Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 20th anniversary of the Virginia Scholarship and Youth Development Foundation.

The foundation was formed in 1990 when actors Tim and Daphne Reid formed the Tim Reid Scholarship Foundation. It has since helped many at-risk high school students in Hampton Roads, Virginia go to college.

Education has always been society's great equalizer, and a college education is necessary today to ensure that youth reach their highest potential. The Foundation's mission and motto of ``Universal Understanding Through Education'' clearly reflects this.

Financing a college education becomes more and more difficult each year. Tim and Daphne Reid have committed themselves to making this less of an obstacle for many families in Hampton Roads, Virginia. They are devoted to the belief that talented individuals should not be denied the opportunity to cultivate their minds and have the opportunity to create a better future for themselves, their families, their community and the world.

For 20 years, Tim and Daphne have worked tirelessly to raise funds for this scholarship. One of their most successful fundraisers is the annual Tim Reid Celebrity Weekend. Tim and Daphne invite many of their friends to come to Hampton Roads to participate in a weekend of events. The Celebrity Weekend attracts over 5,000 people annually. Actors, musicians, comedians, and dignitaries are invited to donate their time to participate in 3 days of activities to raise funds for the Foundation. Past celebrity guests have included Will Smith, Kyla Pratt, Kelly Williams, Lark Voorhies, Percy Daggs, Marcus Paulk, Angela Bassett, Victoria Rowell, Alfonso Ribeiro, the O'Jays, Clifton Davis, Richard Roundtree, Tia and Tamera Mowry, Tatyana Ali, Blair Underwood, and many others. Next week, the Virginia Scholarship and Youth Development Foundation will host its 20th Annual Tim Reid Celebrity Weekend in Hampton Roads, which I am sure will be another huge success.

Because of the efforts of Tim and Daphne Reid, there are currently twenty-four students attending eleven different colleges and universities with the support of the Virginia Scholarship and Youth Development Foundation. Many of these young people are the first in their families to obtain a college education.

I congratulate the Virginia Scholarship and Youth Development Foundation on twenty successful years and, I commend Tim and Daphne Reid for their tireless efforts on behalf of the Foundation and students in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Their willingness to invest in our state and our students is a model of personal and corporate responsibility that I hope many will replicate across our great nation. Under the leadership of Tim and Daphne Reid, I am sure the Foundation will have many more years of success.

Madam Speaker, our Nation mourns the loss of one of our most influential civil rights leaders, Dr. Dorothy I. Height, a native of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Height spent the better part of her lifetime working to ensure that others would have the freedom to accomplish their dreams. As the only woman in the inner circle of leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, her presence provided the much needed female perspective on decisions made in the struggle to achieve equal rights for all Americans. Even though she was on the dais with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as he delivered his ``I Have a Dream'' Speech in 1963, her integral role in the movement was not always known to the general public. That role was finally recognized nationally when President Clinton awarded Dr. Height the Medal of Freedom in 1994 and Congress awarded her the Congressional Gold Medal in 2004.

Dr. Height was an outspoken advocate for racial and gender equality both before and after the Civil Rights Movement. Her life of social activism spanned eight decades. From working as a caseworker with the New York City Welfare Department to her four decades as president of the National Council for Negro Women to serving as national president of Delta Sigma Theta, Dr. Height's life has touched countless Americans. Political leaders and heavyweights, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Presidents Eisenhower and Johnson, regularly sought out her counsel and wisdom. Yesterday's loss is a heavy one. America owes Dr. Height a heavy debt of gratitude for her lifetime of selfless service to her fellow citizens. Our Nation is a better place because of her. She will be greatly missed.

Thank you very much. And I want to thank you, Dr. Christensen, for your hard work and dedication. The Congressional Black Caucus is fortunate to have a leader in health care who is a physician and knows health care and, particularly, a physician with an expertise in public health. So we're very fortunate, and I want to thank you for bringing us together. You've worked long and hard on health issues, and particularly those issues in which there are health disparities, where African Americans suffer disproportionately in some diseases and knowing what we can do about it.

Mr. Speaker, America has been debating health care for 100 years, and we've come to some agreements. We know, for example, and I think there's general agreement within this House, that the status quo is unsustainable; 14,000 Americans losing their health insurance every day. The costs are going up. Twenty years ago, the average American family spent about 7 percent of the family income on health care and now it's 17 percent, and it's going and continuing in that direction.

Millions have no insurance at all, particularly those with preexisting conditions who are unable to get any insurance. So we know that one thing that, if we're going to deal with the problem, one thing that we have recognized is that any solution that's going to be meaningful has to be comprehensive. You cannot solve the problem of preexisting conditions, those with preexisting conditions not getting insurance unless everybody has insurance.

If people can wait until they get sick before they buy insurance, many people will wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. And those in the insurance pool, on average, will be sicker and sicker; the cost, average costs will be higher; more people, healthy people will drop out; and the costs will spiral out of control. We know that. So we know if we're going to deal with preexisting conditions, it has to be in the context of a system where virtually everyone is buying insurance.

We know that we have to make some comprehensive changes. We know we need to debate the issues. But, unfortunately, during the recent debate, we've heard complaints. We've heard some blames. We've heard a lot of misrepresentation. We've heard some slogans and even name calling. And yesterday, we finally took a huge step in guaranteeing quality and affordable health care for all Americans, and we have a bill that we can discuss. You can talk about what might be in the bill, what isn't. We have a bill. And let's talk about what's in the legislation.

First, the bill will provide affordable health care insurance for over 30 million Americans who are uninsured today, including those with preexisting conditions. The gentleman from North Carolina has outlined how affordable it is. Those at the very low end of the spectrum will pay very little. Those much higher up in the spectrum will pay more, but it's still easily affordable, particularly when you compare it to what people are having to pay today.

These bills will provide security for those who have insurance because 14,000 Americans will no longer lose their insurance every day. And those who have insurance will not have to watch the cost of their insurance skyrocket every year.

