Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably absent during rollcall vote 336, passage of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5014) to clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous materials.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5014, a bill to reinforce that health care provided by the Department of Veteran Affairs constitutes minimum essential coverage under the individual mandate.

Very specifically, this bill clarifies that coverage at the VA for individuals who have spina bifida as a result of their parents exposure to Agent Orange counts as minimum essential coverage.

I want to be clear that this bill does not in any way change veterans health care, nor does it put anyone but the Secretary of Veteran Affairs in control of veterans benefits.

The bill has no cost. A similar version of this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent. This legislation is consistent with the commitment that the Congress has made to the veterans of our Nation.

Finally, I would like to highlight that it is supported by numerous veterans service organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the AMVETS, and the Disabled American Veterans.

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

How much time is remaining?

Let me say a few words. I really regret that the minority has decided to use this bill as an opportunity to talk about the health care bill I think in totally irresponsible ways. I don't think it is fitting for the service of the veterans of the United States of America that you decide to essentially use this time to talk about issues unrelated. I don't think that is consonant with why you are here and why we are here. So I am not going to debate the health care bill.

We are talking today about a bill to make very clear, if there is any need, about one provision. Talk about playing politics, that's what's been endeavored here by the minority speakers. And I think it's deeply regrettable. There is a difference of opinion as to whether there was any mistake at all on this specific issue. There is a difference of opinion.

The Secretary of the VA said that this issue was already covered. That was his judgment. There is no need for anybody to apologize to the Secretary. And so there was this difference of opinion as to whether there was any need to correct. And a lot of us said there was no such need. When it was raised, this issue by Mr. Buyer, we said that. So instead of acting on something that we thought was not necessary, what we said was we will take further steps to make sure there is no concern.

There was a lot of rhetoric that went around regarding that issue. And I want to just read a letter that came out shortly thereafter from the commander in chief of the VFW. It was a letter to our Speaker.

It was a letter to our Speaker, and this is what the letter said:

``Dear Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for saying in a Sunday press release that you and the Democratic leadership are betraying Americans, America's veterans. Your support of America's veterans, military, and their families is and has been above reproach.'' Above reproach.

And so now using this opportunity to try to cast any aspersion, I think, is more than unfortunate, if I might say so, it is disgraceful.

There was said something about we were doing something in health care reform on the emotion of the moment. Talk about emotions?

Now, we had worked on this, health care reform, in our country for decade after decade after decade after decade after decade, and more decades. Health care reform was an effort in the best American tradition to try to advance what has made this country great--and that is acting as a community to meet the needs of individuals, to combine responsibility and community.

So, let me get back. If you want to go out and talk about repeal, as the gentleman from California has, go and talk to the seniors who are going to benefit from the health reform bill, go and talk to the kids who are under 26 who are going to receive coverage through this bill, go and talk to the people who otherwise would have their health care rescinded as some entities tried and then, to their credit, backed off when we raised the issue.

Now, if anybody is playing politics today, it's no one on this side led by our distinguished Speaker.

So I urge adoption of this legislation, and I will enter into the record three letters.

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 12, 2010.

Hon. Bob Filner,

Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee, Cannon House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Filner: On behalf of the 2.1 million members

of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Auxiliaries, I would

like to offer our very strong support for your legislation

H.R. 5014, which would clarify and protect all VA health care

programs under Title 38, Chapter 17 and 18 to constitute as

minimum essential health care coverage.

VFW applauds your efforts to clarify this critical issue.

We sincerely appreciate your commitment to America's veterans

and their families and we look forward to continuing to work

with you on issues of concern.

Very Truly Yours,

Robert E. Wallace,

Executive Director.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Joseph Peters, who is retiring as Director of the United Automotive Worker's Region 1 in Michigan. Our friendship and working relationship spans the many issues important to working Americans--trade, automotive, and health care--we worked on throughout the years, and it is my pleasure to pay tribute to him today.

Mr. Peters first joined the UAW in 1967 and, in the decades since, has been a tireless advocate for automotive workers. Certainly, the past few years have been ones of tremendous challenge for the automotive industry, and Mr. Peters' dedication to preserving the industry, strengthening it for the future, and supporting the jobs of its employees, was steadfast.

