Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the President has today been given a unique opportunity with the firing of General McChrystal. General McChrys- tal was the principal author and advocate of the surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

His theory was that it would be a clear hold and transfer--that is, a transfer to the Afghan police, who do not exist, to the Afghan security forces, which are in a state of disarray, and to the Afghan Government, which does not exist meaningfully outside of the capital. He tested his theory in Marjeh this spring.

The U.S. and allied forces performed admirably, with tremendous sacrifice and effort. They did, in fact, go into a very hostile area, and they did, in fact, at least temporarily, drive the Taliban and other dissident elements out or underground.

Then he said he was going to bring in government in a box, that it was ready to come in. Now, there wasn't, unfortunately, any government in a box. There is unbelievable corruption rife through the Karzai regime at the national level, through the police and through the security forces. They brought in some police who were not of the area, not of that tribe, and that didn't work out too well. They brought in security forces who refused to do their mission, and they brought in a few, again, government officials who had no local support. They have since left, and pretty much, Marjeh has devolved to what it was.

Even before he was fired, General McChrystal admitted that this was going to take a lot longer and was going to be a lot harder than he thought, which means President Obama's dictate of beginning the withdrawal next year is a fantasy. That was part of the criticism that General McChrystal and his allies at the Pentagon put forward.

So there is really a choice here--to get into a very long-term, a very high-level engagement in Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year and with tremendous sacrifice by our troops on a strategy that has, thus far, not worked or to rethink that strategy, perhaps more along the lines of Vice President Biden's ideas, which were also derided by General McChrystal and by some of his colleagues. Actually, what Vice President Biden said was, look, mostly this is an internal issue. It's an inter- and intratribal fight. Yes, there are some radical Taliban elements, and there are some radical Pakistani Taliban elements and very few al Qaeda.

How about we guarantee that we will take care of any intervening forces--that is, terrorist forces--coming in from outside, in any number, with a smaller troop presence and with our technology? How about we let the Afghans work out their intertribal/intratribal conflicts that they have been carrying on about for 600 years, and we encourage them to do that and to adopt policies to help them meaningfully rebuild their country?

Instead, General McChrystal won the day, but now he is gone. Now, I understand that the President has said this does not mean a change in policy. I think that he should step back from that remark and should consult again with all of his best security advisers and with the Vice President, and he should look at the results so far and find out what those critical comments were which were mentioned in that article where, basically, the Pentagon is saying, hey, this is going to be years and years and a much bigger force, and maybe there will have to be a second surge into Afghanistan.

Starting to sound like Vietnam to anybody here?

With huge amounts of money, we prop up a government that has no relationship to the rest of the country. They have huge corruption. They don't have support in the countryside. That government falls, and another one comes in and another one. This echoes that failure.

So, in the strongest terms possible, I would urge the President to reconsider, to reconvene his advisers now that General McChrystal is gone, and to think very carefully about a much less expensive, much less troop-intensive strategy to bring about a better result in Afghanistan.

Today, the House will finally turn from naming sports teams' accomplishments to the Pentagon budget, a budget that's top heavy with more generals and admirals than we had at the height of World War II, a broken procurement system that's gold-plating dysfunctional weapon systems while our troops lack basics.

But, today, Congress will finally answer a question that is a puzzle perhaps only inside the Washington, DC beltway: How many engines does a single-engine jet fighter need? Now, where I come from it's pretty simple, the answer is one; but you've got to tune in later today to find out the judgment of Congress because some think you need two engines for a single-engine jet fighter. Hey, it will only cost another $15 billion or $20 billion.

Thank you for yielding.

I think the American people are a bit confused as to what is really going on here. And, you know, it's a lot like the Humphrey Bogart movie: What's going on here is gambling, plain and simple.

It would be one thing if these so-called investment banks like Goldman Sachs were lending into the productive sector of the U.S. economy, if they were lending to people who had good ideas to produce products and goods, employ Americans and help us compete in the world economy. But they are not doing that. In this case, they weren't even helping to package and move mortgages off of people's portfolios and someplace else. They were merely mimicking with what are called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, packages of bad or potentially bad mortgages to bet on, for this one hedge fund to bet against and make a billion dollars.

But then, of course, unfortunately, other parts of Goldman Sachs, apparently unbeknownst to them, I mean, in totally good faith, went to clients of Goldman Sachs and said, Hey, we've got a good product here we'd like to sell you. Unfortunately, other parts of Goldman Sachs had assembled this product with the intention that it would fail, and these other people were not informed of that fact and purchasing them, although Goldman would say they didn't have an obligation to tell people that they had designed it to fail, working with someone who was betting it to fail, and that Goldman itself was betting on it to fail.

