Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Mr. Moran of Virginia and Ms. Watson of California, to end a part of our immigration system that has denied protection to those who need it the most. The Restoring Protection to Victims of Persecution Act ends the practice of barring asylum claims by those who have been in our country for more than a year.

Enacted as part of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the one-year bar to asylum has failed. Instead of preventing fraudulent asylum claims as intended, the one- year limitation has turned away individuals who would most benefit from sanctuary. A disproportionate number of these immigrants are women who are the targets of gender-based persecution, including domestic violence, female genital cutting, and ``honor'' crimes.

Although the law includes exceptions to excuse those who are determined to have valid reasons for applying for asylum after one year, adjudicators routinely deny applicants who meet these exceptions. People who are attempting to care for their children, hide from their abusers, cope with past trauma, and deal with the challenges of surviving in a new country are repeatedly and arbitrarily denied asylum status because of missing the one-year deadline.

Once denied, an applicant has only two other possibilities for safety: to petition for withholding of removal or to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture. Both these forms of relief demand an applicant surmount a much higher standard of proof than asylum and never provide them permanency or allow reunification with family members.

I.also thank my colleague, Mr. Ortiz, for introducing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes language to end the one-year bar. I hope that by giving this issue its own legislation, Congress can move swiftly to help these victims who are being turned away every day. Since its enactment in 1996, more than 35,000 people have been denied asylum solely because of the one-year bar.

As a country, we pride ourselves in our advocacy for democracy and human rights around the world. Please join us in supporting this bill so that we can prove we are as good as our word.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 248 to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

Despite the wishes of the people who voted him into office, President Obama is escalating the War in Afghanistan. It's now up to Congress to end the war. This resolution would invoke the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and

remove troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of the year.

This war has no clear objective. We have spent $258 billion on the War in Afghanistan, with billions more to come this year. American soldiers and their families are paying a greater price. Over 1,000 soldiers have died, and over 5,000 have been wounded in action. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch, and other humanitarian organizations, tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed.

It is time for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and bring our troops home. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, so that we can focus on diplomacy and infrastructure development that will bring a lasting peace to Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Steven D. Chan, a pediatric dentist who resides and practices in Fremont, California. Dr. Chan was recently elected as a Regent of the American College of Dentists, the oldest national honorary organizations for dentists in the country. During his service as Regent, Dr. Chan will represent Regency 7, which comprises California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Hawaii.

The College recognizes meritorious contributions to the Dental Society and the profession of dentistry.

Dr. Chan serves on the Executive Committee of the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry and is past president of the California Dental Association. He is founder of the California Dental Association Foundation. The Foundation was formed as the philanthropic affiliate of the California Dental Association in 2001 with the mission to improve the oral health of Californians.

Dr. Chan formerly served on the Fremont Library Commission and is active in the Fremont community. I am confident Dr. Chan will serve admirably in his newly elected role as Regent. I wish him every success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chuck Mack of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. On January 15, 2010, the Teamsters Joint Council 7 will host a Testimonial Dinner in San Francisco, California, honoring Chuck's exemplary career in the labor movement.

Chuck joined the Teamsters in the summer of 1960 as a Del Monte seasonal worker, and continued as a loader and driver for Garrett Trucking for four years. In 1966, Chuck was elected business agent at Teamsters Local 70 and was re-elected in 1969. In 1971, at the request of the Teamster leadership, Chuck served as a lobbyist in Sacramento for the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. He returned to Local 70 the following year and was elected secretary-treasurer and served in that capacity until June 2009.

He became president of Joint Council 7 in 1982 and served in that position until June 2009, making him the second longest-serving Joint Council president. In 1998 he was elected vice president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Western Region. He was re- elected to this office in 2001 and 2006.

Chuck was appointed IBT director of Port Division in 2003 and remained in this position until June 2009. As port director, he built a powerful coalition of labor, community, environmental and interfaith groups to fight for economic justice for drivers and environmental justice for communities. Since 1981, he has served as a Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trustee and became co-chair in 2009.

