Floor Statements

I thank the Speaker. I thank the gentlelady.

The American people very clearly want bipartisanship, but equally clearly they don't want paralysis. They have had 40 years of talk about solving this problem, and now they want it solved.

At the Blair House summit, the minority said it would be a good idea to have new ways to cut back on fraud and abuse in Medicare, so it's in the law the President signed on Monday and in this underlying bill as well.

The minority said that they would like a way for small businesses to pool together and make it easier to buy health insurance, so it's in the law the President signed on Tuesday and it's in the bill tonight.

The minority said that they would like to find a way that people could buy insurance across State lines, so the bill tonight says that the exchanges that are created can be regional across State lines so people can buy and sell that way.

The minority said they would like to see a way to cut back on nuisance lawsuits, so it's in the bill the President signed on Tuesday.

There are many good ideas from both sides in this bill and on the law signed on Tuesday, but the best idea is to finally act. After 40 years of promises, 40 years of politics, 40 years of paralysis, 40 years of inaction, isn't it time that people can't get turned away because they have preexisting conditions? Isn't it time that hardworking Americans can afford health insurance? Isn't it time that seniors can finally get the prescription drug coverage?

The question tonight is, Whose time is it? It's time for the working families and seniors of America. It is time to end the paralysis, end the politics and vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.

When you take your son or daughter to the emergency room, and you're sitting and waiting in the emergency room, you have a lump in your throat, and you're hoping and praying that when the doctor comes back, the news will be that it's just food poisoning and not a malignancy in your son or daughter's stomach. For many Americans, that joyous moment is followed by another lump in their throat, because even though you've got the joyous news that your child is okay, you can't pay her bill because you have no health insurance. And so many of those Americans for so very long, since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, have looked for the answer. What the President signed on Tuesday and what we do tonight will finally give them that answer.

We will finally say that Americans who wait on tables and pump gas and clean our offices at night will finally have the ability to go home and not only thank God for the fact that their child is better but be thankful for the fact that they live in this country where every American finally has affordable access to health insurance. That is our mission here tonight. Vote ``yes.''

I thank my chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the ladies and gentlemen of the House should respect our constituents who are against the bill, who are for the bill, and those who are undecided; but we should respect them enough to give them an accurate record of what's in the bill, and I think it's time for some accuracy.

We have heard repeatedly tonight that there are cuts to Medicare in this bill. There is not one cut to not one beneficiary anywhere in this bill. Medicare benefits expand for prescription drugs and expand for preventive care. We heard someone say that the bill increases premiums for Americans.

Section 1001 of the reconciliation bill says that for a family making $45,000 a year, if you look at their premiums, their copays and their deductibles, which is what real people have to do, the bill saves them $7,000 a year. We have heard that the special interest provisions, that I think are an abomination, are in the bill. They are not. If you read section 1201 of the reconciliation bill, it says goodbye to the so- called Cornhusker kickback and other special interest provisions.

We heard that there is taxpayer funding for abortions. Read section 10,104 of the underlying bill. There isn't. We have heard that this is going to add to the deficit and the debt of the country. Don't listen to what the Democrats say. Don't listen to what the Republicans say. Listen to what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says, which is this: the bill will save $138 billion off the deficit in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion off the deficit in the next 10 years.

Finally, we hear the bill will kill jobs. When the Clinton economic plan was on this floor, a gentleman named Dick Armey, a leader of the anti-movement on this bill, said it would be ``a recipe for disaster.'' He was wrong. That bill created 23 million new jobs and we should vote----

Finally, I heard one of our colleagues say this bill will create a socialist utopia. No, Mr. Speaker, it won't. It will create a decent society that every man, woman, and child in this society and this country so richly deserves. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have asked frequently tonight what kind of country are we. They've asked exactly the right question. Tomorrow when a person is denied a job because she has breast cancer or is charged higher premiums because he has asthma, what kind of country will we be? Tomorrow when a senior citizen has enough money in her checking account to pay the utility bill or her prescription bill but not both, what kind of country will we be? When a person who tonight is scrubbing floors or pumping gas or waiting on tables tomorrow tries to go to buy a health insurance policy for herself or her children, what kind of country will we be?