But the bottom line of all is it's a huge amount of churning on things that don't help the economy, help the American people, help us compete in the world.

Goldman has gone to the point in 2007, their gambling income--excuse me--their financial services, investment, self-proprietary, et cetera stuff, whatever you want to call it, was actually five times larger than their investment banking activities. So 20 cents of every dollar at Goldman was going into productive investment. The other 80 cents was going into gambling on imaginary products. It's a lot like fantasy football. A lot of Americans can understand that. Imagine if they took out and created synthetic products that related to fantasy football. Maybe some Americans can understand that.

Recently, one firm actually proposed, a Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary, proposed to do futures on movies. In L.A. they would produce a movie and then the people on Wall Street would bet on what the opening weekend was going to return, and they would bet on how much money it might make. This became of such concern to producers in L.A. because they thought, My God, if they start out shorting us right away, that's going to depress our investment potential for the movie, et cetera, et cetera. So in the Senate bill they're actually banning this sort of derivative.

So they have banned two kinds of derivatives. One has been historically banned for some reason lost in the mist of time. Onions, you can't do them on onions. And the second would be movies from Hollywood. Otherwise, you can bet on anything. You can bet on the weather tomorrow as a derivative product. You can market it on Wall Street, et cetera, et cetera.

This is not a productive activity. I would suggest a simple way to deal with it. One thing that's good is the Senate has actually, for once, proposed something useful, which is to say that if Goldman wants to have a proprietary trading section and trade in these gambling products, that they couldn't be insured by the FDIC or draw money through special windows at the Treasury. We should not subsidize their addiction to gambling. The taxpayers should not subsidize it. That would be a good step.

But the other thing we could do would be to put a very modest tax on this gambling and to say, Look, for legitimate hedgers, airlines who want to

hedge against fuel price increases, farmers who are worried about failure of the corn crop, those people. We already distinguish between hedgers and speculators over at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Let's just say hedgers would be exempt from the tax. But speculators, those who have no skin in the game, aren't producers, or even worse, are not even actually involved in any way as a counterparty but just merely creating synthetic things to bet for or against, they would pay a very modest tax. If the tax was approximately two-tenths of 1 percent--that's .0002--on each of these, we could raise somewhere between $30 billion to $50 billion a year to help pay for some of the damage they have caused to our economy.

It might not raise that much because it might rein in some of this speculative activity, which I think would be a desirable impact; but I would suggest that would be one way to deal with this very, very reckless activity.

I congratulate the gentlelady for having this hour to highlight these concerns and the contradictions that we see in the business principles versus what we all saw going on.

With that, I'd yield back.

Last year it was rather modest for Mr. Blankfein, he only got a $9 million bonus which was considerably less than previous, but that does figure out to $1,000 an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Most Americans would be happy to have that salary for a fraction of a week.

Well, compared to the enormous wealth that he created by shorting and manipulating and synthesizing. You know, the one thing I would reflect on, I was a little puzzled yesterday when I kept hearing him say, We are the market makers. We are the market makers.

After awhile I started thinking about book makers, market makers, is there a difference. What is the difference when they are not dealing in reality or productive investment, they are dealing in manipulated investments, products that are designed to fail. I mean,

we have too-big-to-fail institutions that create products that are designed to fail, and they profit immensely by doing that. What's that about market making?

Well, as I speak here on the floor of the House, the Republicans on the Senate side of the Hill are still blocking meaningful financial reform, protecting their patrons on Wall Street as they always do, and the lords of Goldman Sachs are before a committee protesting their innocence.

Now, we all know that Goldman and these other firms on Wall Street were too big to fail, or at least some think they were--I think we should have let a few more of them fail, personally, and I opposed the bailout of Wall Street. But let's just say they were too big to fail or at least they were deemed too big to fail and they were bailed out by the United States Government and the taxpayers of the United States, but something else was going on at the same time.

Not only were they too big to fail, they had created wonderful, new financial products that were enriching them in unbelievable ways, making millions of dollars a day for the lords of Goldman and elsewhere on Wall Street. They had designed products that were designed to fail. Then they sold them after they went to the all-too-willing ratings firms, so-called ``impartial'' ratings firms.

Goldman would pay Moody's to rate garbage as caviar, AAA. Then they would go out and sell it to sophisticated investors who should have known

better. I mean, come on, they should have looked at it more carefully. I mean, well, yes, they did kind of mess around with it and they did get the people at Moody's by threatening to take away their business, to rate the garbage as caviar, but those other people should have smelled it and known really it was garbage. And, I mean, what's wrong with that?

And then of course, Goldman just did happen to place some bets of its own against the garbage--which they had created and knew was garbage, and they bet it was garbage--and they won, making billions of dollars for themselves and others who were in on the know here. This is a pretty rotten system.

