her choosing, she says, ``Gotcha.'' Don't let them ``getcha'' today. What they have been doing here is totally nongermane to this bill. And if you all run up and vote ``no'' on the previous question, they're not going to bring this up, because they can't.

Don't be taken in by this again. The Obama administration did not create this awful problem, but we're totally aware of it, and we have undertaken responsibility to clean it up. And we're going to do that. As soon as the supplemental bill comes, we're going to have one of the best chances in the world if we start to cut back the money that we're spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we've already spent a trillion dollars, lost enormous numbers of our young soldiers, maimed many, many more. And it is time for us to cut that out. That, again, will start, along with other things we are doing, to get this country back on some solid footing.

Let me say to you once again, Please come down here and vote ``yes.'' Don't be fooled by this. I imagine that this is the beginning of every charade every week, sort of like what Mr. Perlmutter said about the COMPETES Act. Please don't forget, my colleagues, that twice we tried to vote out that bill to create jobs, put people back to work, and procedural games have killed it, to the great concern of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, to name a couple.

So this afternoon I want you to come down here as quick as you can, wherever you are, and put your ``yes'' in here so that we can get this done and to give Chairman Miller the opportunity to use this deposition authority with his staff to get to the bottom of this mine disaster. We have many disasters of all stripes that we're working on, as you know. Don't be held up by what we have been through here today. There's no question about it, it's nongermane.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 267, 268, 269, 270, 271 and 272. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 267, 268, 269, 271, and 272 and would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 270.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It makes in order the committee amendment as an original bill and provides that the bill shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the 16 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and waives all points of order against those amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule provides the Chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have watched as countless stories revealed flaws in the military's procurement operation. Disappointment with the way the Department of Defense manages the money we appropriate it reflects poorly not just on the Pentagon, but on Congress as well. The $640 toilet seat is now the stuff of legend, but sadly it is often just the tip of the iceberg.

In recent years, excesses stemming from the ill considered rush towards privatization championed by the previous administration have become increasingly common. The push to contract out nearly every part of the military's mission has inevitably led to waste, fraud, and abuse involving some of the biggest corporate names in this country. Sadly, I believe that many years from now historians will associate a significant part of the war in Iraq with wasteful and poorly managed contracts that made private companies millions of dollars, billions of dollars, actually, often at the expense of our own men and women in uniform and certainly of taxpayers.

Two years ago in Congress, I was here on the floor as the House debated H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. That, too, was intended to save taxpayer money. Earlier in the 110th Congress, I worked with my friend, Ms. Schakowsky, on H.R. 897, the Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act. I hesitate to say that those and other efforts towards contracting reform have been unsuccessful. Clearly, we have made significant reforms and part of our work in Congress involves regular and diligent oversight. It is a never-ending process.

For my part, one of my proudest efforts during my career in Congress has been to force the Pentagon to acknowledge that some of the testing done on body armor for troops during an early part of the war was deeply flawed. My work on this issue grew out of a 2006 audit that I read about in The New York Times that found that 80 percent of marines who had died in Iraq of upper body wounds would have survived with the proper body armor. I waited for other committees to take the lead, but no one came to the floor.

We are still working on this issue, but we have come a very long way. Major changes have been made in testing labs, some of them taken back into the Army rather than contracted out, which in this case did not work. Thankfully, however, the work did accomplish one thing: the military agreed to no more poorly managed deals for outside contractors to test the body armor. All current and future body armor testing will be conducted internally by the Department of Testing and Evaluation within the DOD with strict standards to ensure our troops receive nothing but the highest quality of body armor.

When it comes to the safety of our troops, which we send into battle, it is foolish to put the bid out to the lowest-priced contractor.

But today we have moved into a new chapter of oversight and reform, and I am happy to see it come. This morning we are bringing up an important piece of legislation intended to help the Pentagon reform inefficient procurement

operations. It's called the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010, otherwise known as the IMPROVE Act. This bill will help the Defense Department immediately, once this is signed, to crack down on cost overruns and lax oversight of contractors. Not only that, but the bill should help reduce our dangerous reliance oftentimes on outside companies to do so many varied functions on behalf of the military.

It is hard to overstate how important this bill is. My colleague, Mr. Conaway of Texas, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee Defense Acquisition Panel, offered the following testimonial on how urgent the need is for contracting and acquisition reform. He said: ``The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal Government, owning 86 percent of the government's assets, estimated at $4.6 trillion. Over the last two decades, millions of dollars have been spent by DOD in the quest to obtain auditable financial statements.'' Yet getting those numbers has proven elusive, if not at times impossible. No more, Mr. Speaker, after this bill is signed.

This bill mandates that the Pentagon consider shifting work away from contractors if they don't meet the cost goals. It will set up a new system of cost objectives and schedules which DOD procurement officers would have to follow. The bill says that by 2017 Pentagon agencies must prepare records that can be audited and draft a new policy that wouldn't reward those who don't meet requirements. These are simple, sensible reforms that the American people can understand and appreciate.

No matter what anyone in Congress thinks of the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all of us know that the men and women who are serving overseas rely on the equipment, and they deserve to know that the funds for their equipment are not being squandered and that they are given equipment of the highest quality.

