Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 290: Honoring the lives and mourning the loss of Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans, Sergeant Daniel Sakai, and Officer John Hege, members of the Oakland, California Police Department.

On March 21, 2009, Sergeants Dunakin, Romans, Sakai, and Officer Hege were shot and killed in the line of duty, giving their lives to protect our community. This tragedy serves as a reminder of the great sacrifices police officers make to protect us, and underscores the need to end violent crime in our nation.

I extend my deepest gratitude for the service of Sergeants Dunakin, Romans, Sakai, and Officer Hege to the Oakland Police Department and my heartfelt condolences to their families, friends, and our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robin Torello, a resident of San Leandro, California. Ms. Torello has been selected as the 2009 Woman of the Year for the 10th Senatorial District, represented by California State Senator Ellen Corbett.

Since 1987, in conjunction with Women's History Month, California Senators and Assembly Members invite one woman from their respective districts to the Capitol in Sacramento to be recognized as Woman of the Year in a formal ceremony on the floors of the Senate and Assembly. I am proud to share with my colleagues in the House of Representatives that Robin Torello was so chosen.

Robin Torello continues to serve as a role model for women in her community and generations to come. She has distinguished herself professionally in the area of employee benefits. She has vast knowledge and experience in this area and currently serves as a Senior Associate Consultant in the San Francisco office of Mercer. Ms. Torello identifies client-employee benefit program needs and works with clients for appropriate solutions. Ms.Torello utilizes her exemplary skills, expertise and experience in such specific areas as plan design development and implementation, renewal negotiations, financial analysis, legislative compliance, project management, and strategic planning.

In addition to her professional responsibilities, Ms. Torello is active in the community and serves as an executive board member and chair of several organizations. She has given much of her time and effort in fostering participation in the political process, engaging the public on important issues, developing candidate recruitment and training programs, and increasing voter education.

Ms. Torello earned a Bachelor of Science degree in history and political science from Central Connecticut State College in 1974 and received a Master of Public Administration degree from California State University, Hayward in 1986. She also holds a life agent license issued by the California Department of Insurance.

I am pleased to recognize the achievements of Robin Torello as she receives the California Woman of the Year award. I join California State Senator Ellen Corbett in commending Ms. Torello on her outstanding record of professional and civic leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with Representatives George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, and Carolyn Maloney to introduce the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2009. This legislation will support our nation's working families by providing 12 weeks of paid leave for all workers to care for a sick family member, bond with a new child, deal with the military deployment of a family member, or recover from their own serious illness.

Sixteen years ago, Congress passed the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide job-protected leave for new parents and individuals caring for ill family members. Since then, more than 100 million families have benefited from this law. While the FMLA has proved vitally important for many families, it remains incomplete because it requires only unpaid leave and applies only to companies with 50 or more employees--less than half the workforce.

Millions of men and women are not protected by the FMLA or simply cannot afford to

take unpaid leave--especially in these tough economic times. A recent study found that about 75 percent of FMLA-eligible workers did not take leave because they could not afford it--and according to the Department of Labor, only 8 percent of private employers provide paid leave. This is taking a toll on families--a report in 1999 by the President's Council of Economic Advisers found that since 1969, children have lost 22 hours per week with their parents.

The United States is nearly alone in the world in not providing some type of paid family leave. Only three other countries--Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland--fail to provide security for new parents or those caring for a loved one. The Family Leave Insurance Act would bring the United States up to date with the rest of the world and allow millions of workers to take care of their families while still being able to make ends meet.

Paid leave provides real benefits for children and families. A Harvard School of Public Health study found that the education and health of children improves substantially when parents have work flexibility and paid leave. When parents are able to act as caregivers for a sick child, hospital stays are reduced by 31 percent. Parental involvement is also associated with higher achievement in language and math, improved behavior, and lower dropout rates.

Paid leave is also a boon to businesses and workers. For workers, paid leave means employment and financial security and improved job satisfaction. For businesses, paid leave means less turnover and increased productivity. Research indicates that 98 percent of employees return to work for the same employer after taking family and medical leave.