And insurance companies would be no longer able to cancel policies right when you get sick by looking back and finding a little comma out of place or something so they can cancel your policies when you most need them.

They also can't stop making payments in the middle of your illness, because we remove lifetime caps on benefits. Just because you have a very expensive and chronic disease, with the insurance that we're providing, you will get the medical care that you need.

No longer will those with health insurance have to pay copays for preventive services. And those with insurance won't have to go bankrupt, because the bills provide affordable limits on copays and deductibles.

Most of the people in bankruptcy court are there because of health expenses. And most of those there because of health expenses have insurance, but their copays and deductibles are such that they still have to lose everything in bankruptcy court.

And because the legislation will provide affordable health insurance to virtually all Americans, families with insurance will no longer have to pay an extra $1,000 a year to offset the health care costs for those that show up in the hospitals without any insurance.

Seniors will no longer have to fall into the doughnut hole where they're paying premiums and getting no benefits.

Our youth will be able to stay on family policies until they're 26 years old.

Small businesses will see significant savings in health insurance because they can purchase insurance with the same price advantages as big businesses do now with the large cost advantages of volume. And many small businesses will also receive tax credits, temporary tax credits to help them provide insurance for their employees.

This plan is more than paid for. CBO projects significant savings during the first 10 years and huge savings in the next 10 years. The major funding for it is treatment of unearned income for those making more than $250,000, just like earned income.

Whatever your earned income, you pay a Medicare tax on that income, if it's earned income. If it's unearned income, stocks and bonds and trading and dividends and interest, you don't pay a Medicare tax on that.

The major funding in this provides that whatever your income, you will be paying a Medicare tax. So those making more than $250,000 will pay on their unearned income just like everybody else is paying on their earned income.

The gentleman from North Carolina has indicated some of the provisions that go in fairly soon. Most won't go into effect until 2014 because it takes time to put all of the provisions together and get them active, but there are a lot of things that go into effect right away.

Small business tax credits, for those small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable, tax credits up to 35 percent of the premiums will go into effect immediately.

We will also begin to close the doughnut hole. For those seniors in the doughnut hole, we'll provide a $250 rebate to help them, and gradually we will eliminate the doughnut hole.

Pre-preventive care under Medicare. Right after the bill becomes effective, we'll eliminate copayments for preventive services and exempt preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program. So those who are getting preventive services won't have to pay copays and deductibles.

There's help for early retirees. We'll create a system to help offset the costs for those businesses that are providing health care for early retirees, those 55 to 64. Before they get on Medicare, there will be a program to help those. Those are very expensive to cover, and many companies want to cover them but can't afford it. We will provide an affordable way for them to cover them.

We will end rescissions. There will be a ban against insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick.

There will be no discrimination against children with preexisting conditions. We will prohibit health insurance from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.

There will be a ban on lifetime limits and coverage. We will prohibit health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage. So if your chronic illness is very expensive, they can't cut you off right in the middle of treatment. There will be a ban on annual limits on coverage. And there won't be a complete ban early on, but we will tightly restrict any new plan's use of annual limits to ensure that you can get all of the health coverage that you need. Eventually, there will be a total ban on lifetime benefits.

Free preventive care under all new private plans. We will require all new private plans to cover preventive services with no copays and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles.

We will provide a new independent appeals process to ensure that consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process so that, if you're not treated properly by your insurance company, you have an effective means to appeal.

There'll be immediate help for those with preexisting conditions. Eventually, those with preexisting conditions will get insurance just like everybody else, won't be able to discriminate against those with preexisting conditions. But until the plan is fully implemented, those with preexisting conditions will be able to buy from a high-risk pool that will be subsidized because, obviously, the cost of that insurance will not be, should not be affordable, but we'll make it affordable with subsidies. So those with preexisting conditions can get relief right away.

It extends coverage for young people up to their 26th birthday on the family policy. If young children aren't getting health insurance on their job or while they're in school, they can stay on their parents' policy up until their 26th birthday.

We significantly increase funding for community health centers, and that starts right away. So within the next 5 years, we will absolutely double the number of patients being seen at community health centers. And we'll start making investments in training programs to increase the number of primary care physicians, nurses, and other public health professionals. All of that goes into effect right away.

Now, some are criticizing the plan, and it's interesting to listen carefully to the criticism. With all of what this bill does, one of the criticism is, Well, the bill has too many pages. Another is, We don't like the order in which we're casting the votes. Look at all of this comprehensive health care, and all they can talk about is the order we're voting in and the number of pages.

Now, some believe that the program is unconstitutional, and, when pressed,

they'll also say that, Well, Medicare is unconstitutional, too, and they want to repeal Medicare. And when we talk about repealing Medicare, I'd like to refer everyone to the budget introduced by the lead Republican on the Budget Committee. The long-term budget on that committee offered by the Republican side does not include a Medicare program. It includes a little voucher program where the cost increases will not keep up with medical inflation, so gradually, year by year, the value of that voucher erodes to the point where, 50 years from now, it'll be worth about 25 percent of the costs of medical care for senior citizens. They will allow it wither on the vine. So when you talk about Medicare being unconstitutional, be careful, because they actually want to repeal Medicare as we know it.

Others complain that it takes away their freedom to be uninsured. I was first elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1977. This is the first year I've heard anyone talk about their urgency of the need to enjoy the freedom to be uninsured.

Now, I'd like to--they say, well, they're going to debate it during the campaign for reelection, and I can't wait, because what will the campaign be?

Seniors, get back in that doughnut hole where you belong. We're going to repeal the law.

Young adults, get off that family policy and get out there on your own.

Small businesses, give those tax cuts back and start buying insurance at the retail rate rather than the wholesale rate. Pay 18 percent more like you're doing today.

Those with preexisting conditions, give me that policy back. You weren't supposed to get the policy. That was in the legislation that we want to repeal.