Another bright note on this legislation is that, when it was approved by the Armed Services Committee, the vote was 56-0. Such bipartisanship is rare in the House these days, and I am happy to speak on a bill that all of us can agree on. Although there is not currently any pending movement on the bill in the Senate, it is my hope a decisive and strong bipartisan vote today on this bill will spur the Senate into action. Billions of taxpayer dollars and the trust of our troops depend on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentlewoman that there were 26 amendments offered on this bill. Only one was a Republican amendment. Ten amendments were not allowed, but the Republican amendment was. We are not afraid of debate. We are not afraid of discussion. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat taken aback by your calling for a ``no'' vote on this rule given that this legislation passed unanimously out of the committee.

I have no further requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on both the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have become increasingly concerned about veterans access to benefits, care and job training. We must encourage soldiers completing their active duty service to sign up with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a critical message we must reiterate to all our returning service men and women.

As the heroes of our country, we believe our veterans and their families deserve the very best benefits to ensure peace of mind. With this in mind, Congress has provided more than 185,000 servicemembers and veterans with $500 for every month they were forced to serve under stop-loss orders since 2001. In addition, we've created new claims processors to make sure our veterans earn their benefits in a timely manner. We built new transition centers for wounded warriors, more military child care centers, and better barracks and military family housing. With veterans' families in mind, Congress has increased support for veteran caregivers. And lastly, those disabled veterans can rest assured that their benefits will keep pace with the cost of living and their needs.

Today I rise in support of S. 1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act. This landmark legislation will provide support to family and others who care for disabled, ill, or injured veterans; will enhance health services for the 1.8 million women veterans, including care for newborns for the first time in history; to expand mental health services for veterans and health care access for veterans in rural areas; and to prohibit copayments for veterans who are catastrophically disabled.

To help meet the many hardships and sacrifices associated with lengthy recovery and rehabilitation from severe injuries of veterans, S. 1963 will provide support services to family and other caregivers of veterans, including education on how to be a better caregiver, counseling and mental health services, and respite care for family and other caregivers of all veterans. It also provides health care and a stipend for caregivers living with severely wounded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This support is vital for the wounded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and their families, as about 20 percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve and 25 percent of retired and separated members have a family member or friend who has been forced to leave a job to care for the veteran full-time, according to the Dole/Shalala report.

The bill also expands and improves VA health care services for the women who have bravely served their country, working to remove existing barriers to women veterans seeking health care, providing up to seven days of care of newborn children of women veterans for the first time in history, and enhancing treatment for sexual trauma for women at the

Mr. Speaker, as the Senate moves closer to voting on Financial Regulatory Reform, it is necessary to remind Members of Congress and the American people why this legislation is urgently needed. The global financial system was pushed to the brink of collapse in the fall of 2008 by the excessive risk taking and overleveraging of large scale banks and financial institutions. As a direct result, the U.S. economy was faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 8 million Americans lost their jobs, pensions fell by $28.4 billion, 2.8 million homes were foreclosed on, and trillions of dollars of savings and wealth were wiped out almost overnight. Only after an unprecedented intervention by the federal government at the expense of American Taxpayers did our financial system return to stability.

The failure of Wall Street Banks to police themselves and act in the best interests of the public demonstrates the need for tough new federal regulations. The proposed financial reforms in the Senate bill will address the fundamental failures of the financial system that allowed reckless individuals and firms to threaten the collective economic security of our nation. These reforms, in short, will:

Create a consumer financial protection agency (CFPA) to monitor consumer banking products and ensure the full and fair disclosure of every personal banking product to all Americans.

Eliminate the possibility of future bailouts by discouraging the formation of ``too big to fail'' firms that pose systemic risks to the security of the financial system.

Finally eliminate loopholes that allow complex and high risk investment vehicles such as over-the-counter derivatives and asset backed securities to escape the oversight of regulators

Provide shareholders of banks with influence on matters relating to executive compensation

Provide tough new rules for transparency and accountability for credit rating agencies to protect investors and businesses.

And Enforce existing regulations and allow regulators to aggressively pursue misconduct and fraud

These regulations will help ensure that the failures of the banking system that occurred during the financial crisis of 2008 never again threaten the collective economic security of our nation.

Following on the heels of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and efforts to ensure fair and full disclosure of financial products to all Americans, I introduced a bill with my colleague Congressman John Tierney to curb the abusive lending practices of credit card companies. H.R. 4300 the Restoring America's Commitment to Consumers Act would:

Create a National Credit Card Usury Rate at 16 percent to prevent banks from charging unreasonably high interest rates

Limit unreasonable fees including certain ``up-front'' fees associated with the extension of credit, such as membership fees and annual fees under the 16 percent usury cap. All other fees not included in the cap, such as late fees or insufficient funds fees are capped at $15.00 per fee.

As the economic situation continues to remain fragile for millions of Americans and costs continue to rise, our constituents face tough choices when determining how to allocate their monthly income. Many are forced to put everyday expenses such as their utility, grocery or medical bills on their credit cards just to make ends meet. Far from helping struggling consumers, credit card companies appear to be exploiting this debt cycle by increasing interest rates to as much as 30 percent and piling on fees. A December 2009 Associated Press story revealed a credit card interest rates as a high as 79.99 percent with a minimum of $256 in fees in the first year for a credit line of $250. Although the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 capped such fees at 25 percent of a card's credit line, the bill did nothing to cap unreasonably high interest rates and the 79.99 percent rate remained in place.