Chuck Mack's commitment to labor and to the welfare of others has earned him the deep respect of his members and others. To quote Chuck, ``the most rewarding part of this job has always been the members. Meeting with them one-on-one and listening to what they have to say, providing strong representation so that they have good jobs with good wages, good health care and a strong pension . . . jobs that provide for them and their families.''

I join Chuck Mack's colleagues and friends in honoring his contributions and his continuing service.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose yet another increase in war and defense spending. I have never voted for a Defense Appropriations bill. I will not start today. Throwing more money toward a war in Iraq that should never have been started and a war in Afghanistan that should be over diminishes our ability to address the real issues impacting families.

War spending already swallows over 50 percent of our discretionary budget. This bill will add $11 billion to an already bloated Defense budget, as President Obama eyes billions more for a troop increase in Afghanistan.

There are good things in this bill. I helped write provisions that will extend COBRA subsidies and prevent pay-cuts to Medicare physicians. The bill also extends unemployment benefits at a time when Americans are struggling to find jobs. While I support these provisions, I cannot support a bill where the good provisions are dwarfed by the $636.3 billion outlay for defense.

The right priorities for Congress are addressed in another bill we will consider today, the Jobs for Main Street Act (H.R. 2847). This legislation would put people to work rebuilding our country. It would invest in building schools, improving our transit systems, and upgrading our water infrastructure. It would prevent the lay-offs of teachers, police, and firefighters.

The Jobs for Main Street Act also would provide better protections for laid-off workers than the provisions in the Defense bill. It would extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits for an additional six months, and allow millions to maintain health care by expanding the COBRA subsidy to 15 months and extending the eligibility period to June 30th. This is the type of escalation our country needs.

Congress should not be giving more money to the Pentagon to wage war. We should be focused on creating jobs, providing health care for all Americans, and improving our education system. That is why I am voting for the Jobs for Main Street Act and against the wasteful Defense Appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the bill (H.R. 4314) to permit continued financing of Government operations, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

This bill is necessary to allow the government to keep operating past the new year so that we can adjourn for the year. The Treasury Department has told us we will reach our current limit on the national debt on December 31--Happy New Year. Unlike past years, the Treasury Department has informed us they don't have the ability to maneuver and buy more time, so the United States would begin to default on its debt if we do not act.

The bill would raise the debt limit by $290 billion, enough to last through February 11. Unfortunately, we will have to revisit this issue early next year. I wish we could have avoided that, but to do so, we would have had to resolve differences with the Senate over a budget commission and a statutory PAYGO. With the Senate preoccupied on other matters, that would be impossible before the holidays. Even if the Senate were to pass the larger debt limit increase we sent over to them, we would still have to act again next year.

It's important that we do this, as I said, to keep the government running. I don't like to raise the debt limit, but I do like being in the majority, and I do like seeing us pay our bills because we have an international obligation to many of our creditors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished committee member of Ways and Means, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, be allowed to control the time for our side.

Madam Chair, I rise to support the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act because it is time that the Wild West of financial ``innovation'' had a sheriff.

Just over a year ago, I stood on this floor and twice voted against President Bush's taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall Street. I would cast the same votes again. I hope that this legislation will mean that taxpayers will never again be on the hook for the reckless behavior of financiers.

This legislation will help to end ``too big to fail'' by providing dissolution authority to regulators. Instead of being bailed out with tax dollars, a company like AIG would be dismantled in an orderly and fair process. Shareholders would be wiped out and executives dismissed. This would be paid for, not with tax dollars, but by an assessment on financial firms. The ideal solution would be the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, preventing the merger of commercial and investment banks. However, I am glad that this bill at least enables swift intervention and provides a financing mechanism so that bailouts will be a thing of the past.

