Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. General Leave

Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 846 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science and Technology Committee shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. Such amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report and shall be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. All points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the Chair of the Committee on Science and Technology, and the Chair may not entertain motions to strike out the enacting clause. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks right down the street on the National Mall, 20 teams of university students competed in the biannual Department of Energy's solar decathlon. These teams competed not just for victory but for innovation and public awareness as well. Every 2 years, teams from all over the globe prove unequivocally, either rain or shine, under the all-too frequently cloudy skies of Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, that solar power is not only here for the future, but is here and ready to go today. These teams showcase both cutting-edge technology and technology that has been around for decades. Technology that creates jobs, promotes energy independence, combats climate change just simply isn't getting the attention it deserves from several blocks away here on the Hill. The solar decathlon itself is noticing an interesting trend that speaks to what's occurring on a global scale. Teams like the two-time winners from my congressional district, the University of Colorado, unfortunately aren't finding the support that they need, and the University of Colorado had to cancel their program to compete this year, while teams from Europe and elsewhere continue to find the budget to compete and to win. Right now because of the policies we have and have not passed, our country is starting to lose the innovation race in technology. Europe, China, and other countries are leapfrogging us in the race to refine the technology that will power our future. This past Monday, The Wall Street Journal's ``Power Plays'' section highlighted America's competitiveness problem, which has been seen and felt by the many solar and clean-tech companies in my district for years. Our technology is draining away to countries who know how to support and foster its growth. The Wall Street Journal highlighted how China is taking the lead in solar energy investment and drastically cutting the price of the technology and its development, making it harder for U.S. companies to compete. Mr. Speaker, up until now Congress' attitude towards renewable energy and solar has been wanting. We failed time after time to support the small businesses, the technology, and the policies that could have and should have changed our Nation's energy outlook years ago. American solar businesses have had to deal with the uncertainty of not knowing what government policies will be in place from one year to the next; production in investment tax credits have ebbed and flowed with no real consistency. As someone with a background in business, I know this simply just doesn't work. Whether you're figuring out your payroll or trying to secure investments, without long-term certainty with regard to the playing fields, you have a hard time accomplishing either. Our policies towards solar research have been equally sporadic with no real directive to lead our research or investment. We desperately need to focus our research and focus our investments, and this legislation will do that. Mr. Speaker, simply put, this bill is a game changer. This bill is the focus, this bill is the directive that we as a Nation need in order to realize the great potential that solar energy has had for decades and will have for our future. By creating this road map, we will have the foremost experts in the world focusing our research, focusing our policies, and focusing our vision on what is possible and what will be achieved; and in doing so, we will encourage investment by providing the long-term assurance that the market is so desperately looking for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico, a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Lujan.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. POLIS of Colorado

Mr. POLIS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Carolina earlier alluded to her concern that, if we passed this bill and others, our economy will begin to resemble the Third World. She particularly cited, she said, the Third World, particularly South American countries. I would like to remind my colleague that South American countries, in particular Argentina and Brazil, have been on a tear of growth. They have had economic growth. Their currencies have gained value against the dollar. And I hope that our country can enjoy the same kinds of economic growth that in particular Brazil and Argentina have enjoyed this last year. And certainly the technology industry, in having a road map for our solar industry, can be an important part of that economic growth. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a responsible and well thought out and proven approach to moving our Nation away from its addiction on fossil fuels and towards independence. This is a mission that will help us address some of the largest challenges we face, reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Time and time again, it has been shown that solar energy is a tremendous win in terms of national security, lessening our reliance on foreign oil. Whether having emergency response centers powered individually during disasters or having additional solar supplying the grid during blackouts, we are learning that energy security means homegrown renewable energy. What good does it do for us to be dependent on Europe or China for our energy in the future just as we are today on Saudi Arabia? I think not. We can change our future and take ownership of our future here today. The unfortunate truth of the matter is right now Europe and China are winning the technology wars to dominate our renewable energy future; and this will become worse with every day that we fail to act. Today, Congress can take action to change our future and take ownership of our future for America. We need to realize that the technological gains of China and Europe are a good thing, but not if they are to the detriment of our own small businesses, our own investment, and our own jobs. There is one factor that every place with a booming clean energy industry has in common. It's not just the sun, which we have in our country, it's not just the wind, which we have, it's not just the biomass, which we have in spades; but it is the policies, the policies that underlie creating a playing field that enables the growth of the solar technology industry. You may think that California and Colorado are the number one and number three, respectively, renewable energy States in the country because they are sunny or windy. But, in fact, we in Colorado, and the State of California is number one, are in their place because they have the right policies, the right policies to attract investors, the right policies to grow clean energy jobs, friendly State leadership from the Governor to the State legislature, to counties. To prove this point, coming in at number two is actually the somewhat cloudy State of New Jersey, due to their State leadership of embracing a renewable energy economy. In Colorado, this fact has been known for years. Our State and my hometown of Boulder know the benefits of policies that attract technological advancement, support small businesses and create jobs all because they promote investments in renewable energy. In fact, today the American Solar Energy Society will unveil a new national report that shows the economic and employment boom that clean energy could provide if only we enact the right policies, which we can through the road map that we have contained in this bill. Policies like net metering, interconnection standards, Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds and the expansion of distributed generation are the next steps of policies that will give our Nation the benefits that clean energy has given to places like Colorado. That's why, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been officially endorsed by business groups across the board, like the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and the National Semiconductor Association. In passing the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, we are passing on confidence to investors that our support will be around for the long haul. It is predictable. We are saying to small clean energy businesses that you can hire more employees, and we are saying to researchers that without a doubt you will be inventing technologies that will make our country cleaner and will make our Nation stronger in the world. Establishing a research road map and prioritizing Federal funding for solar research will help commercialize new solar technologies and make clean, renewable energy sources more affordable and accessible for all Americans. Solar technology offers tremendous opportunity for America, the potential to create tens of thousands of good, high-paying, clean energy jobs that we are currently losing to overseas companies as we build our energy independence future. The U.S. has some of the best solar resources of any industrialized nation in the world, both intellectual as well as geophysical. Yet while America is currently a leader in solar technology development, other countries, like Spain, Germany and China, are devoting much more of a concerted effort and attention to deployment, putting the U.S. competitive position in jeopardy. The Solar Technology Roadmap Act has diverse and bipartisan support. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Chairman Gordon of the Science and Technology Committee for his commitment to this important issue, and my friend from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for her hard work championing this legislation to ensure that America retains and grows its position as a leader in solar technology and job creation for the future. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I rise today, Madam Speaker, to share with you and my colleagues here in the House, stories of real Americans and how health care reform affects us, affects them, for it affects every walk of American life. And many of my constituents have shared their stories with me and asked that I share their stories with my colleagues and with the American public. And perhaps my colleagues and the public might see in the stories something of themselves. I want to share a story, not a happy one, but a story that one of my constituents named Kelly Lotts Andrews shared with me. Kelly's father worked hard all of his life. He succeeded to a certain extent. He lived the American Dream, was very successful in the broadcasting field. And Kelly says at one point her parents' combined worth was just over $1 million. They had a successful career. They saved up. They had a house they made payments on. They built equity. They lived the American Dream. They were anticipating a comfortable retirement. In their early sixties, as they were putting their affairs in order and preparing for what they thought would be a prosperous and long retirement, they decided to change health insurance companies. During the qualifications testing for the new insurance, Kelly's mother's liver enzymes were slightly off. So a couple of weeks later they asked her to redo the blood tests. Kelly's parents were moving to a condo on the beach. So when they got settled, they found a doctor and got the required test done. Unfortunately, the doctor found a tumor on one of Kelly's mom's ovaries. The new insurance company then refused her coverage based on this preexisting condition, the scarlet letter of health care, even though she continued her coverage just before the diagnosis. So without the insurance and without the hopes or ability of acquiring any, Kelly had to watch as her parents got rid of all of their assets, all of their savings, and all of their retirement funds-- all became liquidated as her mother fought to stay alive and pay those hospital bills as uninsured Americans. Kelly's mother lost the fight. After beating the odds by 5 months more than the doctors predicted, she passed away in 2004. Kelly's father, who is now 76, now, despite his successful career and doing the right thing and saving up, has no retirement funds, no savings, no house, and only his Social Security check as income. There are millions of Americans who are denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. One of the key things that we accomplish through health care reform is we prevent health insurance companies from discriminating or excluding based on preexisting conditions so at the very time in Kelly's mother's life where she needed health care the most, she would have had access to an affordable option through the exchange that's being created that would give families like Kelly's the financial security they need to plan for their retirement in a way where people can maintain their honor and their pride as families. And it's for families like Kelly's that I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting health care reform. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share a story with you that one of my constituents shared with me and asked that I tell my colleagues about to encourage them to support health care reform. This is a woman from Broomfield, Colorado, who asked that her name not be used but wanted her story shared; but it just as easily could have been a woman from California, or Texas, Nevada, New York. This woman is a retired educator. About 10 years ago she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. She knew what that diagnosis meant because her mother had lived with that crippling disease for 40 years. Soon after the diagnosis, she began to experience debilitating pain and had difficulty carrying out the most routine functions that you and I take for granted. Any physical exertion at all was very difficult. She researched the disease on her own, with her sons, with her doctors. They found there were new medications on the market which showed promise, medications like Enbrel and Humira. She asked her rheumatologist about them. He said those medications might well work, but they were very expensive and not covered--not covered--by insurance. This resident of Broomfield, Colorado, waited and suffered for years. Finally, her insurance did cover Enbrel and other drugs like it, and she was able to take this new medication. And she reports that the effect was nothing short of miraculous. She now has few symptoms and is able to resume a normal life. The medication costs about $3,000 a month, about $36,000 a year. There's no way that she could pay for that on an educator's salary, and that's why she's thankful that she has insurance even though the costs are a major sacrifice financially. And she worries about those in her condition who have a chronic disease who don't have health care insurance, the years of pain and agony that she had to go through before the treatment was covered. She tells us we need health care reform. We need preventative care for those with serious disease. She says in the long run, it will save a lot of money and be less strain on our economy to provide preventative care. She wants us to pass national health care to cover all who need it and get good medical care. It's for American families like this, and like this story of a Broomfield resident that could have been in Anywhere, U.S.A., that I call upon my colleagues in the United States Congress to join me in passing health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the story of a constituent of mine from Superior, Colorado. Now, Carla might as well be from Texas or California or Nevada, Anywhere, U.S.A. Carla works in the health care field. She's a registered nurse at Boulder Community Hospital. She sees a lot of cases. Many of the patients that Carla sees are in the ICU where she works because they can't afford health insurance and, as a result, don't have access to preventative care. Carla told me that the catastrophic conditions that bring them to her hospital could either be prevented or treated successfully and less expensively in earlier stages, but because they don't have insurance, they wait until the ambulances have to be called. Kelly shared with me that these unfortunate people have so much suffering and pain visited upon them that, in most cases, could be prevented. Kelly, like a lot of