For Social Security, we gave decency for seniors. In Medicare, we gave compassion for seniors. In the Civil Rights Act, we gave equality for all Americans. Tonight, we will give justice and decency. That's the kind of country that we will be.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of millions of individuals throughout our country who are working for small businesses which are in PEO arrangements. The clear objective of this legislation is to create incentives for health care coverage and not to provide disincentives. I would like to clarify that for purposes of the application of section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (Prohibition on Discrimination in Favor of Highly Compensated Individuals) and Internal Revenue Code section 45R (Credit for Employee Health Insurance Expenses of Small Businesses), to any health plans sponsored by a professional employer organization (PEO) or a PEO client organization, the rules would be applied to each client organization separately and eligibility for the small business tax credits would also apply to each client organization separately, and not at the PEO level.

I rise in very strong support of this bill. I commend Members on both sides for supporting it. I regret that the Member who just spoke has chosen to use this debate about honoring veterans of the Cold War era by mischaracterizing the bill before us tomorrow. I'd like to take a few minutes and specify those mischaracterizations.

The gentleman said there will be Medicare cuts. There will be no cuts to benefits for any Medicare recipient. Yes, there'll be cuts from fraud, waste, and abuse under Medicare. Senator Coburn of the other body says a third of Medicare spending is fraud, waste, and abuse. The Heritage Foundation says at least 10 percent. This bill takes between 5 and 6 percent of that fraud, waste, and abuse.

For the record, the gentleman made reference to veterans and TRICARE. Veterans Administration care, which this Congress under this majority has increased to the highest level of the history of the country, will not be affected in any way. I will challenge anyone on the minority side to show me one word in these bills that justifies a different conclusion, one. TRICARE will not be affected in any way, and I would offer a similar challenge.

The gentleman said there will be massive tax increases. What he did not say is that tax increases to help pay for this bill are on families with an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, the top 3 or 4 percent in the country.

He said it will cost American jobs and be a job killer. This is echoes of the words we heard in this Chamber in 1993, when Members of the other side said the Clinton economic plan would be a job killer. The former chairman of the House Budget Committee, our friend from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, said at that time that if the plan worked, he would become a Democrat. Well, he didn't become a Democrat, but the plan worked. It created 23 million new jobs after it was passed.

He said there was a specious claim of deficit reduction. I'll say this to you. The gentleman said that some say the deficit will go up as a result of this. Well, around here, we don't rely upon hearsay from unsubstantiated sources. We rely upon the Congressional Budget Office, and here's what they say. They said the deficit will go down by $138 billion in the first 10 years, and over $1.2 trillion in the next 10.

With all due respect, the men and women who served this country in the Cold War served honestly and always gave a fair accounting of what they do. When we hear these remarks on the

floor, they are not an accurate representation of facts and they, frankly, do dishonor to this bill and this debate.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

My friend from Indiana, the previous speaker, is a very thoughtful and substantive Member and I appreciate the good work he does, so I want to ask him a couple of questions about the assertions he just made. One is that the Senate bill, the base text, hurts TRICARE. I wonder if he could explain to us exactly how that is, and I would be happy to yield to him if he could explain to us.

Can anyone explain how the Senate bill hurts TRICARE? I'm just simply asking for an explanation of the statement.

Let's talk about one of the details that is more obvious. I thank you.

The gentleman talked about a couple that would buy a home for $30,000 and sell it for $200,000, having a $170,000 gain. Under the proposal that the House will consider tomorrow, does the gentleman know what tax that couple would pay on that gain if they had a $170,000 gain?

Reclaiming my time, the example the gentleman used was a couple that bought a $30,000 house, sold it for $200,000, which means it's a $170,000 gain. The tax would be zero because the tax doesn't kick in until $250,000.

Every Member is entitled to his own opinion but not his own set of facts. These assertions are false.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We've just heard another series of misrepresentations. We just heard the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office ``cooked the books.'' I, frankly, think that does a great disservice to the men and women on a nonpartisan basis who work for that budget office and give us their honest judgment. Apparently the minority doesn't like their honest judgment-- that the bill reduces the deficit. So rather than argue the facts, they attack the men and women, nonpartisan people, who wrote the report. I think that's just not fair.

Cuts to Medicare: No Medicare beneficiary gets any cut. There's an increase in prescription drug coverage. There's an increase in preventive care where there's no copay. Having said that, I think there is fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare. Senator Coburn thinks that. The Heritage Foundation thinks that. The gentleman on the other side must think that because last spring when the Republicans put their alternative budget on the floor, it cut Medicare outlays by $100 billion more than this bill does. It was in excess of $600 billion. And I, frankly, think that that targeted some fraud, waste, and abuse, so to argue somehow that these are cuts is disingenuous and inaccurate.