Now, you could say, well, gee, but aren't they doing things like investing in capital? Aren't they building a great America? No. The financial services industry has gone from 19 percent of the profits in this country to 41 percent, and for the most part--outside of community banks and some people who still actually do banking, unlike most of those companies on Wall Street--they produced no value. They created a heck of a lot of wealth for themselves and others, and occasionally they caused the economy to explode and cost us millions of jobs.

But they're still doing very well for themselves and now they're back to business as usual. And the Republicans in the Senate are defending ``business as usual'' under the guise of wanting to have a better bill that won't encourage bailouts. I mean, this is all such a laughable farce. It would be funny except for the unbelievable pain it has caused to the real economy of this country who have been suffering for years.

It's time to cut these people down to size, cut them down to size by prosecuting them. I have been joined by 59 of my colleagues, and Elijah Cummings and I have sent a letter to the SEC saying, look, you've uncovered one case of alleged fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission where they knowingly sold a bad product to investors and then they bet against it themselves. There were a number of others that went through something called AIG, which the Federal Government also bailed out at the cost of $180 billion to taxpayers. We want every transaction between Goldman and AIG scrutinized to see whether or not any of those were similarly fraudulent transactions, in which case we could get a few billion dollars back from the lords of finance to the taxpayers on Main Street, USA.

It is long past time to begin these kinds of investigations and hopefully, ultimately--like with Enron, because this is worse than Enron--prosecutions. And we will let some of them enjoy some Federal hospitality for a few years.

This is absolutely outrageous. They're creating products designed to fail, that have no useful product, in fact robbing capital from companies who want to invest, who actually want to make things, who actually would employ Americans and who would enhance our economy, all for them to gamble on Wall Street. It's time for the gambling to stop.

You know, in a regular casino, if the casino goes broke, it's only the gamblers and the casino that have a problem. In the casino of Wall Street, when they mess up, they destroy the real economy of the United States and people's livelihoods. It's time to cut them down to size.

Well, you've got to give it to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle. They are incredibly consistent. They have sided with the big pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry. Sadly, they lost that debate, but they want to revisit it with the changes we made in health care and some of the outrageous health insurance practices we outlawed, like preexisting condition exclusions, rescissions of your policy when you get sick, and nonrenewal when you get sick.

But they're also fighting to change the subject here, because they're also trying to stop the reform on Wall Street. Their biggest patrons are the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and Wall Street. And they just want to protect the status quo for those folks.

Over on the other side of the Hill, the Republicans in the Senate are blocking financial reform--reform of Wall Street, doing away with the abuses that crashed our economy and put millions out of work. And every single House Republican voted against reforming Wall Street here on the floor of the House. Well, two were absent but all those who voted, voted against it. Now they want to change the subject back to health care, except they lost that debate, too.

Well, all America has heard about ``too big to fail,'' and they are still pretty angry about that and the bailout of Wall Street. But now there is a new addition to the lexicon thanks to Goldman Sachs, and that is ``designed to fail for profit.''

Goldman Sachs worked with a hedge fund manager who put together collateralized debt obligations that he hand-picked because he thought they would fail. Goldman got a fee for putting them together, Goldman sold him insurance, or bets against them, and then Goldman went out and sold to unknowing investors those same securities as great investments.

We are thankful that the Securities and Exchange Commission is back on the beat after a long nap under the Bush administration and Chris Cox. We congratulate Chairwoman Schapiro, but we are asking her to expand the scope of her investigation to look at any credit default swaps that were paid to Goldman Sachs that involved these so-called Abacus instruments and whether or not we could reclaim those as ill- gotten gains for America's taxpayers.

The Obama administration has steadfastly refused to contest the improper and excessive tariffs of $2.4 billion levied by Mexico because Congress terminated the cross-border trucking program due to serious safety concerns.

There is no drug testing in Mexico. There are no hours of service requirements in Mexico. There are no meaningful commercial driver's licenses issued in Mexico to know what the record of these drivers are. Congress overwhelmingly voted to terminate that program.

But it is rumored that next month when the President of Mexico comes to visit, the Obama administration is going to open the border full bore to Mexican trucks, jeopardizing the safety of the American public and jeopardizing millions of jobs in the trucking industry. They say they have no alternative, their hands are tied by NAFTA. Well, there is an alternative. And today I was joined in a letter to the President by 78 Members of Congress, bipartisan, saying renegotiate that one minor section of NAFTA that has triggered this dispute. Keep the current system.

The Mexican trucks bring the goods in 20 miles, they drop them, the U.S. trucks pick them up and distribute them in the U.S. No U.S. company wants to go into Mexico. And let's keep the Mexican companies out of the U.S.