I can't wait for that debate because, as I said last night before we took that important vote, I said that future generations will look back at the votes we cast last night just as today we look back at the votes on Social Security and Medicare. And when they passed Social Security and Medicare, the votes were not unanimous. There were those that voted ``no.'' But future generations will look back and see that many of us proudly voted in favor of health care for all. And I hope they look back with the same pride on those votes we cast last night as we do to the votes cast in favor of Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, America has been debating health care for over 100 years, and during this debate we have heard complaints and blame and misrepresentations, slogans, even name- calling. But today, we finally get to discuss the bills.

The bills will provide affordable health care insurance to over 30 million Americans who are uninsured today, including those with preexisting conditions. These bills will provide security for those who have insurance because 14,000 Americans will no longer lose their insurance every day, and others will no longer have to watch the cost of their insurance skyrocket every year.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel policies or stop making payments in the middle of an illness. No longer will those with health care have to make copayments for preventive services, or go bankrupt, because the bills provide affordable limits on copays and deductibles.

And because the legislation will provide affordable insurance to virtually all Americans, families with insurance will not have to pay an extra thousand dollars a year to offset health care costs for those who show up at hospitals without insurance.

Seniors will no longer fall into the doughnut hole.

Our youth will be able to stay on their family policies until they are 26. And small businesses will see significant savings in health insurance costs because they will purchase insurance with the same price advantages as large businesses. And many small businesses will receive temporary tax credits.

That's what is in the bill, and it is more than paid for. The CBO projects significant savings for the first 10 years, and huge savings for the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, future generations will look back at the votes we cast today, just as today we look back at the votes on Social Security and Medicare. Those future generations will see that we proudly voted in favor of health care for all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in bringing us together to make sure that we can discuss the importance of creating jobs. As we discuss jobs, I think it is important that we put our job efforts in perspective, because a little over a year ago when this administration came into office, we were losing jobs at the rate of over 700,000 per month, every month; 700,000 jobs a month. And we reacted to it by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and we have slowly made progress, losing fewer and fewer jobs every month. But that is obviously not sufficient. We have to do better than that. But we have to put this in perspective. We were losing all of those jobs, and we found ourselves not only in the ditch with the economy, but also in the ditch with the Federal budget. We had a huge deficit which limited our ability to respond to this challenge.

We are also shooting at a moving target. Just this week, the Virginia Legislature, my home State of Virginia, will pass a budget that will cut approximately $4 billion out of the budget. Virginia is about 2 percent of the population, $4 billion. California is cutting $20 billion out of their budget, a little over 10 percent of the population. If you extrapolate that nationally, that is about $200 billion that the States will be cutting out of their budgets this year on top of about $300 billion to $350 billion that they cut last year. So that is $500 billion that would have been cut out of budgets in the last 2 years. So the first $500 billion of job creation that we do will do nothing but just hire the people who have been laid off on the State level.

So as much we are doing on the Federal level, it is obvious that we are shooting at a moving target. States are laying off people as fast as they can, and our job is to make sure that we try to create jobs.

Part of the Federal investment will help States retain some of their critical employees, particularly the public safety first responders and teachers. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made significant reinvestments in funding States and helping with their health care and other critical needs so that they would not have to lay off as many as they were doing.

But obviously some of the major investments I think that are doing the most good are those that were made in infrastructure and transportation. We still have a 10 percent unemployment rate, so obviously a lot has to be done. And it's those investments in infrastructure and transportation that can be the most effective in creating jobs.

When responding to a recession, we use the shorthand of three Ts: We want the response to be timely, targeted, and temporary. Timely because sooner or later the recession is going to be over even if we don't do anything, so we want to make sure we take timely action. Targeted--you want to put the money where it's most needed, people that are out of work and people that will actually spend the money to help stimulate the economy. So it has to be targeted. And it is temporary. When we recover from the recession, we don't want to be stuck with ongoing programs and expenses that we will have to continue to fund.

Transportation and infrastructure projects fulfill the three Ts for a successful stimulus plan; they are timely, targeted and temporary. They're timely. We are aiming at programs that are shovel ready, ready to go, no environmental needed, nothing else needed, no architectural anything, ready to go. We are targeted at industries that are most in need. The construction industry in many States has unemployment rates of 25 percent or more. And it's temporary. When you fund a project, when the project is completed, you stop spending the money. When you finish building the school, you don't have to spend any more money. It's not like you would set up a program where you would have to continue paying salaries on and on and on.

The Recovery Act, for example, put money into transit systems. Throughout the Nation, transit systems are cutting back on employment. St. Louis, for example, eliminated 25 percent of its workforce and cut services by 17 percent. Chicago laid off 1,000 workers. And so investments in the transit systems are areas where we can make timely and targeted investments.

Across the Nation these are necessary projects. Across the Nation, 78 metropolitan areas have identified over $240 billion in needed transit investments that need to be done. These jobs not only put people back to work, they complete needed projects. Now, these investments are also very effective in creating jobs. For every $1 billion the Federal Government puts in infrastructure the economic activity is about $6 billion and about 35,000 jobs are created.

Now, we need these projects, and we found that a lot of them are ready to go now. The Public Transportation Association identified $15 billion worth of projects that are ready to go. As soon as we fund them they are ready to go. Highway associations across the country identified 7,000 ready-to-go highway projects and bridge projects, almost $50 billion ready to go. As soon as we come up with the money, they can go. And so not only are these projects needed, they can be timely and they can put people to work. We have found that when we fund a construction project, when it's ready to go, the contractors can hire the employees within a couple of weeks, and they're on the job right then. So we have timely projects that are ready to go. We have put money into it. Two-thirds of the projects that have been funded, the construction has already started.

We have more work to do. We still have a 10 percent unemployment rate because the States are still laying people off, so we still have to keep creating jobs. I am happy to report that today the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, has introduced a bill with significant new investments in infrastructure and transportation. These will make sure that we will have these workers on the job in very short order.

The Miller jobs bill will create jobs quickly and efficiently. As States continue to lay people off, we need to make sure that we are creating as many jobs as we possibly can on the Federal level. We should give the Miller jobs bill quick consideration so that jobs can be created when they are needed, and that's right now.

