Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Steven Chan. Dr. Chan was recently installed, on March 30, 2012, as the 38th President of the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry. Dr. Chan is a Pediatric Dental Specialist and has practiced in Fremont, California for over twenty-eight years. With a patient base of thousands, he has helped two generations of patients grow up with healthy, beautiful smiles.

The mission of the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry is to serve the membership and the public by advocating for the optimal oral health of infants, children, and adolescents. Dr. Chan is well suited to lead the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry. His education, professional expertise, experience, academic positions, hospital appointments, professional honors, professional association memberships, leadership skills, and community service are outstanding.

Dr. Chan's professional honors include Fellowships in the American College of Dentists, Academy of Dentistry International, American Academy of Pediatric Dentists, Pierre Fauchard Academy, and the International College of Dentists.

He received the Citizen of the Year Award from Citizens for a Better Community and the Southern Alameda County Dental Society's Douglas R. Franklin Distinguished Service Award. Dr. Chan has served in numerous leadership positions within the California Dental Association and the American Dental Association. He holds significant professional association memberships related to dentistry and is also a member of the American Society of Association Executives.

Dr. Chan has not only distinguished himself in his profession but also continues to be a prominent force in community service. He has served in leadership positions in the South Bay Chinese Club Scholarship Foundation, Citizens for a Better Community, Fremont Chamber of Commerce Scholarship Foundation, Fremont Library Commission, Washington Hospital Foundation, Ohlone Community College and has engaged in numerous civic activities to support the City of Fremont.

Dr. Chan has truly been a leader of Organized Dentistry--having served as President of the California Dental Association and now as President of his specialty, Pediatric Dentistry. He has worked to improve the quality and access to oral health for all individuals as well as advocating for the dental profession.

I am confident Dr. Chan will be a dynamic leader of the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry and I offer my congratulations and best wishes to him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act, a bill that provides a $46 billion tax break for the wealthy paid for by ordinary working people. This bill will send half of the tax cuts to those with annual incomes over $1 million and 80 percent of benefits to those earning more than $200,000. Once again, Republicans are extending a helping hand to those who need it least, including professional sports teams, law firms, lobbying firms, and accounting firms.

The Republican Leadership claims that we need this legislation to create jobs, yet the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, tells us that this bill will do no such thing. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, ranks broad business tax deductions like this bill as one of the least effective proposals for promoting economic growth. This is not surprising. H.R. 9 gives a tax deduction to any business, even those that don't hire workers or even lay off workers.

Today's bill caps off another banner week for House Republicans that once again laid bare their priorities: hand tax breaks to those who don't need them, and cut the programs that help the middle class, the poor, the sick, and the elderly. Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee passed partisan legislation that would take away the child tax credit for 3 million children, weaken health coverage for 350,000 middle class Americans, and eliminate funding for the Social Services Block Grant that provides child care for 4.4 million children and serves 1.7 million low-income seniors through programs like Meals on Wheels. That's a total of $53 billion in cuts to the safety net so Republicans can pay for more take cuts for the rich. This is class warfare and one side is clearly winning.

If we want to commemorate Tax Day with a vote on a tax bill, we should be voting on the Buffett Rule, a bill that promotes tax fairness.

The Buffett Rule is targeted--it will only impact taxpayers who have income over $1 million and are not paying their fair share of taxes. Nearly 65 percent of taxpayers who earn more than $1 million pay lower tax rates for those who make less than $100,000. There is something wrong with our tax system when ordinary working families are paying higher tax rates than some of the wealthiest individuals.

According to CBO, the Buffett Rule would generate $47 billion over the next decade. We could use this $47 billion to create jobs, revitalize the middle class, and sustain a safety net for the poor, the sick, the elderly, and other groups who are being abused by the Republican Majority.

It is time we got our priorities straight and stopped providing handouts to the most fortunate at the expense of lower income Americans. I strongly oppose this legislation and urge my fellow members to join me in voting ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will recognize the

hard work that all mothers engage in each day.