I thank the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee and the ranking member for their excellent work on this.

There are a number of issues that are extraordinarily important to the public, the traveling public, in these two pieces of legislation.

The pilot training requirement, something I've been talking about since the early 1990s, I was shocked to find out that for those airlines who don't have higher standards, that they can hire someone with 250 hours of experience and put them up there on the flight deck. This didn't become apparent to a lot of the American public until after the horrible tragedy of the Comair crash last year, but it has been something that has been going on for years.

These low-budget sorts of carriers are trying to drag down the industry. Instead of hiring people with higher qualifications, paying them an actual decent working wage, when you have someone working for a little bit over minimum wage flying your airplane, do you feel good about that? I don't. With very inadequate training and someone who's been up overnight because they can't afford to have their own apartment and they have to commute across the United States of America to go home and sleep in their mom's house? That's a heck of a way to run an industry.

By raising the bar and raising the standard, we will not disadvantage anybody except those who are dragging down the system. We will have a new, higher standard, which the good airlines are already meeting, and those who are not meeting are going to be forced to meet and they're going to be forced to pay competitive wages to get people who are trained to that level. This will make the American traveling public safer.

In addition to that, I first introduced with now-Senator Ben Cardin a bill on passenger rights in 1987. We've never quite gotten there until this legislation. We have some critical and basic passenger rights embedded in this FAA reauthorization--something that has been decades in the making. We came close a number of years ago but the then- Republican majority cut a deal for some voluntary standards which haven't been exactly subscribed to by some members in the industry. The industry is variable. Some are much better than others. This will make them all go to the same level of protections for consumers.

Again, we're putting a floor in there. If someone wants to exceed it, that's great. But let's move the floor up and go after those who are abusing passengers.

Then, finally, in terms of the overall system, this FAA bill will move us to a 21st century system for air traffic control, one that will allow the airlines much more use of our airspace, much more efficiently avoid storms, fly more fuel-efficient routes, avoid delays. That will be of tremendous benefit both to the industry and the traveling public, that additional predictability with NextGen.

I would recommend to our colleagues that we unanimously pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, let's return to the subject at hand for a minute. The Republicans are attempting to pretzel into a debate honoring the heroes of World War II, the Greatest Generation, those who liberated the Pacific Rim, those who gave their lives, those who climbed Mount Suribachi against all odds and raised the American flag so bravely, and they are trying to pretzel into the debate some pretty strange things. Let me address a couple.

First, we had the gentleman talking about threats to veterans' health care. There will be nothing in the legislation, the health care legislation, that in any way impinges upon the health

care that our veterans have earned. The gentleman is fully aware that in the House bill, which was thoughtfully written, that that was mentioned and fully protected.

I am not going to apologize for the bipartisan, and it is bipartisan, total incompetence of the United States Senate. I am not going to apologize for that. But we passed a resolution here today to make clear what our intent was, and what will be in the law: veterans' health care benefits fully protected.

While I am on the subject of veterans' health care benefits, I saw the former Chair of the Veterans' Committee here on the floor, and I would remind people, we need a sense of history. There was a year in the Bush administration, after repeated cuts to the veterans' budget, when they were running out of money in June when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. And it was the Democrats who came to the floor and said we need $2 billion more immediately to deliver on our obligations to our veterans. And there was a brave guy, he is a Republican, Chris Smith from New Jersey, he was the chairman of the Veterans' Committee, and he voted with the Democrats. And you know what the Republican leadership did? They stripped him of his chairmanship for his advocacy for veterans, and they put that other gentleman who just spoke previously in the chair in his stead.

We are still repairing the damage the Bush administration did to the Veterans Health Administration. They need better funding. We are on a path now to give them 2 years of certainty whereas before they were hanging on the cliff, and 1 year in the Bush Republican era they ran out of money in June when the fiscal year ends in October, and they were going to close their hospitals. So don't tell me that you guys here are the great defenders of our veterans.

And then this other gentleman raises this thing about this 3-page Republican motion to recommit where people changed their vote. I didn't have to change my vote; I read it. But he might also reveal that that 3-page amendment was only available 1 minute before it was discussed for 10 minutes on the floor. It was not published online. It was not made available to Members, and Members did not know the content of that.

This health care legislation that will be voted on has been online for 72 hours. The manager's amendment is now up online. That Republican amendment was available for a grand total of about 11 minutes before the vote began.

So let's be honest and consistent around here in our arguments, and let's spend a little more time honoring the Greatest Generation.

I thank the gentlelady.

The previous resolution had to do with the anniversary of Iwo Jima. This is something that would actually go to a number of wars and conflicts that the U.S. Armed Forces have been involved in, but I will focus a bit on a veteran of World War II in terms of the need for this recognition and resolution.

