Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't planning on addressing this item, but I heard so many of my colleagues, especially those on the other side, talk about the crisis of providing the doctors that are going to be essential for health care, and finally we are talking about health care, not health care insurance.

As somebody who spent 10 years supervising the safety net for a community of 3 million in San Diego County, I just wish my colleagues on the other side, when they're worried about pediatricians and primary health care people, would understand that if you really want to protect those providers, why don't we sit down and talk about true tort reform, especially for the pediatricians. This is a cost that is bearing down. And when you're asking young people to get an education to be a primary health care provider, especially a pediatrician, explain to them why somebody on public assistance, on welfare, has more right to sue their physician than those men and women who are serving in uniform.

The fact is there is no way that we should be sitting up here saying that we really want the next generation to get into health care unless we're willing to tell our friends who are the trial lawyers that we're going to take the physicians off the counter; we're not going to allow lawsuits to be part of the overhead that is driving people out of the health care business.

And I hope to say to both sides, if you really want to make sure there are future doctors, then let's have the bravery to stand up today and do something about the tort that those future doctors are looking at before they go into school.

Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman from Texas to understand that when a physician or a student is planning on getting into a field, they not only look at will the government guarantee that I'll be able to get the tuition, but they're looking at what field am I moving into. And let me just tell you, as a fact, in California, even with our tort reform, somebody who wants to volunteer as a Medicaid volunteer has to file an $80,000 or $90,000 insurance policy just for volunteering.

So when the gentleman talks about the educational side, that it's essential that we encourage people to get into the field, my point for being here is you cannot talk about the educational when you ignore the environment that you're asking them to go into. And the fact is: What parent would ask somebody to go into this field and be a physician with all the education and all the expenses when they can tell their kids to be a lawyer and sue those physicians for every cent they have ever been able to earn?

That's why we've got to talk about both of these together. But you can't stand up and say we want these essential services but not be willing to get the trial lawyers off the backs of these physicians so they can provide those essential services.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, look, the fact is these physicians are being held with a liability that is inappropriate, way over the head, and it is not justifiable----

We're talking about the fact that those who want to stand up and say we'll spend Federal funds to create an environment to provide health care but then are not willing to say, not just the fact that we find special tort coverage--and I know that the gentleman from Texas knows because I was at a county level providing those services. We have Federal programs that protect those in the community clinic. But we're not just talking about the little bit of protection we get with our Federal protection. We're talking about the whole tort exposure needs to be considered.

And if you want to talk about access and stand up here and have the moral high ground on access, you've got to be willing to take on the big guy, the powerful trial lawyers, and say, look, physicians are going to be held harmless from your lawsuits. We're going to find a reason to encourage young people to go to school not just by providing Federal subsidies to their tuition, but also telling them, once you get your degree, you'll be able to go into a field where you'll be able to practice your art of medicine without having somebody who has never had to make a life-and-death decision drag you before a judge and a jury and attack you for your decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Al Wanamaker, outgoing president of the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club, located in my congressional district in North San Diego County California.

Under Mr. Wanamaker's leadership, the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club personified its motto of ``Building Communities and Bridging Continents.'' The club has contributed resources and financial assistance to various causes including: youth and women, student achievement, military, the disadvantaged and humanitarian efforts around the world.

Some of the projects undertaken by Mr. Al Wanamaker and the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club include hosting a Rotary Youth Leadership Award (RYLA), a youth awareness leadership conference, and business and ethics conferences for Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, school students. They sponsored a Four-Way speech contest to help develop public speaking skills for high school students and a golf tournament that benefited scholarships for Carlsbad high school students and returning marines. The Hi-Noon Rotary Club provided dictionaries for English and Spanish speaking elementary school children, as well as meals and gifts to needy elementary school children; and finally, the Club actively supports the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club.

For the greater community Mr. Wanamaker and the club co-sponsored an Oktoberfest fundraiser that benefitted the Carlsbad Women's Resource Center; provided support to the Veterans Association of North County, and La Posada, a facility for the homeless; assisted in the distribution of food, clothing and toys to over 400 needy Carlsbad families in conjunction with the Carlsbad Christmas Bureau; as well as refurbishing, relocation and dedication of a city landmark structure for public enjoyment.

