Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor this year's winners of The Rutgers University President's Recognition Program. The Excellence in Service Awards acknowledge the exceptional individual contributions of university staff employees. It recognizes employees who provide superior sustained service, exceptional creativity and resourcefulness, and continually contribute to a positive work environment. The winners of this award are Erica Anderson, Camille S. Andrews, Jeanette Danner, David Maiullo, Joan McCracken, and Christinia Strasburger. The school and I are both extremely proud of your accomplishment.

The second award, the Bridge Award, is given to small teams. These teams are nominated for an extraordinary accomplishment demonstrated by the completion of a special project or activity during the last year, while giving a superior, sustained effort. The winning teams of this award are:

Blackboard System Implementation and Course Development Support Team, Team members: Ksenia Adamovitch, Jennifer S. Scalf, Monique R. Bonilla, Alan R. Shareshian, Marie J. Botticelli, Palma C. Sisco, Miguel Angel Estremera, Judy Soncrant, Alex V. Flinsch, Karen Yvette Swift, Norma Grace, Daniel R. Villanueva, Martin F. O'Reilly, William J. Yodlowsky, Elizabeth C. Rowe, and Mingkun S. Zhou.

GLBA Compliance--Risk Assessment, Office of Financial Services-- Camden, Team members: Christopher V. Caracino, Domenick C. Nasuti, Marlene L. Druding, Stevenson Pierrejacques, Elizabeth A. Gorman, Joyce A. Sepanic, Maria V. Grace, Pamela Yvette Wells.

LSDA Project Team, Team members: Barbara Bastek, Jean McDonald-Rash, Cory J. Bastek, Digna M. Solis, Jo-Ann Craig, Erin A. Sullivan, and Rene E. Graham.

GLBA Compliance Team, Team members: Melvin L. Brown, Beckman Rich, Jo-Ann Craig, Bruce T. Rights, Nicholas DiGiovanni, Sanjana Rimal, Donald J. Gordon, Rosa M. Rivera, Keith B. Grant, Brian T. Rose, Ellen Harris-Small, Diane D. Spalluto, Lance D. Jordan, Timothy L. Stein, Nathan Kaplan, Theresa G. Wooding, Stanley A. Kolasa, Richard L. Woodland, and Stevenson Pierrejacques

RU Info Project Team, Team members: Elizabeth M. Brennan, John A. Kanopka, Eve C. Burris, Debra L. Norman, Elizabeth A. DeMauro, Cynthia B. Paul, Joanne M. Dus-Zastrow, James R. Stapleton, Jennifer L. Hollis, Sherrie Ann Tromp, Eric G. Jacobson, Matthew J. Weismantel, Mary Gail Bellas, and Kevin M. Zygler

``RU Safe?'' Planning Committee, Team members: Rashel L. Carnefix, Laura Luciano, James R. Doyle, Francesca M. Maresca, Amy Ellen Hackett, Anthony Mireles, Rhonda L. Harris, Daniel R. Pascale, John A. Kanopka, Brenton F. Smith, Steven S. Keleman, and Christine E. Sohn.

Rutgers Cook College & NJAES (New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station) Resource Center, Team members: Richard Buckley, Gary Huntzinger, Lori A. Gillar, Holly S. Kennington, Michael J. Green, Stephanie L. Murphy, Stephen Griglak, Sabrina Tirpak, Michele Hujber, Bonnie G. Wasielewski, Tina M. Hunter, and Philip Wisneski

Web Transcript Project Team, Team members: Patricia Brophy, Lidia A. Levkovitch, Paula M. Couto, Cruz F. Lopez, Miguel Angel Estremera, Thomas McKeon, and Norma Grace, Eugene R. Pizzaia, George R. Hryvniak, and Terry L. Richartz.

TOPOFF Planning Committee, Team members: Richard R. Dinan, Mark D. McLane, Steven S. Keleman, Joanne O'Brien, Douglas S. Kokoskie, Alejandro Ruiz, Dorothy Kozlowski, Michael D. Smith, Rosemarie H. Kulp, Gregory J. Trevor, Edward Lifshitz, and James John Zawistowski.

