Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will yield. And these are not lies of ignorance. These are people who know better.

Mr. HOLT. They know that Medicare has an overhead of about 2 percent. So if I may make a small correction on what the gentleman has said. There is waste and fraud in Medicare. I think the gentleman said a lot; actually, it is a little. But when there are 44 million beneficiaries, almost 45 million beneficiaries, a little bit of error, a little bit of fraud can add up to a lot of money. But the program itself, if you count administrative costs as well as waste, fraud, and abuse, it is a couple of percent. In other words, almost all of the money in Medicare goes to providing health care.

Mr. HOLT. On a percentage basis, it is a small amount. When you have 45 million beneficiaries, that adds up to a lot.

Mr. HOLT. Let's be very clear. They are saying in this health care bill, You want to cut Medicare. No. That's the point. We've been saying over and over again, we're strengthening Medicare. What they want to do is do away with Medicare, replace it with vouchers, or another term that has been used in the past is ``privatizing.'' In other words, to say, Well, you can take care of your health care. We'll even give you a coupon. Now, the coupon is going to be of declining value over time, but you're smart enough. You will have saved for your golden years and you will be okay. That is what they propose to do.

Mr. HOLT. The best estimate is 9.

Mr. HOLT. I wanted to address another point that I hear from folks in central New Jersey about a lot. They get letters from their insurance companies saying Medicare is going to be cut. Again, it's misrepresentation, and we want to clear that up. Let me give a little history about Medicare Advantage. A number of years back the insurance companies came to the then-Republican majority in Congress and said, You know, the government is really inefficient. We, the insurance companies, can provide the benefits of Medicare a lot more efficiently than the government can. In fact, if you give us 95 cents on the dollar, we will provide benefits to Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. HOLT. Right. We're so good and so eager to move services into the private sector--in other words, to privatize Medicare. The then- congressional majority said, Fine. Well, it didn't take more than a couple of years before the insurance companies came back, tears in their eyes, hat in their hands saying, Well, we can't really do it for 95 cents on a dollar. It's actually about $1.15 on the dollar. And those who liked privatization said, Hey, that's still a great deal. So right now we find ourselves where 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are getting Medicare benefits, and we are paying insurance companies a 15 percent premium to provide those benefits.

Mr. HOLT. All taxpayers and the other Medicare beneficiaries. So yes, those insurance companies, under this health care legislation, are not going to get paid for doing no more than the Federal Government does at a dollar on the dollar. We're not doing away with Medicare Advantage. We're just saying, It's not going to be a giveaway for the insurance companies. So they'll get a dollar's worth of payment for a dollar's worth of services rendered.

Mr. HOLT. Ask your seniors. About 20 percent of the Americans on Medicare are a part of this Medicare Advantage program. Ask them how many letters they have gotten from their insurance company saying that the sky is falling and that if Congress goes through with this health care reform, it will be curtains. Well, what it means is that there will be fairness, once again, restored to the Medicare program. And the Medicare beneficiaries will get a dollar's worth of services and benefits for a dollar's worth of expenditures. That's the way it should be.

Mr. HOLT. And it's based on a fallacy.

Mr. HOLT. Because Medicare has low administrative overhead. It is an efficiently run program.

Mr. HOLT. It's a couple of percent.