In addition to being forced to pay for the excesses of Wall Street, consumers have been preyed upon by financial services companies. These companies have profited from unfair and abusive lending practices, including steering families into subprime mortgages. Regulation has been lax or non-existent and there is no single entity charged with looking out for consumers. With the formation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency an agency will, for the first time, be charged with ensuring that families are not exposed to toxic financial offerings.

Finally, I wholeheartedly support the so-called ``cram down'' amendment, to allow courts to reset the principal for home mortgages in bankruptcy proceedings. This judicial discretion is allowed for every other type of debt--a reminder of the double standard that has too frequently separated average families from Wall Street.

I urge all of my colleagues to put consumer interests over those of the Big Banks. Let's finally start policing Wall Street. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the permanent extension of the 2009 estate tax. The American people have more pressing concerns. Our priority should be to

create jobs, enact health reform, and extend unemployment insurance and COBRA assistance, not provide gifts for the wealthiest 7,000 Americans.

I favor a 1-year extension of current law, and then we can consider the estate tax in the context of all of the expiring Bush tax provisions. This provision should not be given priority over helping those who can't find affordable health coverage or have lost their home or their job.

Now is not the right time for this legislation. Let's pass a 1-year extension and get back to the issues that are truly important to the American people--creating jobs and assisting struggling families. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record a letter from the American Medical Association and a list of over 150 supporters of H.R. 3961, among which are the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Iowa Medical Society, the Texas Medical Society, all of whom I think place Hippocrates ahead of Sarah Palin in terms of their assessment of what should be done.

I would further begin in addressing my dear friend from Texas in some of his inquiry earlier by quoting from the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee back last July when he said he believed Members on both sides of the aisle agree that there is a need for a long-term fix for the Medicare physician payment. All 15 members, Republican members, of the Ways and Means Committee voted basically for the fix we're talking about today.

Let me make no mistake about blame and where we are. It may come as a surprise to our side of the aisle we make mistakes. In 1997 we made a mistake in setting the formula by which we would automatically limit the increase that doctors get paid. Well, we're here today trying to correct that mistake.

You've said so, correctly, that it's the same formula plus 2 percent for primary care, 1 percent for other physicians, some other plans to help encourage primary care doctors to come into practice. Hopefully, we've done it right, and recognizing if we don't correct it, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars by postponing. So we have postponed, whether on either side of the aisle, we have postponed correcting a mistake that we should have done earlier.

That's where we are today. No place else. And I hope that we can get the continued support to do that. I hope we don't have to come back and keep addressing it. I see not correcting it increases the amount we will have to pay in the future.

So there is plenty of blame, as the gentleman suggested, to go around. We could have fought harder to correct it earlier. We didn't and that's where we are today.

Literally every major medical society in the country has suggested that we do it this way, and I urge my colleagues to join with me, hopefully with my 15 colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee who haven't changed their mind, and support H.R. 3961 today so we can put this behind us. Then we can go on and have some really spirited debate about whether they do a better job in Texas or California of reforming medical care. That will be more fun.

But today let's fix this. Pass H.R. 3961, go home and have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday, and come back to work on health care reform.

American Medical Association,

Chicago, IL, November 19, 2009.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Ranking Member, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Camp: Thank you for your letter of

November 18, 2009, regarding the pending Congressional

consideration of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment

Reform Act of 2009. We appreciate your agreement that having

physicians face annual cuts due to the flawed SGR is

unacceptable and your support for the intent of the

legislation. As you know, it is the same policy supported by

every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee during the

mark-up of H.R. 3200.

We are disappointed, however, that you and your colleagues

do not support the bill. As you know, the SGR was put into

place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which originated in

your committee. At that time, the AMA wrote numerous letters

to Speaker Gingrich and your committee leadership warning

that limiting growth in physician services to GDP would

inevitably lead to sharp cuts in physician reimbursement and

a crisis in access to care for our nation's seniors.

Previously we had supported legislation that would have

allowed growth at a rate above GDP.