Then we come back to TRICARE. There are two issues with respect to TRICARE. The first is, which office or department regulates. It's very clear it is the Department of Defense, and it should be the Department of Defense, not any other department. Mr. Skelton's bill very wisely affirmed that. But I'm still waiting for someone on the other side to tell me what the other problem was of trying to fix TRICARE. I just don't know what it was. There's an assertion made that the bill hurts people on TRICARE, and I'm still waiting to hear what that was.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, show me in the bill where it says there's any possibility of that happening. The bill says exactly the opposite. It says that under the terms of the individual mandate, someone who's covered by TRICARE satisfies the individual mandate. The bill also says expressly, No one can be forced to join the exchange, no one can be forced to buy a particular insurance policy from anyone. So not only does the bill lack the accusation that the minority makes, it expressly disclaims it.

I think the public has a right to see where we stand on this, and tomorrow it will. But I think that right would be in the expectation of people who have actually read the bill and have an understanding of what's in it. I don't think the minority has.

I thank my friend for yielding and for being here night after night talking about what is really in this bill and doing a great job on it. I thank him for his friendship. I would like to thank and congratulate Mr. Boccieri's courageous decision to vote in favor of this bill on behalf of the families that he talked about.

And to my friend from Ohio, I would also like to thank someone who we wouldn't usually hear about being thanked, and that is the millions of Americans who have contacted us who oppose this bill. And I have heard from my constituents who oppose this bill, and they are worried. They are very worried, and they should be, because if the things that they have been told were in this bill were true, not only would I be worried about it, but I would not vote for it.

Our constituents are not simply entitled to know where their Representatives stand, they are entitled to know where their Representatives stand on the facts that are actually before us.

I want to take a few minutes tonight to talk about the things that I have heard from my neighbors and constituents that worry them and then lay out the facts.

I have heard from my senior citizen constituents that they don't want any cuts in their Medicare benefits. The fact is this bill does not cut anyone's Medicare benefits. The opposite is true. To those seniors who enrolled in the Medicare part D prescription drug program, the amount of their prescriptions that Medicare pays for goes up, the amount of drugs that they pay for goes down, and eventually, by the end of this process, 75 percent, at least, of all prescription costs will be paid by Medicare and 25 percent by the seniors. It is the closure of the so- called doughnut hole. It is one of the main reasons that the AARP is supporting this bill.

When a senior goes to the family doctor or the OB-GYN for an annual checkup, when this bill becomes law, that senior won't pay any copay. Medicare will pay the entire cost of that visit. Those are the only changes in Medicare that affect people's benefits. The benefits increase.

We have heard the outrageous statement that Americans who are elderly or disabled will be denied health care because there will be death panels in the bill. The answer can be found in section 1302 of the underlying text that we will be considering on Sunday. That text directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, ``to ensure that health benefits established as essential not be subject to denial to individuals against their wishes on the basis of the individual's age or expected length of life or the individual's present or predicted disability.'' That's the fact that is in the bill.

We have heard people say that they do not want to be forced to join a government health plan or any other health plan. They don't want to wait in a health clinic like the British do, like they say they do. They don't want to be in the Canadian system, and they are not. The fact is that section 1312 of the text that we will consider on Sunday says the following: ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual,'' that is anyone, ``to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in the exchange.'' It goes on to say ``nothing in this title shall be construed to compel an individual to enroll in a qualified health plan.'' Nothing. That's what the bill says.

We have heard many Americans of good conscience say they do not wish to see their tax dollars pay for abortion services. My friend, Mr. Ryan, who is staunchly pro-life and has stood to that position irrespective of the political consequences, has eloquently described what the bill says. For those who wish to read it for themselves, go to section 10104 and read it. It says that no public funds may be used to pay for an abortion for anyone.

I hear constituents say, quite understandably, they do not want undocumented people to receive health care benefits or subsidies under this bill, what are sometimes referred to as illegal aliens. Neither do the authors of the bill. So if you go to section 1312f, a qualified individual is defined, and a qualified individual is someone who is a U.S. citizen or is here legally on a green card or other legal document. That's what the bill says.