Mr. HOLT. And Medicare's costs grow at a slower rate--at least they have over the past 5 years--than the private health insurance for the same benefits. So it's just another indication of the efficiency of Medicare. Every year the government makes some changes. You know, ever since 1965, there have been changes made from time to time about Medicare to make it a more efficient program and to make it more directed toward healthy outcomes for the seniors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Well, I hear from so many seniors in my district. And of course, it is as we age that we become more aware of our ailments and our need for health care coverage, and so I understand their concern. I understand that they don't want anything that will leave them less secure. And I want to assure them that this legislation before us would not only leave Medicare intact under health care reform, the reform will make it better. It would help the constituent of mine from Milltown, who wrote me recently about her struggles with the prescription drug program. She said, It was quite a surprise to me to see what the doughnut hole was all about. I'm on several inhaler drugs that are now running me $650 for a 3-month refill. I was careful as a widow to save for my retirement. But this is going out the window very fast. Closing that gap, filling in that cliff, where, after you've spend a certain amount you get no help from Medicare, ending that deficiency in Medicare will make people healthier. It is just one of the aspects that we wanted to underscore tonight, to assure people that if you are on Medicare, this legislation will help you. And we will go on and talk about all of the other things. I mean, even if you are well insured, a lot of other people come up to me and say, my insurance is fine. My usual reply to them is, I'm pleased to hear that you've been healthy, because it is often when you're not healthy, when you have an accident, when you have an illness that you discover that your insurance wasn't really quite as good as you thought it was, when, as Ms. Schakowsky pointed out, a rescission means, and this is a practice that, under oath, in testimony here before Congress, the insurance companies say they do, so it's not just hearsay. It's not just anecdote. It is policy in these companies. They will rescind your policy because you're sick, because there is expense incurred to them. Now, most people would say, insurance is supposed to be there when you need it. That's kind of the definition of insurance. But not now. But under this legislation, from day one, the practice of rescission stops, and a lot of other consumer protections go into place to make sure that consumers, those who pay premiums, who want insurance to cover them, will get coverage they deserve. They won't be denied for preexisting conditions. They won't be charged for preventive care and so forth. So, whether you're young or whether you're as young as Mr. Ellison's son, let's hope he has a good job and has health care coverage even before he's 26. But whether you're that young or whether you're on Medicare, this legislation provides benefits across the board.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, process, process, process. What legislative parliamentary process are we using? It is a distraction. That is what someone talks about when they can't debate the content or they run out of lies or misdirections about the substance of an argument. I don't think the woman from New Jersey is any more interested in our process today to guarantee that she has reliable coverage than she is concerned about what process the insurance company used to compose the letter saying that because she is sick, her coverage is rescinded. She prefers to have the guaranteed coverage. Do you think a small businessman in New Jersey cares what process the insurance company used to arrive at a 25 percent increase in premiums? Or the process we use to limit the out-of-pocket expenses a person must spend for coverage? Enough using procedures to stall and delay. Let's get it done, to provide consumer protections for everyone. Let's get it done, to have caps on insurance premium increases. Let's get it done, for better health care outcomes.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1069, congratulating Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith for being awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in physics. These two scientists invented the charge-coupled device, or CCD, while working at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The development of the CCD was a breakthrough in electronic image sensing that led to today's digital cameras and other recording devices. CCDs are now integral components of modern laboratory instruments and medical sensors. The field of astronomy, in particular, benefitted from the invention of the CCD: the Hubble space telescope, the Kepler satellite, and other major astronomical instruments rely on CCDs for their spectacular images. Myself, I have used CCD detectors in physics research. I am deeply pleased that the Nobel Committee chose to reward these researchers' transformative contribution. It is worth noting that Drs. Boyle and Smith set out to create a new tool for electronic memory, not a new imaging device. The dramatic success of their design is a reminder that research and development is a non-linear process. New products often spring from unexpected discoveries or develop from innovations that were originally intended for a different purpose. That is why our future economic success is inextricably linked to a robust, sustained federal investment in basic scientific research and a true commitment to a healthy national innovation infrastructure. The creativity and inventiveness of Willard Boyle and George Smith were nurtured in the Bell Labs of the 1960s. That environment was responsible, in large part, for the seven Nobel Prizes that have been awarded for work carried out at Bell Labs over the years. The freedom to pursue science to unpredicted ends was a pillar of our research and development system for decades. Yet this opportunity is far too rare in today's public and private research institutions, and American competitiveness is not a given. A recent study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ranked the United States last among forty nations and regions in terms of national improvement in international competitiveness and innovation capacity over the last decade. With that in mind, we should remember that a Nobel Prize is a lagging indicator of success. It can take decades for the importance of a scientific discovery to be fully understood. As we applaud Willard Boyle and George Smith, we should not forget that the work for which the Nobel Committee honored them in 2009 was completed 40 years earlier--in 1969. Perhaps the best tribute to their legacy--and the best way to ensure our collective success--is to make certain that the scientists and researchers working today in our universities and laboratories have the resources they need today to bring home the Nobel Prizes of 2050.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1036, recognizing the contributions of Korean Americans to the United States. I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution, introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett. For over a century, the United States has prospered from the many contributions of Korean Americans to our society. Korean immigrants first arrived in Hawaii, but they quickly moved from the West Coast across the continent, establishing vibrant, productive communities across the Nation, including in my home State of New Jersey. I recently had the opportunity to sit down with a small group of Korean Americans from my congressional district, as I frequently do, to hear their thoughts and learn about their needs. It impresses me that Korean Americans have clear interest in fully utilizing the intellectual capital and entrepreneurial spirit prevalent in their community to invest in the future of Korean American youth and, for example, to contribute to the fields of science and technology-- particularly green technology. It is the kind of future-oriented perspective that has distinguished the Korean American community and contributed to their accomplishments in the arts, sciences, government, education, sports, and so much more. I am confident that the Korean American community will continue to flourish and enhance the character of our Nation, and I look forward to future opportunities to support the goals of Korean Americans in New Jersey's 12th congressional district.