Rutgers Learning Centers New Programs Team, Team members: Mary Ann Cancio, Shawn Taylor, Maryann Puccio, Matthew Winkler, Christine E. Sohn, and Calvin Yu.

All of the winners have truly earned these awards. I commend them for their hard work and dedication. Along with their fellow nominees, they are vital to making Rutgers a great University, and I hope they continue their excellent work.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on October 25, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 3675 (the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act), H. Con. Res. 269 (Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the White House Fellows Program) and H.R. 3256 (the Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office Designation Act).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Norm Sooy, this year's recipient of the Excellence in Customer Service Award given by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. This award is given to providers of great customer service for veterans. Moreover, it identifies individuals who go above and beyond the scope of their normal duties. For sixteen years, Norm has managed a tremendous caseload as Director of the Camden County Department of Veterans Affairs, and repeatedly volunteers his own time on nights and weekends in order to better serve Camden County veterans.

Norm Sooy is a pillar in my community, an esteemed colleague, and above all a close friend. New Jersey is blessed to have such a selfless and hard working champion for veterans. I offer my sincere gratitude to him for his dedication, as I am sure veterans across Camden County do as well.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed five votes on October 18th, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 525, 526, 527 and 528. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 524.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Stephen F. Kendall. Mr. Kendall was a leading businessman in the great state of New Jersey, and his legacy of integrity and hard work will certainly be remembered.

Stephen Kendall built Arch America L.L.C, the major fabricator of metal products and served as its CEO for twenty-seven years. Born in the Wynnefield section of Philadelphia, Mr. Kendall graduated from Valley Forge Military Academy and attended Villanova University. In 1959 Mr. Kendall began to work at a tiny aluminum plant. By 1970 he had taken over the firm and proceeded to build the business into Arch America L.L.C. Arch America currently has 1,400 employees. Among its many achievements, Arch America provided scaffolding for the restoration of the Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument. In 1997 Mr. Kendall stepped down from his position as CEO and became Chairman of the Board of Arch America. He passed away on October 6, 2005.

Stephen Kendall will be sorely missed. He is survived by his wife, two sons, one daughter, a brother, and eight grandchildren. His dedication to his family and his business will be remembered for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote No. 502 today. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor the United States Junior Girls' Soccer Team, winners of the Gold Medal at the World Maccabi Games held in Israel this summer. The World Maccabi games are an Olympic-style competition that is among the top sporting events in the world. Participants in the games are Jewish athletes from countries all over the world. The National team was chosen from a group of 65 girls nationwide who were selected to try out

last December. The ladies created a bond of true camaraderie and won several intense games. They out hustled, outmaneuvered and outplayed their toughest competition. The only thing that outshined their play was their sportsmanship and respect for the game. They are a true inspiration to soccer players nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Jason Neidell, Wendi Whitman, and Mara Schanfield for their work in coaching the team to the Gold Medal. They provided leadership and guidance and an invaluable service to these ladies and the youth soccer movement. I would also like to honor Jamie Hacker, Allyson Gordon, and Genna Brand, who were selected as Captains of the team. May all of the ladies success in this program help them fully realize their potential for productive, successful lives, and I wish these girls all the best in their future endeavors.

The following are the members of the United States Junior Girls' Gold Medal winners at the 2005 Maccabi World Games:

Sarah Berger, Genna Brand, Allyson Gordon, Amanda Gurin, Jamie Hacker, Lizzie Haldane, Kasey Hirsty, Kayli Hirsty, Lindsay Jaffe, Carly Knue, Allison Kurtz, Samantha Kurtz, Rebecca Rostowsky, Zoe Sarnak, Alexandra Schwach, Dena Shleifer, Morani Stelmach, Rachael Sushner, Julie Kaufman, Sofia Vallone.

Head Coach--Jason Neidell, Assistant Coaches--Wendi Whitman and Mara Schanfield.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about our responsibility to destroy our Nation's stockpile of deadly chemical weapons by April 2007, while also being forthright about the costs and time required to comply with this obligation. This is a commitment that we made to both the American people and the world when the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997. As outlined by statute, Congress retains a continuing oversight role in the CWC's implementation.