Americans, has a very commonsense conclusion that I want to share with you on the floor of the House of Representatives. Kelly says many more dollars are spent treating these people, and often, it's too late anyway. Preventative care, Madam Speaker, can save money and, if not more importantly, can save lives. By diagnosing cancer early, by treating diabetes, we can save money, save lives, and we can strengthen American families. I call upon my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting affordability credits so working families can afford health care; in preventing pricing discrimination based on preexisting conditions; in creating exchanges and low-cost options so individuals and small companies can buy insurance and get the same negotiating leverage that multinational corporations get; and allow them access to inexpensive insurance, including a public option. Carla has seen a lot as a registered nurse, and we have all seen a lot through the stories of our friends and families across this country, and that's why it's time to pass health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a number of my constituents from Colorado have asked me to share their stories about why we need health care reform. This story could be from someone anywhere. It could be from someone in Texas or in California or in New York. It happens to be someone from Westminster, Colorado. He asked that his name not be used, but he wanted me to share his story. His story relates to the diabetes that he suffers from. His insurance insists that he use a generic brand of controlled medicines for his condition, but he participated in a study which found he could reduce his high triglycerides by 75 percent if he used the primary drug for treatment. As a matter of fact, his readings improved so much in the study that he was removed as a candidate. He was advised by his doctor of the reading and of the improvement, and the doctor decided that he had to go back on the generic drug, and had to wait to see if his reading went back to the previous condition. This gentleman from Westminster feels that takes away his choice, just like the choice is taken away from tens of millions of American families, not only the families who don't have insurance but even the families who do have insurance but who have no real choice in which insurance provider they use. Even after this gentleman from Westminster, Colorado, stated that the cost from generic to primary was affordable and that he, personally, was willing to pay the small difference between the two, the insurance company still made the decision on what drug he could use and whether it was working. One of the many flaws in our health care system today is that consumers lack choices. Most Americans get their health care through an employer. Whatever the employer chooses, they get. If you're self- employed--an individual--in many markets, the insurance industry is dominated 50 percent, 70 percent or, in some markets, 80 percent by one or two insurance providers. One of the critical aspects of health care reform that this body is undertaking is increasing insurance competition in the marketplace. Through the exchanges that are being created, we are creating a hypercompetitive environment where there can be dozens of insurance companies which are providing products and a public option because, surely, it's not fair to say to people, As a mandate, you have to have insurance, and by the way, here are some affordability credits to get it, and then throw them into bed with the sharks and say, You have to get it from the insurance companies. It's great to have a public option there to help keep the insurance companies honest. By doing so, we give people like this gentleman from Westminster a real choice. If one insurer won't allow him to pay out- of-pocket the difference between the drug in the trial he was on, a drug which could prolong his life and save his health, you know what? He can switch. As for small companies that insure through the exchange, each of the employees of those companies will be able to choose for themselves from any of the policies in the exchange. Yes, that's right. Today, small businesses choose insurers, and if they're able to afford it, because Lord knows it costs small businesses a lot of money, every employee of that small business has that plan. Under the proposed Democratic plan, each employee of that small business would be able to pick from any of the insurance options within the exchange, giving this gentleman from Westminster, Colorado, and tens of millions of Americans across our country choices in health care insurance that they simply don't have today. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you a story of a resident of Boulder, Colorado, who asked that I share her story on the floor of the House of Representatives. Barbara lives in Boulder, Colorado, but she might as well live in Fresno, California, in Houston, Texas, or in Las Vegas, Nevada. When Barbara was diagnosed with breast cancer, her private insurance plan said it wouldn't cover treatment because it maintained that the cancer was caused by fibrocystic breasts, which it claimed was a preexisting condition. Now, Barbara didn't believe that for a moment, and her doctor backed her up. Her doctor wrote a letter to the insurance company, saying, No, this was breast cancer, and it wasn't because of some preexisting condition. Barbara had to call the Colorado State Division of Insurance, and they called Golden Rule, which was the insurer. All of a sudden, Golden Rule yielded a little bit, and said, Well, we'll cover the surgery on the affected breast but not a bilateral mastectomy. Well, it took more calls and more fighting. She got some support from the State Division of Insurance. Finally, they found that the health insurance company agreed to pay for the bilateral mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Barbara is now covered by Medicare plus a private insurance supplement, and Barbara says it's the best insurance she has ever had, and it's at way less a price than she has ever had to pay. She can go to any doctor she wants to get the treatment that she needs. Barbara asked, Why wouldn't the under-65 group be delighted with the ability to have the same kind of insurance coverage? When you hear about a public option, what you are hearing about is the ability to buy into Medicare early. Now, it's not exactly Medicare, but it's a Medicare-like program. Under the version of the public option, under the robust public option which I support, it will look very much like the Medicare system. It's pegged to Medicare. So this will enable people who are self-employed or who work for small businesses and who participate in the exchange to say, You know what? I'm 62. I'm 59. I'm going to buy into Medicare early. My premiums will go to Medicare. I'll have a provider network of Medicare. Many people on Medicare are happy with Medicare. Now, again, be it public or private, no one is always happy with one's insurer. I had 22 town hall meetings during the recent recess, and I asked every group: Medicare might not be perfect, but aren't we happy that there is a Medicare? Where would we be if our country didn't have Medicare at all? I think we'll be asking the same question 10 or 20 years down the road: Where would we be if we didn't have a public option? What a great way to provide real competition for insurance companies and to allow people to have access to a Medicare-like program at a younger age. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a number of my constituents have asked that I share their stories on the floor of the House of Representatives and with the people of the United States on why we need health care reform. One gentleman from Niwot, Colorado, asked that his name not be used. He and his wife are healthy. They have a new baby son, who is also healthy. The mother returned to work when he was 12 weeks old, and they put him in daycare. Now, why? She didn't need the salary. Her husband had a good salary that they felt they could live comfortably on. She likes her job, but she really wanted to be with the baby more. Don't they have savings? Well, they have a little money saved but only enough to carry 6 to 9 months of expenses. Then why, oh why, would a woman who wants to be with her baby have to go back to work? It's very simple. They need health care insurance to fall back on if her husband is laid off, which is a real risk in his line of work. The idea of millions of Americans losing their jobs is a real risk for many American families. They wanted that peace of mind, and that's why she went back to work. Sure, they knew there was COBRA, but if they had to pay for that and if the tab had come to $1,200 a month and if they had no income coming in, that would eat up their savings right away. This woman from Niwot says, In our case, having affordable yet good health insurance would allow me to stay home with my son and free up my job for someone who actually needs the paycheck. Health care reform can and will lead to stronger families, help provide jobs for those who need those jobs, and give peace of mind and security to families across the country like this family in Niwot, Colorado, and that's why they want us to pass health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the story of Mike from Denver, Colorado. Mike shared a story with me and asked that I share it with my colleagues here in the House of Representatives. Mike was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2007. After his first week of chemotherapy, he contracted an infection and landed in the hospital. As anybody knows who has experienced a hospital stay, during the 2 weeks he was in this hospital he racked up an enormous bill, and of that bill about 80 percent was covered by insurance. Now, Mike considers himself lucky that his out-of-pocket expenses were just under $22,000 a year. Now, lucky that his bill was only $22,000. Now, Mike can't imagine how he could even begin to afford the total bill, which cost over $120,000. But for many American family, $22,000 is almost as bad as $120,000, because it's money that we simply don't have. Mike wanted me to share that every American deserves to be provided for in case of catastrophic medical emergency, because it's the right thing to do. You know, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, cancer, heart disease, they can affect any one of us, our brothers, our sisters. I have a friend in Boulder, is 41 years old, lives a healthy lifestyle, had a heart attack, he survived. Lived healthy, through no fault of his own he had a heart attack. Now, that's going to be a preexisting condition for him the rest of his life, just as for Mike, the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is going to be a preexisting condition. By preventing pricing discrimination based on preexisting conditions and providing affordability credits and empowering consumers to choose from a multitude of insurance options, including the public option, through the exchange, we can truly provide a better quality of health care to Americans for a lower price. That's why we need to pass health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the story of Suzanne Perry of Parker, Colorado. Now, Suzanne lives in Parker, but might as well be Los Angeles, California, might as well be Billings, Montana, might as well be Dallas, Texas. This is a story that could occur anywhere in this country. Suzanne is a breast cancer survivor. She had 13 of 16 positive lymph nodes and came very, very close to not making it. Suzanne took a high dose of chemotherapy, radiation, bone marrow transplant, bilateral radical mastectomies to save her life. Because of those dramatic interventions, she has significant scar tissue under both arms that continues to tighten, making it very difficult for her to even lift her arms to write or to hug her four children. The insurance company declined her doctor's request for scar- releasing surgery. They said, Oh, that is cosmetic. She had to take her case, Suzanne took her case all the way to the top of the insurance company's appeal chain. When she arrived at the insurance company's conference room to discuss binding arbitration, there was a group of men sitting around the conference room holding copies of a picture of her bare chest, which had been submitted by doctors as evidence. Suzanne said, That was unquestionably intentional and felt demeaning and humiliating for me, and it certainly made it more difficult to present her case. Imagine going into a room filled with a bunch of men all with pictures of you naked showing your breast and your scar tissue. Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled that Suzanne could have the scar tissue released on one side but not the other. That was akin to untying one arm from behind my back but leaving the other one tied or perhaps akin to King Solomon's famous solution to the issue of whose child was it when he was presented with two mothers claiming the same child, and he recommended that they cut the child in half to find out which mother actually cared more for the fate of the child. That's frequently what arbitrators do. They split the difference. That's a commonly known theme. I have a business background, and in our judicial system, sometimes if you take a case to court, they might decide whole-hog one way or the other. If you go through a binding arbitration process, it's very, very common, doesn't always happen, but very common the arbitrator will try to split it down the middle. In this case, she can lift one arm but she can't lift the other. By providing Americans more choice in health care coverage, we empower consumers to choose the insurance company of their choice. In a market system, it simply doesn't work if one or two companies and a monopoly or oligopoly have an 80 or 90 percent market share, as is the case with insurance in many markets today. Through the exchange, we are providing a very vibrant and active marketplace where dozens and hundreds of insurance companies can compete, as does the public option. People like Suzanne will have the ability to go to other insurance companies to not be discriminated against based on their preexisting condition. Hopefully, any insurance company that forces a woman to fight for a surgery she needs by showing up to a boardroom with 12 men and naked pictures of that woman's chest, that insurance company should lose business, and they will under any plan in which they face real competition, and that's exactly what the Democratic plan does. That's why Suzanne's story should be powerful testimony as to why my colleagues should join me in supporting health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you a very moving story from Lucius Day of Littleton, Colorado. Lucius wanted me to share the story of their family's experience with health care. Lucius was married 56 years ago. He and his wife didn't have health insurance at that time. Few people did. But within a few years, they, as many American families, they got their health care benefits provided from their employers and they always had at least one member of the family who was steadily employed. Lucius is, of course, now comfortably retired and he has Medicare. But, Lucius writes, his children haven't been as fortunate. Their children have, like many Americans, experienced extended periods of unemployment and part-time employment. They have had extended periods of time under which they didn't have health care benefits and couldn't afford to purchase any meaningful health care insurance. On more than one occasion, one or more of Lucius's kids have been forced to rely upon emergency room health care, for which they were unable to reimburse their provider. Lucius told me that all of the arguments against a government- provided health care option are, quote/unquote, nuts, and they are fundamentally flawed. Lucius wanted me to share with you that we need public health care that covers the basic needs of everyone, and Lucius says if some want more health care, they can buy it, but everyone should have basic health care as a right, not a privilege. Through health care reform, Lucius's kids would be receiving affordability credits. What that means is, if you make $20,000, $30,000 a year or if you are in a family of four, even if you make $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year and you don't get insurance through your employer, it's very hard to afford insurance on your own for your family. What do we do under this plan? You receive affordability credits. They are vouchers you redeem for the health care product of your choice. Now, that won't be enough, just that step in today's market, because