In the past week, presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said that he believes ``all moms are working moms.'' I agree. Unfortunately, if you are a low-income mother, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program punishes you if you decide to stay home to care for your young child. Our laws should reflect the value of care giving work done by all mothers.

Current law does not count low-income stay-at-home parents who are raising young children as meeting the necessary Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirement. Current law also bans States from counting these individuals toward that State's work participation rate, which can result in financial penalties if not met. This effectively bars low-income parents who choose to stay home to raise their young children from access to the financial support of

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Commander Bob Douglas. Commander Douglas retired from the City of Newark, California's Police Department, on April 12, 2012, after serving over 30 years in law enforcement with over 28 years as a member of the Newark Police Department. He was a

distinguished police officer and was recognized by his peers as the Police Officer of the Year in 1991 and 1998.

Commander Douglas began his career in law enforcement with the Town of Los Gatos as a Police Cadet. He was promoted to the position of Community Service Officer in 1981. He was hired as police officer by the Newark Police Department on November 16, 1983. During his time as an officer, Commander Douglas served as a Field Training Officer, Property Crimes/Fraud Detective, Reserve Officer Coordinator, Citizen Police Academy Instructor, PR 24 Baton Instructor, and Defensive Tactics Instructor.

Commander Douglas was promoted to the rank of Sergeant on February 25, 2001. As a Sergeant, he was assigned to the Patrol Division and served two terms as the Detective Sergeant. For two years, he was in charge of the Newark Police Department's Field Training Program for new officers. Commander Douglas received the Winter 2002 Police Department Employee of the Quarter Award and was City of Newark Pride Awardee in 2006.

On August 26, he graduated from the Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute. Commander Douglas was promoted to Police Lieutenant on November 1, 2008 and served in that capacity as the Administrative Lieutenant. On January 1, 2009, the Lieutenant position was reclassified to the rank of Police Commander. As the Administrative Lieutenant and Commander, he has been in charge of the Training Division, Internal Affairs, Property/Evidence, Red Light Photo Enforcement, as well as serving as the Newark Police Department's Public Information Officer.

Commander Douglas received the Chiefs Challenge Coin of Special Recognition for his outstanding work, loyalty to the organization, and tireless efforts in the development and promotion of the department's mission, vision, and values.

I join Commander Douglas' colleagues and the community in thanking him for his exemplary service and commitment, and wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Frank Lehr. Sergeant Lear retired from the City of Newark, California's Police Department on January 27, 2012.

Sergeant Lehr began his career with the Newark Police Department on August 2, 1986. Prior to joining the department he served as an officer in the City of San Jose Airport Police Force. During his time as a Police Officer in Newark, Sergeant Lehr served two terms with the Southern Alameda County Narcotics Enforcement Team as a Narcotics Detective. In addition to his patrol and detective assignments, Sergeant Lehr served as a Field Training Officer, an instructor for the Citizens Police Academy, a SWAT team member, a hostage negotiator, and in 1990 was named Officer of the Year by his peers.

Sergeant Lehr was promoted to the rank of sergeant on July 1, 2004. He was assigned to the Patrol Division and was the Community Safety Team Sergeant. In this position he worked with his team on gang related problems in Newark. In addition to his day-to-day duties, Sergeant Lehr also served as the Hostage Negotiation Team Sergeant and was an original member of the City of Newark's first Honor Guard.

On August 12, 2009, Sergeant Lehr graduated from the Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute. The Institute is designed to stimulate personal growth, leadership, and ethical decision-making among California law enforcement's front-line supervisors.

Throughout his tenure with the Newark Police Department, Sergeant Lehr has served with distinction. I extend congratulations to him on his retirement and join the City of Newark in thanking him for his commitment to exemplary law enforcement.