My home state of California has led the country in providing access to paid leave (albeit only six weeks) and flexible use of sick days. This law has helped California's families and businesses. According to a Harvard study, California had a lower rate of foreclosures than other states due to income loss arising from a personal illness or the need to care for a sick household member. Despite initial protest by California's business community against the paid leave law, most employers now agree that this investment in their workers is also a wise investment for their business. The Family Leave Insurance Act builds on California's successful experience to enact a federal paid leave law.

More specifically, the bill:

Provides all workers with 12 weeks of paid leave over a 12-month period to care for a new child, provide for an ill family member (including a domestic partner or the child of a domestic partner), treat their own illness, or deal with an exigency caused by the deployment of a member of the military;

Creates a new trust fund to run the program. It is financed equally by employers and employees, who will each contribute 0.2% of employee wages;

Progressively tiers the benefits so that low wage workers (earning less than $30,000) will receive full or near full salary replacement, middle income workers ($30,000-$60,000) receive 55% wage replacement, and higher earners (over $60,000) receive 40-45%, with the benefit capped at approximately $800 per week;

Administers the program through the Department of Labor, which will contract with states to administer the program (similar to how the Unemployment Insurance program is run).

The FMLA has helped individuals meet their employment and family obligations without jeopardizing their job. Now--more than ever-- workers' financial obligations must be provided the same security. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Leave Insurance Act. All workers deserve the chance to care for their families and still be able to pay the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

This long overdue legislation has been many years in the making. It will be the first major environmental bill signed into law by President Obama and it includes the largest wilderness designation of land in 15 years. The bill will designate 2.1 million acres of wildlands as federally protected wilderness, including over 735,000 acres of land in my home state of California.

In California, this bill will permanently protect half a million acres in the eastern Sierra, White Mountains, Mojave Desert, San Gabriel Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains, and Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Joshua Tree National Parks. Over 100 miles of California's rivers will be designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers, ensuring their ecological health in the future. The legislation also includes vital provisions to restore the vitality of the San Joaquin River and its historic salmon runs.

As cities and towns across our nation continue to develop and expand, it is essential that we set aside wilderness lands and wild rivers for ecological preservation and recreational enjoyment. These wilderness areas provide us with clean air and drinking water. They are part of our national heritage and we need to ensure that they are protected for our grandchildren and our grandchildren's grandchildren to experience and appreciate.

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 is truly historic legislation that represents a huge victory for our environment. I'm proud to support this bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1586, a simple measure to address an appalling practice.

My constituents are angry. As they scrimp and save and watch the value of their homes and college savings plummet, AIG--the recipient of more than $180 billion in government funds--has decided to award over $165 million in bonuses to the very executives that created the ongoing financial mess. I voted against the Wall Street bailout twice, precisely because it rewarded bad actors and bailed out companies that created a financial house of cards. Make no mistake, these bonuses are not necessary to keep the ``best and brightest,'' they are simply a leftover bad habit from a company and an industry that was unregulated and left to run wild.

This legislation is straightforward. Any executive of a company surviving because of government intervention (including AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that has received or chooses to accept a bonus will be taxed at a 90% rate. Companies will no longer continue to be able to reward bad actors at taxpayer expense.

Despite the outrageous behavior of AIG and others, most Americans understand that the current economic times call for shared sacrifice and a renewal of the American dream. My constituents know that we have to rebuild our nation and turn the page on the last eight years. Today we have the chance to send a message to AIG and others that would put private greed above the public good: enough.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism & Education, GIVE, Act.

The challenges we face have never been greater. Unemployment, foreclosures, inadequate health care, and dwindling retirement accounts are plaguing communities all over our country. Congress and the President are acting quickly and boldly, passing unprecedented measures to create jobs and bolster the frayed safety net.

Ordinary Americans are also rising to the challenge. They understand that this recession is not just a collection of statistics but an everyday reality for them and their neighbors. People are lining up in record numbers--for AmeriCorps, VISTA, Learn and Serve America and many other national volunteer programs--hoping to have the opportunity to contribute to their communities. Yet these organizations are turning people away because they do not have the necessary funds. This is a tragedy and a wasted opportunity. In these times of crisis, it is imperative that we make use of all our resources.