A native of Highland Park, Michigan, Mr. Peters began his career with the UAW Local 400 at the Ford Motor Company Mount Clemens Paint Plant. In 1978, he was elected to serve as the midnight shift committeeman of the Ford Utica Trim Plant and quickly gained recognition for his hard work and dedication: he was elected to the plant bargaining committee in 1981, chairman of the Utica Plant in 1984, vice president of Local 400 in 1985, and president of Local 400 in 1986.

Mr. Peters was appointed to the UAW International Staff in 1988 and served for the next eleven years in the Union's National Ford Department. There, he was responsible for health, safety, benefits and job security issues, and was involved in four national negotiations. He became assistant director of Region 1 in 1999 and was elected the Region's director in 2005.

Despite this accomplished career, Mr. Peters cites as his greatest achievement the ``No Child Without Christmas'' foundation. This program brings together union workers, community leaders, and businesses to provide clothing, food, and gifts to thousands of homeless, neglected, or abused children each year during the holiday season.

Mr. Peters' commitment to improving the lives of those around him is unyielding. He has a kind heart, an intense focus on what is important to workers and communities, and a loyalty to purpose and people. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Peters on the occasion of his retirement after more than forty years with the UAW and decades of community and public activism. We recognize his many achievements and extend to him and his wife, Ann, and their entire family our best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5160) to extend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, to provide customs support services to Haiti, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to yield myself 30 seconds and then yield more time if I might.

I first want to yield to the lead sponsor of this bill, Mr. Rangel. Our colleague, Charles Rangel, has devoted his life to fighting for underdogs wherever they are in this country and beyond, and he has devoted so much time to the people of Haiti.

He is the lead sponsor, and it is my privilege--and I think all of us join in this--to yield such time as he shall consume to the gentleman from New York, Charles Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has been so actively involved in this legislation and related efforts.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

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

I want to say a few words about the nature of this legislation.

I want to start off by saluting the bipartisanship in this House. I want to salute the work of our staffs, working with USTR.

I would like also--and I think others would join me--in saluting Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have devoted their energy and their time to the needs of the people of Haiti, expressing on behalf of all of us that there is a mutuality in terms of the response to the horrible, horrible events in the earthquake. I also want to salute industry and the labor movement.

We have tried in these last months with our leadership to begin to craft a new trade policy--a trade policy that takes into account the needs of this country to try to make sure that trade is two-way; to try to make sure that it is mutually beneficial; and to be very sensitive to the impact of trade agreements on American industry and American workers. We very much took that into account as we designed this legislation--and it succeeded. It has that mutuality. That's why the two main textile organizations in this country who have a deep stake in the continued health of this industry in this country sent, as Mr. Camp indicated, a letter to him and to me in support of this legislation. I just want to read a few lines so it's clear, and I quote from this letter from AMTAC and NCTO: ``After lengthy negotiations with your staffs, we are pleased that we were able to reach an acceptable compromise on this legislation. While the bill provides Haiti with a path forward for long-term economic recovery in the wake of its devastating earthquake, it also takes into account various sensitivities from the perspective of the U.S. textile industry. For these reasons, we are encouraging our congressional members that represent the nearly 500,000 U.S. textile and apparel workers to approve this legislation in an expeditious manner under suspension of the rules in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.''

I would also like to salute the workers and also the American labor movement. In the original legislation--and it's very much continued in this legislation--we have been very sensitive to the needs for Haiti to abide by the international rights of workers. In 2009, the ILO established a monitoring program required under the HOPE II legislation. It was certified by USTR. Under the program, the ILO has a country director and staff in Haiti committed to conducting unannounced factory level inspections as to whether factories are meeting core labor standards--these are international basic standards--issuing biannual public reports naming factories that are not in compliance, and helping the factories remedy any problems. The ILO has conducted its first round of factory inspections. It had already done so at the time of the January 12 earthquake and was set to issue its first report on April 21. However, the collapse of the U.N. headquarters in which the ILO was located

and the subsequent evacuation of ILO personnel in Haiti disrupted the process. All ILO personnel are now back in Haiti and expect to produce the first public report regarding factory conditions shortly. So we have taken into account the needs here and tried to find ways to respond to the needs in Haiti--and I think we have succeeded.