With respect to the impact of the financial crisis on the health of the economy, it should be noted that New York State has shouldered a large share of the burden. The state has lost some 112,700 non-farm jobs since March 2009 while the private sector has lost 86,500 jobs. Statewide, the seasonally adjusted jobless rate in March was 8.6 percent, compared with 8.8 percent in February, 7.8 percent a year ago and as low as 4.6 percent in October of 2007. Some 831,800 people were unemployed statewide last month. The role Wall Street played in leading to the great recession cannot be downplayed or ignored.

It should be clear that reform of the financial services industry is necessary to protect the interests of our citizens. Following a long period of economic distress and at a time when

the recovery of our economy is tenuous, the reform of abusive practices within the financial industry that both caused and exacerbated the suffering of millions of Americans is desperately needed. Congress must act now to address the fundamental weaknesses of the financial system and prevent history from repeating itself.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1586, the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of the Transportation Committee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the title and concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. It provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion.

The rule provides the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules; and waives requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This requirement is waived through Monday, March 29.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here just a day after having been reminded yet again of the pain of many of my friends and constituents of the tragic February 12, 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 and the grief caused to the people of our area.

Yesterday morning, right here in the Capitol, I was privileged to meet with some of the victims' families. It is always a sobering experience to sit down with those brave souls and their efforts to fight for safer travel for the rest of us. Their great fight is a testament to their commitment and passion.

In fact, it is my sincere hope and prayer that once we finish this effort and make changes to the laws governing pilot safety that we can find a way to name it to honor the lost lives of this crash. I suggest calling this legislation the ``Buffalo Safety Act.'' I can think of no better way to mark the lessons we have learned as a Nation about

flight safety than honoring the people who died on that icy, snowy night.

The meeting I had yesterday morning centered on safety proposals and a discussion of how this legislation will eventually be implemented. We also talked with the Federal Aviation Administration about why it has to take so long before simple, commonsense changes can be made to the laws that govern how many hours a pilot flies, how they are trained and who is responsible for ensuring their flight records are not locked away in some box where nobody can assess their skills.

After last year's crash, I could hardly believe it when we learned that the pilot of Flight 3407 had failed five different tests, yet his employer only knew about two of those failures. Shouldn't a pilot's entire flying record be available to their employer? I think so. I know it would make me feel better about getting on a plane.

As you know, I have been fighting for a handful of specific and simple changes to current law. I believe that the regional pilots have to be paid better. Better compensation will help to make sure we get the best people in the cockpit. I was stunned to learn that the first officer of Flight 3407 was paid $16,000 a year. That is less than you would earn at a convenience store. Is that what we should pay people who we trust with our lives?

I am also worried about fatigue. A tired pilot is not at his or her best, and that is not acceptable. My proposal would call for a study by the National Academy of Science on this topic but would go further by tasking the FAA to rewrite many of the standards for pilots.

I would like to see pilots' flight records available so that everybody knows about the problems in their past flying experiences. Again, my plan would mandate that the General Accounting Office review this with an eye toward greater transparency.

I would like to see carrier maintenance of their aircraft, changes made to the cozy relationship that the FAA has with airlines, and some way to put real teeth into the recommendations that grew out of the horrific hearings last spring by the National Transportation Safety Board.

It has been 21 years, Mr. Speaker, since we have revised some of the standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. We are well overdue to update our expectations for all pilots, who, for the most part, are well-qualified, dedicated, and well-trained professionals.

Of course, the legislation that we are debating today is about much more. With this bill, we have essentially combined our pilot safety bill and the FAA authorization in one package.

It is my hope the Senate will do the right thing and allow us to go to conference where we can quickly and appropriately settle upon a compromise that allows us to turn this conversation into tangible improvements.

Besides the safety programs, this bill provides essential increases in aviation funding and safety improvements and invests in the Airport Improvement Program to help overcome congestion and delays.

The amendment we are considering today consists of the text of two bills that already have passed the House, H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, and H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009.

I urge my colleagues to come together with me to approve this rule. Let us move quickly to pass this amendment and send it to the Senate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in response to Mr. Sessions' comments on jobs, I would like to quote from this morning's Dallas Morning News and then submit the article for the Record. ``Jobs picture.'' I believe this is the gentleman's district. ``Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including the Dallas-Forth Worth area--will have made up for employment lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next year.''

``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs.''

The just-passed Federal health care legislation could add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one of the States with the highest percentage of consumers who have no health care insurance.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Mar. 24, 2010]

Moody's Experts Predict Texas Cities Will Lead the Recovery

(By Steve Brown)

Texas cities will outpace the rest of the country coming

out of the recession.

But that doesn't mean there won't be bumps in the road to

recovery, the folks at Moody's Analytics said Tuesday at

their annual Dallas economic confab.

There's still some bad news--more woes in store for the

battered real estate sector. But Moody's predicts that Texas

will find new jobs in health care, high tech and energy.

``This region really does lead the nation in terms of

recovery and will be one of the first regions to achieve a

new employment peak,'' Steven Cochrane, Moody's Analytics'

managing director, told more than 100 local businesspeople at

the session. ``The recession was just so shallow here because

the housing cycle was shallow.

``Income growth was more stable, and state fiscal

conditions are better,'' he said. ``There is a smaller hole

to dig out of.''

Jobs picture

Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including

the Dallas-Fort Worth area--will have made up for employment

lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next

year or early 2012.