H.R. 1388 brings together America's human capital--our engineers and entrepreneurs, our students and seniors--to find new solutions to pressing community challenges. This bill will more than triple the number of volunteers in these programs nationwide to 250,000 and give people from all backgrounds the opportunity to contribute to a common purpose. In addition to improving existing service programs, the bill also creates a number of new programs that will allow volunteers to help address the energy, health care and education needs in our communities.

The GIVE Act is the right legislation at the right time. Thousands of Americans want to invest their time and their energy in the future of our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing them that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, Ms. Lee of California and I rise today to pay tribute to the Berkeley Bay Area Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority on the occasion of their 75th Diamond Anniversary on March 28, 2009. The Berkeley Bay Area Alumnae Chapter is the local chapter of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Incorporated and encompasses the Berkeley, San Francisco, and California Bay Area.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated is a sisterhood of more than 250,000 predominately African American college educated women. The sorority currently has over 950 chapters throughout the world including the United States, England, Japan, Germany, the Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Republic of Korea.

The local Berkeley Bay Area Chapter was chartered in 1934 and has membership representation from all cities in the California Bay Area. The major programs of the sorority are based upon the organization's Five Point Thrust of economic development, educational development, international awareness and involvement, physical and mental health, political awareness and involvement. Through their outreach they provide a myriad of programs and services benefitting local cities and communities.

This past week we were honored to welcome members of the Berkeley Bay Area Chapter along with approximately 1,100 members of Delta Sigma Theta from across the country to Capitol Hill during their 20th annual ``Delta Days in the Nation's Capitol Conference.'' During their visit in Washington the Sorority members discussed a variety of issues including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, DC Voting Rights and the 2010 Census.

``In Full Stride at Seventy-Five'' is the Berkeley Bay Area Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta's 75th anniversary theme. We are honored to recognize this exemplary organization as it celebrates three- quarters of a century of service to the community.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my friend Mr. Ryan in reintroducing the Legal Services Benefit Act.

This bill reinstates the tax preference for companies to provide access to affordable preventive legal services for employees arid retirees. This preference existed for many years, until it was allowed to sunset in 1991.

Group legal service plans provide employees with low cost, basic legal services, including assistance with the purchase of a home, the preparation of a will, probate services and the resolution of domestic conflicts, such as child support collection. With rising evictions and mortgage foreclosures, families need more help in these areas than ever. When hard times hit and families face difficult challenges, legal plans can help keep employees in their homes and focused on their jobs.

The Legal Services Benefit Act will restore the historic pre-tax treatment of group legal services. This change to the tax code will again make legal service plans affordable for both employers and employees, and will provide access to legal services for millions of middle-income Americans who might otherwise let legal troubles get out of hand.

Last year, this bill became part of the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, and passed the House 238--179.

I ask my colleagues to again join me again in supporting this important bill that will help workers and businesses.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009, which my good friend George Miller has reintroduced today.

Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is long overdue. Middle-class Americans are the backbone of the economy, and yet they took a back seat to corporate giants over the past eight years. The previous Administration decided to protect big business at the expense of their employees, and corporate profits ballooned while real worker wages stagnated or even declined.

Right now, employers can use coercive tactics in the run-up to an employer-forced election even when a majority of workers want to form a union, they can stall indefinitely during contract negotiations, and they can engage in illegal labor practices and receive only a slap on the wrist. American workers deserve better.

The Employee Free Choice Act levels the playing field between employees and employers by allowing workers to decide whether to hold a NLRB election or instead show that a majority of workers support unionization. The Act prevents employers from stonewalling and makes it easier for employees to reach a collective bargaining agreement. Finally, the Employee Free Choice Act stiffens penalties against employers who violate the law.

The current economic recession makes passage of the Employee Free Choice Act even more important. Workers with higher wages will stimulate the economy, spur investment, and get America back on the road to prosperity. That's why I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009, and why I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation. It's time to recognize and support American workers instead of leaving them behind.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks there has been a concerted media campaign to spread misinformation about the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) provisions in H.R.1.

To set the record straight, I submit for the Record the following summary of the comparative effectiveness research provisions and a list of organizations that have written us in support.