So I thank you. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing us together, for talking about jobs and encouraging us to continue doing what we need to do to create jobs and end the unemployment problems that we're having today.

The Recovery Act was passed right down here, and since then we have been making progress. But losing fewer jobs is not good enough. We need to continue this chart. In short order, we will be creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, putting people back to work. Those who have lost their jobs need to be rehired. We need to create about 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the population growth. So this chart is just the beginning. By the middle of this year we hope to be well into the plus, creating jobs, hiring people, and bringing people back from the unemployment lines.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3695) to authorize funding for, and increase accessibility to, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, to facilitate data sharing between such system and the National Crime Information Center database of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide incentive grants to help facilitate reporting to such systems, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Help Find the Missing Act, or Billy's Law, will help families of missing persons find their loved ones by strengthening Federal databases about missing persons and unidentified remains.

Every year, tens of thousands of Americans go missing and are never found. In the subcommittee we heard moving testimony from Ms. Janice Smolinski, whose son, Billy, went missing in 2004. While she has not found her son, she has dedicated her life to improving the system for others, including highlighting the need to strengthen and expand access to our missing persons databases. I thank her for her dedication to this worthy cause.

Billy's Law will facilitate the sharing of information between the FBI's NCIC databases and the NamUs databases recently established by the National Institute of Justice. Facilitating information-sharing between those two databases will assist the public, medical examiners, and coroners in looking for missing persons and identifying remains.

Billy's Law also authorizes grants for personnel, technology, and training to help States submit data to NCIC and NamUs. These grants will strengthen the system by providing an incentive for States to provide critical information to the databases shortly after missing person cases are reported.

This bill is strongly supported by the Department of Justice. And I would like to commend our colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), for their hard work on this piece of legislation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3695.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of Billy's Law, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Texas for their work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 227) supporting the goals and ideals of National Urban Crimes Awareness Week, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this resolution recognizes the important efforts to reduce crime in our Nation's urban areas and to support crime victims. We observed National Urban Crimes Awareness week during the second week of this month.

This resolution particularly recognizes the critical role of education and prevention programs in decreasing crime. It also highlights the need for redoubling our commitment to finding alternatives for incarceration, to engaging in reentry programs for those completing their programs, and for rehabilitation programs that will help prevent crime from happening in the first place. It is important that we in Congress emphasize our commitment

to reducing crime all across this country and to supporting the victims of crimes.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for introducing this resolution, I urge my colleague to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the Chair of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee and sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for introducing the resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to rise on behalf of myself, Congressman Rob Wittman and Congressman Glenn Nye to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have once again distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

For the second consecutive year, the Phoebus High School Phantoms football team had a remarkable season. On December 12, the Phoebus High School Phantoms won their fifth state football championship this decade, defeating Stone Bridge High School of Ashburn 15-10, at Scott Stadium in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Taking over from coach Bill Dee, new head coach Stan Sexton led the Phantoms another 15-0 season. Their winning streak now stands at 30 wins. No other Group AAA school has won back-to-back championships since Phoebus did it in 2001 and 2002; now Phoebus has done it again. This has truly been Phoebus' decade in football, having won five state championships this decade with a record of 120-12 (.909). No other AAA school has won more than 102 games. This latest championship is just another accolade for the City of Hampton's youngest school, founded in 1975.

Phoebus High's legacy of excellence is not limited to just the field of athletics. Under the Direction of Principal Robert Johnson, the Phoebus faculty seeks to inspire students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities. Phoebus has two innovative programs that expand the learning experience outside of the traditional classroom. Phoebus hosts the Hampton School Division's Center for High Technology. This magnet career academy includes classes in pre-engineering, design and 2 drafting, and Cisco network administration, preparing students for college classes and jobs in the technology sector. Phoebus is also home to the Blue Phantom Inn. This student-run restaurant gives students an opportunity to develop their culinary arts skills, and was nationally recognized in Southern Living magazine.

The Phantom's excellence in football is also characteristic of the quality of athletics in the Peninsula District of Virginia. Phoebus High School's championship this year marked the 11th time in the last fifteen years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football. To quote from our hometown newspaper, the Daily Press, ``High school football on the Peninsula is championship football.''

We would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Stan Sexton, his coaching staff and all of the players on the Phoebus High School Phantoms, the 2008 and 2009 Group AAA Division 5 Virginia High School League state football champions.

I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for talking about education and talking about the importance of educating all of our young children.

Quality education is more important today than ever before with the rapid development of a global marketplace. We find that we're competing not just with cities across a State or even cities across the Nation but cities all over the world.

We can't compete with other countries on things like lower wages. There are people who work in other countries for wages that we can't compete with. We can't necessarily compete in terms of location. You don't have to work right next to your coworkers anymore. If you can work across the hall from your coworkers, you can work across the globe from your coworkers. And in manufacturing, if you manufacture something, you don't have to be that close to your customers. You can ship things overnight from almost anywhere. In the global economy when you're trying to get a plant financed, there used to be a time where you had to locate the plant in the United States because you needed financing. Now with worldwide banking, you can put that plant anywhere that you want.

The one reason that businesses would want to locate in the United States or in a particular community is because they know they can find well-educated workers. So education becomes the competitive advantage. And when you start looking at the location, you know you can get the good workers. You know that the communities will benefit by having a good education. We know these communities that invest heavily in education suffer less crime, pay less welfare, and we know the individuals benefit, the students benefit with a good education. There's an old adage that says ``the more you learn, the more you earn.'' The more education you get, the higher your income will be. So we need to focus on education if we're going to maintain our competitiveness.

But, unfortunately, we're finding that we're slipping in terms of math and science on any international basis. We used to be fairly high. We're kind of drifting down. We're kind of in the middle of the pack right now but dropping. We used to be number one in graduating our students from high school. Now we're dropping. We used to be number one in those going to college. We used to be number one by far. Now many countries are having more young people go to college and graduate from college than in the United States.