We hear that the bill will destroy small businesses across the country. Small businesses do create three out of every four private sector jobs in this country. The bill does have a substantial effect on small business. Here is what it isn't and here is what it is. What it isn't is a crushing mandate on small businesses, because section 1304 of the bill says, if a business has 50 or fewer full-time employees, the business is required to do nothing. No mandate, no requirement, no tax, nothing. The person who is running a gas station, a deli, a barber shop, a small firm, nothing.

What the bill does say about small business is this: That the same deal that General Electric or Lockheed Martin or a huge company can get, so can the small business by joining a purchasing exchange set up in each State. And it says that the smallest of businesses will get a tax cut effective immediately this year for insuring their employees voluntarily. If you have 50 or fewer employees, you are not required to do anything and you probably qualify for a tax cut as a result of hiring more people.

Finally, we hear that this bill will dramatically increase the country's deficit and debt. And as a father of two daughters who are 15 and 17, I worry about a lot of things unrelated to politics and the debt, but I also worry about the debt because they are going to have to pay it off. I think the American people need to know a fact about the debt before they consider this bill. The debt is everyone's fault. I have had the privilege of serving here quite a long time. Both parties share a blame. I own my share of the responsibility. But we need to know this: 70 percent of the national debt was run up during the administrations of President Reagan, the first President Bush, and the second President Bush. Seven out of every $10 of debt came from them.

Now, what does this bill do to the national debt and deficit? You should not believe the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or any political person on this issue. Mr. Speaker, our constituents, for those who wonder what this does to the national deficit and debt, look at the accounting by the neutral, nonpartisan scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, which for a long time around here has been recognized as the gold standard and authority. Here is what they say. They say that if this bill becomes law, the deficit will be reduced by $138 billion over the next 10 years, and, in the second 10 years, it will be reduced by $1.2 trillion.

Everyone in this Congress is entitled to his or her own opinion, but the American people are entitled to the facts. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. The facts are that this is what is in the bill. The things that people have been told about this bill are not true, and, Mr. Speaker, I would invite those who wonder to go to the Internet, to read the bill and draw their own conclusions and then frankly evaluate the criticisms of people who will continue to mislead about this bill.

We are fortunate that people of good faith have made legitimate criticisms about this bill. We tried to listen and improve the bill, and on Sunday we look forward to a clear, on-the-record vote to adopt this legislation.

I thank my friend for yielding.

It is. I would like to thank the gentleman for being here, for being the former insurance commissioner of California, really knowing these issues and doing a great job. I want to talk about one of the people who would be helped by this.

A few years ago, I was in my best friend's wedding, and I was in the bridal party, and there was a beautiful young lady who was also in the bridal party as a bridesmaid. The wedding was in June. We all had a great time; all of our families there. My wife and I had a wonderful time. A few months later, around Thanksgiving, she started to feel sick. Now, she was a part-time cafeteria aide in a public school. Her husband was a truck driver who lost his job. So they had no health insurance.

She started to feel some stomach discomfort. She went to the emergency room. They decided to admit her to the hospital. They said they were going to run a series of tests over the next couple of days. And she was terrified that if she stayed in the hospital for that time that she would run up a huge bill that she couldn't afford. So she checked herself out. She continued to have some stomach problems, and again afraid to go see a doctor because she couldn't pay the bill. This is around Thanksgiving. She died the day after Christmas, leaving her kids behind.

A lot of politics on this floor, I say to the gentleman from California. She is not here today to hear those politics. Her kids don't have a mother because someone who worked hard for a living, who was in a rough time in their life, could not afford health care. She is the issue and her children are the issue on Sunday.

If the gentleman will yield, I know the person you are talking about. Shortly before the holidays this year, on a very snowy Saturday, my wife and I went to a large department store to pick up some last-minute items. A lady in Audubon, New Jersey, was working at the store and talked about what a long day for her it was. She was in the eighth or ninth hour of her shift. And she had no health insurance because she conveniently fit underneath the full-time worker category, working for a huge corporation. She was not yet 65, so she didn't have Medicare. And she was really worried that she was going to get sick, because if she got sick she also had a preexisting condition which would make it all the worse. Couldn't buy insurance.

Here is what this bill says, as the gentleman knows, to that lady. First of all, because she works for a large firm, her employer is going to have to either insure her or contribute toward the cost of insuring her. And she is going to be able to get insured for 3 or 4 percent of her income, maybe $15 or $20 a week, which is affordable for her. A lot of people say, well, this is an unfair mandate on business. They don't understand. When a huge corporation like that one doesn't pay its fair share, the rest of us all do. She will get insurance, it will be paid for fairly, and I think she is the lady the gentleman is talking about.