Mr. Chair, the Republican budget proposal, very similar to their draconian proposal from last year, fails the middle class, undermines our Nation's values, and destroys the social safety net. It's been said that this year's Republican budget is ``austerity on steroids.'' I would call that an understatement.

In the name of deficit reduction, Republicans would end the Medicare guarantee, put Social Security on the fast track to benefit cuts, and slash critical job-creating investments in education, infrastructure and basic research. These deep cuts do not even go to reduce the deficit. Instead, they are used to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and to continue our out of control defense spending. The Republican budget will provide an average tax cut of $394,000 to people making over $1 million and increases defense spending. This budget is just a grab bag of failed right-wing ideas and it's harmful to America's future.

Senior citizens and people with disabilities in Medicare get a particularly bad deal under the Republican proposal because their plan ends the guarantee of Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries would be given a voucher to try to obtain health care coverage from private insurers-- there would be no guaranteed benefits and whether one could afford coverage would depend on what is available in the marketplace. What's more, the Republicans' voucher is designed to diminish in value over time, placing a growing cost burden on senior citizens and people with disabilities in the future. The Republican budget pays lip service to maintaining the traditional Medicare program, but those words amount to nothing. Traditional Medicare would become increasingly expensive as those with high health needs tried to stay there. Eventually, it would go into a death spiral with costs far exceeding the premiums it could realistically charge. Medicare as we know it would be gone--another Republican gift to the private insurance industry.

In contrast, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has offered a balanced budget, entitled the ``Budget for All,'' which strengthens Medicare and Social Security, protects the middle class, makes job- promoting investments for America's future, reins in defense spending, and ensures everyone pays their fair share in taxes. It includes a number of my proposals, including closing tax loopholes that allow lobbyists and lawyers to avoid paying Medicare taxes and putting a price on carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change.

My constituents deserve a budget that addresses our Nation's fiscal challenges, creates jobs, and protects Medicare and Social Security. The Congressional Progressive Caucus does just that. I urge my colleagues to support the Progressive Budget for All and reject the failed ideas in the Republicans' budget for the 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Advantage Program Integrity Act. My legislation will make commonsense payment reforms to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program to ensure that taxpayers get the best bang for their buck. The Medicare Advantage Program Integrity Act requires that Medicare Advantage payments more accurately reflect the health status of their enrollees. In addition, the bill ends the ability for Medicare Advantage plans to game the system by retaining investment income from pre-payments. Taken together, these policies will save over $20 billion over ten years, protecting both taxpayers and beneficiaries.

The MA program has grown substantially in recent years, increasing from $65.2 billion in plan payments in 2006 to $116.1 billion in 2010. Today, 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a private health insurance plan through MA. Congress took action through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 to substantially reduce historical excessive base payment rates in MA. However, these plans continue to be overpaid relative to traditional Medicare, both in terms of base rates that exceed the cost of traditional Medicare in many geographic areas and because payments do not accurately reflect the health status of enrolled beneficiaries.

Because plan payments are adjusted for health states such that plan payments are increased as anticipated service use increases, plans have an incentive to ``up code'' and report less healthy patients. In fact, documented independent evidence shows that Medicare Advantage plans do tend to report higher patient severity than is supported by medical records. The data also show that reported patient severity in MA plans increased faster than for comparable patients in traditional fee-for- service Medicare (FFS) over the same time period.

In an attempt to address this issue, CMS reduced MA beneficiary risk scores (which are used to adjust base payments) by 3.41 percent when calculating payment rates in 2010 and 2011. However, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Medicare Advantage: CMS Should Improve the Accuracy of Risk Score Adjustments for Diagnostic Coding Practices (January 12, 2012) found the Medicare program continues to overpay MA plans despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) effort to adjust payments to more accurately reflect the health status of plan enrollees. GAO estimated that in 2010, MA beneficiary risk scores were at least 4.8 percent, and perhaps as much as 7.1 percent higher than they would have been if the same beneficiaries had been continuously enrolled in traditional Medicare. GAO recommended that CMS take additional steps to improve the accuracy of these scores and estimated that the recommended methodological improvements would have saved the Medicare program $1.2 to $3.1 billion in MA plan payments in 2010 alone.