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, which would help us address one of the most underrecognized problems affecting our coastal communities, damaging aquatic environments, and threatening human health. Harmful algal blooms can devastate commercial fisheries and tourism. Some blooming species produce potent neurotoxins that can kill marine organisms and cause human illness--or even death--when contaminated seafood is consumed. For this reason, blooms often necessitate fisheries closures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that HABs cost the commercial fishing industry $38 million per year. In cases where the blooming organisms do not produce toxins, they can deplete the water column of light and oxygen, causing dead zones. These often drive off tourists at a cost of millions of dollars annually to our coastal communities. All together, NOAA estimates that HABs cost the United States economy $82 million per year. The bill before us today would establish and maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program to develop a national strategy to address this national problem. This would include a full analysis of our research, development, and demonstration needs and priorities and the creation of coordinated education programs. This is just the kind of action we need to take more often. We need to provide our federal science agencies the tools they need to gather the scientific data necessary to help us develop an effective solution to this problem. I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for initiating this needed debate on our policy in Afghanistan. Indeed, I opposed the war in Iraq because I felt it distracted us from finishing the job we had started in Afghanistan--finding and bringing to justice those who attacked us on 9/11. I think we have to acknowledge that the current Administration has accomplished more in less time to address the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan than the previous Administration did during its eight years in power. The capture of Mullah Baradar and the disruption of the Quetta, Pakistan-based Taliban leadership group headed by Mullah Omar--these significant tactical successes are the direct result of President Obama's current policies, particularly his success in pressuring the government of Pakistan to live up to its obligations to help us root out the remaining Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban elements at large in Pakistan. That's the good news. The bad news is that every time we take out one of their field commanders, several more rise to take their place. This is the nature of insurgency, it is the nature of the problem that confronts us, and it is not a problem that will be resolved by the continuous, endless use of military force. I came to the floor in December 2009 and posed a series of questions about our policy in this war, and many of those questions remain unanswered. However, several events over the last few months have answered at least one question: Are we fighting on the wrong battlefield? Congress must push the Administration to think anew about this problem, as this conflict is not confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We saw that with the Ft. Hood terrorism incident, and with the near- tragedy on Christmas Day in the skies above Detroit. The ideas that motivated Major Hasan and Mr. Abdulmuttalab are propagated around the world via the mass media and the internet. Going to a training camp in the Pakistani tribal areas is no longer a requirement for a radicalized individual who wants to commit an act of terror. The extremist ideology that is used to motivate these people itself occupies a safe haven--the internet and the global mass media. Unless and until we confront that reality, we will not prevail in this struggle. That is why we must think anew about how we're approaching this problem. I encourage the President to do that, and I encourage my colleagues to do that.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee for bringing this bill to the floor. As he said, it is not perfect, and there are some things that have developed since the committee sent this bill to the floor, but on balance, we need it and I support it. I am pleased that the bill includes language I developed that mandates video recording of detainee interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This provision's purpose is simple: to improve the intelligence operations of the CIA and enhance our national security by ensuring the video recording of each detainee interrogation. It requires the Director of the CIA to promulgate and to provide to Congress the guidelines under which such video recording shall be done. And it requires that the video recordings have to be maintained and so forth. I note that this provision is extremely similar to the one that was included in last year's National Defense Authorization Act and that now serves as the legal basis for video recording of detainee interrogations within the Department of Defense. The benefits of video recording and electronically recording interrogations are evident, and law enforcement organizations across the United States routinely use the practice to both protect the person being interrogated and the officer conducting the interrogations and, importantly, to get better, more useful information. Clearly, the CIA itself valued this tool as well, otherwise it would not have made the recordings that it did of interrogations of ``high-value'' detainees that were captured in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The amendment will allow the CIA Director to determine how to conduct the recordings in a way that protects the identity of interrogators and protects other material that must be kept secret. Finally, the bill also advances some of my other priorities, including a sustained emphasis on improving foreign language capabilities, expanding GAO's ability to conduct investigations of intelligence community activities, and a long-overdue declassification review requirement for gulf war illness-related records at the CIA. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, as you may know, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced last week that it is formally closing its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, a major bioterrorist attack on America. Those attacks are believed to have originated from a postbox in New Jersey, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of many of my constituents and yours. We already know that the FBI too quickly jumped to conclusions about the nature and the profile of the culprit or culprits and quickly zeroed in on one individual who later received a multimillion dollar settlement and apology for mistaken accusations. Subsequently, the investigators focused on another individual, who then killed himself. Although the FBI never produced any physical evidence tying that individual specifically to the attacks, they closed the case. Indeed, this investigation was botched at multiple points, which is why reexamining it is so important. Given that the samples of the strain of anthrax that was used in the attacks may have been supplied to foreign laboratories, we think it's prudent to have the Inspector General of the intelligence community examine whether or not evidence of a potential foreign connection to the attacks was overlooked, ignored, or simply not passed along to the FBI. Mr. Bartlett and I are offering an amendment that would require the Inspector General to examine whether or not evidence of a potential foreign connection to the attacks was overlooked, ignored or simply not passed along. The report would be unclassified with a classified annex and would go to Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. To date, there has been no independent comprehensive review of this investigation, and a number of important questions remain unanswered. This amendment would address one of those questions. I reserve the balance of my time. May I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. HOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, it is beyond question that the FBI jumped to conclusions at least once, perhaps more than once, and many questions remain. This amendment would address one of those questions. Beyond this amendment, we still need a more complete examination of our government's response to these attacks, the most serious bioterrorist attack against the United States. This will look at whether there is a foreign connection to those attacks that has been overlooked, ignored, or not pursued. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, asking support for this amendment.