Will the gentleman yield?

Define what ``qualified'' means so people understand. Qualified means you are a citizen or you are here legally. That is what it means.

Right.

Right.

I think the gentleman's point, Mr. Speaker, is so well taken, because a lot of times people hear about this legislation and say, Well, okay, what does this really have to do with me? I have insurance, I'm employed, I don't run a small business, so I'm concerned about this because I think I'm going to pay higher taxes and get nothing for this.

Let me deal with that. First of all, if you live in a family that has an income of less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, there is no tax on your family. If you are an individual that earns less than $200,000 a year, there is no new tax on your family. So let's get that straight.

Secondly, who is the next person who is going to find out that they are diabetic, or they are asthmatic, or God forbid they are diagnosed with a malignancy, or there is some other condition, as you said, that is relatively trivial as acne or eczema or something like this. The record is filled with people who are denied coverage or who face huge premium increases.

Because I am sure, Mr. Speaker and my friend from California, there are people watching this tonight who thought today was their lucky day, that they got a job offer. This happened to someone I know very well in my family. She got a job offer. She had been looking for a long time for a job, and this is the job she wanted. The employer called back the next day and said, We're sorry, but we have to rescind our offer because you cost too much to insure because she's diabetic and has a family history of breast cancer. So her punishment for conditions that are beyond her control is that she is now unemployable if she wants health insurance.

Now, people say that in this country everybody should work their way up the ladder. I completely agree with that. How can you work your way up the ladder if you can't get an employer to offer you a job because you are not insurable? That is over when this bill becomes law.

If the gentleman will yield, it is not a terribly exotic concept. My family has two kittens, so we buy a lot of food for them and the other things that they need.

We buy them at one of these discount centers. I won't name the brand name. But we buy them at one of the centers because you can buy these products a lot cheaper than you can at retail because there is a purchasing group that gets a better deal on these products. This is a concept Americans understand very well. The larger the volume of the group of buyers, the better the discount.

The problem for those small entrepreneurs that the gentleman talks about is they're out there on their own. They're out there with 5, or 6, or 7, or 20 people, and they get whatever they can get. But when they join an exchange--if they want to--it is voluntary. When they join an exchange, they join a buy-in club, that just like our family is able to buy our pet supplies at a cheaper price. They're going to buy health insurance at a price at a Lockheed Martin, or a General Electric, or the United States of America.

And listen, their employees are going to get the same choices of health plans that we do as Members of Congress. It's long overdue.

Thank you for calling me an expert on the U.S. economy. That is hardly the case. That is the one inaccurate thing the gentleman said.

I do know this from listening to my neighbors: The economy is in deplorable, horrible shape. It's the worst economy, I think, in my life.

And the number one issue today is not health care; it is the economy, but it's important to understand how this issue plays into jobs and the economy.

Businesses can't create jobs as their premiums skyrocket. As an employer pays more and more and more in health care, what he or she has to do is either hire fewer people or offer narrower health benefits. The auto manufacturers tell us that the price of health care for their employees in making a car costs more than the price of steel that goes into the car.

A young entrepreneur starting a software company is likely to not even make it at all or crash and burn from the beginning because of these costs.

One of the ways to help businesses create more jobs--and by the way, an independent estimate shows that over time, the savings that this health care bill will generate will create 4 million jobs in the United States--is to fix health care.

So I do say one thing. Our opponents do have a track record, because I hear their rhetoric. They say that well, the taxes that are required on families making more than a quarter million of dollars to help pay for this--by the way; it's about 55 percent spending cuts, 45 percent new revenues to pay for this--but that those taxes will have a catastrophic effect on job creation. We will hear that ceaselessly this weekend. And they're consistent, if nothing else.

I want to read you a statement that was made, as an echo, not about this plan, but another plan 17 years ago. Here's the quote. ``It is a recipe for disaster. It is not a recipe for more jobs. Taxes will go up. The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off, and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction, of lower interest rates''

The plan was not this health care plan. It was the Clinton economic plan in 1993. The Speaker was former majority leader Dick Armey, one of the leading critics of this plan. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now.

I was, and I will confess I didn't vote for that plan, and I regret that vote. I think it was a mistake because I frankly didn't understand it as well as I should. It was a mistake on my part.