the cost of buying health care, if you are on your own, is outrageous, particularly if you have a preexisting condition. So we take a couple additional steps. One, we create an exchange. What the exchange does is it gives every individual and small business the same buying power as a multinational corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees. They can get those same rates that used to be reserved for the big boys. The other thing we do is prevent pricing discrimination and exclusions based on preexisting conditions. So Lucius's kids would have access, if we can pass health care reform today, to real health care insurance and security for them and their families. I hope that Lucius's story helps my colleagues to understand the human face behind why it's so urgent for us to pass health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you a powerful story from Beth Hunt in Longmont. Beth asked that I share her story on the floor of the House of Representatives to help put a human face on health care reform for my colleagues. Beth has a young family of four. It's a two-income household; but like a lot of two-income households, they're still struggling to get by. Beth gets her insurance through her job, and they cover the two kids under her plan. Her husband is a self-employed handyman. He works very hard; and as anybody knows who is a handyman or knows one, that can sometimes be a dangerous job. Beth can't cover her husband under her insurance because it was way too expensive. It would mean her checks from her job would go 100 percent completely to insurance with nothing to spare. Why? Well, her husband has high blood pressure. And they applied with many independent insurance companies, but they all denied him. What are we supposed to do, asked Beth? Every day, I just hope, I just hope that nothing happens to him, Beth says, because they can't afford it. Beth says, I love him so much, and he deserves to have insurance. He works very hard at his job. Nobody is watching out for my husband. Nobody seems to care about us. Please help. Health care reform will help Beth and her family. And here is how. Depending on the income level of the family, they're a family of four, if they make under $72,000 a year under the House plan, they will receive affordability credits to buy insurance. That's vouchers that they get that they'll be able to take to the insurance provider of their choice. Even if they make over $72,000, if they make $80,000 or $90,000 they will finally have a low-cost option for Beth's husband. What is that option? It's the exchange. The exchange is a pool of individuals and small businesses that buy insurance together, effectively giving individuals that are covered, like Beth's husband who is in business for himself, the same kind of buying power and negotiating leverage in buying insurance that multinational corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees have. So they will be able to get that same favorable rate. Another thing we do is prevent pricing discrimination and exclusions based on preexisting conditions. So just because Beth's husband has high blood pressure doesn't mean he won't be able to be covered, and they no longer will be able to deny him. He will be able to get inexpensive insurance through the exchange without pricing discrimination based on the preexisting conditions. That will afford families like Beth real financial security. Health care reform will make families like Beth's and millions of other families across our country stronger, stronger because they have some degree of health care security, some degree of financial security, and they can go to bed every night without worrying about what they're going to do if, God forbid, they have a medical emergency. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you a very powerful story from my home State of Colorado. But this story could be from San Francisco, California. It could be from Austin, Texas. It could be from Salt Lake City, Utah. Carol from Denver is a single mom with two kids. Carol became disabled about 12 years ago while she was working at Burlington Northern Railroad. Because of that injury, in part, it's one of the reasons that led to her divorce because it became very hard for her and her husband. Carol got Kaiser Connections coverage through her church, but that only lasted 2 years. As soon as she had the coverage, she went in for severe headaches, and they found a brain tumor. Carol had surgery on the brain tumor, but they weren't able to remove all of it. And as soon as her 2 years were up, she was dropped. And of course, she is unable to get new coverage because of the scarlet letter that far too Americans wear: preexisting conditions. Carol was still undergoing treatment when they dropped her, and she couldn't continue taking the medicines that they had her on for seizures that were also causing her headaches. Also 2 months after her brain surgery, her ex-husband passed away. Now she's the only one that is there to support her 11-year-old son. Carol tried getting coverage through a public-private partnership in Colorado that wanted about $500 a month. That would be almost half of her income. She makes just over $1,000 a month. She can't afford the rent, food, gas, no extra money. Try surviving on $1,000 a month. How are you going to spend $500 a month on health care? Carol shared with me that she is desperate to get health care coverage, but she feels she keeps hitting a brick wall. She says if there is anything to this health care reform that can help me at this time, I would be forever grateful. Carol, there is. And I call upon my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass health care reform. What would it mean for Carol? Well, at her income level, she would receive affordability credits, that is effectively a voucher, that she would be able to take to the insurance provider of her choice and that would basically pay for the cost of health care insurance. Those affordability credits are on a sliding scale. So for a family of two, they go up to about $45,000 a year in income. So even if you're making $35,000 or $40,000, you still get some affordability credits. But at $12,000 or $15,000, they basically cover about 100 percent of the cost of health care. Now, that's not just any health care. That's health care through the exchange, which is a low-cost option for anyone who is self-employed, buying insurance on their own, small companies. That will give Carol the choice of dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of insurance options in that exchange, one of which would be the public option. The others would be a plethora of private options that she would have the choice to choose. Health insurance today is unattainable, unattainable for Carol and 45 million other Americans like her. By passing health care reform, we can help Carol and her 11-year-old son have a mother as he grows up. That's the face of health care reform. As my colleagues cast their votes on health care reform in the coming weeks, I encourage them to remember Carol and her story, and the millions of others like her across this country. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you a powerful story from Jeannette Thorner of Colorado. Now, Jeannette happens to live in Colorado; but she might as well live in Houston, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; or Portland, Oregon. Her story could occur anywhere. It could occur to any of us. Jeannette's husband is self-employed, and they have always been able to obtain their own health insurance. Now, in their younger years where they didn't have any health issues, it wasn't a problem. It was automatic. Like a lot of things, when you don't need it, it's there. But the real question is what happens when you need it. In more recent years, Jeannette says it has been very difficult to get the coverage they need because of preexisting conditions, some of which she says aren't even serious. Approximately 3 years ago, Jeannette couldn't get insurance coverage because of acid reflux problems. And she had to go, finally, with American Republic Insurance Company who did insure her, but of course excluded any coverage related to acid reflux disorders. The premiums were higher than they were with the previous plan, and they've gone up every year, and the coverage isn't even as good as before and doesn't include any prescriptions. Doctors' visits are limited to three a year with a maximum payment of $100. Well, 2 years ago, Jeannette was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer. Now she has been in a constant battle, not only for her health, but a constant battle with her insurance company to cover tests and treatments. Even when it was 100 percent clear that Jeannette's policy covered her treatment, her insurance company initially refused payment. Now, Jeannette was on a drug called Femara for several years, and it's a very expensive drug. They're a middle class family. They don't qualify for public assistance. The least expensive price in the U.S.A. for this drug with a discount card is $350 a month. What Jeannette does is she actually reimports from another country for a lower cost. You're allowed to do that for your own personal use. And, unfortunately, many American families with no other alternatives are forced to resort to that. Jeannette's husband is now 67, and she is 64, almost there for Medicare. Jeannette knows there are many other people in her situation, and she asked us to do something. What does health care reform do for Jeannette and others like her? First of all, we provide affordability credits, depending on your income level, so for a family of four, up to $72,000 a year in income, you will receive vouchers or credits that will enable you to help pay for the insurance policy of your choice. Secondly, you will have access to the insurance policy of your choice through an exchange. What is an exchange? Well, it is one large risk pool where there are many different insurance options available under one rubric. Effectively, the exchange has the negotiating leverage that previously only multinational corporations had, so an individual or small business seeking insurance will be able to get the same favorable negotiated rates that previously exclusively had been the domain of large corporations. So we prevent pricing discrimination and exclusions based on preexisting conditions. Yes, Jeannette, your acid reflux would not be excluded. Yes, Jeannette, you would not have lost coverage with your prior carrier because they would not have been able to cut you because of acid reflux. For families like Jeanette's across the United States, it is critical that this United States Congress act now to pass health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you a story from Colorado of a resident of Lafayette. He is the president of a nonprofit, statewide organization that operates across several States, a well- known organization based in Boulder, Colorado, an organization with a philanthropic mission of promoting access to good education for the citizens of the Western United States. They do good work, and I attest to that, having served on the Colorado State Board of Education and having worked with them and many others in the education community. He writes that in 2000, his organization was paying $11,150 a month for their share of health care costs for their roughly 40 employees. Today, the organization is paying $24,500 a month. Eight years, it has more than doubled. And, he adds, this buys less health care, because they have had to reduce the breadth of health care over time. Spending twice as much for less. Sound familiar? I hear this story from hundreds and hundreds of businesses, from nonprofits, from individuals. It is getting worse, folks. The cost of not taking action means that 10 years from now we will be asking ourselves again, why did it double in cost? Why are we getting less for twice as much? For organizations like this nonprofit, as well as other nonprofits and for-profit organizations and small companies, it is critical that we pass health care reform; rein in growing costs; give small employers access to exchanges that give them the same negotiating leverage that large corporations have; have a public option that provides real competition with insurance companies; and make sure that no one is forced to choose between one or two providers in a monopoly or duopoly. Let's empower consumers with choice and let them choose the insurance company of their choice. By creating that market dynamic, we can rein in growth in health care costs and make sure that organizations like this one won't be telling the same story 10 years from now. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you the story of Barrett. Now, I went to high school with Barrett. I hadn't heard from him in a couple of years, and I was honored when he chose to share his personal medical story, not just with me, but asked me to share it with the people of the country and my colleagues here in the United States Congress as a way to encourage them to help support health care reform. Barrett has been living with diabetes, like many millions of Americans, for about 35 years. And yet, Barrett says, the biggest battle he faces is not the battle with the disease. The biggest battle that Barrett faces is his battle with the diseased health insurance system. Barrett has no complications due to his diabetes, yet every year his insurance plan finds new and creative ways to increase his premiums with, of course, no benefits to him. For the last 7 years, Barrett used a product called Lantus insulin to survive, but his insurance company hasn't added it to its formulary. His insurance company states that it is not necessary to his overall health. Well, the reality is, says Barrett, ``if I don't take it, I die.'' It sounds necessary to me. Plain and simple, Barrett shared with me, insurance companies make more money from nonformulary drugs. Substantially more. The insurance companies and drug companies are turning huge profits. These two conglomerates understand there is a lot of money to be made. ``Let's face it,'' Barrett says, ``the health insurance industry has become nothing more than legalized extortion.'' You know, there are millions of Americans like Barrett; Americans who, because of a preexisting condition, through no fault of their own, any of us could be born with or develop diabetes, anybody could develop cancer. I had a friend with a healthy lifestyle, worked out and biked a lot, 41 years old, had a heart attack. You know, it can happen. That is going to be a preexisting condition for the rest of his life. Too many Americans bear the scarlet letter of preexisting conditions, like my friend Barrett. In health care reform, we ban pricing discrimination and exclusions based on preexisting conditions, one. Two, we empower consumers with choice through an exchange, forcing insurance companies, in some markets for the first time ever, to have real competition with one another, including a public option. Three, we provide affordability credits to help middle class families afford health care. Barrett asked, ``What is the cost of my health to my wife and daughters?'' Barrett says, ``I would say it is worth more than the annual bonuses the executives get on top of their six-figure salaries.'' Well, I agree with my friend Barrett. The life of Barrett, the health and financial security of his wife and family, the health and financial security of tens of millions of American families is worth more than the bonuses that insurance executives get. I call upon my colleagues to support the Barretts of the world in your district and join me in supporting health care reform. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as we discuss health care in this body, and we have had a good and healthy and extensive debate on health care over the last 6 months, and we will continue to over the next month or two, I think it is important to remember the human face; the face of our constituents who put us here to represent them; the face of a family whose 11-year old boy broke his wrist skating and didn't want to tell his mother because he knew it would bring tears to her eyes because of the financial ruin it could cause the family; the story of somebody who is a breast cancer survivor who can't get coverage because of a preexisting condition. This is the face of health care in America today. And we can do better, and we will do better, and I call upon my colleagues in the House of Representatives to say, enough is enough. Let's make a health care system that we can be proud of, that makes American families stronger, and promotes our economic growth and our financial health.