My legislation implements the GAO recommendations by codifying and phasing in the higher coding intensity adjustment over several years to prevent disruption in the market. The policy in this legislation would culminate in a 7.1 percent downward adjustment by 2019. GAO's findings indicate that a coding adjustment of up to 7.1 percent is warranted now and would yield billions of dollars in federal savings.

Under current law, CMS makes advanced capitated payments to Medicare Advantage plans at the beginning of every month for each beneficiary enrolled in their plan. MA plans often then invest these Medicare funds in interest-bearing accounts until the money is needed to pay for services. Current law does not prohibit Medicare Advantage plans from retaining the investment income on the prepayments. However, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) points to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as a model, noting that in contrast to Medicare Advantage, insurance companies' ability to earn investment income is limited under FEHBP. The HHS OIG conducted audits in 2000 and 2011 and concluded that if Medicare delayed pre-payments to Medicare Advantage plans by 46 days (similar to FEHPB), the Medicare Part A and B trust funds would have earned $450 million in interest income in Calendar Year 2007--rather than allowing that interest income to go to private health insurance plans. The Inspector General recommended that the Medicare program follow the FEHBP policy of delaying pre-payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

My legislation implements the Inspector General's recommendations by phasing-in a delay in the payments to Medicare Advantage plans. Taken together, these two policies will save federal taxpayers more than $20 billion while protecting beneficiary access to Medicare Advantage plans.

The Medicare Advantage Program Integrity Act has been endorsed by the Medicare Rights Center, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, AFL CIO, Families USA, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Alliance for Retired Americans. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that attacks waste at its source and improves the program without hurting real people. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

I want to thank Mr. Waxman for yielding to me at this time.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, brought to the floor by my Republican colleagues. It does two things. It repeals IPAB as created in the Affordable Care Act, and it enacts a medical malpractice reform long sought by my Republican friends as a way to protect pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and health care providers from any liability or full liability when they cause harm or death.

The medical malpractice part of this bill is so bad that the California Medical Association rejects the bill and says to vote ``no'' unless they had a decent medical malpractice reform part in it. And when the doctors will reject medical malpractice reform issues, you know it's got to be bad.

This extreme proposal is really not needed. I happen to agree with the part of the bill that repeals IPAB. We refused to include it in the House version of health reform. And Congress has always stepped in in its congressional manner to strengthen Medicare's finances when needed, and I see no need for us to relinquish that duty. We only have to look at the health reform law. It has extended solvency; it has slowed spending growth; it has lowered beneficiary costs; it has improved benefits, modernized the delivery system, created new fraud-fighting tools. We've done a good job. In fact, the CBO projects that IPAB won't even be triggered until the next 10 years, proving we've already done our job here in Congress of strengthening Medicare's finances.

Today's Republican support to repeal IPAB isn't a sincere interest in providing Medicare for all. They still want to give us an unfunded or underfunded voucher, slash and burn funding. And despite my opposition to IPAB, it's far less dangerous to Medicare than the Republican voucher plan put forth in the House Republican budget this week. IPAB doesn't undermine Medicare's guaranteed benefits and its ability to reduce Medicare spending. It has guardrails to prevent it. It doesn't permit costs to come from reducing Medicare and increasing costs on beneficiaries. It prohibits rationing, and it has annual limits on the cuts. The Republican voucher plan has none of these protections.

The Republicans are continuing their march begun by Newt Gingrich to have Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on yet another political stunt, which really, thankfully, is not destined to become law at this time.

Sacramento, CA, Mar. 15, 2012.

RE. H.R. 5 Protecting Access to Healthcare Act.