And so I close with this. I think all of us want to salute the people of Haiti. The earthquake was unprecedented. The damage was hard to imagine. The sacrifices being made by the people of Haiti under these circumstances are really hard to describe. This is an effort in a mutual way for us to respond. We did this carefully. We did it also with a sense of purpose. I urge all of us to unite to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close very, very briefly.

There needs to be a general framework for trade policy, and we have been working to spell that out. A trade policy, as we expand trade, as we must, does so in ways that are mutually beneficial; that expand the benefits of trade. Within that framework, each trade agreement must stand on its own feet--and this trade bill does exactly that. It responds to needs. It does so in a way that takes into account the very crucial needs within Haiti and also the needs of American industry and workers. It achieves not a compromise, really, but a balance--the kind of balance that should be a hallmark of our approach to trade. I very much urge that we support this bill. It's excellent both in its letter and in its spirit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4851) to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order or question of consideration, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment; that the Senate amendment be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the bill (H.R. 4851) to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, actually, this issue can be stated very succinctly, very briefly and, I think, very compellingly. We now have 6\1/2\ million unemployed workers who have been looking for a new job for over 6 months. That's twice the numbered of long-term unemployed compared to any other time on record before this recession. I repeat, twice the number of long-term unemployed compared to any other time on record before this recession.

Furthermore, under both Democrats and Republicans, we have routinely considered extended unemployment benefits emergency spending, and we've passed extensions before in this House by voice vote. And yet, in the other body, Republicans blocked assistance to these jobless workers and to their families. They claimed their opposition was rooted in concern about the deficit.

Well, just briefly saying what that's all about, in the past, those who now raise this issue have presided over increases in the deficit, paying for tax cuts, paying for the Iraq war, paying for other programs, passing them without paying for them at all.

So, in a word, we should now rise together and pass this bill. The unemployed people of this country are waiting. Those looking for work when there are no jobs available are waiting for action by this House. At long last, the Senate has acted, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to reach beyond partisan divide, beyond partisan rhetoric and pass this bill with a strong, strong bipartisan vote.

The unemployed people of this country deserve it. They're looking to this House. And those who talk about balancing budgets who have not balanced them in the past should not be now trying to do so on the backs of hundreds of thousands of unemployed in our beloved country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Once again, the party of ``no'' has spoken. Every jobs bill that has come before us they have voted ``no.'' When the President came to power, we were losing 779,000 jobs a month. The last month we gained 162,000 jobs. The people of this country deserve more than a ``no,'' another ``no'' from the party of ``no.''

I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington who is chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. McDermott.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I close, quoting a woman who spoke to my office today from Eastpointe, Michigan. She was laid off from a large accounting firm, and she says, ``I was there for 2\1/2\ years. The firm let me go because they had some clients who closed shop because of the economy the way it is. It was nothing I did. I received a raise every year I was there. I've been unemployed ever since. That was the end of May of last year, 2009.

``Without unemployment, we'd be in a lot of trouble. I'd probably lose my car.''

Mr. Speaker, holding unemployed Americans, hundreds of thousands of them, like this woman, hostage to score what some think may be political points I think is reprehensible.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise to join so many of my House colleagues in mourning the loss of President Lech Kaczynski and First Lady Maria Kaczynska, who died last Saturday in a plane crash in western Russia along with dozens of other distinguished civilian and military leaders of Poland. We mourn their loss and join in sending our sincere condolences to the people of Poland, and especially the family and friends of those who perished in this tragic accident.

Poland is a close friend and ally of the United States. Our two countries are linked by longstanding ties of family and friendship. My home state of Michigan has a large and vibrant Polish-American community. We stand in solidarity with them during this difficult time as we pay our respects to all of those who were lost in this tragedy.

I also wish to express my appreciation to Representatives Dahlkemper and Lipinski for introducing the resolution before the House. I am pleased to join them in cosponsoring it and urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1205, I call up the bill (H.R. 4849) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the Build America Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation tax incentives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

In addition, the Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the modifications that were made to H.R. 4849 by the rule.