Mr. POLIS. I appreciate those comments, and I think those sentiments are shared by every Member of this body. That's why it's an honor and a privilege for me and you to serve the people of this country. And I certainly enjoy working with you on the Rules Committee in that capacity and look forward to continue working with you in service of the people of this country.

Mr. POLIS. The topic, of course, at the time was the solar energy research bill. That was a bill that authorized some money, of course didn't actually spend any money. That would have to come through the appropriations process. But I take it the remarks that were made with regard to government expenditures were generally, not specifically, a solar energy bill. The point that I made in response, certainly I stand by, is that America, which has experienced economic shrinkage as has much of the rest of the world, has actually suffered more in this most recent recession than Brazil and Argentina, which have done very well in this fiscal year in 2009. Both have experienced economic growth, both having their currencies gain value against the dollar. So I am not sure that--Mr. Allison's observations certainly weren't relating to the conditions of freedom of press or the various social ills that plague South American countries. I don't think it was a reference to the type of freedoms that we, as Americans, enjoy. We enjoy freedoms as Americans--and I am sure you would agree--independent of our economic condition whether we're in a recession or whether we're in a growth. No matter how we're doing economically, we in America enjoy many freedoms that they don't enjoy in other countries. We have a vibrant democracy, we have freedom of the press, the right to assembly. And I don't believe that you or Mr. Allison, who I am not familiar with, or myself would feel those to be in jeopardy like South America. Is that correct? We're talking about the economic condition?

Mr. POLIS. Some countries. Yeah, there's a dozen or so odd countries in South America. Was that based on the solar energy bill or was this a more general comment? If we passed the solar energy bill we would look like South America or a different bill?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with you stories of real people and how health care impacts real American lives every day. One of my constituents from Westminster, Colorado, Barbara Graham, contacted me the other day and shared her story that I want to share with you. In 1970, Barbara's daughter was born with cystic fibrosis. The longest period of time she went without being hospitalized was 7 months. At that point, they had insurance, and Barbara told me that unlike today's insurance, it covered all of her stays and it didn't cost them an arm and a leg. Unfortunately, her daughter died 6 weeks before her eighth birthday. Her son was born with cystic fibrosis in 1976. He is still alive, but because of his condition, today he has no health insurance. He is self-employed, and he couldn't begin to afford the cost of insurance with a preexisting condition like cystic fibrosis. His and his mother, Barbara's daily thoughts are, how long can they get help from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, from family members trying to patch together what they need to help with his medication and his needs? How long can her son stay healthy enough not to be hospitalized because hospital stays have cost him everything? He can never accumulate assets, his hospital stays wipe him out. The last time he was sick he was turned away. His mother has watched him where he can hardly get a breath of air without thinking that it might be his last. Yes, Barbara tells me, our country needs help with the health care industry. Barbara says that having an illness and a preexisting condition is not elective, and it's a shame that insurance companies control how and when a person is treated. Barbara watched--and how difficult it is for any parent to watch--one of her children die because of our health care system, and she fears and she writes that she will probably watch her son die before his time because of his inability to access health care. Barbara wants us in Congress to remember those who can't help themselves because of illness. Well, in the health care reform plan before us, we ban pricing discrimination based on preexisting conditions. Through creating exchanges, we allow people like Barbara's son, who is self-employed, to have access to a low-cost option with some of the same negotiating leverage that a 10,000 or 100,000-person company might have through an exchange which allows for great choices between many private insurers and the public option. He would also receive affordability credits depending on his income--for an individual up to 300 times poverty, up to about $42,000 a year in income. Barbara's son will receive affordability credits to buy the insurance that he needs through the exchange, which will be affordable because they won't be able to discriminate based on his preexisting condition. It is for families like Barbara's and to make American families stronger that the United States Congress needs to pass health care reform. Thank you, and I yield back to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Federal 287(g) program. This unconscionable program authorizes local governments to carry out immigration law compliance, threatening law enforcement and our constitutional protections. We've seen Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, despicably racially profile and round up Latinos in front of TV cameras as he enforced his 287(g) powers. We've watched in horror as he and others who are a disgrace to the uniforms they wear detain people based solely upon the color of their skin. Arpaio is now, thankfully, under investigation for civil rights violations for his discriminatory, unconstitutional searches and seizures. Nevertheless, I'm sad to announce that last Friday afternoon, ICE announced 287(g) agreements with 67 State and local law enforcement agencies across the county. 287(g) scares victims and witnesses of crimes to avoid contacting police for fear of being mistreated. 287 invites exploitation by those who know that they won't be reported to police because it combines the contradictory duties into the same police force. What's the result? A sweep of terror that's frightened legal and undocumented immigrants into hiding, undermining law enforcement efforts across our country. 287(g) programs undermine the spirit and the text of the Constitution, and I encourage Congress to repeal 287(g).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in today's knowledge-based economy, technological breakthroughs and innovations are the keys to economic growth and prosperity. As a former Internet entrepreneur myself, I know firsthand how computer technology is transforming people's lives throughout the world and represents a critical strategy for ensuring our Nation's global competitiveness. The applications of computing innovations are present in every aspect of our lives and are fueling major changes in our society, from communications, to education, to health care, to defense, to how we interact with each other every day and conduct our transactions. To maintain America's leadership and ensure that we remain at the forefront of cutting-edge technology advancements, we need to prepare and train a highly skilled and diverse workforce that can effectively meet the needs of the information technology sector, which includes some of the country's most innovative and successful companies. In my Second Congressional District alone, we have IBM, Google, Qualcomm, Sun and Avaya. A forthcoming report by the National Center for Women & Information Technology, NCWIT, based at the University of Colorado at Boulder, clearly demonstrates the ever-growing demand. Computing professions rank among the top 10 fastest-growing professions. By 2016, there will be more than 1.5 million computer specialist jobs available. And yet the talent pool shrinks as the industry is failing to attract and retain an ample and diverse technology workforce. If current trends continue, the IT industry will only be able to fill half of its available jobs. By 2016, U.S. universities will produce only half of the computer science bachelor's degrees that are needed. Obviously, this shortage requires a bold vision for, and major investments in, education. And while such an effort should permeate the entire spectrum of lifelong learning, the K-12 school system represents the most important area to provide students with a solid grounding in computer science and spark their interest in rewarding careers in information technology. But, unfortunately, too many students don't get a chance to learn about computer science in schools today, especially women and under- represented minorities, whose participation rates in computer science are among the lowest in any scientific field. Consider these facts. High school girls represent only 17 percent of computer science advanced placement test takers. Only 18 percent of computer and information science degrees were awarded to women in 2008, down from 37 percent in 1985. While women comprise almost half of the workforce, they hold less than a quarter of our Nation's IT-related professional jobs, down from 36 percent in 1991. Finally, only about 10 percent of the 2005 computer and information science graduates were African American and 6 percent Latino. During my six year tenure on the Colorado State Board of Education and then as a charter school superintendent, I saw how a lack of understanding of computer science and its critical role in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM disciplines, contributes to lack of interest in computing careers. For example, in a recent survey among college freshman in the school district I live in, only 1 percent of them responded that they intend to major in computer science, double our State average, but still very discouraging. There is some good news. The good news is we can reverse this trend and expand and diversify our technology workforce by introducing students to computer science at an early age and providing them with a learning experience in computer science at all educational levels. Through cutting-edge professional development, we can assist teachers to encourage students to be exposed to computer science concepts. Through high quality computer science activities, including science scholarships, we can provide students with the critical thinking skills that will serve them throughout their lives. And by researching and implementing the best practices to increase participation in the field, we can begin to lay the groundwork for preparing and encouraging diverse students to join the workforce that will launch a new era of innovation and economic growth. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this bipartisan resolution that raises awareness about these important issues by supporting the designation of the week of December 7th as the National Computer Science Education Week, which honors the birthday of Grace Murray Hopper, one of the first female computer scientists. As my colleague Mr. Ehlers said, it is better that our students become nerds than work for them.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for the time, as well as Chairman Price for his leadership in bringing the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill to the floor. It reflects the hard work of Chairman Price over the past year, and I am grateful that I have the opportunity to comment on the committee's efforts here today. I want to reiterate the gratitude that I first expressed towards Chairman Price and his staff during our colloquy earlier this year with Congresswoman Roybal-Allard regarding alternatives to detention. This bill is about security and stability. One of the issues that we raised the profile of is alternatives to detention, a less costly way of detaining noncriminal immigrants. There really is a human rights crisis right in our own midst in this Nation. We are holding over 30,000 noncriminal aliens, people like you and me. They lack documentation, but they have committed no criminal crime. They might have been speeding, been picked up from a speeding ticket; they could have been in the wrong place loitering at the wrong time. And you and I and every other taxpayer are putting them up to the tune of $130 a day, average cost $30,000. Many of them remain in detention for 6 months, 9 months. I had the opportunity to visit a detention facility in Aurora, Colorado. I talked to people who had been there a year and a half, a year and a half away from their families, a year and a half at taxpayer expense. I would like to applaud the Obama administration for supporting alternatives to detention. Our bill funds alternatives to detention at $70 million, lowers cost using ankle bracelets, more humane, allowing people to remain with their families, $30 a day average cost. This provides a glimpse of what we can accomplish if we work together. It also underlines the critical importance of passing comprehensive immigration reform. If we can pass comprehensive immigration reform, I know that in future versions of the Homeland Security bill we can save money and have a more humane bill and focus the bill on Homeland Security where it should be focused, which is keeping our Nation safe, not as a back door to dealing with the failures of our broken immigration system. Thank you, Chairman Price, for your leadership in bringing the FY 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill to the floor. It reflects your hard work over the past year and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to support the committee's efforts to get here today. I want to reiterate the gratitude that I first expressed towards you and your staff during our colloquy with Congresswoman Roybal-Allard on detention alternatives earlier this year. This bill is about security and stability. It furthers the need to secure our borders by guaranteeing the stability of our immigration services' contributions. It provides the funding necessary to continue America's leadership in providing a safe home for both Americans and all future Americans. Thus, $122 million above 2009 levels is provided to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for its important work. Examples of such important work that will be carried on thanks to this bill are many: $50 million goes to process refugee applications and asylum claims so that our Nation may continue to admit those in greatest need; $11 million expands immigrant integration and outreach to help with pressing need once these immigrants are lawfully admitted; and $5 million ensures the naturalization of immigrants serving in our armed services. Funding for detention beds as well as language requiring their maintenance ensures that immigrants will be humanely accommodated while their cases are adjudicated. And more importantly, $70 million goes to Alternatives to Detention--to expand this program nationwide. This steers us in the right direction--a direction of commonsense, cost- saving, and humane measures. It provides a glimpse into what we can accomplish if we continue to work together toward comprehensive immigration reform. This bill only asks our immigrants one thing--to embrace our cherished tradition of the rule of law in the pursuit of freedom. As a result, this bill provides 3-year authorization extensions for all the immigrants that make ours a greater nation. From religious workers who strengthen our social fabric, to investors who create much-needed jobs while increasing overall credit availability, to rural-serving doctors, to refugees, all are covered in the FY 2010 Homeland Security bill. While many provisions in this bill greatly improve our detention policies, there is still much to be done and I look forward to a concrete plan for the closing of our Guantanamo Bay facilities. I once again thank Chairman Price and I look forward to working with you and your staff in the future.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. To build upon what Representative Kilroy and Representative Kagen said with regard to the critical nature of preventing discrimination based on preexisting conditions and exclusions based on preexisting conditions, it is important for those watching us today to know that that is in all four bills--sorry, all five bills. There are five health care bills; two in the Senate, both of which have cleared committee, and three in the House, all of which have cleared committee. Every single bill, any of the health care reform proposals that is at all consistent with President Obama's principles and our principles here in the House as well as the other body would make that basic major change, that no longer would people be excluded based on preexisting conditions or would those conditions be excluded. I applaud Representative Kilroy for sharing her very powerful personal story. It is a personal story that is all too common. Later on tonight, in about an hour and a half, I will be sharing a couple-dozen personal stories from Colorado with members of the public with regard to the travails that many of my constituents have had with the health care system, many of which relate to discrimination based on preexisting conditions. Representative Kilroy also discussed briefly small business. One of the most important things that we can do to make small business competitive in this country is to reform health care. The brunt of our health care system falls on small business. Frequently for the same coverage, they pay more than large businesses. If they have somebody in a small risk pool who has a problem or has a preexisting condition, they might be paying three or four times as much even for their healthy employees because of their small risk pool. We are joined today in the House gallery by a small businessman from my congressional district. Mr. Wayland Lewis, who is with us here today, runs a small online publishing company. What a difference affordable health care would make to him and the countless small business people like him across the country that are the backbone of the American free enterprise system, for them to have access to exchanges, the same way we here in Congress do, the same way that big multinational corporations do, one large risk pool, no discrimination based on the preexisting conditions in a small risk pool, and also some tax credits, by the way, for providing health care for their employees. What a difference that would make and what a job-creation engine in this time of recession, to have that vote of confidence in our small businesses and allow them to do what they know is right. When I talk to small business people in my district that don't provide insurance, it is not because they don't want to. It is not because they don't feel they could be more competitive in attracting employees if they did. It is because they simply can't afford to under the status quo. That is one of the major tenets of this reform: Making America healthier, costing less, and, yes, providing the same kinds of advantages for small and medium-sized businesses that big multinational corporations have had all along, and being able to offer health care and security for the families that work for them.