Twenty-three million new jobs.

I do. For every private-sector job created during the George W. Bush years, during the Clinton years we created 140. Let me say that again. For every one private-sector job that the Bush administration with its policies created, 140 were created during the Clinton administration.

Now, the reason I make this point is that the same rhetoric that we're hearing this weekend, that these taxes which affect the top 3 or 4 percent of people in America, are going to have a catastrophic effect on jobs, this is an echo chamber.

One other quote I want to read you again about the 1993 plan: ``This plan puts the economy in the gutter. If it was to work, then I would have to become a Democrat.'' The person who said that was former Representative John Kasich, a very dear friend of mine, budget chairman, who unfortunately--depending on how you look at it--is not a Democrat; he's still a Republican, even though it did not put the economy in the gutter; it created 23 million new jobs.

So we will hear this tired old refrain this weekend, but the facts dictate differently.

I thank the gentleman again.

What does that plan mean for seniors? It means no cuts in benefits for any senior. It means an expansion of benefits to cover more prescription drugs as well as preventative care visits. It means that the life of the Medicare trust fund will be extended for 7 or 8 more years, and it emphatically does not mean that any senior, any disabled person, will ever be denied coverage because of their age or disability. It's not the truth.

The parties do have a record on entitlement health care spending. The erstwhile majority increased health care entitlements by $800 billion in deficit spending. We're going to decrease it by $1.2 trillion. That's a $2 trillion difference between the rhetoric of the other side and the facts of this bill.

Madam Speaker, as a direct result of the White House summit a couple of weeks ago, good ideas from both parties are in this plan. But there is a philosophical difference between the two parties that I think came out last night. On weekends I very often go to the supermarket and see these little notices for beef and beer socials for people trying to raise money for a medical emergency in their family. Most of the people trying to do this have insurance. But their daughter has leukemia or their son is on a ventilator and they ran out of health insurance benefits because they run up against what is called a lifetime policy limit.

Last night, we took a vote on whether or not to abolish those lifetime policy limits so no family should have to do that. Our side voted ``yes.'' Their side voted ``no.'' But Members of Congress, in their own health plan, if our families have this problem, there is no limit on what we get.

So we think that the American people should get the same benefit that the men and women who vote in this Chamber every day do. We believe we should stand on the side of the families of this country, not the insurance industry.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this bill. I would like to thank and congratulate Mr. Perriello, Ms. Markey and Ms. Slaughter for their leadership.

Members of the House have a choice to make this afternoon: If you believe that the Members of the two parties can work together to solve a problem in our health care system, then the correct vote is ``yes''; if you believe that there can be simple and clear solutions that do not involve thousands of pages of legislative language, then the correct vote is ``yes''; if you believe that health insurance companies should be held to the same standard that car dealers, supermarkets, television networks, candy stores, all kinds of people are held to in this country, then the correct vote is ``yes.''

The choice here is competition versus crony capitalism. Competition means the best competitors get the market share and get the business. It means that health insurance companies cannot meet behind closed doors and fix the prices of their product. We've seen enough of crony capitalism on Wall Street, we have seen enough of crony capitalism in our banking industry, and I think we've seen more than enough of crony capitalism in health insurance.

This is the chance for the Members to come together and say we want the health insurance industry to compete for the business of the American people the same way everybody else does. It is pro-consumer, it is pro-competition. It should be profound evidence that the two parties can work together and start to solve the health care problem.

I congratulate the authors. I would urge my friends on both sides to vote ``yes'' in favor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor William Allan Wood for his many years in New Jersey's First district. Mr. Wood, at 105 years old, sets an excellent example of how to live fully and completely.

Mr. Wood was born the second of seven children in June of 1904 in Camden, New Jersey. He grew up in Haddonfield, NJ. He started attending Drexel night school in the fall of 1923 studying mechanical engineering and received his certificate in 1928. While attending Drexel, he worked in a shop rebuilding machine tools and then at the Southwark Foundry in Philadelphia and later at the Baldwin Locomotive Works as a draftsman and then an engineer. In 1936, he started working for Florence Pipe Foundry, part of the R. D. Wood Company. He started as an engineer/ draftsman. In 1940, he became a plant engineer and oversaw the expansion of the foundry's capacity during WWII. He remained plant engineer until he retired in 1961.