So far, we've destroyed 37 percent of our total stockpile of chemical weapons. Without a doubt, the destruction of these chemical weapons is a complicated and costly process. No one is under the illusion that we will meet the 2007 deadline for complete destruction. Unfortunately, civilian officials in the Department of Defense have managed, and continue to manage, much of this program in a way that has guaranteed that we will not meet our treaty obligations by the deadline. In fact, we will be hard pressed to meet the five-year extension that we will be forced to apply for in April of 2006. More importantly, the Department of Defense continues to mislead Congress and the public about the true financial cost of, and time requirements for, complete destruction of the remaining two-thirds of our chemical weapons.

I have become intimately involved with this issue because the Army has proposed to send four million gallons of VX hydrolysate from Newport, Indiana to a DuPont facility in New Jersey where it would be treated and then dumped into the Delaware River. I've joined with many of my colleagues from New Jersey and Delaware to shine a brighter light on this illogical proposal. I believe that our involvement has provided people who live near the Delaware River and people in Newport with much more information about this proposal than they would have received otherwise. But we have a long way to go.

At our urging, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are taking a much closer look at this proposal. In April of this year they issued a report that could not recommend proceeding with the treatment and disposal at the DuPont facility until EPA's noted deficiencies are addressed. EPA's ecologic analysis indicated that there are too many unknowns to determine whether the ecologic risk from the discharge of treated VX hydrolysate to the Delaware River is acceptable.

As decisions are being made about how to deal with hydrolysate at other chemical weapon sites, specifically the Blue Grass Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Depot in Colorado, I find it insightful to juxtapose findings by the Department of Defense related to those sites with proposals made regarding the hydrolysate at Newport. The Department of Defense agency responsible for destroying the weapons at Blue Grass has determined that shipping hydrolysate off-site isn't worth the trouble. While

under perfect conditions, off-site treatment could potentially offer cost and time savings, the conditions involved with the destruction of chemical weapons are far from perfect.

With respect to Newport, the battle over off-site disposal has added at least three years and an indeterminable amount of taxpayer money to the final completion and cost of destruction of the 1,200 tons of VX stored there. I have repeatedly called for the release of a detailed cost-benefit analysis of various destruction options for the VX hydrolysate at Newport, but the Department of Defense refuses to provide this information. Recently the Department of Defense stated that one option for treating the VX hydrolysate, supercritical water oxidation, would add $300 million and an additional two years. But they provide absolutely no supporting evidence of this claim. In fact, some say that this method would cost $30 to $35 million and could be up and running in a year. Another key fact going unmentioned is that VX would continue to be neutralized while an on-site hydrolysate treatment facility is built. After all isn't neutralization of the VX the most important thing we want to accomplish? I call on the Department of Defense to provide a detailed justification of this $300 million dollar claim in addition to why they think it would add two years to final destruction.

For too long the decision making process for the destruction of our chemical weapons has been a closed process that hasn't adequately considered the opinions of affected communities. I call on Congress to tighten its oversight of this program and demand a detailed justification of all possible ways to destroy chemical weapon hydrolysate at Newport, Blue Grass and Pueblo. Those communities have suffered long enough with the presence of these deadly weapons. We must demand a much better justification of why we should expose new communities to this risk. As seen by the frustrating and problematic path that the Department of Defense has followed in Newport since September 11, 2001, the stubborn pursuit of off-site disposal of hydrolysate has resulted in longer exposure to the threat of chemical weapons in our country while preventing us from meeting our treaty obligations. It is past due for Congress to take a much more active role in exercising its Constitutional responsibility of oversight of this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on September 20, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 476 and 477.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005. The amendment includes some very important provision that were previously passed by this chamber in a bill called the Delaware River Protection Act. The Delaware River Protection Act was primarily authored and introduced earlier in the year by my esteemed colleague, Congressman Frank LoBiondo. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of that legislation and I am greatly pleased that the language is included in the manager's amendment. The language is part of a bipartisan effort to protect the ecologically and economically significant Delaware River waterway. In November 2004, the hull of the oil tanker, Athos, was torn open by a submerged object and spilled an estimated 265,000 gallons of oil into our river. The cleanup efforts have cost at least $167 million thus far and the impact to the wetlands will be felt for years to come. We must prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future, as it is an economic as well as an environmental imperative; the Delaware River must remain open to commercial traffic. The language in the Delaware River Protection Act, which will now be part of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act, is a strong step to secure this precious resource.