Mr. POLIS. I thank my colleagues from Maine and New York. I was listening to your discussion, and it struck me how many of us, yourselves included, other Members, not only of the newly elected freshman class--but other Members of Congress--had town halls, listened to our constituents. We, in fact, heard some good ideas from folks back home, and I think we are working to incorporate those into the newer versions of the bill. One that a number of folks brought up in my meetings, and I know I wasn't alone, is why don't we encourage some interstate competition. I know that there are certain concerns that some of my colleagues have addressed about that with regards to how that might affect certain States, but there are ways that we can encourage, not create one level of Federal standards, but encourage States to enter interstate compacts to reduce the barriers of entry and bring down insurance costs. The other thing I was struck by, and this has also been alluded to, was the ill will on the other side. Rather than trying to get to ``yes,'' it would seem like there are many in our country that are trying to stay at ``no,'' trying to stay at a ``no'' that is too costly, both in lives and money for our Nation to endure. There is plenty of room, as demonstrated, as again my colleague from Maine indicated, by her Senator today, in coming to the table, around common solutions that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. But it's critical that we approach this issue with the goal of getting to ``yes.'' Another thing, when I had people, just like other Members of Congress at our town hall meetings--and many of them were so vociferously opposed to any reform, many of them were for any reform and some of them were in the middle. The one thing I tried to leave the people that were opposed to reform with was if you are going to oppose this set of health care reforms, fine, but please oppose it based on something that's in it versus something that's not in it. Because how frustrating is it to have to deal with mischaracterizations and, indeed, lies about the actual content of the bills that we are debating. With regard to whether, in fact, there are Federal subsidies that go to our undocumented population. No, there aren't. There is not even room for discussion there. I, personally, would like us to do more for our undocumented population in this bill. We are not. We are going to deal with that through comprehensive immigration reform, which I am a strong supporter of, next year. With regard to death panels, there are none in this bill. I have constituents contacting me. They have heard these things on right-wing Web sites. They have had people email them to them. I had one contact me yesterday saying the government is going to send people to my home to look at my kids, because they had a complete misreading of some part of the bill that had to do with funding for State pilot projects for home visitation, for people who want home visitation to help them with their health issues. This is information out there that is really not a credit to this honest public discourse and debate, which my colleague from New York alluded to, which is critical to have to come to a solution with regards to reducing costs and improving health care outcomes. I am optimistic. The signs out of the Senate today are that this is truly officially, not only in name, but, indeed a bipartisan effort, as it should be, something of this magnitude. We are taking our time, and we are doing it right. We are 4 or 5 months into a debate that will take another month or two to reach culmination. Again, there is no veracity in people saying this is being rushed through in any way, shape or form. I told my, again, constituents in Colorado our United States Congress has spent more time on health care reform than our legislature of Colorado meets for an entire year. They meet for about 4\1/2\ months to consider every single issue that the State of Colorado faces. Our United States Congress, and many of us who come to Congress from a wide variety of disciplines, have had the time to become experts in health care. That's something that we owe our constituents. I certainly know a lot more about health care than when I first got here. I had been expert in education, had run schools, been on a school board. I had started businesses, knew a lot about the business side. As a consumer I knew about health care. I had been on the board of a nonprofit relating to health care in Colorado. But to get down into the weeds and have this historic once-in-a- generation opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of Americans is what public service is all about. That's why I join you in being excited about this tremendous opportunity that's before us at this point.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I took to the floor and will shortly share with you stories of real people from my district and from Colorado with regard to why we need health care reform so urgently in this country. But before I begin, I would like to address some of the comments of my colleagues from Iowa and Texas with regard to Mr. Kevin Jennings and some of the other issues that they raised which cannot go unanswered, lest the American people be misled. Mr. Kevin Jennings is an appointment by President Obama to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Initiative. First of all, with regard to his commentary on the life of Harry Hay, Harry Hay was the founder of the Mattachine Society, the first organized LGBT rights group in this country, a legitimate part of the LGBT history and movement. To somehow detract from praising such an individual is akin to, let's say, colleagues on the other side of the aisle who might have in the past or continue to praise conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. And I would never, I would never, Mr. Speaker, say that they are endorsing drug use by saying that Rush Limbaugh is a leading conservative thinker. Nor in any way, shape or form, has Kevin Jennings ever endorsed the concept of pedophilia. It is offensive to hear some of this language that emanates from the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are at such a late hour of night. I would hope that C-SPAN and the functions of the United States Congress remain a family-friendly station and the people can be confident that their kids can watch and listen and hear without hearing the tales of bestiality and pedophilia which all too often stem from the tongues of those on the other side of the aisle. With regard to the advice that Mr. Kevin Jennings gave to a 16-year- old boy when he was his teacher during the height of the AIDS crisis, a 16-year-old of the age of legal consent in the State of Massachusetts who said he had been struggling with his sexuality, had turned to anonymous sex, had been conflicted in his internal feelings, the advice, and it was fundamentally good advice, was ``I hope that you used protection.'' If more young people in that situation at the height of the AIDS crisis had received the type of counsel that Mr. Jennings had provided this 16-year-old, there would be thousands more people alive today and thousands less victims of the AIDS crisis. Regardless of one's personal opinions about whether abstinence-only is the best way to have sex education in this country, or abstinence- plus, which would encourage abstinence but also give young people the knowledge they need to prevent diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the advice that was proffered by Mr. Jennings was well within the bounds of encouraging safe behavior, and in fact might indeed have gone some distance to saving the life of this young individual. Having gay and lesbian role models in our schools, and indeed in providing safe schools and drug-free schools, is critical in helping to reduce the suicide rate among LGBT youth. The highest suicide rate among all youth occurs among LGBT youth. The agenda that Kevin Jennings brings to our schools and brings to providing safe schools is no more a homosexual agenda than it would be a heterosexual agenda if Kevin Jennings happened to be heterosexual. Any appointee of that post would presumably have some sexual orientation, be it straight, be it gay, be it bi. That is not what that job is, and there is no difference in the sexual orientation of the individual performing that job. No one is more or less capable of keeping our schools safe and drug-free, regardless of their sexual orientation. Mr. Jennings is somebody who has dealt with, in his own life, addiction issues and has worked with youth to help bring them out of addiction, and I applaud President Obama in standing by this well- qualified nominee for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories from Colorado's Second Congressional District about why we need health care reform urgently. I was written by one of my constituents, Anastasia Gonzalez of Thornton, Colorado. Anastasia is a single mom and a full-time student. She wrote to me to let me know how important it is that in our country we put our differences aside and fix our health care system so that everybody, not just the people who can afford it, have health care. Anastasia told me the story of her child, who just started school this fall. Anastasia had to borrow money from friends just to get her child immunized before school started. Anastasia hasn't been to a doctor since she had her daughter. She can't afford to see a doctor, no less have any necessary procedures done. When she was pregnant she was diagnosed with precancerous cells on her cervix. She had a procedure done right after the pregnancy in hopes that it would take care of the problem, but she has been unable to see the doctor for any follow-up because she can't afford the fee. She doesn't know if it's developed into cancer or not. She doesn't know if she'll be around to tell her story to her child when she's old enough to know. Anastasia writes that no one should have to go through this; no one should have to sacrifice their health for any reason. Well, I'm proud to tell Anastasia that the bills before Congress today would make a real difference in her life. The affordability credits would provide vouchers that would enable her to have the resources she needed to buy the insurance of her choice. She wouldn't need to worry about being discriminated against in pricing for her preexisting condition. She would be able to be covered and insure that she was there not only for her daughter but for her granddaughter and for her family, and was able to go to sleep every night knowing that she had access to the very best medical care in our country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories from Colorado of real people and the issues that they face in their daily battle to seek health care. I want to share with you the story of one of my constituents, Bunny Strassner, a friend of mine, and a small business woman. She and her husband own a production company in Lafayette, Colorado. Recently, they had to lay off their employees, move their office into their home, and cancel their personal health insurance. Like so many American families dealing with this recession, they just couldn't afford it. They're still some years away from qualifying for Medicare, but like a lot of families, because of preexisting conditions, because they had to drop health care, they are worried every day of having an accident, of an illness affecting either one or both of them, because they cannot afford to be sick or disabled. Bunny wishes that Members of Congress who have wonderful health care coverage would really understand the practical and emotional problems the lack of health insurance causes. I hope that those listening today will learn from the experience of Bunny and ask themselves how many more Americans must go through the experience of Bunny Strassner and her husband. Bunny says, I love my country. I work to improve education, especially in the areas of citizenship and the environment. I'm too young to feel this old. With the health care plan before Congress, Bunny Strassner and millions of other small businesses like her would receive tax credits to help make insurance more affordable. They would have access to exchanges that would give them the same good pricing that large multinational corporations have, helping to make health care more affordable for the small businesses of America. You know, I was in business before I came to Congress, and it's not that small business people don't want to cover their employees. They do. But if they can't, they can't. This bill helps make it more achievable. It gives small businesses the tools they need through access to the exchange and through tax credits to ensure their employees have adequate coverage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people and the urgent need for health care reform in this country. One of my constituents from Boulder, Colorado, Maria Thomas-Ruzie, wrote to me the other day and shared her story, which really struck close to home for me and impressed in me the need for Congress to act now and pass health care reform. Maria has always had a fine medical record and decent dental coverage as a State university employee, and her husband also had what they thought was good coverage through the architectural firm that he worked. They even had the option of covering their children in her plan or his plan or both. However, her husband, Maria's husband is a type 1 diabetic, and he incurs, on average, between $5,000 and $6,000 a year in expenses to keep his diabetes under control. It goes to simple routine needs--insulin and insulin supplies, test strips, monitor upkeep, other medications, regular lab work and doctors checks, and as they near retirement age, the planning around their needs becomes even more critical. Marie often thinks about those with diabetes who don't have health care coverage, who can't control their blood sugar levels or related issues. I'm reminded of the story of a young woman at the school that I served as superintendent of before serving in Congress, the New America School. Her name is Kimberly. She, like Maria's husband, suffered from diabetes. Unlike Maria's husband, Kimberly had no health care insurance. At 19 years old, she was no longer part of the children's health care insurance, and because she didn't have access to health care insurance, she had no access to ongoing treatment, insulin monitoring and injections that could have made her condition manageable. So it got to the point where she had kidney failure and was admitted to the hospital and had to be given emergency dialysis. Now, the cost of that emergency dialysis treatment, subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers because Kimberly didn't have health care insurance, would have paid for 2 years of treating and monitoring Kimberly's condition. Beyond the human element of having to force Kimberly to be sick enough to stay home from school and miss work to get emergency dialysis, beyond the human element, how can it make sense to spend, in 1 day, what we could have spent in 2 years to provide a manageable outcome for her diabetes? Maria concludes that their story is not particularly