If the gentlelady would yield, that's why we need to remain competitive and make sure that all of our students have an opportunity to go to college. We need to make sure that they have the knowledge to be successful, and we need to make sure that we are making those investments in early childhood education, in elementary and in secondary, and are making sure that all of our students have access to college. That means we have to make sure we continue to invest in Pell Grants and to reduce the interest on student loans so that everybody can get into college.

One of the things we also have to do is to make sure they have the support, and not only the encouragement, to go to college. They need the financial access but also the support so they can stay in college. That's why the Federal TRIO Programs are so important--Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and Student Support Services. Once they get into college, there are the educational support centers and the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program.

The TRIO Programs encourage low-income and first-generation students to think in terms of college. For many of them, it's just not an expectation in their families, so they think, after high school, that's going to be about it. We need to instill upon them an expectation that, if you can do the work, you ought to continue your education. The TRIO Programs are extremely important in making sure they have not only the financial access but the support once they get there so that they can graduate.

I will yield.

Well, we're not making enough of an investment in Pell. We need to make those investments because the cost of college is going up even more than the increases in Pell Grants. We have done a lot in Pell Grants in the last few years. After several years of no increases, we have made significant increases in Pell Grants, but the Pell Grant still does not pay as much of a portion of your education as it used to. It used to be that, with a Pell Grant, you could almost pay your entire tuition--room and board--at a State college. Now it's about 30 percent, and you've got to come up with the rest. With a Pell Grant, people back in the '60s and in the early '70s could work 15 hours a week at a little part-time job and could work their way through college. Today, even with a Pell Grant and while working 40 hours a week, it is still very difficult to work your way through college. We need to make sure that these opportunities are there.

Even though you have financial access with the Pell Grants, with the student loans, and with the scholarships, you need to make sure that you have the support to get the work done. Many students will start in college and won't finish, and you'll have dropouts not only in high school but also dropouts in college. We need to make sure that they have those services.

The beneficiaries of the TRIO Programs do much better in college completion than those who don't have those support services. You have the counseling, the tutorial, and the other support services that you need. They are so important, and that's why we need to make sure that the TRIO Program funding goes up as much as the funding for financial access, like Pell Grants and student loans. We have to recognize that the investments we make in education are so important and that, if we don't make these investments, we end up paying the bill anyway.

I serve not only on the Education and Labor Committee, but I also serve on the Judiciary Committee, where I chair the Subcommittee on Crime. We know that there is a strong correlation between those who drop out of school and those who end up in the criminal justice system. The high school dropouts are much more likely to end up in prison. Those who graduate from high school and those who go to college are much less likely to get caught up in the criminal justice system. When you look at all of the costs of incarceration and when you look at all of the costs of affordable welfare, if we had made the investments in education to get young people on the right track and to keep

them on the right track, we wouldn't have had to make those expenditures in the criminal justice and social service programs.

So education is extremely important, and it is a much more intelligent use of taxpayer money--investing in education--rather than waiting for young people to drop out of school and to mess up, to join a gang and then get into a bidding war as to how much time they're going to serve in prison.

I saw an article in the last couple of days in New York. For every juvenile incarcerated, they spend about $200,000 a year locking up juveniles. California had the same number--over $200,000 per year per juvenile. You can just think of what kind of education could have been provided a few years before to make sure that the young people got on the right track and stayed on the right track. So investments in education are not only good for the economy and are not only good for the community, but they actually save more money than they cost when you look at the costs of failing to educate the next generation.

I yield.

Thank you.

If the gentlelady would yield, one of the things we need to do is to make sure that we get all of our students headed toward college. You mentioned the impact of finances and the income of parents. One factor is that many parents never went to college, so there is not an expectation that their children will go to college. If your parents went to college, there is really an expectation that you are going to go to college, too. It's not a question of whether you are going to college. After you graduate from high school, it's which college are you going to go to. There is just an expectation.

When you have parents who did not go to college--and this is one of the main focuses of the TRIO Programs--they want to develop that expectation.

When I was in college, I was an Upward Bound counselor, and I could see in the Upward Bound program the profound change in attitude that young people had as the summer went on. At the beginning of the summer, I remember you could ask young people, What are your plans for the future? They would start telling you their plans for the weekend. Later in the program, you'd ask, What are your plans for the future? They'd tell you what courses they needed to take in high school to make sure they could get into college, and they'd tell you the courses that they'd have to take in college in order to get into law school or into medical school. They had planned their futures a lot farther along than just the weekend.

When you have a different perspective and when you start having an expectation that ``my future includes college,'' a lot of things happen. One, you are less likely to use drugs and to get caught up in delinquency because you know that will adversely affect your future.

So just the fact that you're looking at a future, you will much more likely get on the right track and stay on the right track to actually achieve those goals.

I yield.

Well, one of the things we found in our work in Education and Labor and on the Crime Subcommittee is that so many of our young people are not graduating from high school. In some States, in some schools, and they're called drop-out factories, half the children that go to those schools fail to graduate. And so it's important, if we're going to have any kind of society, that we encourage young people to go to college because at least that means they'll get through high school. If you do not pay for education, you will pay for welfare and crime. And so it's important for us, as a society, to make sure that we invest in education so we won't have as much to pay for in crime and welfare, and also, we'll have an educated workforce so that when businesses come to the community and consider moving their businesses to your community, you'll have a well-educated workforce to show off, and you'll also demonstrate that if they bring their business here, their workers will have access to a good education. So it's in everybody's best interest to have a well-educated workforce and to make the investments in education.

The Pell Grants make sure that everybody can have access. A significant reduction in interest on student loans has taken place in the last few years. There are a lot of things that we're doing, and we're helping colleges. We've made significant investments in colleges and how they can help their students. There are a lot of things that we've been doing, but the main focus has got to be to get young people into college, and once they get into college, to make sure they have the support services that the TRIO programs will provide to make sure that they can actually graduate.