As predicted, the SGR did result in a 4.8% cut to

physicians for the year 2002. Congress declined to intervene

and that cut went into effect. In subsequent years, Congress

did step in to prevent additional cuts from occurring. The

Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003, the Medicare

Modernization Act of 2003, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,

the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the Medicare,

Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, and the Medicare

Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 each

provided temporary relief for seniors and their physicians

from pending cuts.

What these bills did not do, however, was make any progress

toward fixing the problem. Instead, Congress fell into a

comfortable rhythm of kicking the can down the road and

putting off real reform to some unspecified point in the

future. In 2005, physicians faced a cut of 3.3% which was

averted by the MMA. At that time, the Congressional Budget

Office reported that the cost of just a ten-year freeze in

physician rates was $48.6 billion. Just four years later, the

pending cut stood at 21.5% and the cost of a ten year freeze

stood at $285 billion. The AMA believes that this cycle must

come to an end. Anything short of permanent reform will not

be supported by the AMA. Every year that Congress ``pays-

for'' a temporary solution, the cost of permanent reform

climbs higher still. These are obligations to our seniors

which the Medicare program has already made. To pretend that

they will not be incurred is unrealistic. To continue to grow

the size of the problem is irresponsible.

As for the implication that the recent action by the

Administration to remove drugs from the SGR are ``budget

gimmicks to hide the true deficit impact,'' we are reminded

of a letter you signed on May 21, 2004, to the Bush

administration calling the policy of including drugs in the

formula ``our greatest concern'' regarding the magnitude of

the

SGR problem. That letter was also signed by other members of

your committee. On June 16, 2004, Representative Cantor sent

a similar letter with Representative Pryce urging that CMS

``remove prescription drug expenditures from the Sustainable

Growth Rate (SGR) determination.''

The Congressional Record is replete with statements by

members from both sides of the aisle calling for permanent

reform. What is missing, however, is the result. The record

shows temporary patches and a ballooning problem.

The AMA does not support any motion to recommit that would

have a temporary fix. How steep will cuts be after those four

years? How many hundreds of billions of dollars will it then

cost to fix this problem? Medical liability reform remains

among the highest priorities of the AMA and all physicians.

However, when Republicans controlled both chambers of

Congress and the White House, capping damages could not be

accomplished. We fail to see why you believe it is possible

today. With less than seven weeks before Medicare rates are

cut more than 21%, we need solutions that can be achieved

quickly.

This should not be a partisan issue. Both sides of the

aisle have professed a desire to permanently address this

issue. The opportunity to advance permanent reform through

passage of H.R. 3961 cannot be missed. We urge all members to

vote for H.R. 3961.

Sincerely,

J. James Rohack.

H.R. 3961 is supported by a wide range of organizations

representing patients, doctors and other providers,

including: AARP; Air Force Association; Air Force Sergeants

Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; Alliance

for Retired Americans; AMDA--Dedicated to Long Term Care

Medicine; American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology;

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; American

Academy of Cosmetic Surgery; American Academy of Dermatology

Association; American Academy of Facial Plastic and

Reconstructive Surgery; American Academy of Family

Physicians; American Academy of Hospice and Palliative

Medicine; American Academy of Neurology Professional

Association.

American Academy of Ophthalmology; American Academy of Pain

Medicine; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of

Sleep Medicine; American Association of Clinical Urologists;

American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons; American

Association of Neurological Surgeons; American Association of

Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; American

Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons; American College of

Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; American College of

Cardiology; American College of Chest Physicians; American

College of Emergency Physicians; American College of

Gastroenterology.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;

American College of Osteopathic Internists; American College

of Osteopathic Surgeons; American College of Physicians;

American College of Radiation Oncology; American College of

Radiology; American College of Rheumatology; American College

of Surgeons; American Gastroenterological Association;

American Geriatrics Society; American Logistics Association;

American Medical Association; American Medical Group

Association; American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics;

American Osteopathic Association.