This investment is an important first step in efforts to develop a robust CER program in this Congress. In the near future, I will introduce a comprehensive CER proposal, based on the provisions that previously passed the House in the CHAMP Act, H.R. 3162, in the 110th Congress.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

Provisions on comparative Effectiveness Research

The conference agreement on H.R. 1 includes provisions to

promote and expand research that compares the effectiveness

of alternative treatments or strategies for a medical

condition.

Doctors today urgently need better evidence to improve the

quality of health care that patients receive. Some estimates

indicate that less than half of all therapies patients

receive are actually supported by firm evidence of

effectiveness.

There is widespread agreement on the need for better

information on the comparative effectiveness of different

interventions for health conditions. In an October 2008 joint

editorial, Newt Gingrich, John Kerry and Billy Beane said

that ``a health care system that is driven by robust

comparative clinical evidence will save lives and money.''

Some of the oldest and most important studies in medicine

have been comparative effectiveness studies. For example, the

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial revolutionized the

treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. This landmark

trial found that aggressive use of insulin to control blood

sugar was clearly better than standard care in preventing

damage to the eyes, kidneys, and nerves of patients with

diabetes.

But more must be done. In December 2008, the Institute of

Medicine called for further comparative effectiveness

efforts, stating that ``this type of research would provide

information that patients and physicians need to make choices

that offer them the greatest value, as they define it.'' The

National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) both have planned to

expand their research efforts, but these expansions have

proceeded slowly due to a lack of funding.

An investment in this research infrastructure will provide

doctors and patients with critically important information.

Arming physicians with the best available evidence about

treatment alternatives and their effects in different patient

populations will help doctors and patients make better

choices.

Summary of provisions

The conference agreement provides $1.1 billion for

comparative effectiveness research with $300 million to be

administered by AHRQ, $400 million to be administered by NIH,

and $400 million to be allocated at the discretion of the

Secretary of Health and Human Services. These funds are to be

used to accelerate the development and dissemination of

comparative effectiveness research. The agreement ensures

that the use of these research dollars will be consistent

with governmental policies relating to the inclusion of women

and minorities in research.

The conference agreement also establishes a Federal

Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

The purpose of the Council is to reduce duplication and

coordinate these research activities within the federal

government. Because its purpose is the coordination of

federal research efforts, the Council is made up of

representatives of a variety of experts from within the

federal agencies. The conference agreement clearly states

that the Council cannot mandate coverage, reimbursement, or

other policies for any public or private payer.

Supporters for these provisions

Widespread Support for Provisions on Comparative

Effectiveness Research. Experts, physicians, legislators, and

advocates from across the political spectrum supported

provisions in the stimulus package for comparative

effectiveness research because this research is crucial.

``The current limited availability of valid data to

supplement the physician's clinical experience and

professional knowledge . . . makes it difficult to ensure

that an effective treatment choice is made.''--Letter to

Congress from the American College of Physicians, January 29,

2009

``Opponents--like some drug companies and medical device

makers--don't want this research. They fear it will cut the

profits they make on ineffective drugs and equipment. But

they won't tell you that this research could save your life

by giving your doctors better information so they can

prescribe the best treatments available to you.''--AARP CEO

Bill Novelli, February 10, 2009

``Independent, objective comparative effectiveness research

(CER) is urgently needed to improve health care quality and

patient outcomes by ensuring consumers always receive the

best care.''--Letter to Congress, signed by the Alliance for

Better Health Care, (a broad coalition of over 30

organizations representing consumers, employers, health care

providers, health plans, pharmacists, researchers, unions,

pharmaceutical benefit managers, and others), February 11,

2009

``We are concerned that some believe that comparative

effectiveness could lead to the rationing of health care.

This is simply not true. The bill would fund independent,

objective, comparative effectiveness research that would

greatly benefit providers and patients in making informed

health care decisions.''--Letter to Congress signed by AARP,

AFL-CIO, American College of Physicians, America's Health

Insurance Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Families

USA, National Business Group on Health, National Partnership

for Women and Families and joined by Consumers Union,

February 12, 2009

``Strong federal support for comparative effectiveness

research is vital to both public and private efforts to

improve health care quality for patients and to give

physicians and other health care providers the independent,

objective information they need to identify the best

treatments options for their patients.''--Letter to Congress

from the National Business Group on Health, February 11,

2009.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.''