Allan married his wife Virginia in 1937 and moved to Delanco, NJ where they raised a daughter and a son. His wife passed away in 1999. He has three grandchildren and five great grandchildren. Allan has always stressed the importance of family, friends and has served on many local and state boards and commissions.

Allan has been a lifelong sailor, first in small racing sailboats and then in cruising sailboats. For 25 years, Allan and his wife sailed their beloved 27-foot sailboat on the Delaware River and the Chesapeake Bay, often in company with family and friends. It was through a sailor friend that he started his second career at C-Lec Plastics in 1962 as an engineer designing tools and equipment for casting, curing and machining large high tech plastic components. When his wife became ill he cut back to a 3-day workweek and for the past 5 years he has been working 3 half-days per week. Even at 105 years of age, Allan is one of the most reliable employees at C-Lec and is appreciated by everyone there.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Wood on a life filled with achievements and service. It is an honor to pay tribute to Mr. Wood, and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding.

The constituents that I listen to know that both parties are responsible for borrowing a lot of money. They know that we borrowed a significant amount of money in recent times. They also know that the minority party voted to borrow and increase the national debt by 70 percent during the term of the prior President. They know that this is the worst economic times we've had since the Great Depression. They don't know this by reading the newspaper. They know it by reading the balance in their checking account or reading the foreclosure notice that came in the mail yesterday or reading the want ads because they're looking for a job. They know this.

They know that us saying the Republicans did wrong and the Republicans saying we did wrong isn't going to fix their problems. So what they know is they want to hear us talk about what to do about this burgeoning problem of the national debt. Here is our answer: We first believe that the best way to reduce the debt and reduce the deficit is to get people back to work so that individuals and families are able to pay taxes and so that businesses are able to pay taxes off of their profits.

The best deficit- and debt-reduction program is full employment. We have nothing like full employment, nothing like it at all. We've lost huge numbers of jobs, and our plan to do something about it has been this: First, we believe that we should cut taxes for middle-class families so they have more money to spend. That's what we did last year, and the President proposes to do it again this year. Second, we believe that we should cut taxes for small businesses so they can reinvest in their businesses. That's what we voted for last year. We're prepared to do it again. We believe that we should put people back to work, rebuilding our roads and our bridges, rail systems, clean water systems, clean energy. That's what we voted to do last year.

We are a long way from succeeding in this effort, but here is what has happened: In the last quarter of 2009, nearly 800,000 Americans lost their jobs. Tomorrow we will hear the reports for the month of January. They won't be good. But they will be a lot better than 800,000 people losing their jobs, which is what happened in the last quarter of the year before last year. We've seen growth in the fourth quarter at 5.7 percent. That means nothing to you if you're still looking at the want ads, but it means that there is reason to think that jobs are on the way.

And what have we heard about this? The chief economic adviser to President McCain's Presidential campaign said that the key factor of that growth taking place was the recovery bill that we passed last February. Those are his words, not mine. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as Mr. McGovern said, estimates that as many as 2.4 million jobs have been created as a result of the recovery bill. We have a long way to go. We have laid out our plan to get there. Frankly, the minority has not laid out a plan, and we look forward to them doing so.

The second thing that you need to do is to restrain and reduce spending. Most people will agree that the number

one spending problem is entitlements, and the number one entitlement problem is health care. There are two ways to reduce health care spending. The first way is to restrain spending right now in existing programs. That's what we did. In November, a bill came to this floor to reform the country's health care system that would have stopped what I believe are wasteful payments to health care providers and people making money off the system to the tune of $480 billion, real deficit reduction that we all voted for. No one--with one exception--on the other side voted to do that.

I thank the gentleman. The second way to reduce health care costs is to change the health care system so there is more competition, so that insurance companies have to compete for people's business and keep costs down that way. We'll all have a chance to vote on a bill that does that next week.

And yes, the third thing that I think you have to do is to raise some revenue. The President and most of us ran on this proposition. We do believe that couples who make more than $250,000 a year and individuals who make more than $200,000 a year should be asked to pay the tax rates that they paid before the Bush tax cuts of 2001. Now we heard in 1993 that this would ruin the economy. It would cause calamity. It would be the end of the American economy as we know it. Mr. Gingrich said this. Others said this. They were wrong. After they said these things, the economy created 23 million new jobs. When we followed their way, the economy lost jobs in the succeeding 8 years.

The American people want to know what we intend to do, and we've said what we intend to do. We know it can be better.