You mentioned two-fifths require college. But even more than that require some education past the high school level, some kind of training, some kind of education, maybe not the 4-year college but a 2-year college, or maybe some career training course so that you could learn your trade. There used to be a time where you could get a low-skilled job, keep it for 40 years and then retire. The jobs of today require continual learning, lifelong learning. You've got to be retrained. A lot of jobs have become obsolete. Instead of one job for a long time, most people will have four or five or six jobs during their careers. It's important to make sure that you can learn and you have lifelong learning so that you can keep up with the new jobs. Most, 40 percent require college, but virtually all of them, good jobs, will require some kind of education past the high school level.

There are direct consequences of spending more money on education, one of which is that the average income of those who you have invested in, the average income will go up, better known from a budget perspective as more taxable income. And so those that you invest in and have more taxable income will be able to help fund the government. That is on the plus side.

On the minus side, if you do not educate the people, they are much more likely to be involved in crime and welfare, better known as expenditures. So instead of getting more revenue, you end up with more expenditures.

So we need to make sure that we make these investments in education so more and more of our students go on to college. And we know what works. We know that TRIO works. The TRIO programs, the Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science, and Veterans Upward Bound all help students think about college and get them on track to college.

The Student Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Programs help students once they get to college. They are involved in those programs and are much more likely to graduate and complete their education, making sure they will be much more contributing members of society. And we know they work. There are currently 2,800 TRIO programs that are serving 850,000 low-income and first-generation students.

Now, you can only imagine that without TRIO, many of these students wouldn't even be thinking about college. And if you just look around the country, many of these programs have waiting lists, young people that are trying to get the help of a TRIO program, but because we haven't funded them adequately, there are not enough slots and they have to languish and perhaps not get an education because

they didn't get the services that they needed.

We need to make sure those investments are there. If you're looking long term in the budget, we need to make sure that people are self- sufficient, not depending on government. The investments we make in education in the long-term budget perspective are investments that need to be made.

And if we don't make the investments that we're talking about today, this may be the first generation that has a lower achievement of education than their previous generation. Right now, many children of college-educated parents are not going to college. We are very close to having this generation less educated than last. That will be the first time in American history that that has ever taken place.

I would agree. And I have introduced, as you know, the Youth Promise Act, which looks at a comprehensive approach to investing in our young people, getting them on the right track, keeping them on the right track rather than waiting for them to drop out of school, mess up, and then spend all the money on incarceration.

If we take a comprehensive approach, we have found that you are more likely to save money in the long run--indeed, certainly even in the short run. Comprehensive approaches to juvenile crime, one in Pennsylvania where they spent $60 million investing in young people--in a couple of years they figured they saved $300 million. Those kinds of results happen all over the country when you take a comprehensive approach, making sure young people can get on the right track and stay on the right track and get out of what the Children's Defense Fund calls the cradle-to-prison pipeline and get into the cradle-to-college or cradle-to-workforce pipelines. Those pipelines, the college and workforce pipelines, are actually cheaper to construct than a cradle- to-prison pipeline where you spend huge sums of money locking people up. You don't get the benefit of the increased earnings; you just end up spending all the money on crime and welfare.

So if we make the right investments in getting young people on the right track and keeping them on the right track, we not only have a better society, but the budget will look better.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her hard work. She has benefited from the TRIO Program, so she knows firsthand as I do, as a counselor in college. I spent 3 years as a counselor in the Upward Bound Program, noticing the profound change from the beginning of the program to the end of the program.

We need to make sure these opportunities and this guidance is made available to all students to make sure they can get into college and then to support services once they get there so that they can graduate. These are important programs.

I thank the gentlelady for organizing this Special Order and I thank the gentlelady from Texas for joining us.

Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague Rep. Randy Forbes, to call attention to a group of young students from Petersburg, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their University, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I direct my colleagues' attention to the brothers of the Beta Gamma Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity at Virginia State University. Over the last three years the Beta Gamma chapter has partnered with Big Brothers Big Sisters and has maintained one hundred percent chapter membership participation rate. They are the first, and only, Alpha Phi Alpha chapter in the country to accomplish this remarkable achievement. I would like to applaud my brothers for volunteering to be responsible role models for at-risk youth, helping them to reach their full potential and to lead vibrant, successful lives.

Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity was founded on December 4, 1906, at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. As the first intercollegiate Greek letter fraternity established for African Americans, Alpha Phi Alpha initially served as a brotherhood and study and support group for minority students at Cornell, but it also recognized the need to help correct the educational, economic, political and social injustices faced by African Americans.

From that initial foundation at Cornell, the core Alpha Phi Alpha principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity were established. Alpha Phi Alpha now has a presence on hundreds of college campuses as well as in hundreds of alumni chapters in 44 States. The presence is also felt here in Washington, where nine members of the U.S. Congress are members of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity.

In 1991, an agreement was entered into between Alpha Phi Alpha and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to unite their efforts to transform communities and the lives of young African Americans. The men of Alpha Phi Alpha have become thoroughly engaged in recruiting volunteers, and cultivating a positive relationship and experience with their Little Brothers.

The brothers of Beta Gamma continue this proud tradition by proactively engaging the Petersburg community's schools and families, in addition providing one-on-one youth mentoring for children at-risk of slipping through the cracks of our society. Studies show that the regular presence of a responsible adult provides lasting, positive impacts on the life of a child. Those children mentored by the Big Brothers of Beta Gamma chapter will be less likely to use drugs and alcohol, will perform better in school, and will have healthier family relationships.

Today, I rise to recognize these young gentlemen for their genuine concern for their local community and for their dedication to public service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4122, the Graduation for All Act of 2009 (GFA). I would like to thank Chairman George Miller for introducing this comprehensive bill that creates a three-year grant to help turn around our nation's lowest performing schools. This bill will help address some of the problems facing our schools and ensure that they are moving toward a goal of graduating all of our children.