special. It just underscores the importance for health care reform and the need to pass it now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people and why it's critical for us in Congress to pass health care reform. One of my constituents from Eagle County, Colorado, Marian McDonough, wrote to me the other day and shared a story that I want to share with you. Marian's son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 20 years old. He's currently 26 years old. Until he was 24, he was on my health insurance policy through work. But then he aged out of his mother's policy, and when they began checking for health care coverage for him, and while there's normally many policies available for young people, her son was turned down by all these companies because of the very preexisting that he needed coverage for. Marian will add that her son has always been very diligent about his care, maintaining his glucose levels, taking his medication. Beyond diabetes, he's in wonderful health, and when he's tested for his long- term maintenance levels, he receives high compliments for maintaining the proper levels. Yet his condition, his scarlet letter, his preexisting condition, causes him to be denied by insurance company after insurance company. The only way for him under the current system to get coverage is through a large employer who provides insurance, severely limiting employment opportunities. What if Michael wants to be self-employed, start his own business, be a consultant? What if he wants to work for a small company? What if he wants to have two or three small part-time jobs? Those are all avenues that could mean his death. Maryanne writes that one of the problems and glitches with the system is that it doesn't cover the very people who need coverage. She writes, There's many nations and countries that utilize the national system and they work. I want to assure Maryanne and the others who are watching us tonight that one critical component of every health care bill we have in Congress--and we have five health care bills: two in the Senate, three in the House--one of the important common elements is they all ban exclusions based on preexisting conditions and pricing discriminations based on preexisting conditions. Another proposal in the House bill is they would raise the age that a young person could stay on their parents' policy to 26 years old. For those young people that are out of college, looking for jobs, underemployed, they can stay on their parents' policy a couple of years longer and ultimately have access to their own insurance without having to worry about being excluded because of the scarlet letter that they bear through no fault of their own. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people from Colorado and why we need health care reform. One of my constituents from Boulder, Colorado, wrote to me. He asked that his name not be used, but he wanted me to share his story with you. This constituent from Boulder has had HIV since the 1980s; and in the early 1990s, he was dropped by his health care provider, Mutual of Omaha, not because of his particular condition but because they were dropping the whole class of the insured, all single-payer, private policy owners; and at the time, that was millions and millions of subscribers. His story ends up somewhat happy only because he became eligible for our government-sponsored single-payer health care program for the elderly and disabled, namely, Medicare. He was able to file for disability and receive Social Security disability payments. His health care costs are covered by Medicare, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program and the Colorado Indigent Care Program. He asked that I work hard for health care reform so that his friends, especially men and women in their 50s and early 60s before they're eligible for the government single-payer system, Medicare, can't afford to get coverage under the current system. This gentleman, based on his experience and long interactions with our health care system and triumph and struggle against HIV, is for a government option in health care and wants all of us to continue to support reform. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people, constituents in Colorado, and why they need us to act on health care reform now. One of my constituents from Evergreen, Colorado, wrote to me the other day, Paul Lizitski. Paul asked that I share this story with you. Paul has lived without health care at many various times throughout his life, including the past 2 years. He joins over 45 million Americans who lack health care insurance. He's highly educated. Paul has a master's degree, but a master's degree doesn't ensure that you can have affordable health care. His work and career path have led him through various health and human services and occupations, and he's been a public school educator, a Medicaid case worker, and a hospice caregiver. He's now a private gardener, and some day he hopes to grow his business into a garden center and create jobs. Paul is 46 years old and he's been in a nonlegally recognized gay marriage for 15 years. His spouse, Doug, has health care security from his long career with the National Park Service. He's since retired and continues to enjoy requirement benefits. But under current Federal law, Paul isn't eligible to be part of Doug's insurance in any way. Paul lives with the knowledge of having no biological offspring and lacking the same rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. He needs to try and fend for himself. As it applies to health care, all he can do is try his hardest to maintain his physical and mental health at a level that he can afford and pay out of pocket his personal health care costs until he reaches Medicare-eligibility age. He's had to make the difficult decision in the past to forego medical and dental checkups. On some occasions where he did have a checkup, he had to limit the amount of care or the prescriptions that were assigned to him. Paul is worried that his two older brothers, Peter and Michael, passed away at relatively young ages. Paul is nearing the age where his brothers' lives were taken, and he's worried that he won't live to see his 50th or his 52nd birthday. In addition to health care reform, which would provide affordability credits for Paul to purchase insurance from the provider of his choice, allow his small business to purchase insurance through the exchange making it more competitive and attracting other employees from larger businesses so that they could offer some of those same benefits, there is also an important bill in Congress sponsored by Representative Tammy Baldwin that would provide full health care benefits to domestic partners. Paul's partner, Doug, spent his career in public service working for the National Park Service, and yet he doesn't have the same benefits that a heterosexual would have who had served in that capacity. So in addition to the benefits within health care reform and making health care affordable for people like Paul, it's critical that we pass domestic partnership benefits for Federal employees to ensure the competitiveness of our Federal workforce through the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people from Colorado who wrote to me and asked that I share their stories with you with regard to the urgent need to pass health care reform. Bill Reed wrote to me from Silverthorne, Colorado, a mountain town. Bill runs a small business. They offer health insurance to their employees where the company contributes a fixed amount and the employer pays the difference. But this year, their plan came up for renewal, and they were informed by their carrier that their 2009, 2010 premiums would increase 22 percent. This 22 percent increase occurred in the worst recession of a generation. Needless to say, Bill contacted numerous other health insurance companies trying to get competitive bids to reduce this cost, but no other providers would even meet with Bill and his company, no less bid for their business. Bill writes: ``As a good capitalist and businessman, when companies don't compete, market mechanisms fail.'' I couldn't have said it better myself. One of the key components of health care reform is ensuring that there is more competition within the insurance industry. Under the exchanges that are created, small businesses like Bill's would be able to contract with the exchange to provide health care and each of the employees of Bill's company would be able to choose from 10, 20, 30, 80 different plans that are offered in the exchange, empowering consumers with choice and empowering market mechanisms to relentlessly charge forward to improve efficiency in the insurance marketplace. Bill concludes the problem isn't profits. The problem is lack of competition in the health insurance market. The solutions, Bill writes, is to establish a public option that will control costs, keep prices down, and set off real competition in these markets. By giving small businesses like Bill's access to exchanges, tax credits to help them afford the cost of insurance and assuring them that they won't receive pricing discrimination because one or two of their five employees might have a preexisting condition, we enable and empower companies like Bill's and each of their employees to make decisions in the marketplace that lead to a more efficient marketplace for insurance in our country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories that my constituents in Colorado gave to me and asked me to share on the floor of the House of Representatives. Lynn Valverde, a constituent of mine in Thornton, Colorado, wrote to me that her son was diagnosed with asthma when he was about 3 years old. At that time, Lynn was a single mother. Due to divorce and her son's father not paying child support, Lynn had very little money. She was working full time when her son was diagnosed, and she had health insurance. But Lynn wanted something better for herself and her family. She returned to college full time, a decision that I applaud, that we as a society applaud. She wanted to create a more stable financial life for her son and herself. Both her son and she were living with Lynn's mother, the child's grandmother, while Lynn was working towards her B.A. She applied and received student health insurance, but her son's asthma issues increased, and within a very short period of time, the student insurance dropped her son due to the scarlet letter of ``preexisting condition.'' Lynn attempted to apply for Medicaid for her son and was told that since she had assets in her car, which she was making payments on, and her only other asset, a $5,000 bond in a safe-deposit box that an aunt had given for the son, she would need to pay for her Medicaid, and her son would only be able to visit Medicaid doctors. She applied, and within a short period of time, her son had a serious attack. There was only one Medicaid doctor that was within a 50-mile radius. Lynn took her son to the only Medicaid doctor. And she wasn't satisfied with the quality of the treatment that her son was provided. She wanted to go back to his old doctor, the one she used to see before the insurance dropped him. The old doctor looked at the prescriptions that the other doctor had made and noted that the son had been prescribed medication doses meant for adults. Needless to say, from that point forward, Lynn prayed a lot that her son wouldn't have the serious attack and made the very difficult pay out-of-pocket money, any money she could muster borrowed from friends to pay for her son's treatment. There is a happy ending. Finally, Lynn met a wonderful man, got married and was able to get her son on their insurance. Her son is now 23 years old and fine. Lynn wants to make sure that no American family has to go through what she and her son did. And by preventing discrimination based on preexisting conditions, by providing affordability credits for working families to be able to receive the resources they need to buy the insurance of their choice, we empower people like Lynn to make choices in the marketplace and have access to the insurance of their choice. And that is why I call upon my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass health care reform now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories from Colorado that my constituents gave to me of their dealings with health care and why we need to pass health care reform now. One of my constituents from Boulder, Colorado, asked that her name not be used, but wanted me to share with you her story and her travails. She had a small ovarian cyst several years ago that ruptured. She was insured at the time with a high deductible. She went to the ER. She didn't know what the pain was. She thought it might be appendicitis or something else. They ordered two CT scans, which were incredibly expensive, about $1,600 a picture. Later she found out that had she been uninsured, the hospital would likely have ordered an ultrasound instead. The hospital staff kept pushing her to take pain medications, though her pain wasn't that severe. She wanted to stay in touch with what she was feeling in case her condition worsened, so she did not take the pain medications. She feels that if she had the right level of insurance she would have received a better quality of care. And she saw firsthand the difference between the way that people who are insured and uninsured are treated in our medical system. There are people who are uninsured in similar situations whose stories I'm not able to share with you today because they are no longer with us. And it is their memory, as well as for the living memory of those like this woman from Boulder who asked that I share her story that it is critical that we pass health care reform today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people from Colorado and their own travails in our health care system who want me to share with you their reasons for passing health care reform. I want to share with you a story that Linda from Broomfield, Colorado, shared with me last week. Linda's story isn't about her. It's about a friend of hers. A friend of hers is a good, hardworking 22-year-old. Her friend is working two jobs. She recently quit a third job because she couldn't do it anymore. Her friend makes too much to qualify for government assistance but not enough to afford to pay for health care insurance, which she doesn't receive through her work as a waiter and a barber. She is a responsible, tax-paying homeowner who works in a profession that doesn't provide group health insurance. Linda writes that her friend is an example of the tens of millions of Americans who work in service professions, auto mechanics, hairdressers, et cetera. We rely on these folks, Linda writes, but they are really stuck. What would the health care proposals before Congress do for people like Linda's friend? Based on income levels, up to, it's being negotiated, 300 to 400 percent of the poverty level for individual wage earners up to 40, $42,000 a year in income, they would receive affordability credits that they would be able to use. It's a voucher to be able to purchase the health care of their choice so that people like Linda's friend wouldn't have to worry about being uninsured. They would have access to buying insurance through an exchange, a low-cost option that allows them to choose from a multitude of insurance companies, or the public option, at one low cost, giving them the same purchasing power as multinational corporations and the same leverage in negotiating insurance companies as multinational corporations. Linda's friend is a good American. And there are millions of Americans in that same situation working one job, two jobs, three jobs, not getting covered through work, unattainable cost of coverage on their own. The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, would allow Americans like Linda's friend to go to sleep every night with the confidence that they have the health care that they need. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people and why we need to pass health care reform now. One of my constituents from Boulder, Colorado, John Toslosky, wrote to me the other day and asked that I share his story on the floor of the House. For 18 months, John has continuously monitored a significant claim for their son. It was denied, which happens all too often. John called, and they reviewed their policy, and they stated over the phone that it was clearly covered. A week later, a denial letter came again. This process repeated itself over and over for 18 months. Every person they spoke with thought it was covered, and still, the machine of the insurer kept denying the claim. Finally, John was told that it was too long since their last phone calls, that their calls didn't count as a challenge and their claim was permanently denied. John had to threaten to sue and had his employer intercede. And guess what? The claim was promptly paid. John guesses from this and other similar experiences what many of us conclude, that insurers routinely deny claims that should be covered. According to John, Knowing that few people have the time to follow up so diligently, and each person who gives up and just pays the erroneously denied claim creates greater profit for the insurer. This is an example of why, John writes, we need options that remove the insurer from the picture. We need a public option, or it isn't reform. You know, I held about 22 town hall meetings in the month of August across Colorado, and at many of those I asked, How many of you, raise your hands, have had to battle with an insurance company over a denied claim? And at these meetings we had people from the left, people from the right, people from the middle, all across the great ideological spectrum that makes up our great Nation, and in every crowd, 80, 90 percent raised their hands and had witnessed, borne witness to that battle that John, in his case, successfully fought to have his son's claim paid. Who gets the brunt of not having their claims paid? It is frequently the least empowered among us. John, who is college educated and works with an employer that was willing to stand up for him, was willing to get their claim accepted. What if you don't have a high school diploma? What if you're not fluent in the English language? What if you're not aware of your legal rights or ability to use the court system? It is to those who are least among us who feel the brunt of having their claims denied and whom the insurance companies assume will not lift a finger to fight back. That is why it's critical that we provide consumers with more choice through creating an exchange that gives each employee of a company insured through the exchange the choice of dozens of companies, including the public option. You know, some people, rightfully or wrongfully, trust private, for- profit insurers more than they trust our government. Other Americans trust government more than they trust private insurers. With a public option as a choice, that value judgment, that normative judgment is up to you and no one else. You can choose to trust government or to trust your insurer. In John's case, and many others, they have been fed up with their experience with private, for-profit insurers. That's one of the reasons we need to pass health care reform now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories from my constituents in Colorado about why we need to pass health care reform. One of my constituents from Boulder, Colorado, Spence Havler, wrote to me the other day. He wrote about his experience a few years back when he was visiting friends in France and his wife had an accident and acetone entered her eye. This was a very serious emergency situation that if not dealt with urgently and correctly could jeopardize her eyesight. Their friends rushed them to a local ophthalmologist near Paris who immediately took her into his office. He had up-to-date, high-tech equipment to evaluate the condition of her eye, and his treatment was quick and effective. He also provided continued medication to speed the healing process. All of this, Spence writes, was free, absolutely no cost to a U.S. citizen under the French health care program. Spence writes, I hope this personal account will be of use in your efforts. We are most grateful to the French policy and hope that America might find a way to provide similar benefits. I have heard from many other constituents who have shared these stories of travels in Europe; and likewise, I have heard horror stories of visiting foreigners in our own land and their travails and shock when presented with high health care bills. The truth of the matter is we have a lot to learn from experiences in other countries. America spends over 15 percent of our gross national product on health care. The average among the Western European countries in the industrialized world is 8 to 9 percent. Now, we spend nearly twice as much. Would it, per chance, be worth it if we were the longest lived and healthiest people on the planet? Perhaps. But we are not. We are in the middle of the pack. Many of these same countries that spend 8 to 9 percent of their gross national product on health care are healthier than us, have longer life spans than us, according to the World Health Organization. Spence's point is valid. And while this particular set of reforms that we're presenting to the United States Congress is not like the French system, not like the German system, not like the Canadian system, not like the British system, it is a uniquely American system that embraces the power of free enterprise that makes America great, promotes competition among insurance companies through the exchange, provides a public option, provides affordability credits to help middle-income families afford health care. It is a uniquely American solution. It is the right solution, and I encourage my colleagues to support health care reform. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories from Colorado, stories from real people who wanted me to share with you why we need to pass health care reform. I want to share with you the story of Joyce Essex of Colorado. Joyce has a concern for the many families like hers that are middle income. She is concerned about families that make $60,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year. Joyce is a retired teacher with 30 years, a decent pension. Her husband is a commissioned salesperson. They have a daughter in college. Their health care premiums are about $1,000 a month, and that doesn't include deductible amounts, drugs and copays and a TMJ disorder their daughter has. Their insurance has paid none of the $2,000 that they had to pay to get her help. Right now, Joyce has 3 months of COBRA payment from her husband's job change, as well as their regular health premiums. Her husband and daughter are on a separate plan, her plan as a retired teacher. They work odd jobs for additional income, like a lot of families. But more and more, Joyce sees medical bills taking a huge bit out of their income. And remember, she and her family are healthy and insured. Insurance, Joyce writes, is a necessary evil. Joyce writes that we should be sure that health care reform helps those of us that do not have excess money and who are not poor. We help so many in so many ways in this country. Help those of us, Joyce writes, who work hard, pay taxes, and appreciate the opportunities we have living in the United States of America. Through health care reform, we will provide affordability credits in the House version of the bill. It goes up to 400 percent of the poverty level. For a family of four, that's up to $72,000 a year. So if a family of four is making $60,000 a year, $65,000 a year, $68,000 a year, they will receive affordability credits, vouchers that they will be able to use to choose the insurance of their choice from any of the insurance options within the exchange, including the public option. This would empower families like Joyce to consolidate, to be on the same plan, to have access to hundreds of choices where today, none, none exist. Joyce has her retired teachers plan. Her husband, who switched jobs, is on the employer's plan. And for their daughter, they have to pay out of pocket for one plan or the other. Families like Joyce's will benefit tremendously from health care reform. We are not just talking about the very poor. We are talking about middle class American families like Joyce's and reducing the cost of health care insurance and giving them the security so that they can go to bed every night without worrying about losing their health care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories from Colorado of real people, stories they shared with me of why we need to pass health care reform, stories I hold close to my heart as I do battle and encourage my colleagues to join in supporting President Obama's plan to improve health care in America. Jeremy Johnson from Colorado wrote to me the other day. He was born in Denver and lived in Colorado most of his life. Last November, like a lot of Americans, he lost his job. Subsequently, Jeremy lost his health care. That's the third time he has been laid off in his life. The first time he was unemployed because there were budget cuts at the University of Colorado, the flagship university in my district and, like a lot of public enterprises, had fallen upon hard times and budget cuts and Jeremy lost his job there. He then went into several temp jobs and was eventually hired into a permanent position with Citibank in the spring of 2006. He became eligible for their benefits program and went on to their benefits program; but a year and a half later, they eliminated half of the people in his department and moved the rest to Maryland. Once again, Jeremy found himself unemployed and uninsured. After searching for months for employment without success, he applied for part-time seasonal jobs with a large home furnishings retailer and started work there to pay bills. He was able to earn insurance benefits for 3 months, but he lost those benefits when he was laid off due to the economic impact on the industry and on retailing. Now, shortly after his most recent layoff, Jeremy was diagnosed with a medical condition. He is afraid that when he finally gets insurance again, the treatment for that condition, the very condition he needs medical care for, will not be covered because it will be considered a preexisting condition. Jeremy is an athlete. He considers his health important. He has competed in the AIDS/LifeCycle from San Francisco to L.A. 2 years in a row. He has raised thousands of dollars for good causes through his races, raised money, ironically, for treatment for people who are not covered by our current health care system. Yet Jeremy himself lacks coverage through no fault of his own. What we accomplish in health care reform is encourage employers to provide health care, give them access to exchanges, provide affordability credits. For individuals earning up to $41,000, $42,000 a year, they will receive affordability credit to take to the insurance provider of their choice to acquire insurance. Health care will become more mobile through the exchanges. Jeremy and millions like him will be able to take health care from one employer to the other through the exchange. We owe to America that the millions of people in Jeremy's condition shouldn't need to worry about where their health care will come from should they suffer from an illness, have to worry about having a string of bad luck and layoffs because of the recession or job relocations. By passing health care reform today, we can give Jeremy and the millions like him the health care that they need to contribute to our great Nation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a story that one of my constituents wrote from Colorado and asked that I share with you on the floor of the House of Representatives. She doesn't want her name to be used but wanted the power of her words to empower me to convince my colleagues of the urgent need to pass health care reform. Her partner was recently diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. At that time she was working at Regis University, a private university which provided insurance but didn't offer it to domestic partners. With the use of her flexible spending account, she was able to get her to a doctor. That doctor refused to diagnose her, not for some nefarious reason. He refused to diagnose her out of the goodness of his heart. How ironic. Why? Because he knew that she would get lost in the system and be refused treatment due to no insurance if she was labeled, labeled with the scarlet letter of a preexisting condition of breast cancer. Fortunately, this woman's partner did survive and win the battle with cancer. She was given the opportunity to be diagnosed by a referral from this doctor to a clinic who helped women with breast cancer. Now, I can't tell you whether what that doctor said or did was legal or illegal in not giving the right diagnosis, but I can tell you that that doctor did the right thing. I can tell you what the wrong thing is. It is putting a doctor in that situation where they have to deny and not give the very diagnosis that they know is medically accurate, because they know that the very diagnosis and the act of giving it could be a death sentence for their patient. ``Do no harm'' is the oath that doctors take, and the doctor that didn't diagnose this woman's partner upheld the highest and truest form of that oath in not making that diagnosis and allowing her partner to live. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you stories of real people from Colorado and why we need to pass health care reform in this body. I had hundreds of constituents share their very personal stories with me. One of them, Mary Jo Schoolmaster from Colorado Springs. She and her husband are both retired teachers. In 2004, he suffered a brain stem bleed that hospitalized him for 5 months: surgery, pneumonia, feeding tube, terrible, terrible ordeal. He came home and with stubborn determination he regained 95 percent of his functionality. He returned to work in 2005 as a dean of students and as a football coach. After retiring in 2006, he had a second bleed. He spent a full year in and out of hospitals, acute long-term care, in-patient rehab. He couldn't walk, eat, sit up or use his left side. He was on oxygen, had a feeding tube. Mary Jo writes that she was among one of the lucky ones that had insurance. They said it's been a constant battle to receive the benefits that he was entitled to, and he required her to become an advocate every step of the way. You know, I have had a series of town hall meetings, about 22 of them in the month of August across my district, and I would ask at those town hall meetings how many of you have had to fight denied claims of your insurance companies. It was an ideologically diverse crowd, maybe a third against any kind of health care reform, a third for single payer and a third somewhere in the middle. Eighty, ninety percent of the crowd, regardless of their ideology or their party, raised their hand and said I have been there, I have had to fight a denied claim of my insurance provider. Well, Mary Jo had to do that on behalf of her husband, had to fight every day to ensure that those bills were paid. Mary Jo is hopeful that health care reform changes this scenario for her and millions of others. We need choices, Mary Jo writes, and competition to force insurance companies to be transparent, not against us, every step of the way. Mary Jo is right. What this bill accomplishes is it provides competition among the insurance industry through the exchanges that are being created. With the public option, insurance companies in some markets for the first time ever will face real competition. Those who delay, who fight or who are bad at paying claims will quickly lose customers to leaner and more efficient insurance providers. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we urgently need to pass health care reform in this body, to ensure that people like Mary Jo and millions of other Americans don't have to fight their insurance companies every day. Because when we have this kind of scenario, who gets the short end of the stick? It's those who are not empowered and able to fight their insurance companies on denied claims. What about if Mary Jo hadn't graduated high school? What about if Mary Jo wasn't fluent in English? Mary Jo was a retired school teacher. She knew what she had to do to advocate forcefully on behalf of her husband to ensure that all of us who have policies get what we are paying for. We need to make insurance companies answerable, and that's why we need to pass comprehensive health care reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I rise in support today--despite my opposition to the war--of the 2009 reauthorization bill. And I thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for including the hate crimes bill and bringing this historic legislation to the floor of the House and to the desk of the President of the United States of America.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. I would like to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for the time on the rule as well as House Armed Services Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their tireless work on this bill. Their job is not easy. Our Nation faces a war on two fronts and growing threats to our security here and abroad. As our economy struggles to recover from a meltdown, the resources we have available to devote to these problems are under increasing pressure. It's time we bring our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I commend President Obama and his efforts to end our military presence in Iraq and look forward to helping him achieve this goal soon. I am concerned, however, about the possible increase of troops in Afghanistan. We cannot achieve peace through the occupation of an entire country. The occupation of Afghanistan will not help us defeat the very real threat of al Qaeda. We need to take a new look at our policy, moving towards targeted operations against al Qaeda rather than the occupation of an entire country. And this can only come about through discussion and debate. We need an exit strategy for Afghanistan, a plan for peace. This bill promotes such a plan by requiring assessment of goals in Afghanistan with timelines and by increasing numbers in the Afghan National Security Forces to prepare for the transition. Recognizing, however, that this authorization will inevitably continue war efforts inherited from the previous administration, I take great pause in deciding to support it. But at its heart, this authorization is about more than our policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this authorization today because, in doing so, Congress finally--after nearly a decade of debate--has the opportunity to pass historic hate crimes legislation. My home State of Colorado has long had hate crimes legislation on the books, including gays and lesbians, and I am proud to stand before you as a representative of the Second Congressional District and as an original cosponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 which is included in this Defense authorization bill. Our hate crimes legislation expands Federal jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute hate crimes and provides law enforcement with another means of ensuring that the safety and rights of all Americans are protected. It offers Federal protection for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, as well as protecting men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States from hate crimes. It also provides assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and amends Federal law to aid in the prosecution of bias-motivated crimes. Hate crimes are not limited to the LGBT community. They occur every day in every State and perpetuate a climate of fear throughout minority communities. What makes these crimes so odious is that they are not just crimes against individuals; they're crimes against entire communities and create environments of fear in entire communities. There is a difference between burning a cross on the lawn of an African American family and an act of simple arson. This legislation clarifies that our country has zero tolerance for hate crimes.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Secretary Napolitano and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary John Morton released a much-anticipated report on ICE's detention policies, which detailed observations and recommendations made by former detention policy and planning director, Dora Schriro. Despite ICE's previously stated goals of focusing on the detention and deportation of dangerous criminal immigrants, Dr. Schriro's report clearly states that two-thirds of the individuals being detained at taxpayer expense by ICE are noncriminal immigrants, a proportion which has stayed constant over the past 2 years. I am encouraged by Secretary Napolitano's commitment to reforming our Immigration Detention System and her acknowledgment that ICE must create a system that reflects the needs of a largely noncriminal civilian detainee population versus those of a prison population. We must ensure community members that those ICE has classified as ``special population,'' such as parents with with minor children, the ill and injured, women, nonviolent asylum seekers, are not routinely detained. Those who are eligible and do not present a flight risk or a danger to their community should be able to pay a bond and seek parole. Luckily, ICE has found successful alternatives to detentions. Secretary Napolitano should continue these alternatives to detention programs.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 707, a bill that supports the designation of the week of October 18 as Adult Education and Family Literacy Week. Adult education and family literacy programs provide millions of Americans with the skills they need to lead productive lives, boost their academic achievements, and engage in the workforce and earn a living. Adult Education and Family Literacy Week recognizes the impact that adult education and family literacy programs have on our Nation's adult learners and their families in the next generation. According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, there are approximately 90 million adults nationwide who lack the literacy skills to reach their full potential. Approximately 30 million of these individuals are at the lowest rudimentary levels of literacy. Adult education programs work with these individuals as well as new immigrants striving to learn English, to help them gain and retain jobs, transition to postsecondary education or a training program, read to their own children, and fully participate in their own education and obtain the English language skills necessary to succeed in their new home country. These programs emphasize basic skills such as reading, writing, math, English language competency, and problem-solving techniques. It is important to recognize that the supply of adult education and family literacy services has lagged significantly behind the growing demand. In my home State of Colorado, an estimated 585,000 adults, or 18 percent of the State's population over 16 years of age, have not attained a high school diploma or equivalent and are not enrolled in school. Yet in school year 2007-2008, adult literacy programs have provided slots for less than 15,000 individuals, 79 percent of whom were between the ages of 19 and 44. More than half of the participants were unemployed, and more than two in three of those served were Latino. At over 100 sites around the State, our critical programs provide adult basic education, adult secondary education and English as a second language to Colorado's most-in-need population, helping adult learners and their families to break the cycle of illiteracy and move toward self-sufficiency. In the 2007-2008 school year, 2,500 students earned their high school diploma or GED and almost 10,000 adults received English as a second language services. Family literacy programs work with parents without a high school diploma or GED and their young children to help break cycles of illiteracy and poverty that plague some of our Nation's most vulnerable families. Most importantly, they provide parents with the knowledge and skills they need to be their child's first and most important teacher and role model and to be full participants in their child's education. For children, family literacy programs help ensure that they start school ready to learn and on an equal footing with their peers. In Colorado's Second Congressional District, which I have the honor of serving, the Boulder Valley Family Literacy Program, in partnership with the Boulder Valley School District, operates a high-quality adult and family literacy program for low-level literacy adult learners and limited English speakers, both adults and children; 160 learners and families attend the program together, interacting in literacy activities as they learn. Parents participate in English classes or GED preparation and learn more about the public school system offers and how best to support their child. Schoolchildren receive homework tutoring and enrichment, and preschool children learn the skills they need to start their formal education. Also in my district, the Colorado Mountain College has several satellite campuses serving 2,300 students. Most of their learners are ESL students, and their goal is to provide them with a pathway to college wherever possible. Effective adult education and family literacy programs improve adults' lives by helping them develop a basic yet strong understanding of the English language. These skills lead to jobs, workforce readiness, higher education and successful outcomes in life. Furthermore, adult literacy contributes to self-sufficiency for adults and families across the Nation. Again, I want to express my strong support for this resolution. I urge my colleagues to endorse this measure by voting ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. In addition to General Shalikashvili, one of the original cosponsors of the bill, former Representative Barr of Georgia, has come out in favor of the repeal. The former Commander in Chief of the United States military, President Bill Clinton, who signed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, has come out in favor of a repeal. The times have changed, and what was, in our judgment at one time, a decision of military preparedness, it might have been that good minds disagreed with whether it was in our interest back in the early nineties, that idea has changed. The tone of the country has changed, and it is more than time. The time has long passed to end this policy of discrimination within our military.

Mr. POLIS. You know, I'm struck by the sharing of the number of stories, a lot of similarities, many service men and women over the last decade and a half since this policy has been implemented, kicked out for no good reason. You know, what company, and I come from the business sector, could do this kind of thing? It doesn't increase your competitiveness. If you have people that you put hundreds of thousands of dollars into training, and then you don't like who they date and so you say, you're fired. You have people with excellent performance ratings, top of the category and you are saying, sorry, we're going to put somebody who might have a lower rating in your job because, again, we don't like who you date. That's no way to run a company. It's no way to run a country. It's no way to run the best military. And what we owe to every one of our men and women who are in uniform, who put their lives at risk every day, is to make sure that we put our best foot forward militarily and do everything in our power to protect every life of every man and woman who serves. And when we remove people who would perform better, who are needed for certain functions, who have to cost more to retrain, we jeopardize the lives of other soldiers who are serving with them. This also has an effect on recruitment and retention within the military. I heard a few weeks ago from somebody who's currently serving. He was facing a decision of whether to reenlist for another few years. He said, You know, when do you think don't ask don't tell will end? If you think it's going to end soon I'm going to re-up for another 5-year period. If not, I'm probably going to get out now. I didn't know what to tell him. I said, well, Representative Murphy's working on it, and I have every degree of confidence in him. I said, I hope that we will get it done in the next year or two. I think we will. If he chose to leave the military, that's our loss. That's our military's lost. The cost of replacing that individual, the cost of training somebody to get up to speed at a time when we need more men and women to serve in uniform, is a cost to taxpayers and a cost to our national security. All of these stories resound that we are engaging in an extremely short sighted policy. How can be it be argued that all of these excellent men and women with great command, great evaluations that are kicked out for no particular reason other than who they date, how can it be argued that that makes our military stronger? It simply doesn't. And we need to correct this policy to ensure that we have the very best military to defend our national interests here and abroad.