In the international arena, Mr. Wanamaker and a team of Carlsbad Hi- Noon Rotarians joined with others to build a house in Mexico for a needy family. Through the Paul Harris Foundation, the club co-sponsored numerous other humanitarian projects all over the world including: an effort to eradicate polio worldwide; contributed one hundred goats to needy families in a small village in India for the purpose of providing a source of nourishment, income and an opportunity to develop entrepreneurial skills that promote self sufficiency; participated in the Shelter Box program to help the needy in Haiti and Japan that were devastated by earthquakes; provided support to build a school for girls in Afghanistan and developing a source of safe drinking water for a small village in Africa; finally, hosted several foreign exchange students to promote better understanding of other cultures.

I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the many fine achievements of Mr. Al Wanamaker and his colleagues at the Carlsbad Hi- Noon Rotary Club. Without question, his leadership and their fine work are worthy of recognition by the House of Representatives today.

I appreciate that.

Let's talk science, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone wants to talk about the threat of climate change, but no one wants to address the fact that what EPA has proposed, by the admission of the administrator, cannot even indicate what percentage of greenhouse gases those regulations could reduce. And not one scientist, not one expert in our committee, or I have seen anywhere else, has ever said what is being proposed by EPA, that is going to cost at least $200 million, will not avoid the problem of climate change. So the question is this, what are the American people getting for their $200 million.

Now, I'm sorry, some of us have worked on air pollution issues. I know the precursors to ozone. If they are saying that the problem is it's a precursor to ozone, believe me, it is so small and minute that those of us that are working in non-attainment areas never even gave a second glance at CO2. So don't talk about it being a health risk based on a precursor to ozone. Look at what we are getting for the money.

What we are actually talking about here is not allowing EPA to go out and implement programs that the administrator admits that she cannot tell us what the American people are going to get for their dollars.

If you want to do a study, then let's do a study on what would have to be done to address this issue the way that some of us think it should be addressed. But let's not say that somehow that by holding up a program that is admitted not to be able to deliver any tangible benefits, that holding up that program is somehow going be a threat to public health.

So let's just get back down to the real science, and that is no one in this establishment is talking about addressing the climate change issue. Some people are saying it doesn't exist and others are trying to sell an environmental placebo that makes you look good because you are doing something, but spends huge amounts of money, has a great impact, and does not address the problem and would not avoid the problem.

One thing we have got to make clear. Don't talk to me about incrementalism

when we talk about climate change. You talked to the same scientists that you say are telling us about climate change, and they say if we don't get the job done within the next decade or two, forget about it. It's over with.

The fact is that climate change will happen. And, sadly, what I have seen in the last 2 years about this issue, I have come to the conclusion this body really should be talking about what we need to do to mitigate the impact, because you are not doing anything to avoid it, and we shouldn't tell the American people that we are.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I want to point out the comment was made about the precursor to ozone. Thirty years of air pollution regulations. Ask the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles. It never regulated CO2 as a precursor to ozone because it was so miniscule that there are so many other issues that are absolutely essential to address that you didn't even look at that.

And if you didn't think those of us in California, that we're working on air pollution, air quality, our county in San Diego went from ``severe'' down to ``serious'' because we were successful. And it wasn't chasing ozone. I mean, not chasing CO2. It was tracing true toxic emissions.

So when you talk about implementing these plans, understand you're talking about sacrificing efforts that are at true risk.

Let's be clear: We are not talking about greenhouse gases here because the regulations that have been proposed by the EPA do not address climate change. They don't address climate change. We are not talking climate change here. We are talking about EPA proposing regulations that admitted by the administrator does not have any projections of what reductions you will have here. Remember, the minimum that we need to do to address the threat of climate change is 17 percent within 9 years. So let's be up front. This is not about climate change.

This is about proposed regulations by a bureaucracy in a field of law that was never meant to address this issue at all. And I say that as somebody who worked for over a decade at implementation of the Clean Air Act. All I have to say to the colleague, with the problems that you are pointing out, they are legitimate issues. But what is being proposed as an answer to a problem has not only nothing to do with and will not affect climate change, but it also will not affect the issues that you have raised.

So in reality, your amendment is not germane because the issues that you are concerned about don't exist. Because when you do nothing, you can't change anything.