This language increases the liability limits on single-hull tankers under the Oil Pollution Act, thereby encouraging the adoption of more robust double-hull tankers. In addition, it requires mandatory reporting of objects that are lost overboard to the Coast Guard. There are also provisions to prepare for the contingency of another spill by updating the current response plan, establishing a committee to report to Congress on ways to improve oil spill response and prevention, and establishing a pilot project on the Delaware to test techniques to recover submerged oil. I commend Congressman LoBiondo for his diligent work on this important effort. I also thank my colleagues, Representatives Allyson Schwartz, Jim Saxton, and Mike Castle for their input and support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my esteemed colleague, Congressman Markey. His amendment seeks to protect the citizens of our cities and towns from the potential threat posed by liquefied natural gas, LNG, tankers traversing our waterways.

I fully grasp the need to import additional quantities of fuel, particularly natural gas. Our energy supplies are dwindling and have been further hampered by the recent events in the Gulf. However, I must question the haste of our efforts to import LNG without the proper planning to ensure the public's safety. As it stands now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has the preeminent authority in siting these LNG facilities. The recently passed Energy Bill even included a provision that usurped State's rights in the siting process. The problem here is that FERC is an agency concerned with energy policy, yet they have limited expertise in security and public safety. In the past, we could rely on individual States to make security decisions, but now that authority is in jeopardy.

The most prudent action we can take at this time to ensure the safety and security of our citizens is to bolster the power of the Coast Guard. While the Coast Guard is already involved in siting LNG facilities, this amendment offered by Congressman Markey would give the Coast Guard the specific direction they need to properly and thoroughly examine risks posed to the public.

There is no doubt that LNG will become an increasing part of our Nation's energy supply. Moreover, there will be some prospective sites that are suitable for LNG facilities and others that are not. I am not here to make a judgment on any specific sites. Rather, I want the professionals in the Coast Guard to do the security analysis. Our energy needs cannot take precedent over the safety of our citizens. Once again, I support Mr. Markey's amendment and I urge my colleagues to include it in the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in full support of H.R. 3645 to provide financial relief to the millions of those affected by Hurricane Katrina. My prayers go out to the victims and their families. Despite a massive search and rescue effort to locate victims of Hurricane Katrina, many still remain in harm's way while scores of others attempt to piece together what is left of their lives. As such, we are faced with the difficult task of providing the attention and resources in order to rescue those still in danger; providing comfort to those without food, clean water, or shelter; and preventing further devastation from disease. This funding will provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency with just enough money to get started on immediate disaster assistance.

However, this is just the beginning of our financial commitment to the people of these ravaged areas. The $10 billion will give our emergency responders the means to save and help rebuild lives in the short-term, but the long-term funding situation is uncertain and daunting. It is too early to estimate the final cost of rescue operations or the huge task of caring for the victims of this enormous tragedy. It is my understanding that total costs could exceed $100 billion. I will continue to support whatever funding is needed for as long as it takes to rescue all in danger and to help our fellow Americans rebuild their lives.

As is always the case with a disaster of this magnitude, we must closely examine what could have been done differently and try to make right what once was wrong. In this instance, many factors combined to cause such widespread destruction and loss of life. The key questions are: what could have been done to properly plan for such a disaster and what should have been done to respond more quickly once the destination of Katrina was confirmed.