Oddly enough somehow, the Defense Department has overlooked the valiant service of many who were previously in the Army Air Corps, now in the United States Air Force, or in the flying arms of the United States Army or the Marines and Navy and their sacrifice when they have been shot down behind enemy lines and not captured and imprisoned, but actually managed to evade escape, sometimes allying themselves with resistance movements, other times just depriving the enemy of the victory of capturing a downed U.S. pilot, bombardier, airman of any sort.

This first came to my attention when I was approached by a gentleman I have known a number of years in Eugene, Oregon, Don Fisher. And he came to me with a request I hear from a lot of vets, which is, ``Hey, could you help me get my service records?'' We had the infamous fire in St. Louis which burned up so many veterans' records. And we are often asked to help reconstitute their records, generally for benefit purposes, but sometimes for other purposes. And I said, ``Sure, Don.'' I mean that's really pretty routine. ``We can help you with that.'' He said, ``This one isn't quite so routine.'' And I said, ``Well, how is that?'' And he said, ``Well, I was shot down over occupied France in a B-17. I came down behind enemy lines, and I was harbored by French families who were friendly to the allies. I cooperated and worked with the resistance and evaded escape until D-day.'' And on D-day he revealed himself to British forces and was first allowed to send a message home. But then when turned over to the U.S. forces, they had questions about whether he really was a U.S. aviator, and he was rather extensively interrogated.

So what he wanted was to get his interrogation files. He said, ``I really don't remember everything that happened to me when I was behind enemy lines.'' He said, ``I'm sure when I was a young man I had a better memory. And I would like to have that for my family and myself.'' I said, ``Well, sure. We'll help.'' It's either still in the depths of some classification system somewhere or it was declassified, so we could never find that file.

But that brought me an interest in him and his organization. There is an organization of what they call evaders. In this case they are World War II. Many of them are becoming quite elderly. They are going to have a reunion in the not too distant future out at the Air Force Academy in Colorado.

I took on the task to try to get them some recognition. So this is actually two parts. One is expressing the sense of Congress for admiration for their extraordinary service. And again, this does not just extend to World War II. It would be Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, Afghanistan, other conflicts and other involvements by U.S. forces. Anybody who has been in this situation.

Secondly, I am recommending strongly to the Secretary of Defense that a special ribbon, award, or medal be developed to recognize these activities and encourage these activities, because there will be future U.S. aviators who will be in the same position. And we want them to know that we honored their forebears, those who came before them who for years hid and operated behind enemy lines and then came back to freedom with our victories.

It is almost exactly 47 years since he was shot down. It's a story that is not totally extraordinary. I know other World War II veterans. But I just recount it briefly. His plane was shot down. They bailed out. He doesn't remember much because they were at a pretty high altitude. He blacked out. The next thing he knew he was hanging from a tree, and the German fighter pilot circled him. And he thought for sure he was going to be strafed. Instead, the German fighter pilot saluted him and flew off.

He then managed to get extricated from his harness, and after that was sheltered by the French, and ultimately became associated with French resistance, and as I say, met the liberators in Paris when we liberated Paris. So this is one of thousands of extraordinary stories and acts of valor by our soldiers.

I just hope strongly that we can get unanimous agreement on this resolution and restrict the debate to the subject of this resolution to honor these people for their extraordinary service, and move on.

Again, I wish that the Republican side had been able to wait until later this evening during their 2

hours to raise their concerns about health care, but there are some things that merit response in the interest of truth and the American way.

The gentleman before me is extraordinary. This President has deficits totaled larger than every other President combined? No. Actually, yes, we do have a record deficit this last year. Most of it is inherited from George Bush. But it's true, now, that that's a very high year.

But George Bush is the one who doubled the national debt and did accumulate more debt than every other President before him, before the collapse of Wall Street because of the deregulatory agenda of the Bush administration and the Republican Party--every ounce of which I fought on the floor of this House--which brought America to its knees, which dissolved people's savings and 401(k)s and everything else for greedy bankers and investors and others. And the Republicans put that agenda in place when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House with their deregulatory approach.

So it's not even factually true. Yes, I'm very concerned about the astounding deficits, and we've got to deal with that, but George Bush doubled the debt. There is a record 1-year increase. It does not exceed even the amount of debt George Bush accumulated. He may be looking into the future, but it's not factually true.

To the gentleman before him who talked about bankrupting people because we're going to give them access to quality, affordable health care, I wish he would tell that to the woman from my district who I talked to who got cancer, had an individual policy, and guess what? She paid her premiums, and when it became time for renewal, the company said, Sorry. We don't renew policies of people who have cancer. Thank you very much for your premiums.