This technical explanation supplements the Committee Report 111-454, with information on the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind these modifications. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov and is listed under document numbered JCX-21-10.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our most distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local governments looking to advance infrastructure programs.

Mr. Camp talks about the number of States--I think you referred to 47--where jobs have been lost. I think every one of those States--it's 47--has benefited from the Build America Bonds program. The money goes to local communities for infrastructure, and that creates jobs. That's what finance experts have said about BABs. It's one of the economic recovery effort's biggest successes. As I mentioned, as of March 1, 2010, State and local governments have used BABs to finance more than $78 billion in infrastructure programs.

Now, as to small business. The legislation excludes 100 percent of capital gains on small business stock to help encourage immediate investments in growth. It will, in turn, help our small businesses hire new workers and continue fueling our economic recovery. Also included are provisions to remove onerous penalties from small businesses so they can create more jobs. Also, there's a provision, an important one, to reduce the barrier of startup expenses on new businesses.

The bill would also extend, for 1 year, the TANF emergency contingency fund. The Governors Association has said this fund helps ``speed economic recovery through subsidized employment and training programs.''

This bill is completely offset and will not add a dime to the Federal deficit. The bill is offset with provisions to ensure compliance with our tax laws, close down a loophole that allows paper companies to claim a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for highly corrosive fuel waste products, and it does crack down on foreign tax haven corporations that are taking advantage of the U.S. tax treaty network in order to dodge U.S. taxes. And to just say you're opposed to any tax increases? Tax increases on people who are avoiding paying legitimate taxes. I have a chart here, in very simple terms, that spells out how these companies, these foreign corporations that are not part of a tax-treaty country, how they evade taxes through a gimmick. And to oppose this because of that, I think, is very, very inappropriate.

So, in a word, this bill is another significant step towards helping our country continue down the path of economic recovery and job creation. It should be a bipartisan bill. In the markup that we held, there wasn't a single amendment offered by the minority to strike a specific jobs provision here. This Congress will continue to take additional targeted and effective steps to accelerate economic recovery for American families. And I

say with sadness, as I hear Mr. Camp speak, that it looks like it will not receive the bipartisan support it so fully deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I now yield 2 minutes to another senior member of our committee, Mr. McDermott of the great State of Washington.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia, my friend John Lewis.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) who is such an active member of this committee on the issues before us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

To the gentleman who just spoke, this bill is paid for unlike bills you voted for. And also let me say to the distinguished gentleman, you are opposed to this bill because it isn't big enough or it is too small. It's not clear. The recovery program is beginning to work. This will make it work better, and yet you are standing here opposed to it.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I am glad to now yield 1 whole minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Now it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ to the gentlewoman from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

I now have the privilege of yielding 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) a member of the committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this. I really urge my colleagues on the minority side to think not twice, but to think thrice before voting against this bill. I don't think everyone has to march in a partisan way in this place, especially on a bill that will help create jobs.

I have a letter regarding the contingency fund from a Republican Governor and a Democratic Governor, which states that, ``currently, 23 States are drawing down the fund for subsidized jobs, with several more State applications pending approval. Many of these programs take time to develop and implement. By allowing States more time to access these funds, Congress can help maximize the impact of TANF ECF in providing crucial skill development and training to our workers.''

Regarding the Build America Bonds, almost every State has taken advantage of these. It's for local communities and States to build--to build. Who builds roads? Who builds bridges? Not robots. Basically, it's human beings. So if you come here and vote ``no,'' you are voting against jobs for human beings.

In terms of the pay-for, the only entities that will pay taxes will be those who are evading them, who are essentially using tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

I think the Senate will take a second look at this. I think this can become law, and we should join together to help make this become law. We owe it to the people of this country. This is a jobs bill.

Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion.

I object.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

Well, I guess here we start. You know, what's interesting here is the following: Mr. Camp says that they pay for the small business provisions. They're already paid for in this bill. And so how inconsistent can he be?

He wants to continue to pay for them when they're already paid for, but he intends to vote against the bill. That is the height of inconsistency, and I think that's a reason to object, even if this turns out to be a motion to recommit that's in order.