For far too long, schools have not been held accountable for ensuring that students graduate on time with a high school diploma. As a result, some students leave high school without a meaningful education that provides quality academic experiences sufficient for success in college or the workplace. Additionally, high school students are dropping out at an alarming rate. A recent study found that only 53 percent of all young people in the nation's 50 largest cities are graduating from high school on time. Regrettably, roughly 12 percent of all secondary schools in the United States produce approximately half of the nation's secondary school dropouts. In these secondary schools, known as ``dropout factories,'' African American, Native American and Hispanic students have graduation rates that are 50 percent or below.

Recently, strong reform efforts have targeted dropout factories and other low performing high schools, but it is obvious we have to do more and start our efforts earlier. More of an emphasis must be placed on the lowest performing middle schools. Too many students leave middle school with significant deficiencies such as being behind on English and Math proficiency; this leaves them ill prepared for the rigors of high school.

Increasing graduation rates and improving academic achievement will enrich the lives of our children as well as strengthen our workforce and nation as a whole. A nation enjoys a competitive advantage in the global marketplace when it has a well educated and well trained workforce. If we expect to compete, we must ensure that all of our children receive a quality education.

The Graduation for All Act will make education a priority and invests significant funding to accomplish several goals. First, it provides funding for schools to increase teacher and leadership effectiveness, hire highly qualified teachers, restructure schools, and transition students out of low performing schools into higher achieving schools. Second, the bill will fund initiatives that increase college access and completion such as dual enrollment and early college programs. Finally, the legislation includes provisions from the Every Student Counts Act (ESCA, H.R. 1569), which I introduced on March 17, 2009, that will require consistent and accurate counting of high school dropouts, require the establishment of aggressive and attainable graduation rate goals, and provide incentives to meet these goals.

This bill will make significant strides toward improving student achievement, postsecondary readiness and graduation rates. It is my hope that Congress will move this legislation quickly and it will be signed into law. This will ensure that all of our nation's students will receive the kind of help and support required for them to obtain a quality education. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the enduring legacy of a faith institution in the city of Richmond. On Saturday, November 28, 2009, The Saint Paul's Baptist Church will celebrate its 100th anniversary, and in recognition of this milestone I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed church and its contributions to the greater Richmond community.

The Saint Paul's Baptist Church began, fittingly, on Thanksgiving night in 1909, when a group of congregants of First Union Baptist Church received a letter of release to form their own Church. The newly organized Church elected Rev. George Pinkney as its first Pastor. Reverend Pinkney's years were dedicated to establishing the new parish on a firm footing. Under his leadership, the first sanctuary with a seating capacity greater than 50 was constructed on Botetourt Street.

The Saint Paul's family grew considerably in a short period of time under Reverend Pinkney and the church's second pastor and Reverend Pinkney's son, Timothy Pinkney. During the service of Saint Paul's third pastor, Rev. Isaiah Hines (1913-1928), a second sanctuary was built that accommodated the growing church's 200 worshippers.

Saint Paul's underwent significant change under the leadership of their fourth and longest serving pastor, Rev. Journey A. Mosby. During his 40 year tenure, the church expanded its commitment to the development of young people, especially aspiring theological students from nearby Virginia Union University. Reverend Mosby was also responsible for many ministries that still exist in the church today. A new building was once again needed to accommodate the growing congregation. Reverend Mosby launched an expansion campaign on Thanksgiving Day 1950 and by 1957, the church was able to buy an existing facility on the corner of 26th and Marshall Streets in the Church Hill neighborhood. This served as the Church's home for 45 years, and the Parish House is now listed on the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places.

The Church's fifth pastor, Rev. James Leary, was installed in 1969. Under his direction, the Saint Paul's Baptist Federal Credit Union, the Saint Paul's Housing Corporation, the Saint Paul's Manor, and the J.A. Mosby Scholarship fund were all initiated.

Saint Paul's sixth and current pastor is Rev. Lance Watson, installed in 1985. Under his leadership, Saint Paul's has continued to thrive and expand. Over the last 30 years, the congregation has grown to over 12,000 members. The church has instituted many more ministries including a bookstore, multiple schools, a counseling service, a community development corporation, and a media company that produces weekly recordings of Saint Paul's services and broadcasts them nationally.

In 2002, the Church moved into its present facility on Creighton Road. Although this is now the heart of Saint Paul's, the church has multiple locations throughout Greater Richmond including the Marshall Avenue facility, which is under development to become a performing arts center. Saint Paul's has been such a positive spiritual influence on the Richmond community that since 2005, two churches faced with the prospect of selling their property on the open market elected instead to give their physical plants to Saint Paul's to help expand its ministry. The church's dedication to ``finding needs and meeting them, finding hurts and healing them, finding problems and solving them'' has made it an indispensible institution of faith in the Greater Richmond area.

I would like to commend Pastor Watson and the congregation of The Saint Paul's Baptist Church as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. I hope that their next 100 years of service will be as fruitful as their first 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, all afternoon we have heard about the ``freedom'' to be uninsured. Seniors in my district do not want us to repeal government run Medicare so that they can enjoy a ``freedom'' to be uninsured, and those without insurance now do not view themselves as enjoying some ``freedom''; they want insurance.

The Republican substitute responds to the comprehensive Affordable Health Care for America act with a bill that fails to reduce cost, fails to cover uninsured Americans, and it may study--but it does not help--those with pre-existing conditions. It does, however, attack innocent victims of medical malpractice.

One recent study showed that medical malpractice represents less than one-third of one percent of all health care costs. And yet the Republican substitute seeks to blame our broken health care insurance system on innocent victims of medical malpractice. For those victims, the bill limits the ability to hire a lawyer, complicates the lawsuit, shifts the costs of medical malpractice from the doctor to the victims' own private insurance, and in some cases causes the injured victims to lose the right to sue before they even know they've been injured. I'd like to share some specific examples of the egregious provisions included in the Republican substitute.

Under the Republican substitute, a young child whose life is forever devastated by medical malpractice can lose all right to sue on his or her eighth birthday--long before he or she reaches legal age to make his or her own decision.