Or the gentleman I met in the unemployment office. Yeah, he had rights to purchase his health care under COBRA. But the cost of his health care was three-quarters of his unemployment benefit. His wife was deathly ill. This is a tough guy. He cried in public in that office. That won't happen again if we pass this legislation tomorrow. That gentleman will not be forced to choose between keeping his home, feeding his family, and getting his wife needed health care. Under your plan, that continues, status quo. You guys are the pets of the insurance industry, and you know it.

And then the woman that needed a double mastectomy and they had a special team from her insurance company. That was great. But their job was to find a way to get her off the plan. They reviewed her history. They found she had been to a dermatologist for acne. They said she hadn't reported it. They rescinded her policy. And a gentleman from your side of the aisle had to threaten that insurance company publicly to get her reinstated. This law will prohibit that in the future.

We need to take on the health insurance industry in America and prevent these abuses, and you guys did nothing about that under your charge, and your proposals for the future will do nothing about that.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, the war in Afghanistan has entered its ninth year without clearly defined objectives or an exit strategy. With a deteriorating security situation and no comprehensive political outcome yet in sight, many experts view the war in Afghanistan as open- ended.

The open-ended nature of this conflict is evident in the complexities of defining the enemy. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 because of the Taliban's support and refuge of al-Qaeda. We have had to combat the ever changing Taliban, foreign al Qaeda fighters, and the revolving loyalties of numerous tribal war lords. Furthermore, our close relationship with the Pakistan government has been seriously challenged by the jihadist threat now in Pakistan. We have no clear response to this new threat beyond drone attacks that also have high rates of civilian casualties.

President Bush's disregard for the complexities of Afghanistan and the damage that came from his disregard has severely undermined any prospect of stability and a successful conclusion to this conflict. The unnecessary war in Iraq also diverted critical resources when we needed them the most in Afghanistan. These failures by the Bush Administration encouraged the division of Afghanistan and allowed al Qaeda to move effortlessly into Pakistan.

President Obama's surge strategy in Afghanistan is counterproductive and sends the wrong message. The President sent an additional 17,000 troops in early 2009 and then another 30,000 troops late last year. Beyond nation building, the additional troops have no clear mission and do not resolve the problems in Pakistan.

Much like President Obama's exit strategy in Iraq, we need a clear exit strategy for Afghanistan. The Afghani and Pakistani people need to know our troops are not permanent. Unfortunately, President Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan will not become stable until a political consensus is found across ethnic, tribal, religious and party affiliations. The government must be able to provide basic security for its population without the corruption that exists today. These same needs are just as true in Pakistan.

H. Con. Res. 248 is flawed because it offers a blunt directive to bring all the troops home in a short time frame. The resolution also offers an opportunity send a message to the President that his Afghan strategy is failing. My vote in favor of this resolution is a vote against the President's surge strategy in Afghanistan, a vote to demand an exit plan, and a vote to demand a regional diplomatic response to undercut the radicalization of Pakistan.

I can answer the gentleman's question. There's a different emphasis. The emphasis is on small business, which is an incredible economic engine in my State and in many other States across the country. Secondly, there is an extraordinary emphasis on transportation infrastructure.

The gentleman may be unaware that in August of this year the Transportation Infrastructure Trust Fund is going to fall short of funds, delaying reimbursement to the States and stalling out needed projects and investment all across the country. This bill fixes that, and once and for all we will in the future get interest on money borrowed from the highway trust fund. That's what people pay gas taxes for. It's not supposed to be spent somewhere else. We're now going to reclaim that money, and we're going to spend it putting people to work and rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of this country. It will give us a billion dollars more a month.

I heard the gentleman from Ohio talking about 58 percent of the bill. Well, no. Actually, what he was concerned about was 58 percent of 1.2 percent of the bill, which is .7 percent of the bill, which, under the agreement the chairman has reached with the leader of the Senate, will be fixed in the near future. In fact, Ohio will get an extra $38 million because of that, and my State will get less. So I don't know what he's complaining about. If somebody should be down here complaining, it should be me.

I will not yield.

But I felt it was fair to put that money into the overall formula so that all 50 States would benefit, because everybody, almost every State, is suffering high unemployment, particularly the gentleman's State and my State. And this agreement the chairman has will bring an extra $38 million to his State, a billion dollars a month more in infrastructure spending; and for every billion we spend in infrastructure, we put about 33,000 more people to work. We sure as heck need those jobs.

So I stand here saying we need to pass this bill. Yeah, the Senate is dysfunctional. It's a mess. It would have been cleaner to do it all at once. But this is the best we can do, dealing with a body that is just ridiculous.

I have signed off on the chairman's agreement, and my State will not get those other funds.