And then let me just talk a bit about Black Liquor so we know what's going on. Talking about inconsistency, that's a charitable word. The Black Liquor provision is now in the health bill in the Senate, awaiting action. You know precisely that. So what you're now suggesting is, take it out of that bill that's being considered in reconciliation, and put it in here, and you're claiming you're paying for it.

``Inconsistency'' is charitable. There could be other words used for that, including the unwillingness of the minority to face up to the need to pay for bills.

We pay for the bill that is now before us. We pay for the bill in ways that are more than defensible; they are necessary. And so a reason to object to this on its substance is that, essentially, this approach here is a sleight of hand.

I suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that you walk over to the Senate, ask them what's in reconciliation. It's not a very long distance from here. Just walk over there and whisper to the majority leader, or, if you want, you can whisper to the minority leader, is Black Liquor in the bill that's over there that is now being considered under reconciliation? And I think both of them will tell you it is.

So, essentially, what you're saying is we want to take something out of the bill that is being considered under reconciliation and claim to be paying for the small business provisions that you're going to vote against.

Now, my suggestion is that nobody is going to be fooled by that; and that what you ought to be doing is to tackle these issues straight on, and also to tackle the pay-for straight on and not pretend that you're paying for something when you're not.

So I don't know what's worse, the majority, the then-majority, now the minority, having refused to pay for bills that came through here year after year, bills that came before the Ways and Means Committee that you never dreamed of paying for, whether that's worse than what you're now doing. I guess they're both as bad.

Yet what you're now doing is saying, well, we'll pay with something that's in a bill that's in the Senate that's soon going to become law.

Point of Order

So as a result, not only do I think that that motion to recommit deserves to be defeated on its substance, but I now want to press my point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in fiscal year 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

You want me to restate it? You're getting more notice on the restatement than you gave to us on your motion to recommit. I'll be glad to repeat it once or twice.

I make a point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in FY 2011 before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.

If I could speak briefly.

It makes a change. That's all that's necessary to violate section 303.

I ask that the point of order be upheld.

Madam Speaker, if I could respond briefly.

Madam Speaker, I think that trying to do this through a motion to recommit is inappropriate. And I suggest that before they bring up motions to recommit, that they very much should look at what the rules of the House are.

Therefore, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been much consultation, and I now withdraw the point of order.

I have withdrawn the point of order after there has been consultation with the parliamentarian, and so now we are back to the substance of the motion to recommit.

I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we passed. And also, what it does by a trick of hand is to pretend to pay for this motion to recommit by taking a provision that is in the bill that is now in the Senate, subject to reconciliation, and that I trust will pass fairly soon.

That is reason enough. I don't think it is appropriate for this body to vote for a motion to recommit pretending it is paying for it by taking a provision that we have included in a bill that we have passed and now is in the Senate for its consideration.

So I would urge every single Member on the majority side to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

We come to the floor for thousands of votes each year, but no single vote comes with so many personal stories within our families and my own. In our districts, people have spoken out about the need for real reform.

The millions and millions that have health insurance now worry about losing it. The average premium for employer-based insurance has more than doubled in the last 10 years. And I heard from a woman that had worked for a large company, started her own franchise, and she writes, ``I exhausted my COBRA, then joined a group health plan. Several years ago, I had open heart surgery. The group disbanded. No insurance company would touch me with a 10-foot pole. I am uninsured and was just diagnosed with my second episode of breast cancer, with no insurance.''

I heard from a young man diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 17. His disease went into remission. He started to work. He was laid off, uninsured, and when he started to get sick again, he had to turn to emergency rooms for care.

I yield myself 15 additional seconds.

I yield myself 15 additional seconds.

Republicans have turned their back on the problems. Some of them have taken to saying health care reform makes us a different Nation; quite the opposite. Today, in the tradition of America, we will pass health care reform, and it will make our beloved America a still better Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who has given decades and decades of service to this Congress, to New York, and to the people of America.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of seniority and in recognition of all of his years of service, I would like to note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) is going to be submitting a statement to the Record. And I am now pleased, it is a special privilege, to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis.