American Psychiatric Association; American Society for

Clinical Pathology; American Society for Gastrointestinal

Endoscopy; American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric

Surgery; American Society for Radiation Oncology; American

Society for Reproductive Medicine; American Society for

Surgery of the Hand; American Society of Addiction Medicine;

American Society of Anesthesiologists; American Society of

Cataract and Refractive Surgery; American Society of Clinical

Oncology; American Society of Hematology; American Society

of Nephrology; American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and

Reconstructive Surgery; American Society of Plastic

Surgeons.

American Society of Transplant Surgeons; American Thoracic

Society; American Urological Association; AMVETS; Arizona

Medical Association; Arkansas Medical Society; Army Aviation

Association of America; Association of American Medical

Colleges; Association of Military Surgeons of the United

States; Association of the United States Army; Association of

the United States Navy; California Medical Association; Chief

Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association of the U.S.

Coast Guard; College of American Pathologists; Colorado

Medical Society.

Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health

Service, Inc.; Congress of Neurological Surgeons; Connecticut

State Medical Society; Contact Lens Association of

Ophthalmologists; Emergency Department Practice Management

Association; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of

the United States; Fleet Reserve Association; Florida Medical

Association Inc.; Gold Star Wives of America; Hawaii Medical

Association; Heart Rhythm Society; Idaho Medical Association;

Illinois State Medical Society; Indiana State Medical

Association; Infectious Diseases Society of America.

International Society for Clinical Densitometry;

International Spine Intervention Society; Iowa Medical

Society; Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War

Veterans of the United States of America; Joint Council of

Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; Kansas Medical Society;

Kentucky Medical Association; Louisiana State Medical

Society; Maine Medical Association; Marine Corps League;

Marine Corps Reserve Association; Massachusetts Medical

Society; MedChi, The Maryland State Medical Society; Medical

Association of Georgia.

Medical Association of the State of Alabama; Medical Group

Management Association; Medical Society of Delaware; Medical

Society of the District of Columbia; Medical Society of the

State of New York; Medical Society of Virginia; Michigan

State Medical Society; Military Chaplains Association of

the United States of America; Military Officers

Association of America; Military Order of the Purple

Heart; Minnesota Medical Association; Mississippi State

Medical Association; Missouri State Medical Association;

Montana Medical Association; National Association for

Uniformed Services.

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and

Medicare; National Guard Association of the United States;

National Medical Association; National Military Family

Association; National Order of Battlefield Commissions; Naval

Enlisted Reserve Association; Nebraska Medical Association;

Nevada State Medical Association; New Hampshire Medical

Society; New Mexico Medical Society; Non Commissioned

Officers Association; North Carolina Medical Society; North

Dakota Medical Association; Ohio State Medical Association;

Oklahoma State Medical Association.

Oregon Medical Association; Pennsylvania Medical Society;

Renal Physicians Association; Reserve Enlisted Association;

Reserve Officers Association; Rhode Island Medical Society;

Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions;

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Society for Vascular

Surgery; Society of Critical Care Medicine; Society of

Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons; Society of

Gynecologic Oncologists; Society of Hospital Medicine;

Society of Interventional Radiology; Society of Medical

Consultants to the Armed Forces.

South Carolina Medical Association; South Dakota State

Medical Association; Tennessee Medical Association; Texas

Medical Association; The Endocrine Society; The Retired

Enlisted Association; The Society of Thoracic Surgeons;

United States Army Warrant Officers Association; USCG Chief

Petty Officers Association; Utah Medical Association; Vermont

Medical Society; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Washington State

Medical Association; West Virginia State Medical Association;

Wisconsin Medical Society; Wyoming Medical Society.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to recognize a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, for 1 minute.

I'd like to recognize Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon for 1 minute, but pending that, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my distinguished colleague and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee that we debated this back in July, and that all of us agreed and voted for the fix that we're talking about today. And I hope that we could continue that. It was done on a bipartisan basis at that time. It was probably the only part of the bill that was bipartisan, but we did all vote for it and voted for exactly what we're talking about today, and I hope we could get those votes again.