I don't know what the gentleman's complaining about. You'll get an extra $38 million and I'll get about $30 million less.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, during this health care debate over the last 6 months, we have heard we should listen to our constituents. And you know, I did. I did 14 town halls in August, and they were attended by over 8,000 people. And there was one item of agreement between the extremes in the debate, between the folks representing the tea party and those representing single payer, and that was consensus that this industry, the health insurance industry, should not enjoy a special exemption under the law. They should not be able to collude to drive up prices, limit competition, price gouge consumers. They should play by the same rules as every other industry in America. And this archaic exemption from antitrust law passed in the 1940s should go to the dustbin of history. There was consensus on that.

Now come the Republicans, oh, wait a minute, we are not protecting the industry, we don't want to allow them to still have antitrust exemption, it is about the little guys. It is always about the little guys, isn't it? So let's give the little guys a loophole. And oops, wait a minute, the big guys can use the same loophole.

Now, the other thing I have heard is let's be bipartisan. Well, there is nothing much more bipartisan than the report of the Antitrust Modernization Commission from April 2007. This was a commission created by the Republican Congress when they controlled both the House and the Senate and the White House, with the members named by President George Bush and the Republican leadership of Congress. They came to the conclusion that this loophole that they are advocating here today should not exist.

I will quote briefly from the conclusions of the bipartisan Republican-created commission. They said, ``A proposed exemption should be recognized as a decision to sacrifice competition''--oops, I thought they were for competition--``and consumer welfare''--I thought they were for the consumers--``and should be allowed only if Congress determines that a substantial and significant countervailing societal value outweighs the presumption in favor of competition and the widespread benefits it provides.''

They go on to address their arguments and they say there are those who will argue the small companies that need aggregate data and all this, they will need the safe harbor. They say, no, actually not. This again is the Republican-created commission. ``Like all potentially beneficial competitor collaboration generally, however, such data sharing would be assessed by antitrust enforcers and the courts under a rule of reason analysis that would fully consider the potential procompetitive effects of such conduct and condemn it only if, on balance, it was anticompetitive. Insurance companies would bear no greater risk than companies in other industries engaged in data sharing and other collaborative undertakings. To the extent that insurance companies engage in anticompetitive collusion, however, they would then be appropriately subject to antitrust liability.''

They want to give a safe harbor that is so big that the Justice Department could never review it. They are objecting to the fact that the Justice Department might look at, investigate, the activities surrounding data sharing and potential collusion by the industry that continues to price-gouge consumers and benefit unreasonably and profit unreasonably. They want to create that loophole. That loophole is unnecessary.

If you adopt that loophole, we might as well just not pretend that we care about consumers, consumer welfare, and that we are going to meaningfully address this industry playing by the same rules as every other industry. This industry should play by the same rules as all others, plain and simple. Americans get that. They are not happy with seeing their health insurance double every 10 years, or now it is more on a doubling rate of 3 to 5 years. They know that they are being taken to the cleaners. They know the industry is trying to cherry-pick. They know there is anticompetitive activity going on. It is time for that to change. No loopholes.

I thank the distinguished chairman for bringing this issue before us.

We have heard on the Republican side this is just about the little guys. They only want to help the little guys. Except that the loopholes that they would create with the Lungren provisions could be used by the big guys. So if you like the status quo, if you like the fact that some of the largest insurance companies in America saw their profits go up by 56 percent last year, if you like the fact that in many States we are seeing huge, double-digit increases, over 50 percent in Michigan, 40 percent in California, 20 percent in my State, if you think the system's working today, then you should support Mr. Lungren's idea, preserve the status quo. That is what they are saying. Keep the loopholes. Allow them to continue to collude and price fix.

Now, there are a few other people who disagree with them. In fact, we had a bipartisan commission created by the Republican Congress when they controlled the House and the Senate and signed into law by President George Bush. The members were appointed by George Bush, the Republican heads of the House and the Senate. And their conclusions considered Mr. Lungren's arguments and they rejected them.

A bipartisan, professional commission created by the Republicans and George Bush said, after saying, yes, there are these arguments being made, but they say, ``Like all potentially beneficial competitor collaboration generally, however, such data sharing would be assessed by antitrust enforcers and the courts under a rule of reason analysis that would fully consider the potential procompetitive effects of such conduct and condemn it only if, on balance, it was anticompetitive.'' They don't want the Justice Department to have that capability. They

don't want any additional levels of review.

There are many States that are totally incapable of dealing with these issues, particularly with multistate, multinational companies that operate outside their borders, set rates outside their borders, and then import those rates into the State saying, well, that was our experience. We operate in 27 States after all, and you are part of our system.