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Chair of our caucus, the very distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

It is now my real privilege to yield to another member, an energetic member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to our vice Chair and the distinguished gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

It is now my pleasure to yield 45 seconds to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield for the purpose for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield 45 seconds--I wish I could yield more--to our distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I now yield 45 seconds to a very senior member of our committee, Mr. McDermott of Washington.

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

I now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the committee, Mr. Blumenauer.

I now yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield to the gentlelady from New York for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to the gentlelady from California for a unanimous consent request.

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

I now yield the balance of my time, 45 seconds, to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4887) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that health coverage provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal essential coverage, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4887.

Mr. Speaker, under H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, individuals are responsible for obtaining minimum essential health care or pay a small penalty. The Senate bill states that anyone with eligible employer coverage meets this requirement. The coverage that is provided today for the members of our armed services and their families and for military retirees and their families satisfies this requirement. In an abundance of caution, H.R. 4887 was introduced by our distinguished chairman, Mr. Skelton, to reaffirm this result.

I now reserve the balance of my time.

It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to someone who has worked so hard for so many years on behalf of the veterans of this country, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Would the gentleman yield?

Let me suggest this: The provision that is in question here or is before us doesn't take effect--the overall provision--until 2014. What our purpose is here today is not to correct a flaw but to reaffirm so there could be zero questions. I would suggest this: That we proceed--and I want to assure you, I think I can on behalf of everyone concerned--that we will look at your bill, and we will work with you, and if there's agreement, we will proceed expeditiously. So I would hope that would work for you. I just wanted to assure you of our good will on this. And if there is an issue that has to be considered, we'll do that.

The problem right now is, it's impossible--we just received this--to understand whether or not it might have an impact in terms of the overall bill. The overall bill has to be scored. As you know, Mr. Buyer, it's very technical. So again, let me suggest that we proceed and give you the assurance that we will look at this and proceed expeditiously.

Let me suggest the reason why I think we need to proceed with this bill. We can accomplish what you want to accomplish by taking up your bill separately. The purpose of this bill is not to correct a flaw. The purpose of it simply is to reaffirm what should already be clear. I don't think in this period of time that we could look at your bill and be sure that it would have no impact in terms of the overall legislation.

I know that this bill will have no such effect. I'm not sure of yours because we've just received it. So let me just offer again in the best of good faith that we will take a note that the----

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

I don't think it's a question of correcting an error.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

I agree.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I reserve the balance of my time. Do I have the right to close?

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

I want to make two points clearly and very forcefully: veterans and veterans' health are protected and will be protected. We are glad to bring our record before the world where this party that I belong to has been in terms of protecting veterans and veterans' health. I just want to say a word about that because I have been here now for some years; and a few years ago the party that I belong to, when we had the power, took the steps to make sure that the health of veterans was protected, indeed, enhanced. What we did was to pass billions of dollars' worth in programs to make sure that veterans in this country were protected as to their health care needs. That is absolutely clear. No veterans need to be worried about their health care. No one covered by TRICARE needs to be worried about whether that will be in effect. No one.

This is done simply to reassure in terms of the language. It is not to fix a flaw. It is to reassure. Indeed, it is being brought for the very reason that we feared that some people might decide to misstate what the reality was. The reality is that we are simply reassuring. There is no flaw to fix, period.

So no one in any place, any veteran or anybody and their family needs to worry about our dedication or the impact of this legislation. That is point one.

Number two, I think what is being done here, what is being said here is pretty clear. The argument isn't really over veterans' health. We are all dedicated to sustaining that. It isn't over TRICARE. We are dedicated to improving TRICARE wherever possible. What we hear on the other side instead are speeches and words about the reconciliation bill. You don't like it.

I am not sure that I want to carry on much longer a debate over the health care bill, but sure.

Look, the Senate bill, we wanted to be 100 percent sure that nobody would misstate its impact. So don't misstate it. That's the purpose of this.

Instead, after you talk about veterans' health, you begin to talk about the reconciliation bill. Now we will debate that tomorrow, but we should not use any question about coverage for veterans as a reason to attack the reconciliation bill. I support it. I think it will have a major positive impact. You used all kinds of words about a different Nation, about rushing headlong. That has nothing to do with this bill. I think you are completely wrong about this being a different Nation. You raised it, so I will say a few words.