The economic challenges we are confronted with are as serious as any we've faced since the Great Depression. There is no doubt that we are paying the price for eight years of unregulated markets, regressive tax breaks, and a lack of investment in the needs of the American people. Now is the time to act boldly to create jobs, strengthen the frayed safety net, begin to fix our health care system, and make long-overdue investments in education, scientific innovation, and infrastructure that will spur our economy forward in the years to come. This legislation achieves all of these goals.

As Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, I am most proud of the health provisions in this legislation.

It is no overstatement to say that the development of an interoperable health information technology system in America will revolutionize medicine. H.R. 1 does just that. In addition to increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending in our medical system, electronic health records will enable doctors to have the information they need--at their fingertips--to best treat their patients.

By building financial incentives into Medicare and Medicaid, and developing new grant programs, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will encourage 90 percent of physicians in America to adopt standardized health IT and that 70 percent of America's hospitals will do the same. They also calculate that the improvements from this legislation will generate more than $12 billion in savings from federal health programs and reduce health insurance premiums in the private sector as well.

H.R. 1 also makes a substantial investment to expand comparative effectiveness research. Right now, patients with the same diagnosis often receive dramatically different treatment. Medicine is an art, but also must be guided by science. By investing in this research, doctors and other health care providers will be able to obtain unbiased information regarding which procedures, pharmaceuticals, devices and other treatments work best for particular conditions. That way, they can choose the right treatment from options that have been independently evaluated.

If you've heard any controversy about this provision, it's because the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are spending millions of dollars to drum up opposition. They don't want doctors or patients to be able to objectively evaluate the value of their products. The smear campaign of disinformation has also been advanced by conservative ideologues in a cynical effort to foment distrust and discord prior to beginning a national conversation on health care reform. In fact, this research is broadly supported by a wide range of groups representing patients, physicians, health care organizations, unions and others.

H.R. 1 also protects the health care coverage for millions of workers who are losing their jobs because of our economic crisis. COBRA health continuation coverage provides a vital bridge for people to maintain their health benefits when they are between jobs. However, an average family COBRA premium is more than $1000 a month--a financial commitment most unemployed workers can't afford on top of their mortgages and other costs of daily living. By providing a 65 percent subsidy for these premiums for up to 9 months, H.R. 1 will help more than seven million people maintain their health coverage while they seek new employment.

When H.R. 1 is signed into law, the 111th Congress and President Obama will have done more to advance health care in America in less than two months, than was done over the entire two terms of the Bush Administration. We will also have set forth a solid road to move into the debate to guarantee that each and every person in America has affordable, quality health care that can't be taken away.

In addition to the vital health care provisions, H.R. 1 includes essential provisions that will stimulate our economy in the short-term and build a foundation for long-term prosperity. By funding ``shovel- ready'' road, rail, water, school, and energy infrastructure projects we will create millions of new jobs, including more than 7,500 in my district. By bolstering safety net programs such as Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps we are giving assistance to those hardest hit by the downturn. By investing in all levels of education, science, and clean energy we are setting the stage for economic renewal and the innovation that will drive our economy.

As President Obama has said, we will not get out of this economic mess overnight. But we can take the bold action that the current crisis demands and start the process of rebuilding our economy by passing the legislation before us today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Surlene Grant in honor of ten years of dedication to the community of San Leandro, California. On Friday, June 30, 2009, the San Leandro African American Business Council and Friends and Fans of Surlene Grant will honor Ms. Grant for her accomplishments and meritorious contributions.

She served as a San Leandro Council member from 1998-2008 including two terms as the City's Vice Mayor. Ms. Grant is the first person of non-European descent to be appointed or elected to the City Council in the City's 150 years. Originally appointed to the council in August 1998, Ms. Grant was elected in November 2000, November 2004, and was appointed Vice Mayor in 2006 and 2007.

Taking a leadership position in a historically closed and restrictive city, some civic leaders describe Ms. Grant as the change agent that lead to the creation of a city management team that has become more reflective of the diverse population of San Leandro, as well as paving the way for other African Americans to be elected to the City Council.