``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be

among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs,'' Cochrane

said.

The Dallas area is expected to increase employment by about

1.5 percent in 2010 and 3 percent in 2011.

Oil and gas and high tech will be among the sectors that

drive job creation in Texas during the next few years,

Moody's predicts.

The just-passed federal health care legislation could also

add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one

of the states with the highest percentage of consumers who

lack medical insurance.

Big growth driver

``We will probably see this as a big growth driver in all

of the South long term,'' Cochrane said.

Moody's analysts aren't bullish about the country's housing

market. They expect further weakness this year and a slow

turnaround when it comes.

``Foreclosures are at best peaking now,'' Moody's Analytics

director Edward Friedman said. ``Maybe it will be another

three or for months before they finally peak completely, and

we see the true turnabout we need to believe the housing

market is headed on the right track.''

That's why Moody's is forecasting further declines in

nationwide home prices during the next six months. ``We think

another 5 or 10 percent,'' Friedman said.

The drag of housing

Unlike in most economic rebounds, the housing market will

continue to drag, he said.

``The housing sector--isn't that the sector that leads the

recovery?'' Friedman said. ``Not this time.''

Moody's estimates that U.S. households have lost almost $6

trillion in housing values during the recession.

``The rebound so far has only been in the stock market,''

Friedman said. ``You are not getting your housing

construction rebound.''

Texas home prices aren't likely to see much of a bounce

during the next couple of years, the analysts predict.

``Housing isn't a significant driver in the Texas economy

right now,'' Cochrane said.

Moody's also has red flags flying over the U.S. commercial

real estate market but doesn't think commercial price

adjustments will hurt the economy as badly as the housing

sector shakeout has.

``Nonresidential construction is pretty far down,''

Friedman said.

``How much further down could it go?''

I would also like to quote from an AP article this morning and then submit the article for the Record.

``The Labor Department said Thursday''--that's today--``that first- time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, according to Thomson Reuters.''

As you recall, as I do, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of this session we inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we have moved steady, month by month, putting people back to work.

The next thing I'd like to report, ``Analysts forecast the Nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs in March,'' and, ``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling that . . . job creation is imminent,'' say the economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who wrote that before the Labor Department's report.

Unemployment Claims Drop by 14,000--Most of the Drop Pegged to

Adjustments in How Labor Department Calculates Claims

Washington, Mar. 25, 2010.--(AP) New claims for

unemployment benefits fell more than expected in the U.S.

last week as layoffs ease and hiring slowly recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims

for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally

adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of

450,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

But most of the drop resulted from a change in the

calculations the department makes to seasonally adjust the

data, a Labor Department analyst said. Excluding the effect

of those adjustments, claims would have fallen by only 4,000.

The department updates its seasonal adjustment methods

every year, and revises its data for the previous five years.

Seasonal adjustment attempts to filter out expected changes

in employment such as the layoff of temporary retail

employees after the winter holidays. The goal of seasonally

adjusted figures is to provide a more accurate picture of

underlying economic trends.

Excluding seasonal adjustment, initial claims fell by more

than 30,000 last week to 405,557.

The four-week average of claims, which smooths volatility,

dropped by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 453,750, the

department said, the lowest since September 2008, when the

financial crisis intensified.

Initial claims have fallen in three of the past four weeks,

wiping out most of the increase that took place in the first

two months of this year. That increase early in the year

stoked worries among economists that improvement in the job

market was stalling.

First-time claims were elevated last month by severe

snowstorms on the East Coast, which caused backlogs in many

state offices that fell behind in processing claims.

Many economists say claims need to fall below roughly

425,000 to signal that the economy will consistently create

jobs, though

some say it could happen with claims at higher levels.

Analysts forecast the nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs

in March, partly due to temporary hiring for the Census. The

March figures will be reported April 2.

``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling

that . . . job creation is imminent,'' economists at Bank of

America Merrill Lynch wrote before the Labor Department's

report.

Initial claims are considered a gauge of the pace of

layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire

new workers.

The number of Americans continuing to claim unemployment

benefits, meanwhile, fell to 4.6 million.

But that doesn't include millions of people who are

receiving extended benefits for up to 73 extra weeks, paid

for by the federal government, on top of the 26 customarily

provided by the states. Nearly 5.7 million people were on the

extended benefit rolls for the week ended March 6, the latest

data available. That is about 300,000 lower than the previous

week. The extended benefit figures aren't seasonally adjusted

and are volatile from week to week.

All told, more than 11.1 million people are claiming

unemployment benefits, the department said.

I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1225 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4872. It shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 4872, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered by the Chair of the Education Committee that the House concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Finally, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

Madam Speaker, the disturbing atmosphere that we've seen around the Capitol recently is alarming. The rash of ominous threats, voice mails, letters, brick throwing, and other sordid acts of protests is downright despicable and marks a low point in the Nation's history. I say this in part from firsthand experience. As many of you know, my Niagara Falls office was the target of attack last week when someone hurled a brick through the window in the dark of night. Separately, I received a phone call on my campaign office phone line that referenced 16 sniper teams and an attempt that would be made to target the children of Members of Congress who voted for the health care legislation.

Each day my four offices give me a careful log of phone calls and emails from people who have taken the time to share their opinions with me, and I read each of those comments because I value that input and want to hear from everyone, not just the people who agree with me. I daresay there isn't a single elected official in the country who has not had a heated run-in with someone who felt strongly that they had voted the wrong way on an issue. In fact, it is part of this country's great tradition that we not only tolerate dissent but we encourage it.