And the fact that it is keeping somebody from selling a placebo does not solve the problem, or it does not aggravate the problem. The fact is what has been proposed by EPA is a placebo under a law that was never meant to administer this.

So let's not be concerned about if the placebo is not available to the public somehow there may be a concern with these items. They are legitimate items. But the EPA and the underlying bill does not affect those issues.

parliamentary inquiry

Will the gentleman yield?

As I said, it's not germane to the issue.

Madam Chair, I regretfully rise in opposition, not because the intention of this amendment isn't appropriately placed, but the science doesn't reflect the concern that the gentleman has pointed out. I say that with the understanding that the science, not talking about the concern about climate change, but the lack of science behind the proposed regulations that EPA has even discussed. There is no one who has been before our committee, as the gentleman knows, that has said that the proposed changes that EPA is bringing forth today or in the future is going to address or solve the problem.

The fact is that the problems that the gentleman is concerned about may be out there somewhere, but no one is saying that what the EPA is doing is going to avoid those problems. So by not having the EPA implement a program that nobody in the scientific community says will address the problem doesn't mean that somehow this will de facto cause the problem to be implemented or not avoided.

Basically I guess it says, again, what is being proposed by the EPA is an agency that was not designed to address climate change, with plans that not only were not designed, and using a vehicle that was not designed regarding this problem, but by the own admission of the administrator does not even know, and can't give us even a slight percentage of what reduction we would have.

So I just have to say to my dear colleague from Illinois that I appreciate his concern, but his concern should not be us telling EPA not to implement rules that they admit will not address the problem and will not solve the problem. Our issue ought to be talking about how do we address those problems down the pike, because let's be very frank about it. The problems you are talking about are going to happen, and it is not because anyone on this side is denying the science; it is because people are trying to take advantage and exploit a crisis rather than address it.

I ask the gentleman again to be concerned but make sure that when you propose an action, let's make sure that those actions have a possibility of addressing the issues that you so sincerely are concerned about.

Madam Chair, I always enjoy my colleague Mike Doyle because I have a good friend, Mike Doyle, who was actually the first world champion surfer; so I always remind him of that connection.

But let me just say to my colleagues, I hope you're not under some illusion that China is even considering reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent within this decade. I hope you don't have that illusion.

But let's point out what we really need to address with this issue. You do not need a study, Congressman, about the impacts. Your State is sitting at 8 percent. My State is sitting at 12 percent unemployment. If you really want to see what happens if you're not careful about the impacts and the costs of going green, which we have, we've had a great breakthrough. Our air has been cleaned up a lot more. But there are challenges of going beyond that and going into things that are not cost effective.

Let me remind you, the great successes we've had with cleaning up our air in California is we always gave priority to those emissions that had the greatest health risk. We didn't go after one that wasn't even on the scale. CO2 is not even on the health risk scale.

Let me just give you a good example. I'm a big supporter of algae. Our scientists in California developed algae fuel. Our State institutions and our educational institutions had the scientists that developed the technology to be able to make fuel out of algae. But when it came time to produce it, when it came time to create the jobs, I hope the gentleman understands that our scientists had to leave the State and go to New Mexico, because our environmental regulations were such that it didn't allow us to implement our green revolution.

So, I hope all of those that are talking about a green revolution today are willing to take on the environmental, regulatory, and oversight problems that exist in implementation, because without casting those aside, you'll never see that revolution.

I apologize, but I have to say to the gentleman, you know, wood burning, under oxygen-deprived environment, is a terrible particulate pollutant. So I don't think anybody involved in air pollution issues would ever point out that wood burning is something we want to point to. It may be renewable--and I appreciate you saying that, and I think it's very good that you said that because I think we mix renewable with clean all the time. But there are those renewable sources that are very, very bad for the air pollution issue. I just wanted to make sure we went by and didn't point at that.

In California, we have actually tried to outlaw wood-burning stoves because of the problems with the air pollution and the toxin emissions that are caused by the particulate problem with it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity for all of us, both Democrats and Republicans, to talk openly and frankly about the fact that we are at a point in our history where we need to not only spend money, but we have to be smarter, too. I think too often in Washington we are thinking that our degree of efficiency or compassion is based on how much we spend and not how well we accomplish our goals.