So if you like the status quo, if you like the double-digit rate increases, if you like the limits on market competition, if you like the concentration that has been going on in the industry, then you would support the status quo, which is essentially what Mr. Lungren has offered. And I don't. And I don't think the American people do either. I think we have tremendous consensus around the country that it is time for this abusive industry to play by the same rules as every other. And the small companies will still be able to obtain the data as long as they don't use it in a collusive manner. But it is always just about the small companies, except that the exceptions they want to provide are for the big companies also.

We have expert testimony from the director of the Center for Health Law Studies, St. Louis University, saying that is not the case, it will not disadvantage small companies. We have Mr. David Balto, an antitrust expert, saying it will not disadvantage the small companies. But the Republicans are purporting that it would.

Finally, on the CBO report that it won't lower premiums, that was based on the Lungren language. Without the Lungren language, it will save money, $10 billion for consumers.

Madam Speaker, you know, the law has evolved over time, and the law has evolved significantly since the era of Jack Brooks in terms of decisions regarding antitrust, antitrust immunity.

And as the current Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division says, it says, moreover, the application of antitrust law's potentially to pro-competitive collective activity has become far more sophisticated in the 62 years since the industry was exempted from the law. And some forms of joint activity that might have been prohibited under earlier, more restrictive doctrines are now clearly permissible, or at least, very least, analyzed under a rule of reason that takes appropriate account of the circumstances.

So what we're saying is, let's, you know--you're saying, oh, the States can take care of it. Let's say, the State of Montana can oversee an industry, a multistate, multinational, you know, conglomerate, and they can get into their books and they can examine and see that the rates that were imported from outside the State were set fairly. No. We need the help of the Federal Antitrust Division. They should not have their hands tied only in respect to the industry of insurance. Every other industry in America has learned to live with truly free markets with antitrust law. This industry can do the same, and it will benefit consumers. This is a false argument that somehow they need this special privilege, this special exemption, and that somehow this will hurt only little companies, not the big guys.

We've seen tremendous consolidation already under the existing total exemption. And if we continue a partial exemption, we'll only see more.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is this the one previously noticed and delivered a couple hours ago? Is that the motion to recommit? I just want to make sure it is exactly the same language.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

I thank the Speaker.

Simple question before the House today. Should the health insurance industry live under the same antitrust rules and have the same consumer protections as are provided for every other major industry in America without special exception, without carve-outs, without loopholes? No more collusion to get together, to conspire to limit markets, coverage, and drive up rates. The American people want and they need this protection.

Now, they say there is a study throughout that says this won't save money. That study was actually based on the language they are offering. Yes, if we provide these loopholes it well may not bring down rates. But if we don't vote for their loopholes, we will bring down rates. The Consumer Federation of America says we will save $10 billion in ratepayer premiums next year if we adopt this amendment straight up without their loopholes.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

May I inquire as to the time now that is left?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman for those remarks.

We have before us a simple question: Will we repeal a 62-year old artifact that is a special favor for the insurance industry, an exemption from the laws of the land of antitrust, which are designed to promote competition, to protect consumers, and for a free market economy.

You can't have a free market economy when people can collude, when they can get together to limit markets and competition, when companies become so huge they dominate urban areas and entire States; one company. Consumers have virtually no choice in much of America. They have to eat those huge rate increases or not. We can take a meaningful step here today to bring down the cost of health insurance for all Americans. The Consumer Federation of America says this will save consumers $10 billion next year, and they say that's nothing. Well, say that to your consumers at home if you vote against this bill.

Creating these loopholes undermines the entire effort here today. We do not need these loopholes. We need this industry to play by the same rules as every other industry in America.

Vote against the motion to recommit, and vote for competition and consumer protection for all Americans in health insurance.

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

To hear our Republican colleagues, you'd think they have an idea or a plan on how to put people back to work.

Remember, it was the failed deregulatory policies of the Bush administration and of the Republican majority that ultimately led to the collapse of Wall Street, to the emptying out of people's savings accounts and to the destroying of businesses across America. It was also their failed free trade policies that exported 3 million manufacturing jobs during the Bush-Republican era.

But, yeah, they always say tax cuts will cure everything. I would say that the worst part of the stimulus bill they are criticizing--and I voted against that bill--was the $340 billion in tax cuts insisted upon by three Republican Senators. How many jobs have they produced?

What did you do with your tax cuts? last week I asked my constituents.

They said, I didn't get a tax cut.

I said, Oh, yeah, you did. You got $8 less withholding.

They said, Well, that's not going to do anything. That's not going to put my neighbor back to work. That's not going to create any jobs.

Their nostrum is more tax cuts, more deficits, more debt, more deregulation, more failed free trade. We need a new direction. Yes, this administration hasn't done everything I've wanted, but it's a heck of a lot better than the disasters they've visited upon us.