Ms. Grant can point to numerous successes during her tenure on the San Leandro City Council. She worked with the community and staff in the development of the award-winning South Area Development Plan. She worked diligently with her colleagues for the adoption of an inclusionary housing policy, which sought to enhance the City's affordable housing policies, and also successfully spearheaded the passage of the Local Purchasing Ordinance. Ms. Grant also labored for removal of the word ``minority'' in city documents to facilitate inclusive opportunity for all. Ms. Grant is also responsible for the establishment of the African American Business Council and the Business Association of South San Leandro.

She has served on numerous commissions, boards and advisory committees that include working as Chairperson of San Leandro's Finance Committee and as a member of the Business Development and Redevelopment Committee. She was formerly a member of the Alameda County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and served as an alternate on the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority Board.

Ms. Grant received her B.S. in Journalism from Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois and a M.A. from John F. Kennedy University, Orinda, California.

I join the community in recognizing Surlene Grant for her contributions that have ensured the quality of life in San Leandro's neighborhoods and the economic development and vitality of the city. We will miss her on the San Leandro Council but will continue to depend on her experience, sage advice and exemplary leadership.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the ``American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.''

American families are facing dire economic conditions. In my state of California, unemployment is nearing 10% and tens of thousands of families are losing their homes each month. Nationwide, family budgets and state budgets are stretched to the breaking point. Parents are forced to decide whether to pay for health care or the utility bill, while school districts contemplate laying-off teachers and state welfare and Medicaid caseloads expand. This crisis demands bold action to get people working again, strengthen our safety net, and build infrastructure for the 21st Century.

I am not a proponent of all of the provisions in this bill-- especially the ill-conceived corporate tax breaks that will do nothing to create jobs or jump-start our economy. The good, however, greatly outweighs the bad.

Among the good, I count the necessary spending to bolster state Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps programs. Economists tell us that these steps are some of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy. These provisions allow resources to go directly to individuals who have been hurt by the recession and to bolster weakened state budgets.

This package will also create jobs right away by funding ``shovel ready'' projects to improve mass transit, rebuild bridges and roads, modernize our water systems, retrofit energy inefficient buildings, and create a clean energy infrastructure.

To ensure that our children are ready to compete in a global economy, this legislation makes bold investments in education. These investments include funding for school modernization, an expansion of the successful Early Head Start program, child care assistance for an additional 300,000 children, increased Pell Grants and refundable education tax credits for college students, and a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to prevent teacher layoffs.

As Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, I am most excited about the health components we've included in this legislation. When President Obama signs this bill, he will do more to advance the cause of repairing our broken health system than the previous Administration did in eight long years.

By investing $20 billion in health information technology, this act puts us on a path to a modern health care delivery system that improves patient outcomes, increases provider

efficiency, and decreases the cost of health care for all. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill will incentivize 90% of America's doctors and 70% of hospitals to adopt electronic health records--resulting in lower health costs for both the public and private sectors.

I have received letters in support of this section from groups that include the American Hospital Association, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, the Healthcare Leadership Council, Information Technology Association of America, the Coalition for Patient Privacy, and many others. For example, Dr. John Halamka, Dean of Technology at Harvard Medical School recently wrote about this legislation that: ``With appropriate policies and requirements to implement Interoperable, certified EHRs, the dream of a fully electronic healthcare system in the US will move forward more in the next few years than in my entire career to date.''

Not only will this investment in health IT improve our health care system, but it will create high tech jobs for those who develop, train, and utilize the software--one study estimates that 30,000 jobs will be created for every $1 billion spent.

I am proud of the work that has gone into the health IT portion of this bill to invest in modernizing our health system, and I am excited about the enormous advantage this gives us as we move later this year to reform our health care system to cover everyone in America.

This bill also takes important steps to protect the health insurance of workers who have lost their jobs due to this economic crisis.

COBRA health continuation coverage is a lifeline for many people between jobs, but as anyone who has ever been on COBRA knows, it is expensive. On average, the monthly premium for COBRA coverage is $1069--an amount that exceeds many people's entire unemployment check.