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the remaining time on either side?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, just to remind the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin that he and 14 of his colleagues voted for this bill in the Ways and Means Committee last July.

I don't mind mixing it up with the health care reform, but it's not. It's the doctor fix.

In just a moment, yes.

The important thing is that if we move this aside, we're correcting the mistake that was made. Let's forget about who made it. It was there.

Now this may not be the end-all correction, but there is no reason that we couldn't come back next year if we find that the formula doesn't work.

I will yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

If we don't do it and we do the 4-year fix that you, Mike, suggested, or the 3-year, and then it doesn't work, we will have $400 billion to correct.

My point is this. If we could remove it for a moment from the discussion on the overall health reform bill--which we can have a spirited discussion on--this is a technical fix which all of your members supported on a bipartisan basis.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Well, as I say, the gentleman supported it a few months ago.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker, to remind my distinguished friend from Louisiana that the American College of Cardiology, the Louisiana Medical Association, and most every medical association in the United States has endorsed the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I again encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to support this fix for the physician reimbursement. It was correct originally in our major health reform bill. The reason it was separated, I would have to admit, was purely political. We had to abide by the President's request that we did not exceed certain costs, and we separated it for that.

For those of you who suggest that the Senate may do nothing with this, I'm afraid we have to leave that to the American Medical Association and America's physicians. They will have to pressure the Senate to add this at some point in their deliberations. I think it's beyond us to do that, and my suspicion is that with the more than 150 medical societies around the country, they will be able to importune our friends on the other side of the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we will see a format of this bill facing us from the other side. I hope we do. We are talking about postponing any length of time increases, whether it's 4 years and we get $400 billion, whether it's a couple of years and we get $200 billion, there was a mistake made. The distinguished gentleman whom the current ranking member and I know so well is no longer with us. He is probably chuckling up his sleeve at the angst he has caused us.

But we recognize the mistake. We did try to fix it. We did try to fix it on a bipartisan basis. I know there are other issues that are tangential to this. I hope we can put these aside today. Take care of the physician fix. Hopefully we've got the formula right. As I said earlier to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, we might not have it perfect, but we have some time in the next year or 2 to make those adjustments. I commit to you that we certainly will, and I hope that you would work with us to help correct it if that comes in the future so we can set this aside. It's a separate debate.

We are going to have a long and strenuous debate on health care reform as we go down toward the end of the year and into next year. And I look forward to that. But I would like to see this set aside so that we can see that the physician payment fix, which we all know has been facing us for years, is ended today and that we pass this bill.

I thank my friends on the minority side for their kindness in this debate and, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding only to suggest that being nice doesn't seem to get you much around here.

This motion makes a mockery of the debate. My friends on the other side simply propose the same old same old. They can't even tell us or the American people how this will affect doctors or military families or others. It is legislating in the dark.

The distinguished minority whip voted in committee enthusiastically for the bill that is before us, now seems to have forgotten and changed his mind. It is a continuation of the Republican history of mismanagement of Medicare and dishonest budget gimmicks, and I urge its opposition.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote will be the most important of our careers. History will mark which side we're on: providing quality, affordable coverage for all Americans, or the status quo.

I would remind my friend from Wisconsin that former Senator Bob Dole voted against Medicare, and that vote has haunted him ever since. It probably prevented him from becoming President.

Since my first election, I have worked to see that government serves our people. My top priority for 37 years has been to provide quality, affordable health care for all. I wish we had done it sooner, but at my age, you learn to take what you can when you can get it.

The bill is not the bill that many of us would have created on our own. That is the legislative process. The compromise before us today is the right thing to do for the American people.

The bill guarantees health coverage to 96 percent of Americans. It's fully paid for. People who like their coverage indeed can keep it. It reforms health insurance regulation and requires shared responsibility by individuals, businesses, and government. It assures that health care is affordable for lower- and middle-income families. It fills the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole, and it provides free preventive services in Medicare.

It has the support of consumers, doctors, nurses, senior citizens, children, people with disabilities, farmers, and small business owners--organizations that represent virtually every segment.