CMA Position. Oppose Unless Amended.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The California

Medical Association has adopted a position of Oppose Unless

Amended on H.R. 5 the ``Protecting Access to Healthcare

Act.'' While we strongly support the repeal of the Medicare

Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and appreciate the

state preemption of medical liability laws that will preserve

California's successful MICRA law, we have serious concerns

with two additional medical liability provisions that will

expose California physicians to even greater liability

despite the bill's stated legislative intent to reduce health

care costs and insurance premiums.

Support Repeal of the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board

(IPAB)

CMA strongly opposes the Medicare Independent Payment

Advisory Board (IPAB) which thwarts Congress' stewardship of

the Medicare program and gives fifteen unaccountable

individuals the power to make significant cuts to Medicare.

We believe it is Congress' responsibility to ensure the

Medicare program meets the needs of their communities. The

IPAB is mandated to make draconian cuts if Medicare spending

exceeds unrealistic budget targets in 2014. While we

appreciate the necessity to control the growth in health care

spending, the IPAB mandate does not leave room to actually

reform the program, particularly because hospitals and other

providers are exempt from the cuts until 2020. It

disproportionately harms physicians who are already

challenged to provide care to Medicare patients with limited

resources. As you know, physicians are facing large Medicare

SGR payment cuts over the next decade as well.

These measures are already forcing more California

physicians to limit the number of Medicare patients they can

accept. If additional cuts take effect, physicians will be

forced to leave the program--harming timely access to quality

care for California's seniors and military families.

The IPAB was not part of the House Health Care Reform bill

because most of the leaders in the California delegation

opposed it. Please continue to stand against an IPAB that

takes important decisions out of your hands.

Medical Liability: Oppose Unless Amended

For the last several decades, California's medical

liability law--MICRA--has successfully protected patients and

physicians. It has kept medical liability insurance

affordable and thus, protected access to care for California

patients while reducing health care costs. CMA appreciates

the provisions in H.R. 5 that allow state preemption and the

preservation of California's important MICRA law. While we

agree with the intent of H.R. 5--to provide MICRA-like

protections for physicians in other states--we have serious

concerns with two provisions that will increase physician

liability costs not only in California but across the

country. We believe these provisions are inconsistent with

the stated intent of the legislation to reduce insurance

premiums and overall health care costs.

1. Fair Share Rule

California has a joint and several liability law that

governs economic damages and allows claimants to recover the

full amount of economic damages from any defendant. The Fair

Share Rule in H.R. 5 will preempt California's law and put

full recovery by injured patients at risk. As written, the

Fair Share Rule will dramatically increase the potential for

physicians to face enforcement proceedings against their

personal assets. This will force physicians to purchase

increased medical professional liability insurance coverage,

which will significantly increase liability premiums in

California for physicians.

Therefore, CMA requests the following amendment that would

allow states with joint and several liability laws to

maintain those important laws.

Page 23, line 4 Add: (b) Protection of States' Rights and

Other Laws.

(1) Any issue that is not governed by any provision of law

established by or under this title (including State standards

of negligence) shall be governed by otherwise applicable

State or Federal law.

(2) This title shall not preempt or supersede any State or

Federal law that imposes greater procedural or substantive

protections for health care providers and health care

organizations from liability, loss, or damages than those

provide by this title or create a cause of action or any

State law that governs the allocation or recovery of damages

among joint tort feasors.

2. No Punitive Damages for Medical Products and Devices

that Comply with FDA Standards

The CMA has serious concerns with granting complete

immunity from punitive damages to medical product and device

manufacturers, distributors and suppliers. We believe this

will force plaintiffs to look only to physicians and other

providers to seek relief and will significantly increase

physician exposure and liability costs. CMA believes that the

United States Supreme Court decision on this issue in Levine

v Wyeth was correct and should remain the law because the

alleged benefits of providing immunity to pharmaceuticals

companies through preemption are far outweighed by the harm

to patient care and physicians.

Therefore. CMA urges that subdivision (c) of Section 106 of

Title I of the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act be

stricken in its entirety.