This bill contains a 65% COBRA subsidy for up to 12 months for people who have been involuntarily terminated as a result of the recession. Because COBRA doesn't cover everyone, the bill also includes an option for states to temporarily open their Medicaid program--with 100% federal funding--to provide health coverage for unemployed workers and their families. Together, these provisions are projected to protect the health care of more than 8 million Americans.

In addition, this bill recognizes the special difficulties facing older and long time workers in a recession. It provides the ability for these workers to extend COBRA coverage beyond the standard 18 months until such time as they have obtained new group coverage or have become eligible for Medicare. This provision has no cost to the government, but will provide what could be the only opportunity for longtime workers to maintain their health coverage.

There is no doubt that the economic hole our country has been put into is deep. We will not pull ourselves out of it overnight. But the legislation before us today will provide a direct jolt to our economy and will protect those families who are struggling to get by. This is the kind of bold action that Americans voted for last November, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and get it to President Obama to be signed into law.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this wrong-headed substitute amendment offered by my Republican colleagues.

The Camp/Cantor amendment eliminates two key health care provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. First, it deletes the entire investment in health information technology. Second, it eliminates the provisions designed to temporarily provide health insurance for workers who've lost their jobs in this economic crisis.

For years, I've heard my Republican colleagues laud the need to invest in health information technology. Yet, when a bill comes before them that finally meets that goal, what do they do? They delete it.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1 will dramatically increase physician use of health IT from 5 percent today to 90 percent. It will also increase hospital adoption rates from about 10 percent today to 70 percent.

CBO further tells us that the steps this bill takes to increase adoption will reduce what both the public and private sectors pay for health care by lowering administrative overhead costs, reducing the number of unnecessary tests and procedures, and decreasing many avoidable medical errors.

Specifically, CBO says the federal government will save $12 billion across government health programs and consumers will save billions more via lower premiums for private insurance.

With regard to health care coverage, I've also listened to my Republican colleagues for decades as they insist that any effort toward expanding health coverage build on what works in the private sector. COBRA continuation coverage does just that.

COBRA coverage enables people who have lost their jobs to maintain their private health insurance coverage through their former employer for a limited period of time--at their own cost--until they get a new job with health benefits.

All we do in H.R. 1 is provide a temporary 65 percent subsidy for up to 12 months for workers who have been involuntarily terminated in this recession. Many of these people are surviving on unemployment compensation--the monthly value of which is often less than the standard monthly family COBRA premium of more than $1000.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that some 7 million Americans will be able to maintain their health coverage if this provision is enacted.

What does the Republican substitute do to this provision? It deletes it.

Clearly, my Republican colleagues are turning their back on this historic opportunity to modernize America's health IT system and reduce overall health spending. They are also telling America's workers that their health care needs are their own problem--even though this recession is a direct result of the lax oversight they and President Bush proceeded over for the past decade.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this mean spirited substitute amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Michael Dunn who retired from the Pleasanton Police Department on January 16, 2009 after 25 years of dedicated public service. Michael began his career as a Military Police Officer with the United States Marine Corps, where he served for over eight years. He was a member of the Los Angeles Police Department from 1982 until he was hired by the City of Pleasanton in 1985 and was promoted to the Rank of Sergeant in 1997.

During his career in police service, Michael was recognized on numerous occasions for his tenacity, professionalism and dedication to his work. He was an exemplary police officer and consistently gave more to the community than was asked of him. For example, he was instrumental in introducing a variety of programs to the community, including bicycle rodeos and a minor offense court to provide rehabilitation alternatives for juvenile offenders.

Michael worked a variety of assignments during his career, including Field Training Officer, DARE Officer, SWAT Officer, Traffic Motor Officer, Juvenile Detective, Rangemaster, Patrol Field Supervisor and Traffic Division Supervisor.

During his career, Michael experienced all that law enforcement offers, including capturing kidnapping and homicide suspects within hours of the crime, handling high profile child molestation investigations, assisting in controlling large scale public demonstrations, providing critical assistance during the Oakland Hills Firestorm, and saving the life of a young girl at a local restaurant. Michael always put the community and people first.

He possesses the critical qualities of an exemplary police officer and has been a positive influence to his colleagues in law enforcement. I commend Michael Dunn for his legacy of leadership and attention to detail, while always caring for those with whom he worked as well as the community at large.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act.