Under the Republican substitute, when two or more wrongdoers act together, and one of them is able to flee or put their assets out of reach, the innocent victim is left short, while the other wrongdoer is shielded from full responsibility. They call this the ``fair share rule.''

Under the Republican substitute, it is more difficult for a medical malpractice victim to get a lawyer's help to fight against the insurance companies, because the bill permits a court to reduce the fee paid to the victim's lawyer--after the case has been fought and won. This provision penalizes victims with winning cases. One would think the purpose of this provision is to save the insurance carrier money and thereby reduce malpractice premiums; however, insurance carriers are not responsible for the victim's lawyer's fee. Insurance carriers are responsible for the defendant's lawyer's fee, so permitting the court to reduce fees paid to defendant's lawyers would actually save money and reduce premiums. The substitute does not allow that. This makes no sense. Under current practice, the victim's lawyers already don't get paid if the victim loses. Now they might not get paid even if the victim wins.

Under the Republican substitute, if the victim has health insurance that helps pay for the victim's care while the victim is waiting for the wrongdoer to be held accountable, the wrongdoer can escape legal accountability for that part of the cost entirely. The wrongdoer gets to shift the cost onto the victim's own health insurance. That's the Republican approach to health insurance reform--saddling the victim's insurer with the cost of someone else's negligence, while letting the wrongdoer off the hook.

Under the Republican substitute, the only time punitive damages would ever be available is when the wrongdoer has maliciously injured the victim that is, when the wrongdoer has committed a violent felony. And even then--even in cases of the most heinous violence imaginable--the Republican substitute caps punitive damages.

The Republican substitute is empty of any meaningful health insurance reform, and it is utterly callous to malpractice victims. None of these unfair provisions were passed during previous attempts when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and they should not be passed now. The substitute should be defeated.

In contrast, the majority's Affordable Health Care for America Act reduces the number of uninsured, increases accessibility of health care, controls skyrocketing costs, and addresses the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This legislation will put us on a new path where health care will be affordable to all and not just a luxury for some, and I am proud to support this historic health insurance reform legislation.

Mr. Speaker, all afternoon we have heard about the freedom to be uninsured. Seniors in my

district do not want us to repeal government-run Medicare so that they can enjoy a freedom to be uninsured, and those without insurance now do not view themselves as enjoying some freedom. They want insurance.

The Republican substitute responds to the comprehensive Affordable Healthcare for America Act with a bill that fails to reduce costs, fails to cover uninsured Americans, and it may study, but it does not help, those with preexisting conditions. It does, however, attack innocent victims of medical malpractice.

One recent study showed that medical malpractice represents less than one-third of one percent of all health care costs, and yet the Republican substitute seeks to blame our broken health care insurance system on innocent victims of malpractice. For those victims, the bill limits the ability to hire a lawyer, complicates the lawsuit, shifts the cost of medical malpractice from the doctor to the victim's own private insurance, and, in some cases, causes the injured victims to lose the right to sue before they even know they have been injured.

None of these unfair provisions were passed during previous attempts when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and they should not be passed now.

The substitute should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I fully share the desire of the sponsor of the amendment to effectively combat piracy on the high seas, but I hope this amendment will not be adopted.

As he has pointed out, the manager's amendment does address this issue and does so consistently with well-established, long-observed legal traditions which go back to the ancient civilizations of Rome and Babylon. The language in the bill, now with the manager's amendment, incorporated language of the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Judiciary Committee in place of what was in the introduced bill.

Now this amendment, unfortunately, goes too far. It grants absolute immunity within the United States on our lakes and rivers to violence against our own citizens. Now, the difference in the two provision, one carefully crafted by the Judiciary Committee and now the one being offered on the floor, is not about enabling ship's crews to respond to piracy. Both do that fine. The difference is that this amendment would eliminate all legal restraints. There will be no legal accountability, not even under criminal law. When they say no liability, the way the bill is drafted, it would be you could commit crimes against people and still be exempt.

Now, I can't imagine that the sponsor actually meant to do this. I think he is talking about civil liability. But when he says--the language in the bill, with the manager's amendment, says that you are totally immune unless you knew what you were doing was substantially in excess of what was necessary.

The language in the amendment, however, is not even limited to a civil liability. It's not even limited to during the attack. It could be after the attack when no one is under any danger, and there is no limit on what crimes can be committed at that point.

I would hope, whether this amendment is adopted or not, if there are still concerns about the amendment, that we would work together cooperatively as we go forward to make sure that we give the crewmembers all of the flexibility they need in these situations without going too far and allowing crime and torture and everything else under criminal law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a couple of questions to the sponsor of the amendment, if he would respond.

My first question would be whether it's his intent, because the language under the amendment does not limit it to the high seas, is it your intent to limit this application to high seas?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would ask another question, Mr. Chairman.

Is it your intent to limit this to the application of civil law and not criminal law? Would you exempt owners and operators from criminal acts?

Yes, you do exempt them from criminal acts?

Just civil.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the wording, as it is, says that an owner-operator who uses force or authorized the use of force to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy shall not be liable for any injury or death caused by such force.

That does not limit it, in its present version, to civil. It would actually exempt him from any liability, that would include criminal. I would hope that the gentleman, whatever happens to the amendment, would work cooperatively so that we would limit it to the intent as he has articulated today.

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

Mr. Speaker, responsible health insurance reform requires a comprehensive approach. For example, health insurance companies often deny coverage if you have a preexisting condition. But if we require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, all Americans must be required to carry health insurance; otherwise, people will just wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. And if all Americans are going to be covered, we must have mandates and taxes to subsidize those who can't afford it.

Furthermore, in most States, there's only one company with an overwhelming market share, and so, without a public option, people in many States would be mandated to buy insurance from a sole-source, for- profit corporation without any limit on what it can charge. You know that's not fair.

So even though there is a consensus that people with preexisting conditions should be able to buy insurance at a reasonable cost, we cannot achieve that goal without mandates, subsidies, and a public option to provide competition. That's why we need comprehensive health insurance reform with a public option.