Yes, sir.

May I answer the question?

They do not exempt spending. Here's what they say. As the gentleman knows, the structure of this bill is that increases in mandatory spending or decreases in revenue must be offset. There are four exceptions, the so-called ``doctor fix,'' the SGR payments; middle class tax cuts; the estate tax fix, which I think both parties have tried to support.

If I may, I'm trying to answer. Would the gentleman yield so I could answer?

The pages the gentleman is talking about are what are called the sequestration rules; and what that means is, if the Congress violates pay-as-you-go, and it spends more than it should under those rules, then there is an automatic reduction in spending to make the so- called score card balance out, to make sure things are brought into balance. Sequestration has happened once in the years that pay-as-you- go were in effect. It was when Mr. Darman was Budget Director. It has never happened before. What these rules say is if there's a sequestration, there are certain programs that are off limits to the sequestration. But they're not exceptions to the PAYGO rule.

Madam Speaker, the American public must be baffled by the charges and countercharges going back and forth. I would just invite, Madam Speaker, those listening to make their own decision based on two facts.

First is that the gentleman from Kentucky said a few minutes ago that the present administration had tripled the Federal spending. I would invite people to go look at the record, which says that the 2008 budget was $2.9 trillion. The proposed budget for this year is $3.7 trillion. That is not tripling.

Second, in the years in which we have had the PAYGO rule in effect, we have accumulated 30 percent of the Federal debt. In the years we have not had it in effect, we have accumulated 70 percent of the Federal debt.

Choose based upon the record and I think people will see that voting ``yes'' on this commonsense legislation is the right path.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, February 5, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cooper University Hospital for their heroic response to the Haiti Earthquake disaster. The staff of Cooper University Hospital has shown incredible compassion for the victims of the tragedy and for this they deserve great praise.

When the 7.0 earthquake devastated Haiti on January 12, Cooper University Hospital did not hesitate to mobilize an 18-member medical relief team. This team of 18 doctors, nurses, and technicians worked at the Haitian-Dominican Republic border, providing life-saving care under harrowing circumstances. They provided anesthesia, set broken bones, performed surgery and worked to significantly reduce the local mortality rate.

The team has returned home, but their efforts continue. Cooper University Hospital is making plans to bring two Haitian children to Camden for surgery. Even now, the hospital is preparing to send 6,000 sets of canes, crutches, and walkers to Haiti.

Madam Speaker, the service of these 18 people should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank them for the humanitarian assistance they have provided and I am grateful Cooper University Hospital has continued their long tradition of caring for those in need.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of Mr. George Haeuber with recognition of his outstanding contributions in government service.

Mr. Haeuber's devotion to public service began in March 1974 as Administrative Assistant to the Township Manager in the Township of Teaneck, New Jersey. From there he continued his public service as Borough Administrator of the Borough of Leonia, New Jersey. Mr. Haeuber became Township Manager of the Township of Maple Shade, Maple Shade, New Jersey in July 1984. As Township Manager, Mr. Haeuber served as chief administrative and executive officer of the Township, responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Township, and the preparation, presentation and administration of the Township budget. Mr. Haeuber supervised all aspects of municipal operations and provided for the effective and efficient fulfillment of Township Council policy.

Mr. Haeuber also pioneered the formulation of local self-insurance pools. He served from 1987 to 1992 as chairman of the Executive Committee of the Professional Municipal Management Joint Insurance Fund. He served as a member of the Executive Committee of the Statewide Municipal Excess Liability Joint Insurance Fund (MELJIF) from 1988 to 1992 and from 1996. He chaired the committee from 1997 to 1999. In addition, Mr. Haeuber was Fund Commissioner, Municipal Excess Liability Residual Claims Fund, and Chairman of MELJIF Audit Committee.

Mr. Haeuber's commitment to Maple Shade is also evidenced through his civic/community service affiliations. Mr. Haeuber is an active member of the Maple Shade Rotary Club, serving as its chairman in 1990-91, and Youth Chairman since 1986. Furthermore, Mr. Haeuber has been deeply involved in Boy Scouts of America Burlington County Council--Young Adults Division, as a member of the Council Exploring Committee from 1993 to 1998 and as chairman of the Service Team from 1993 to 1998.

Madam Speaker, the work of Mr. Haeuber is truly praiseworthy. I wish Mr. Haeuber the best of luck upon retirement and I thank him for his commitment to his community.