I am one of the few members on my side of the aisle to vote against the TARP bill both times it came before this House. I did so because I believed that it rewarded the very entities that built the financial house of cards that has come crashing down. The Bush Administration pressed this body to act with all haste based on faulty information about the problems we faced and with scant explanation for how the resources requested would be used. The bill left too much discretion to the Secretary, and provided too little oversight of the historic outlay of taxpayer funds. I compared the Bush Administration's rush to bail out Wall Street to their rush to invade Iraq. I take no pleasure in being right on this score--but the management of the first outlay of TARP funds has been erratic and inefficient. In fact, the execution of this bailout provides the perfect thumbnail of the eight years of the Bush Administration: they didn't have a plan, they didn't do what they said they were going to do, they didn't take care of struggling homeowners, but made sure to look after the interests of big business. The mission was not accomplished.

I do not support the release of additional TARP funds and will vote to withhold those funds if such a bill comes before the House. Today, however, we have a chance to make a bad law better and that deserves our support. The reforms in this bill are the conditions that should have been included in the original package. This bill requires reporting by institutions that receive taxpayer money and requires Treasury to reach an agreement with institutions that take taxpayer funds on exactly how those funds will be used. This bill also limits the ability for those institutions to use taxpayer funds to pay their executives big bonuses that encourage short-term risk taking.

Most importantly, this bill mandates that the Treasury Department commit significant funds--up to $100 billion--to foreclosure mitigation and keeping people in the homes they own or rent.

Our Nation is in a deep recession and people at all economic levels are feeling the pain. People struggling to make ends meet are having a tough time understanding why our government is using tax money to bail out the bank that is foreclosing on their home. The first $350 billion is gone with very little to show for it. I would prefer that Congress go back to the drawing board and develop a comprehensive program to save people's houses without rewarding the institutions that made bad loans. In the absence of such action, I support H.R. 384, because we must ensure that at least some of the second $350 billion of taxpayer dollars goes to help people stay in their homes and weather this recession.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Jim McDermott to reintroduce the Save Our Climate Act, a bill to place a tax on carbon. A carbon tax is the most straightforward and efficient way to end our addiction to fossil fuels and confront global climate change.

While I have introduced this proposal in years past, I am more confident than ever that the time for action has arrived. We have a President-elect who consistently acknowledges that our planet is in peril. The upcoming economic recovery package will focus on creating ``green jobs'' and investing in clean energy.

The best solution is to place a tax on what we want to reduce-- pollution; and to put that revenue into what we want to increase--work, income, and investment in new technology. A carbon tax is the best way to do that.

Under the Save Our Climate Act, carbon based fuels--coal, petroleum and natural gas--are taxed at a rate of $10 per ton of carbon content. The tax will increase by $10 per ton of carbon every year, making it less affordable to burn fossil fuels as time goes on. When the United States reaches the International Panel on Climate Change's standard of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 percent, the tax will be frozen.

A tax provides certainty for businesses, as they will know what the level of tax will be from year to year and can make adjustments in their business plans. This legislation is also simple to administer and will require no new bureaucracy to implement. For these reasons, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, concluded last year that a carbon tax is the most

economically efficient policy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

This bill does not prescribe how the revenue will be spent, but it is appropriate that we consider relief for low- and middle-income consumers who may face modestly higher energy costs, and investments in alternative energy sources, health care, and education.

The Save Our Climate Act will generate a small energy price increase each year, equal to about 2 cents per gallon of gas annually. Consumers over the past year have endured increases 100 times that. The only difference is that the increase in price went to overseas coffers, not to build our transportation networks, provide relief for workers, and health care for our citizens. As the tax rate increases, fossil fuel prices will increase. Producers will have an incentive to invest in cleaner alternative energies, and those alternative energy sources will become more competitive.

For businesses, the carbon tax is direct, creates price certainty, and signals that it is time to take bold action and invest in business models that utilize low pollution technology. Even the CEO of Exxon commented last week calling a carbon tax a ``direct and transparent approach.'' I don't normally find myself on the same side as the oil companies, but in this case, I agree. The Save Our Climate Act is a first step toward a sensible tax code that incentivizes innovation and rewards responsibility. I encourage all to support it.