I would only ask my colleague who just addressed us to join with some of us who say that we need to be smarter. As a former member of the Air Resources Board in California, I can show you studies that have been done by very noted research people that point out--one study alone that says we could reduce fuel and emission problems by 22.6 percent. But to do that, we not only have to address what is the private sector doing in Detroit in building cars, but what is the government sector doing in controlling those cars when they are on the road.

One of the biggest problems we have is Washington sends money out for projects, but we do not hold those projects to a standard that has been upgraded to 21st century standards. An example: There are studies that have shown that 97 percent of all stop signs that you and I stop for every day, Mr. Speaker, don't have to be stop signs. Those could be yield signs. Now granted, there are those sites with sight-distance problems where you have to have stops. But when you and I go drive down out of our home tomorrow morning, think about when you stop, why are you stopping? It's not for safety. Lord forbid, it's not for fuel consumption or for environmental conservation; it is because the law says you have to stop, even though there is a cost in environmental and economic impact. The safety factor is not the factor being determined. It is easier for a local government to give you a ticket on a stop sign, or at least that perception is there, when a yield sign is just as enforceable.

A good example is why is a four-way stop always the easiest and the cheapest way for a government to be able to control an intersection when everybody knows that a roundabout has been proven to be a major source of safety and environmental and economic benefit.

The fact is that communities that have been brave enough to try new traffic control, like the new computer-engineered roundabouts and traffic circles, have not only proven that it reduces congestion by a huge amount because it stops the queuing approach; it also eliminates that pollution that stop signs cause by five times more polluting than allowing somebody to drive through an intersection at low speed, that roundabouts do. But it also eliminates, as the gentleman who just spoke brought up, the safety factor. A roundabout eliminates the T-boning where fatalities occur. Actually, by going to the next generation of traffic control, we can not only address fuel consumption and pollution, but we can make our roads safer.

So I really call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's look at making sure that when we send this money over to the States and the cities and the counties--and I was a mayor. I ran a transit system, the San Diego trolley system. We helped build that system. We need to make sure that we are doing the right thing in government. And one of the things that we are not doing in government that we can do and lead through example, if we truly care about public safety, environmental protection and fuel efficiency, if we really want to lead, let's not mandate on the private sector that they have to do something if we're not willing to look at our colleagues here in government and say: We have to reform ourselves.

I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's work together. Let's start saying, look, local governments, counties and cities; the environmental, economic, and safety impacts of you not upgrading your traffic control to an efficient system is costing our economy 22.6 percent more than it should. It is costing our environment 22.6 percent that it shouldn't. And the fact is, we don't know how many lives we can save until we are willing to do that.

I call on both sides, let's get together and work on this and set an example for the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, let me say as somebody who had the privilege for 18 years to be in local government, I think those of us in the Federal Government have to understand that there are jurisdictions and priorities that we need to set.

Some people believe that it is as much a responsibility of the Federal Government to hire police officers as it is to maintain a military. I'm sorry. The constitutional line for those of us who are mayors and county chairmen recognized that we need the Federal Government to concentrate on our responsibilities--defending our borders, defending our national security. Those of us that served at local government would be able to address their issues much more appropriately and have a lot less burden.

But I really want to speak about the opportunities we have to work in a bipartisan effort. When we talk about budget reduction, rather than denying Americans the right to live in the United States unless they buy certain insurance, why aren't we talking about doing cost reductions like California has done, not exactly a right-wing legislature?

MICRA there has had such an impact on the cost of insurance on physicians that an OB/GYN in Los Angeles pays 30 to 40 percent less for insurance than the same doctor in New York. Now, you can't tell me the cost of living is that much different, except for the fact that Sacramento has recognized that tort reform and limitations of trial lawyers' impact on health care is an essential one. If the legislature of California can agree to maintain that, why can't we work together to address those issues?

If we're talking about wanting to reduce costs, why didn't the health bill allow Americans, rather than taking away the rights to live in the country, the freedom to buy across State lines? That is well within our jurisdiction as a Federal body.

Why didn't we give freedom the answer to be able to reduce costs rather than talking about taking away the rights of Americans to live here? That is a real scary concept that we can't join on tort reform-- and let's face it, the liability issue is sort of an interesting one. The Federal Government and States can actually address issues that say that somebody who is----

Let me point this out. I know this because I was at the county running a health care system and supervising the health care system for over 3 million people.