Proper planning on the part of the local and State governments was severely lacking. The decision to evacuate New Orleans without making provisions to transport people too poor to own or too sick to operate a vehicle was a moral abomination. We basically left people to see if they would die and many of them did. Every evacuation response plan in the Nation should, by federal law, be required to include transportation plans for such people. The excuse that this catastrophe was unpredictable is nonsense--scientists and engineers have been saying for years that a hurricane with Katrina's force could break the levees and flood the city of New Orleans. Despite these specific warnings, the local and State governments were woefully underprepared to deal with the magnitude of this disaster.

The slow response of the Federal government is equally abysmal and even more troubling. The Administration showed its indifference to the people in the Gulf by waiting until Saturday, September 3rd to deploy 7,200 active-duty ground troops. However as soon as the storm passed, it was clear that the local and State governments were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster. President Bush should have deployed these troops to the region as soon as the levee broke on Tuesday, if not sooner. All of the available resources of the federal government should have been mobilized immediately to evacuate people and organize food, shelter, and medical operations. In the days after Katrina's winds and rain subsided, it is indisputable that the Federal government failed the people of the Gulf Region.

Rather than acknowledge these shortcomings, the administration has brazenly lauded the Federal response. President Bush and others glossed over the fact that many people died as a result of the government's incompetence and indifference. The inadequate response to this disaster demonstrated to me that we have learned little from the lessons of September 11, 2001, and we are ill-prepared to deal with a major national disaster whether it be a natural or man-made.

I am determined to play whatever role I can in changing our Federal response system so that this type of gross negligence does not happen again. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for H.R. 3645 and I pledge my continued support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 90th birthday of one of New Jersey's finest citizens, John Kerfoot, and to honor all that he has done for his fellow Americans.

John is a model citizen who devoted his life to serving his country and community. He fought bravely in the European Theater in World War Two, and was rightly honored with a Combat Infantry Badge and a Bronze Star for his service.

Upon his return, John Kerfoot committed himself to helping the great state of New Jersey. He has devoted time and energy to the Camden County Democratic Committee, the Office of the Aging, and the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority. He has served as a Sergeant at Arms for the New Jersey State Senate, a Camden County Freeholder, and a Labor Compliance Inspector for the Camden County Community Development Program. Over the past fifty years, John has helped his hometown of Audubon by serving honorably with the Audubon Park Fire Company, the Audubon Board of Education, and the Audubon Park Borough Council.

Although John is an extremely busy man, he still finds time to bowl with his wife Anne. His skills are certainly not limited to bowling, however. He successfully boxed in the Golden Gloves Tournament in the early 1930's, and even won the boxing championship at Fort Dix in 1932 at the age of seventeen.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor John Kerfoot today. He has certainly accomplished much in the past 90 years, and his exemplary life of service is one to be admired. Moreover, it is a pleasure to call John a friend, and I wish him a very happy birthday, with the hope of many more to come.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed five votes on July 28, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 448, 450 and 452. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 449 and 451.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time.

I hear the phrase ``burdensome State mandates.'' A woman has a C section and gets to stay in the hospital for at least 48 hours. A woman has the right under a health insurance policy to get a mammogram paid for by the insurance company every year. A diabetic has the right to get insulin provided and other blood care paid for by their insurance company. These are the burdensome mandates that we hear talked about on the floor. One of my other friends talked about the heavy hand of government. That heavy hand of government in this case is evidently shared by Republican Governors around the country, because the National Governors Association opposes this bill. Republican and Democratic Governors have looked at this bill and said laws that they have passed that many of our friends on the majority side voted for in State legislatures around the country, laws that protect C sections, mammograms, diabetic care, substance abuse care, mental health care, these laws should not be repealed and thrown aside by the heavy hand of government at the Federal level. That is what this is really about.

Amendments that would have addressed these issues, that would have let us discuss these issues on this floor, were prohibited by the rule that we are debating right now. I would suspect that maybe one of the reasons they were prohibited is because Republican attorneys general and Republican Governors around the country would have supported such amendments because they oppose the good work that is undone by this bill. Members should oppose this rule and eventually, after debate, oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, today there is a point of agreements and a strong point of disagreement. There is a point of agreement that health care costs are rising too fast for too many people. There is a point of agreement that the consequences of that price increase is a tremendous burden on small business and a high likelihood that more people will be uninsured.