To speak up and to take part in democracy is a noble and treasured part of the American way. But all that changed last year when suddenly town hall meetings across the country turned into vicious shouting matches. Persons who had taken the time to go to the town meeting to learn about the health care bill were oftentimes harassed and frightened and unable to learn anything except that they felt somewhat under siege. I remember that someone arrived at a meeting with a handgun holstered to his leg, and he could not have been more than 50 yards away from the President of the United States.

Spirited debate has become negative. All of us have noticed that in our offices. As I mentioned, I have four offices. The calls that came in--I thank my staff, and I'm sure all of you do, too, for simply tolerating it. It was all day. One day the calls came in so quickly that not another piece of work could be done in all my offices. We were threatened. We were cajoled. We were told--mostly by people from Texas and Oklahoma--that they would never vote for me again, which would be very unlikely in New York anyway.

But I am happy to tell you that as of Sunday night and the passage of this bill, all of those calls are gone. We were getting up to--I would say totaling in the four offices nearly 100 a day. It's all gone now, and the people who call express sorrow for the trouble that has been put upon me, saying that their America does not do that to anyone, particularly someone that they have put their trust in.

But this week, the leader of the national Republican Party said that Speaker Pelosi should be put ``on the firing line.'' Another Republican leader and former national party candidate placed rifle site targets on a national map showing congressional districts of Democrats who supported health care for all Americans, and that same leader urged her supporters, ``Don't retreat, reload.'' And even worse were the remarks made here by the minority leader, who recently said that one of my colleagues who backed the legislation was politically a ``dead man'' back home. Taken together with the incidents around the country, these episodes might prompt a quick and forceful repudiation of comments that would endorse violence, but instead, we get just the opposite.

When Republican Members went out onto the balcony off the Speaker's lobby Sunday to shout to and encourage rowdy protesters, they were implicitly encouraging a discourse that had already soured. In fact, I was dismayed to learn--not dismayed, dismayed doesn't cover it--I was angry. I was concerned. It terrified me, the thought that we would have to live through any of that again. When I found out that some of my colleagues were the victims of racial epithets, spitting, homophobic slurs, this sort of display is shocking even to someone who has seen some pretty terrible things over the years.

Despite all this, Democrats move forward with hope and optimism. It is my sense that as more Americans learn about the provisions of the health care reform legislation, they will in increasing numbers support the vote over the weekend, and the polls show this already happening.

It is a surprise to me today that with the passage of reconciliation by a 56-43 margin in the Senate, that the other side would continue to try to throw up petty roadblocks or complain that they haven't had time to read the bill.

Do you want to know what we are debating here today? We are debating two sentences. That's it, two sentences. Does it make sense to anyone that the other side is demonizing a bill that has already been approved by both the House and Senate and signed into law? No, instead we should celebrate the incredible accomplishment of finally passing this legislation after a struggle of more than a hundred years.

I won't even bother reciting all of the ways in which ordinary Americans will gain as we shift the balance of power away from insurance companies and back to patients, because they will know very shortly. I have already spoken at length about how under our bill families will no longer feel trapped by their coverage or fearful about children with preexisting conditions. Health care reform, I am happy to say, is now the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to join me today in quickly adopting these small technical fixes to the legislation so we may move on to more pressing challenges.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I feel I need to introduce Dr. Donna Christensen, who is a medical doctor from the Virgin Islands, for 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I cannot yield for that purpose.

I cannot.

I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, I have three.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I have one more speaker.

As soon as you have.

I have one more speaker, then I hope that you will close and then I will close.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I did misspeak. Mr. Rangel has come in, and I would like to give him 1\1/2\ minutes.

Let me yield 1 minute to Mr. Rangel, the gentleman from New York.

I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind us that we have been all this time debating about three lines in the bill. If you want to take the nastiness out of the Senate bill, this is the bill you have to vote for.

I ask a ``yes'' vote from all my colleagues on both the previous question and on the rule.

I move the previous question and the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

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

Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care itself. They just want to make reform go away.

I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary loopholes because those who oppose the legislation can vote against it on final passage. We must consider the rule. We must pass this important legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a 1-page document explaining why the requirements in the bill are not unconstitutional.

Attack: The individual responsibility requirement is

unconstitutional.

Response: The arguments that have been raised against the

constitutionality of an individual responsibility requirement

are meritless. For over 70 years, the Supreme Court has

recognized that Congress has the authority under the Commerce

Clause to regulate activities that have a substantial effect

on interstate commerce, which includes buying and selling

health insurance. The requirement for individuals to

contribute to their own health insurance coverage is clearly

constitutional.

Over 70 years of Supreme Court precedent has recognized

that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate

activities that have a substantial effect on interstate

commerce. A requirement that individuals purchase health

insurance is both commercial and economic in nature--indeed,

few things are more critical to our nation's economic health.

The failure of individuals to obtain health insurance has a

substantial effect on our national economy. The U.S. spends

over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year--more than

$7,000 per person and more than 16 percent of our GDP. The

economy loses billions of dollars every year because of the

costs of treatment for uninsured Americans. And currently,

individuals can forego buying insurance, leaving hospitals--

and ultimately Americans who do buy insurance--on the hook

for expensive emergency procedures. That drives up insurance

premiums for all Americans.