In my district, like every other district, Republican or Democrat, I've got 67,000 uninsured people who will be helped; 8,000 people with preexisting conditions; 14,000 businesses will get tax credits; 8,300 seniors will have the doughnut holes filled. And every district in the country has similar numbers. I defy you to go home and tell those people you voted to deny them quality, affordable health care.

I am proud to have helped author this legislation. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.'' I can assure you, these guys aren't going to have to pay for it in the future.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican substitute is not a substitute on health reform. It substitutes gifts to the wealthy insurance companies for morality and dignity. Their bill spends $61 billion over the next decade, and what would the American public get for that investment? It would get 5 million more uninsured people than we have in America today. That's not a conservative solution. It's no solution at all.

Our legislation expands coverage to 36 million more Americans, reforms the insurance market to end abusive practices, provides financial assistance to lower-income and middle-income families, creates a public health insurance option that will make health insurance companies compete on quality, provides security for our seniors, and protects our children's futures by not adding one dime to the deficit.

A vote for the Republican substitute is nothing more than a vote for transferring money to wealthy insurance companies. Vote ``no'' on the Republican substitute and ``yes'' to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, the Honorable John Garamendi, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Madam Speaker, as Dean of the California delegation, it is my pleasure to introduce the newest addition to our delegation, John Garamendi. He and his wife, Patti, began their years of public service as Peace Corps volunteers in Ethiopia. Since then, John has spent over 27 years serving the people of California in the State Assembly, as Insurance Commissioner, and as Lieutenant Governor, and he helped preserve our Nation's parks and wildlife as President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

As we prepare to enact health care reform, John will lend an effective voice to that effort. As California's Insurance Commissioner, he learned the problems families face when trying to buy health coverage. He is an expert on insurance regulation, and his perspective will be of great value.

Please join me in welcoming John Garamendi, his wife Patti, their six children, and nine grandchildren to our congressional family.

I would like at this time to yield to the distinguished ranking Republican, Congressman Dreier.

Would the gentleman yield?

I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and urge adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Friends of Children With Special Needs (FCSN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing support, friendship, and life skills training to developmentally disabled individuals and their families. Formed in 1996, FCSN is based in Fremont, California.

FCSN offers special needs children an accepting, educational, and fun environment. The organization provides resources and information for families with special needs children and advocates for full-inclusion educational systems that allow special needs children to interact with their peers. FCSN also educates family members, friends, and students to promote better understanding of developmental disabilities.

The organization assists thousands of special needs individuals each year. In 2006, FCSN opened the Dream Center in Fremont, California, which now serves over 250 children and adults with autism, Down's syndrome, and cerebral palsy. In May 2008, FCSN began offering programs in San Jose to support the South Bay community. There are plans to transform the South Bay Center into another fully operative Dream Center in 2010. These centers allow FCSN to provide additional services, such as job training, therapeutic modalities and day programs.

FCSN's mission is to ``help children with special needs and their families find hope, love, respect, and support through integrated community involvement.'' I applaud everyone who has come together to support the continuing success of Friends of Children With Special Needs as they strive to meet these goals.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor Thomas J. Orloff on his recent retirement as district attorney of Alameda County. A third generation resident of Alameda County, his 15 years as district attorney capped an extraordinary career of 40 years of service as a prosecutor on behalf of the people of both Alameda County and California. Mr. Orloff joined the Alameda County District Attorney's office in 1970 after graduating from the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law. He distinguished himself as a trial lawyer, prosecuting many high profile cases including leaders of the Black Panthers and the notorious BGF prison gang. In addition to his trial prosecutions, Mr. Orloff served in many supervisory and administrative capacities including 5 years as the chief assistant district attorney.