I do not think there is a Member of this body that does not favor finding an intelligent and effective way to reduce health care costs for small business so they can continue to insure the people they do insure and expand and insure more people in the future.

Where we disagree is over whether this underlying bill is the right way to do it, and we emphatically believe that it is not.

There are four reasons to oppose this bill. The first is that there is a better idea. There is a better way to solve this problem, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will address that issue when our substitute is brought to the floor in a little while.

The second reason is that this bill will not result in a reduction of the number of uninsured. To the contrary, it will result in an increase in the number of uninsured people, and here is how. It is estimated by the experts in this field that 8 million people will be shifted from conventional health care policies and plans to association health plans. These 8 million people will, in fact, probably have a lower premium than they do right now for a little while. But when those 8 million people are shifted out of conventional health care plans and they will tend to be younger and healthier people, the people remaining in the conventional health care plans will have to bear more of the costs, and premiums will go up by an estimate of 23 percent. When the premiums go up on the rest of those in the pool, fewer of them will be insured.

The experts estimate that while 8 million people will be shifted from regular plans to AHPs, 9 million people approximately will lose their coverage altogether, and the results will be a net loss in the number of insured of 1 million people.

So supporting this bill will increase the number of uninsured, not decrease it; and it will increase premiums by 23 percent.

The second reason to oppose this bill is that it fails to provide the protection to patients, providers and consumers that good insurance regulation provides. There are simply no effective regulations that will keep an insurance company from going bankrupt and being unable to meet its obligations to its policy holders and pay its claims. We have seen this happen before in multiemployer welfare associations. We will be submitting at the appropriate time a list for the Record of MEWAs that have failed.

This is the reason that the National Governors Association, that attorneys general, that commissioners of insurance both Republican and Democrat oppose this bill because the regulation that would protect patients and providers and consumers is not there.

The third reason that we should oppose this bill, the final reason, is that the coverage that people have fought for over the years, so that women have a minimum stay in the hospital after they have a C section, so that women have the right to an annual mammogram, so that people with diabetes have the right to insulin or diabetic care, so that people struggling with mental health problems or with substance abuse have the right to have those services covered, those protections which have been supported by Republicans and Democrats in State legislatures around this country are effectively repealed by the underlying bill, a judgment being made in Washington that contravenes the good judgment of Republicans and Democrats around the country.

This bill should be opposed. There is a better way that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will be putting forward with my assistance. This is a bill that will increase the number of uninsured and increase health insurance premiums for small businesses.

This is a bill that will leave patients and providers and consumers unprotected if and when insurance companies go bankrupt. Finally, this is a bill

that effectively repeals protections for breast cancer screening, colon cancer screening, diabetes care, substance abuse care, and mental health care. It is a bill that should be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has come up with a very constructive and progressive alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a person who is a strong voice for the rights of patients and families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a Member who does not want to see a 23-percent increase in premiums for his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a person with whom I share an important goal, but have a disagreement on means.

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a Member who understands that this bill will increase the number of uninsured by at least 1 million people.

Mr. Speaker, among those who know the difference between a Cadillac and a lemon are the insurance commissioners of our States who oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of their former members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a Member who understands that this bill will raise premiums by 23 percent and cost 1 million people their coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the full committee and a fighter for working families throughout his career here.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, the argument for this bill rests upon a false choice that I believe would have catastrophic consequences for many Americans. We are told by proponents of the bill that if we are willing to yield the guarantees that they presently enjoy under the law that guarantee them a mammogram, guarantee them care for diabetic illness, guarantee them other rights that they fought and won for, if we make that trade- off, we will get more people health insurance. If that were true, this would be a difficult choice, but it is not true.

The net impact of this bill will be to increase the number of uninsured people by nearly 1 million people because the increases in premiums for small business that will occur in businesses that stay in conventional plans will chase more people out of these plans. The experts estimate that these increases will be in excess of 20 percent.