Mandating health insurance affects interstate commerce in

several ways. Covering more people will reduce the price of

insurance by addressing free-riders who rely on emergency

care and other services without paying for all the costs,

which drives up costs for people with insurance. It will also

ensure an insurance pool with a full cross section of healthy

and sick subscribers, which will help keep down costs for

everyone.

Even the conservative Supreme Court has recognized that the

federal government has broad authority to regulate under the

Commerce Clause. In 2005, the Court held that the federal

government can prohibit medical marijuana grown at home and

consumed personally under the Commerce Clause (Gonzalez v.

Raich). Justice Scalia, no fan of expansive claims of

Congressional power, even voted to affirm Congress' authority

to regulate in that case. Certainly health insurance coverage

has a greater effect on the national economy than people

growing medical marijuana in their backyard.

Congress also has authority to impose an individual

responsibility requirement under its Power to Tax and Spend

for the General Welfare (Article 1, sec. 8, cl. 1) and the

Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 18.).

Now I am so happy to introduce and yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kennedy, the gentleman from Rhode Island, who is not only a valued Member of this House but whose father, as we know, devoted his congressional life to health care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass the important legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.

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

My friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to use a purely technical violation of the earmark identification rule to try and block the House from even considering the rule and the underlying legislation. In fact, the Budget Committee did include an earmark statement in their committee report.

However, a minor technical error in that statement made the legislation subject to a point of order. The Budget Committee has since filed two clarifying earmark statements in the Congressional Record. Clearly these statements, as well as the initial statement in the committee report, should show that it does not violate the spirit of the earmark rule. I have copies of these statements for any Members who need clarification.

The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to tell you that. The final bill will not have State-specific provisions. The provisions that are in apply to multiple States, and a provision in the education portion of the reconciliation bill regarding State-owned banks is being struck by the manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

If we can use your time.

Yes.

I am sorry, I couldn't hear.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Dreier, it is absolutely true that the Senate bill does contain those things. It has already been passed and requires no further action in the Senate.

What we will do today is pass the bill, which will then be sent to the President and become law. We will this afternoon pass the reconciliation----

Please let me answer.

No, you don't.

You don't know that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Yes, the Senate bill will become law today, followed by the reconciliation bill which contains the amendments to the law, which contains what everybody here wants us to take out. The best way that they can achieve their ends of removing the things that are objectionable from the Senate bill is to support reconciliation. And let's see if you can do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I did not address the Senate. I want that to be clearly on the record.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

I reserve the right to close, and I will reserve the balance of my time unless it is given up on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we may debate and pass this important legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I heard you say that the gentleman's time has expired. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, these have been solemn days and not just because of the important legislation before us. Yesterday just steps away from where we are now standing, a group of protesters engaged in dangerous and derogatory behavior toward four of our Members. I believe the attacks yesterday were a step back for this country, a stark reminder of where we used to be and a reminder of how much further we must travel to fulfill the promise of equality.

It was only 2 weeks ago that my colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, marked the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, and yet this civil rights icon was accosted yesterday while walking here to cast a vote. The use of racist, homophobic and inflammatory rhetoric and reports that the protesters who were gathered on our east terrace plaza attempted to spit on a Member of Congress is heartbreaking. This type of display should alarm every American and encourage us to work harder to put aside the hateful divisions and to come together to bridge the volatile spirit that is tearing apart our country.

The anger isn't just contained outside the Capitol. Last week someone hurled a brick through the window of my district office in the dark of night. We must step back to remind ourselves of why we are here.

I would like to show an incredible document given to me this week by the National Archives from the collection of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's original records. As the father of Social Security, Roosevelt has an honored place in this battle to create a national insurance plan for our country. This message, dated January 23, 1939, over 70 years ago, entitled, ``To the United States Congress of the United States,'' talks plainly about the need of this government to provide health care for its citizens. It was recognized at the time that a comprehensive health care program was required as an essential link to our national defenses against individual and social insecurity. Roosevelt wrote: ``The health of the people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of major suffering, economic loss and dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of the Nation.''

I would like to read directly because I think the familiarity is overwhelming: ``I have been concerned by the evidence of inequalities that exist among the States as to personnel and facilities for health services. There are

equally serious inequalities of resources, medical facilities and services in different sections and among different economic groups. These inequalities create handicaps for parts of the country and the groups of our people which most sorely need the benefits of modern medical science.

``The objective of a national health program is to make available in all parts of our country and for all groups of our people the scientific knowledge and skill at our command to prevent and care for sickness and disability; to safeguard mothers, infants and children; and to offset through social insurance the loss of earnings among workers who are temporarily or permanently disabled.''

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that reading from that piece of paper with his hand notes scribbled on it absolutely takes my breath away, but it is a reminder that eyes of history are watching us. Future generations will look at what we do today, and it will be a guidepost to who we were as a people.

The effort to reform the health care system goes back to at least Theodore Roosevelt, that great President who campaigned in 1912 by promising: ``We pledge ourselves to work increasingly in State and Nation for protection of home life against the hazards of sickness.''

Still later, Harry Truman tackled reforms, as did President Clinton, during the nineties, a battle that I was here for. Before that, the last broad legislative rewrite was led by President Richard Nixon. It's remarkable to me that even after all these years, our final bill may end up being less progressive than the plan that Nixon would have supported, yet still the forces of the other side whip up opposition.