What this is going to do is continue the path of this Nation, to make sure that health care can be afforded, to make sure that health care is spread to everybody. It is not a different Nation; it is continuing the best in our Nation. And so we are not rushing headlong. We have been talking about health care for a century in this country. I said at the Rules Committee, my first political experience as I remember it was as a kid passing out leaflets for the dad of John Dingell. His father had introduced a health care bill how many decades ago, and before him, others. Going back to Teddy Roosevelt, no huge radical.

So now decades later we come to a moment when we can step up to the plate, and you call it a different Nation. No, I say it is in the best traditions of the United States of America. And so this is simply a bill to reassure; don't use it as an opportunity to talk about something else. We want to say clearly to the veterans of this country and to the families of those veterans, to everybody who is part of that family, that their health care is going to be protected. That is the purpose of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to honor my friend Robert Larson and pay tribute to his life and legacy.

Robert Larson was a real estate executive, philanthropist, community leader, and dear friend. His keen knowledge and distinguished career positioned him as one of the industry's most respected executives. He was chairman of the Larson Realty Group, a family-owned real estate investment company; chairman of Lazard Real Estate Partners LLC, a merchant banking business; and chairman of the board of UDR, Inc., one of the country's largest real estate companies. He spent 26 years with the prestigious Taubman Company, where he was elevated to chief operating officer, chief executive officer, vice chairman of Taubman Centers, Inc., and chairman of the Taubman Realty Group during the course of his tenure.

The knowledge and insight Mr. Larson provided the Federal Government in the wake of the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s were integral to successfully restructuring our savings institutions and recovering from the crisis. President Bush and President Clinton appointed Mr. Larson to the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board, where he served from 1990 to 1995 and was made chairman of the Board's Audit Committee. The Board was established by Congress to provide direction, oversight, and funding to the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Throughout his life, Mr. Larson's commitment to southeast Michigan was unyielding and he worked to bring new investment and opportunity to Michigan's economy. His contributions to Michigan extended far beyond the real estate industry: he served as the director and chairman of the ULI Foundation, a trustee of the Children's Hospital of Michigan, director of the Detroit Zoological Society, chairman of the Cranbrook Educational Community, chairman of the Greening of Detroit, and trustee of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, among many other boards and causes.

Unquestionably, though, Mr. Larson's most durable impact was on his family, his colleagues, and those of us who knew him. We remember him for his profound intellect, his endless energy, and his tremendous warmth. He is survived by his beloved wife, Bonnie, their six children, and eleven grandchildren. I extend my deepest condolences to them on their loss.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4783) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member David Camp is not here today because of a death in his family. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois is going to be handling the time on the minority side.

On behalf of my colleague and friend Mr. Camp and the gentleman from Illinois, I ask that the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation be asked to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important bill. It is available on the joint committee's Web site at www.jct.gov, and it is listed under document No. JCX-08-10.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today on this very important bill. It would allow for charitable contributions paid to victims of the Chilean earthquake on or before April 15 of this year, which is the tax return deadline, to be claimed as deductions on taxpayers' 2009 tax returns. Of course, absent this change, taxpayers would need to wait until next year to claim deductions for these contributions.

In addition--and this is very important--the bill would provide taxpayers with a little more time relating to the victims of the Haitian earthquake so that they could make charitable contributions through April 15, extending it beyond March 1.

So let me, if I might, say just a few words.

I think all of us know graphically what is involved here. I checked, and the catastrophe in Haiti is the largest of its kind on record in the Western Hemisphere. We have also seen the catastrophe in Chile. I think all of us want to be sure that the American people can join together to express their alliances with the people of Chile and with the people of Haiti.

Like lots of families, our family has had a connection with both countries. My son Andy has been to Haiti many times. He was there as a monitor for one of the elections when there was immense violence, and I was concerned for his safety. He is able to speak Creole to express his interest in Haiti. So that's one way, in addition to my service in the Foreign Aid Agency, that our family has had contact with the people of Haiti.

Yet I think all of us have had that contact with the people of Haiti since the catastrophe, the worst of its kind on record in the Western Hemisphere, and I think all of us very much want to be sure that we can express our support, our alliance and can give our charitable contributions.