So this is a false choice. This bill does not say that if we yield these benefits that people cherish, more people will be insured. The opposite is true. If we were to make the mistake of yielding these cherished benefits, more people would lose their coverage than would gain it.

This is a choice not worth making, and it is why the National Governors Association opposes the bill, Republicans and Democrats. And it is why the Attorneys General oppose the bill, Republicans and Democrats. And it is why commissioners of insurance, Republicans and Democrats, oppose the bill.

I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the benefits that our constituents earned and deserve and to prevent the increase in the number of uninsured and the increase in health insurance benefit premiums and vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), for yielding me the time.

I think the best way to understand the difference between the plan that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I are putting forward and the majority plan is to look at it from the point of view of one of the small business people that we keep hearing referred to over and over again here today.

My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), often refers to speeches on the floor as posing for holy pictures, and I think that is what is going on here today, where everyone is embracing the small businessman or small businesswoman and saying how much we love them and care about them, and I am sure everyone does. But I think what matters is the impact of these various proposals, what the proposals would have on the small business person.

In my State the cost of insuring a family is about $14,000 a year. So let us

take a small business person that has 10 employees and is looking at a situation where he or she would have to spend $140,000 to insure each of those employees and their families if the employer was going to bear the whole cost. That is a huge amount of money, but is probably well beyond the ability of that employer to pay for.

Under the majority's bill, if we give the majority every benefit of the doubt, if we assume that the majority's bill will work exactly as they say that it will, the most optimistic forecast is the majority's bill will save 13 percent in premiums for that employer. And let us round it up a little bit and give them the benefit of the doubt further and say it will save $2,000 per employee off that $14,000.

So what would happen? We would save $20,000, and the employer would be looking at spending $120,000 to insure the families instead of $140,000. That is not going to do it. That is still far more than the person running a machine shop or a small retail store or landscaping business or a delicatessen is ever going to be able to afford. This just is not going to happen. It is not going to happen.

Our proposal is very different. It says that in a case of a small business like the one I am hypothesizing here, where you have about 10 employees, and where those employees make less than 200 percent of the poverty level, which in my State for a family of four would be about $40,000, so just about anybody making less than $20 an hour or so would be eligible for this kind of subsidy, that is most people. That is most people. Under our plan that employer, if the employer chose to do this, my friend a minute ago said that the employers were mandated to do this, that is not so. No one is required to insure their employees under this plan, but if the employer chooses to insure his or her employees, what would happen is they would get a credit of $7,000 per employee toward the cost of this health insurance, a 50 percent credit. So the price of the coverage would drop from $140,000 down to $70,000. That is still an awful lot of money. It is an awful lot of money for a person running a small business, but it puts the person in reach of maybe covering that family, particularly if they ask the family to share with copays and deductibles and their own contribution.

Now, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the full committee, said, my goodness, the Government will be subsidizing small employers if we do this. It is big government. Well, government already subsidizes health care for large employers, because they permit the large employers to deduct every premium dollar. And that employer is paying at the 36 or 37 percent corporate tax rate, which most of them do. That constitutes a 36 or 37 percent subsidy. So General Motors is getting a nearly 40 percent subsidy, but the person running the delicatessen or the machine shop is not. This evens the playing field.

Now, how do we pay for this? Now, the chairman knows that under the rules of the House that it would not be appropriate or germane for us to identify the source of paying for this, because it would take it outside of the committee's jurisdiction.

There are different views as to how we could pay for this. I speak only for myself when I say this, but I would note for the record that the cost of tax breaks to companies that outsource their jobs outside of the United States is $100 billion over the next 10 years. So if that machine shop, if its competitor takes all of the jobs and moves them to Malaysia or Mexico, gets a tax break for doing that, which I think is a foolish policy, if we were to repeal that tax break for companies that are outsourcing their jobs out of this country, that would go a long way toward paying for the plan that we are talking about.

That to me is a pretty good trade-off. Companies that are sending their jobs overseas would lose a tax break; companies here in America would gain health insurance.

Vote yes on the Kind-Andrews substitute.

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