I want to share a story I heard from a constituent in Buffalo. I will be very brief because these heartbreaking stories are nationwide. But it is about a young man who moved from New York to California. In California, his insurance only allowed him to visit the emergency room for seizures. When he got to New York, his insurance did not cover that at all except in New York City, so his father has to drive him back and forth from Buffalo to New York City. And he said, We are slowly going poor.

Our bill covers an estimated 32 million Americans in a fiscally responsible way that improves Medicare benefits, holds insurance companies accountable, and helps small business owners with coverage. We are finally gaining ground against insurance special interests. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy will get tax credits if they make health care coverage available for their workers. We offer free preventive care for people on Medicare. We help people who have retired at 55, 10 years before they are eligible for Medicare. And we ban the lifetime and yearly limit on coverage.

All of these provisions have the potential to transform the way that we deliver health care in the country. The fight has been long and contentious, and the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to. This week the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan and objective and unbiased, estimates that we will cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion over the following 10. What do our opponents say? That we can't afford this legislation. The fact of the matter is we can't not afford to do this legislation. For the 100 years we've worked toward this goal and all the obstacles, we are here today to do our job. And Harry Truman said, ``If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.''

Well, I consider the Rules Committee as the kitchen of the of House of Representatives, and I am proud to be the cook. And I am proud to stand up and say that this bill is the right thing to do, and the time to act is now. I am delighted to vote ``yes'' today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee and a gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Democrats understand the importance of providing health care to veterans. We started it. The House passed a bill yesterday affirming our commitment to TRICARE and TRICARE for Life. And, in addition, the VA Secretary has stated that this health bill will not undermine veterans health care.

I submit for the Record a letter from five committee chairs and a statement from Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, March 21, 2010.

Hon. Louise Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: The House Democratic leadership

asked our committees to review H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872 to

assess the impact of the bills on the health care provided by

the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans

Affairs. Our reviews of H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872 lead us to

believe that the intent of the bills was never to undermine

or change the Department of Defense and Department of

Veterans Affairs operation of their health care programs or

interfere with the care that our service members receive

under TRICARE. However, we commit to look into this issue

further to ensure that no unintended consequences may arise

and to take any legislative action that may be necessary.

H.R. 3590, as drafted, does not specifically mention that

TRICARE coverage meets the individual responsibility

requirement, but such coverage would satisfy the requirements

of this bill. To affirm that this is the case, the U.S. House

of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 4887, the TRICARE

Affirmation Act, which provides assurances to the American

people that care provided to those in the military and their

families, as well as military retirees under age 65 and their

families, would indeed meet the requirement for coverage.

The members of our nation's military sacrifice much to

defend us all. We commit to these dedicated service members

and their families as well as our veterans that we will

protect the quality healthcare they receive.

Sincerely,

Bob Filner,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ike Skelton,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.

George Miller,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor.

Sander Levin,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.

Henry Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two speakers left.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have one, and then time for me to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the last speaker on our side, except for closing, a valued Member--new Member of the House--the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Absolutely not. Just for myself to close.

Mr. Speaker, the question couldn't be more clear. You either believe in insurance reform, which will give a decent chance for health care for every American, or you simply believe in insurance companies.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 12, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I was honored to open the House this morning during this most important Women's History Month.

Our Nation's foremothers stood up to injustice and, by changing the course of history, opened the doors of opportunity to all of America's daughters. It is our duty to recognize and honor their tireless efforts.

This past summer, our great Nation celebrated the 160th anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. This groundbreaking convention was dedicated to the key principle in the Declaration of Independence that we are all created equal.

From securing a woman's right to vote in 1920 to serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have come a long way.

In this Congress alone, we have much to celebrate: Speaker Pelosi is the first woman to lead this esteemed body, and Senator Clinton made ``18 million cracks'' in the Nation's highest glass ceiling as the first woman to run a formidable Presidential campaign.

Yet as we celebrate these important milestones and look back at all we have achieved since 1948, we know our journey toward true gender equality is not complete. We must continue to fight for equality this month. We honor the women who blazed the trail for all women.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1098 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have spent a lot of time talking with people in my district about health care and what is happening to them. They were in no way prepared for the influx of incredible rate increases that seemed to come out of nowhere and fall like rain upon them, to the extent that most of them really are not sure they can even stay insured.

Invariably, the conversation turns to health premium increases. I hear about insurers that deny coverage. I heard from a father who had just had a child who was born with a condition that would make him uninsurable for the rest of his life. I listened to someone tell me that her husband's new insurance policy won't cover her because she has preexisting conditions or simply because it doesn't cover her.

But now this Congress is on the brink of some commonsense changes to the health insurance industry that will help to level the playing field a bit between ordinary Americans and the giant corporations that exert such power over our day-to-day lives.

And I say ``our'' because I personally am caught in the same trap as most of my constituents. I don't have any kind of special coverage because I'm a Member of Congress. I have always been on my husband's policy at home from Eastman Kodak that has covered us since he retired, but it no longer will cover spouses. We are halfway through dropping spouses, and all the benefits that we got as spouses were taken away about 4 years ago. So it's not the worst plan, but it's not the best either.

Under the health care bill endorsed by House Democrats, the insurance companies will no longer be able to deny insurance coverage based on preexisting conditions or just premiums based on gender, which they do--you may not know that single women are charged 48 percent more for health insurance--or for their occupation.