Tom Orloff was elected district attorney, without opposition, in June 1994 and has been re-elected in June 1998, June 2002, and in June 2006, all unopposed. During his tenure, he established special units to emphasize prosecutions of domestic violence, stalking, gang violence, real estate fraud, and abuse of the elderly while expanding ongoing efforts to combat public assistance fraud, sexual assault and consumer and environmental crimes. Unlike most elected district attorneys, Tom recently personally tried and obtained the conviction of a street gang member who murdered San Leandro police officer Dan Niemi.

In addition to his work in Alameda County, Tom has given his time to the California and national prosecutors associations, serving as president and on the board of directors of the California District Attorney's Association and as a member of the board of directors of the National District Attorney's Association. Among many legal honors, he has been selected as a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers. Active in Alameda County as well, Tom has for many years served on the board and as treasurer of the One Hundred Club which provides financial support to the survivors of Alameda County police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty and on the advisory board of the Boys and Girls Club of Oakland.

Most importantly, I would like to commend Tom Orloff on his stewardship of the finest prosecutor's office in the country. Every day, since taking office in January 1995 Tom sat down behind the same desk Earl Warren used when he served as Alameda County District Attorney from 1925-1939. He proudly displayed on his office wall a framed indictment signed by both Warren and another Thomas Orloff, Tom's grandfather, then the foreman of the Alameda County grand jury. As only the fifth Alameda County District Attorney since Warren, Tom has guided a prosecutor's office that has seen remarkable stability and has been characterized by its innovation, creativity, and remarkable commitment to the highest ethical standards.

Prosecutors are the only lawyers who are ethically bound to serve two masters. The public prosecutor, as Justice Sutherland put it in his United States Supreme Court opinion: ``is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.'' (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.)

Like Earl Warren and the four others who separate them, Tom Orloff has demonstrated a profound, personal commitment to the ethical administration of justice. More than anything else, this commitment, on the part of the elected district attorney, to ethics in criminal prosecution sets the Alameda County District Attorney's office apart from the rest. I know that Tom, while proud of his many personal accomplishments, takes his greatest pride and satisfaction in the office of the Alameda County District Attorney. In public life we are all too often confronted with many whose sole purpose in seeking or attaining public office often seems to be self-aggrandizement. Tom is that rare public servant who truly has served the public and who has put the interest of his office ahead of his own.

Tom has demonstrated courage and independence in making many hard and occasionally unpopular choices during his tenure as district attorney, authorizing the prosecution several years ago of several officers of the Oakland Police Department, known as the ``Riders'' who were accused of a variety of crimes including robbing, kidnapping and framing street-level drug dealers. Most recently, Tom filed murder charges against a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer who shot and killed a BART passenger. The shooting was videotaped and received a very high level of publicity. This is reportedly the first murder charge lodged against an on-duty police officer in California history.

It should come as no surprise to learn that Tom Orloff has long led the way in hiring women and minority lawyers. Under his watch, and due to his personal commitment, the Alameda County District Attorney's office is now one of the most diverse prosecutor's offices in the country--a special challenge considering the debt most minority law school graduates carry and the small salaries starting prosecutors earn.

One of Tom's former colleagues wrote, many years before she became an associate justice of the California Supreme Court, ``If our nation of laws is to remain both strong and free, we must have system of criminal justice in which every citizen can have confidence. The weight of maintaining this confidence falls on the shoulders of those lawyers who walk into court to represent the People. It is, as it should be, the highest calling of an American advocate.'' (Carol Corrigan, On Prosecutorial Ethics (1986) 13 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 537.)

I have known Tom Orloff for many years. In the time he has served as Alameda County's district attorney he has given me the highest confidence that the administration of criminal justice in Alameda County was in the most capable hands possible. To me, he epitomized the prosecutor who always sought justice first. In determining whether to initiate criminal charges he always made what he felt was the right decision, not the popular decision. In the trial courtroom, he fought hard and he fought fair. More importantly, he instilled that ethic in all of his prosecutors. As a result, I share with the citizens of Alameda County an enduring and deeply felt confidence in the work of our criminal justice system. I wish Tom and his wife Pam a long, healthy and productive retirement.