The Federal Government has special protection for physicians if they're in community clinics that we do not give to other physicians. The Federal Government accepts the situations where somebody on Medicaid has more right to sue their physician than the men and women in uniform in this country. And I challenge you to tell me how it's justifiable that, if somebody doesn't pay for their medical costs in the military, they don't get to sue their doctor, but somebody who is on welfare and public assistance, they get to sue them. Can we talk about bringing those issues together and addressing the ability for a lawyer to get into an operating room is not as important as the right or the need of physicians to be able to do their job that is so essential?

And I want to close with this. We have not been talking about health care in the last year. We've been talking about health insurance. And the crisis that's coming down this pike is that in 10 years you may be able to call the health insurance people, but you won't be able to find a doctor unless you call 1-800 and get it over the phone.

Mr. Speaker, one of our Nation's most core beliefs is that everyone is equal before the law. From the richest men and women, to the poorest we are all subject to the laws of our country. Today though, we have gathered to debate a bill, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, that would undermine that very principle and reward individuals who have broken our laws at the expense of those who have followed them.

The so-called ``DREAM'' Act, a bill that would establish a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants as old as 29, as long as they arrived before age 16, based on the promise that they will complete two years of college or serve in our armed forces. Importantly, for the first time ever, this bill would equate a willingness to serve in defense of our country with just two years of a college education. This vote is a slap in the face to the dedicated men and women in our military who have spent, in many cases, years working toward legal immigration to our country.

Moreover, it sends a mixed message to those one day hoping to call themselves Americans, effectively encouraging them to come to this country illegally and break our laws. Unfortunately, all too often we have seen the direct impact these mixed messages have had, which have put would-be immigrants at great risk. This includes the 72 would-be illegal immigrants who were murdered by drug cartels in Mexico this August as well as the human trafficking ring that was broken up in Phoenix last week where nearly a dozen smuggled children were being held for ransom.

The immigration system in our country is undoubtedly broken. Today, there are more than 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S., but this bill does nothing to address the underlying causes of illegal immigration or create a single job during the largest economic recession in more than a generation. Instead, this bill proposes a massive amnesty for what the Congressional Budget Office projects will be 1.1 million individuals at a time when we already have 9.8 percent unemployment.

I suppose it is fitting then that the House had to break its own rules to even begin debate on the DREAM Act. Earlier today, the House passed a resolution that exempts the DREAM Act from the rules that we obey in the House of Representatives in order to bring this bill up with less than one day's notice and without any opportunity for amendment. Beyond that, this Congress has failed to even hold a hearing on the DREAM Act over the last 2 years. And now, we have been asked to vote on this legislation in the dead of night and in the waning days of this Congress and let me be clear: this is unacceptable. The American people deserve better than this. They deserve an open debate before the people where there is an opportunity for amendments to be made. They deserve the rule of law to be followed.

As the proud son of an Australian immigrant, I firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. For that reason, I strongly oppose the DREAM Act and the circumstances in which it was brought up for debate. Going forward, I will do everything in my power to ensure Congress focuses on real immigration reform that enforces the rule of law and addresses the root causes of illegal immigration: employers who hire illegal labor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1475.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1428, recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5758 and strongly request support for it.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1529, commending Bob Sheppard in his long and respected career.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the honor of yielding to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) so that she has plenty of time to address this item.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5655, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the gentlelady from the Federal district's proposal. I think that not only does this fall within the category of article I, section 8, but I think that it also falls into a category that we would be more familiar with, especially those of us in California, where you have over 400 cities that have these type of regulations regulated by the State legislature, not by the city councils, basically limiting how often and when you can move.

I think it's quite appropriate that we review this and have the final say on this, but I think it is appropriate that we modify it as proposed by the gentlelady from the Federal district and make sure we address this thing appropriately. Just as a State legislature would do that for any other city, I think it's appropriate that this body at this time make this modification.

With that, I will again ask for support for the proposal.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 6278, the Kingman and Heritage Islands Act, and would just ask for support for it.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 5367, the D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2010, and I would ask for support for the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge support for Senate bill 3567, and I yield back the balance of my time.