They wouldn't be able to drop coverage if you get sick. I was talking to a man just this morning who talked about all the money he had paid into health insurance, and when he made his first claim at the age of 30, they decided already he was going to be trouble and denied his claim. They cannot anymore tell you that it costs too much to take care of your child. Insurance companies would have to publicize their rates and no longer can charge older Americans twice as much as the younger ones.

For my money, though, there is one part of our reform package that is simple to explain, easy to justify, and 60 years overdue, and that part is to repeal the antitrust exemption given to the health insurance industry in 1945 by Congress. That is why we are here today. There is no reason any industry in the United States, including baseball, which was exempt as well, should be exempt from the one consumer protection the Federal Government gives everybody against chicanery, collusion, and rate setting.

Even though the broader effort to pass the final health care bill is underway, we have an opportunity today to make a simple, straightforward statement about how we think health insurance should operate in this country. By repealing this unjustifiable exemption, we will enable--this is very important. People do not understand that during the last 60 years the Justice Department has not been able to enforce anything against them because they were exempt. This will enable the Justice Department to begin aggressively enforcing the laws that protect the consumers against the cartel of health insurance who wield such outsized influence in the health care industry.

As it stands now, the insurance industry is allowed to fix prices and engage in other anticompetitive behavior. Because these companies are allowed to pool and share data and to jointly establish premiums and types of coverage, there is very little prospect for an average family to price shop. It is almost too tempting for big insurers not to cheat a little bit. Moreover, regulating the insurance industry is left up to individual States--most of them will tell you that they really are not up to it--which often suffer from a lack of resources to effectively crack down on abuses.

Each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia has its own regulatory framework, traditions, and intentions, which leads to a spotty patchwork of enforcement. In fact, according to a report from the Center for American Progress, there has been only extremely limited and sporadic State enforcement by State insurance commissioners throughout the 60 years. In the void, insurance companies have been free to engage in anticompetitive and anticonsumer behavior, resulting, as we said just recently, in some insurance premiums costing as much as 70 percent.

As a result, this exemption thwarts free market pricing and is impossible to defend today or at any other time. What we will be doing by removing this exemption is to tell the health insurance companies that they need to start behaving like every other industry. We tell them that colluding and conspiring to set prices at a certain level to harm consumers is not going to work in America anymore.

As I said, the history of this provision dates back to 1944, when some insurance companies went to court to challenge the notion that the Federal Government could enforce antitrust laws. Despite their best efforts, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance business was subject to antitrust laws just like everybody else. Unhappy with that decision, the insurers effectively got Congress to invalidate the ruling of the top court. It was an amazing piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Both Houses, Senate and the House, passed legislation giving the insurance industry a 3-year transition period while they moved to be covered by what everybody else is covered by, antitrust. Both bills had passed, and when it came out of conference, the exemption was made permanent.

Over the years, opponents of McCarran-Ferguson--and I have been one of them for about 30--have been stymied. The last serious effort was led by Representative Jack Brooks in 1991, who tried and failed to change the law.

Last year, when we again started in a serious effort to change the law, the industry geared up for a big fight. We heard from the American Insurance Association and the American Academy of Actuaries, among others, who argued that changing this law would somehow cost consumers more money. Other interest groups claimed the provision was poorly written, too broad, or a solution in search of a problem.

Interestingly, some lobbyists have quietly begun to whisper that this provision will not have impact on their rates. They say it is too narrow in scope. Frankly, I would much have preferred to lift this exemption from the entire insurance industry instead of just health. But they are firmly opposed, make no doubt about that, and are lobbying to prevent it, which makes we wonder if they are sort of whistling past the graveyard.

Now, let's look back for a minute at the last major investigation of the health industry. Two years ago, the attorney general for the State of New York, Andrew Cuomo, investigated the collusion of health insurers. Those companies were using Ingenix, a billing data clearinghouse, to set rates even though the company was owned by one of them. The evidence showed the insurers were conspiring together to artificially depress a level of reasonable and customary charges they would reimburse to health care providers, which shifted additional costs onto the policyholder. In the face of a threat from Cuomo, the clearinghouse agreed to disband, and the insurance companies paid a sizable sum to resolve the charges.

As recently as this week, there were fresh news reports out of California about abuses by a major insurer there. It is important to remember that many people assume that conspiring to set rates is illegal in our country. I assume most people believe that. Every high school student in America is taught about the Sherman Antitrust Act and the how the creation of the Federal Trade Commission came about to level the playing field. Part of the motivation was to make sure that small businesses, who make up the backbone of our economy and fuel small towns from coast to coast, would have a chance against the big corporate interests. These creative new entrepreneurs needed to have confidence they would not be frozen out of the market by the big boys. Sadly, that is exactly what happened. In many States and regions across the country, there are often just a couple of health insurance companies operating. In New York, two companies control half the market. Many States have it even worse, including our neighbor Vermont, where two companies have 90 percent of the market share.

Of course, some people will continue to insist that government should just stay out of this whole business. My colleagues on the other side often say no government is the best government and free market works best if there is no attempt to regulate it. But I would argue that any of that is far outweighed by the benefit we gain by having more competition, less concentration, and the assistance of a powerful watchdog.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to join me today in supporting the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) control the remainder of my time.