As to Chile, we could see the immense devastation. That country was prepared for an earthquake of virtually any magnitude; but this magnitude, one of the very worst in the history of the country, shook up the country. It shook up its foundations in many places, and it led to the loss of many, many lives.

So I come here today on behalf of the committee and, I think, on behalf of all of us in this Congress. I believe the gentleman from Illinois and I come here today on behalf of all of the American people, and we ask that we have unanimous consent for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to a distinguished member of the committee, my good friend and pal, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the theme of this bill is very clear: Back to work. I would think that would unite us and not divide us.

Recently, we have seen economic growth. What we have not seen enough of at all is growth in jobs, and that's what this is really all about. There is no easy or perfect way to bring this about. It takes a number of steps. The tax credit in this bill is one approach. We are going to need additional steps.

Another way that it relates to economic growth and jobs is through infrastructure. We can argue about how many jobs and about what the estimates are as to how many millions will be created, but it's clear. The Secretary of Transportation has said that he can verify $60 billion to $70 billion in infrastructure--roads, bridges--ready to go this spring and this summer. We should be united in providing the authorization for this to happen. It should not divide us.

There is money also, as has been said, for school construction bonds and energy bonds. Also, very importantly, it relates to the expensing by small business, which is very much within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means

Committee. That also should unite us and not divide us, and it is critical that we expend that provision.

So, for all of these reasons, I urge that we join together, rather than divide, and pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 944, which recognizes the persecution and displacement of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq. This resolution calls on the Iraqi and United States governments to better protect the rights of persons of all ethnicities and religions.

This resolution comes as the Chaldean community mourns the two-year anniversary of the murder of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho. Archbishop Rahho dedicated his life to the Chaldean Church in Mosul and sought to build interfaith relationships while advocating for the inclusion of Chaldeans and other vulnerable populations in the new Iraqi state.

These vulnerable populations include Chaldeans, Assyrians, Turkmen, Sabean Mandeans, Yazidis, and Syriacs. Their unique languages and histories are among the oldest of the Mesopotamian region. Together, they represent the richly diverse heritage of Iraq.

Since 2003, however, members of their communities have suffered marginalization, harassment, and violence. Many have been forced to seek safety away from their homes, often outside the country's borders. Ethno-religious minorities formerly comprised approximately five percent of Iraq's population; today, they comprise almost twenty percent of all Iraqi refugees registered with the United Nations Refugee Agency.

Minorities fear such rates of displacement threaten the very future of their communities. Continued sectarian violence prevents the free exercise of religion, cultural expression, and political participation that are fundamental to democracy. This resolution underscores the importance that Iraq's upcoming elections be free, fair, and safe, and that the rights of its minority populations be protected.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 944 and in urging meaningful support for Iraq's ethnic and religious minorities.

Well, what we face is the highest number of long-term unemployed for over 60 years, 6.3 million people, long-term unemployed. We have 15 million people looking for work.

I came in just in the middle of the statement from my friend from California. I don't think this is the time for us to be arguing over past programs. I have never understood what the minority was thinking about in terms of job creation. They have voted against Recovery Act bills.

But this isn't the time to be using the plight of the unemployed to try to make points about previous actions. This is the time for us to once again face up to the fact that we have huge numbers of people who are looking for work and can't find it. This is the time for us to understand the pain for individuals in this circumstance. We passed a jobs bill here some months ago, unfortunately, without bipartisan support. But I don't want to argue about that. We should be talking about providing. It's really not a safety net; it's a subsistence issue. It's people who have been laid off through no fault of their own who need a continuation of unemployment compensation.

If we do not do this, the estimate is that over 1 million people nationally will lose their unemployment benefits in March. That's 1 month alone, 1.2 million people. If that isn't sobering enough to get us to focus on an extension of unemployment compensation and health benefits for these people, I don't know what else we will do.

So I hope we will come here and pass this bill and not use it as a vehicle to be talking about something other than the plight of the unemployed of this country who can't find a job, 6 or 7 people looking for a job for every job that might open up.

I urge that we pass this overwhelmingly.