At the very least, if Title I, Section 106(c) remains in

the bill, the CMA requests the following amendments to

protect physicians from punitive damages liability that would

otherwise be that of the manufacturers and suppliers of

medical products and devices.

Page 10, line 14: (c) No punitive damages for products that

comply with FDA standards

(1) In General (A) No punitive damages may be awarded

against the manufacturer, distributor, or prescriber of a

medical product, or a supplier of any component or raw

material of such medical products, based on a claim that such

product caused the claimant's harm where--

Page 16. Lines 24 25: ``. . . or the manufacturer,

distributor supplier, marketer, promoter, [or] seller, or

prescriber of a medical product, . . .''

Page 17, Lines 15 16: ``. . . or the manufacturer,

distributor supplier, marketer, promoter, [or] seller, or

prescriber of a medical product, . . .''

Page 17, Line 25: ``44. . . or the manufacturer,

distributor supplier, marketer, promoter, [or] seller, or

prescriber of a medical product, . . .''

The CMA urges you to accept these important amendments. We

appreciate the efforts to repeal the IPAB, to protect

California's MICRA law with a state preemption, and to bring

liability relief and lower health care costs to the rest of

the nation.

Thank you for this important work.

Sincerely,

James T. Hay, MD,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Andrea Gorman for her tireless advocacy for Social Security. Ms. Gorman is a long- time constituent of mine and a leader within the Local 1584 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in the East Bay. She has triumphed over adversity, and her story is a compelling reason to protect Social Security.

As a child in the 1940s, Andrea suffered the loss of her father; her mother unable to financially care for her eight children was forced to surrender Andrea and her siblings to an orphanage and foster homes. Fortunately a safety net was there and Andrea's family qualified for Social Security survivor benefits, which would reunite her with her siblings and their mother. Her first encounter with Social Security saved her family; her second, her home.

Forty-five years later, after fighting for her right to work among the men in the male dominated machinist industry, Ms. Gorman was injured on the job and unable to work. She required Social Security disability benefits in order to survive and keep a roof over her head. Once again Andrea was grateful to a social program she calls ``her guardian angel''.

Now retired, Andrea continues to advocate for the protection of Social Security and she is a trustee for Local 1584. Andrea's life is a leading example of why Social Security is one of our nation's most vital safety net programs and why we must protect it.

I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing a woman who has overcome adversity and life's struggles through determination, bravery, and hard work. I urge my colleagues to take Andrea's story to heart and work to protect Social Security for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a statement written by my 16-year-old son, Fortney H. ``Fish'' Stark III.

In 2004, I visited the Democratic National Convention with

my dad. I don't remember much, being 8, but I do remember my

visit with Dennis Kucinich. He was a little quirky, in a Ron

Paul kind of way, but he was earnest, he was friendly, he was

sincere, and he believed in what he was doing. Someone took a

photo of us that night--I was almost as tall as him, even at

8--and he sent me a copy, signing it:

``Dear Fish: Someday I hope to come to the convention to

help nominate YOU! Thank you for your support. Your Friend,

Dennis Kucinich.''

Congressman Kucinich wasn't a perfect politician. At times

he's more concerned with taking a principled stand than

trying to negotiate a principled compromise. But even though

he was quirky and at times obstinate, he stood out in

Congress because he truly believed in what he was doing,

because he was passionate and never said die, because he was

willing to stand up and say something that he believed needed

to be said when no one else would stand up with him, because

he believed strongly that our children needed to live in a

word free from war, enjoy lives free of hunger, in families

free from poverty.

Congressman Kucinich looks like he's going to lose in his

primary campaign tonight. Congresswoman Kaptur is a great

lady, even if she does have a penchant for needless military

spending and has been flimsy on pro-choice issues. She'll do

great things for the district, I know it.

But I want to honor Congressman Kucinich by sharing what he

taught me--that it's OK, even when you're alone, to stand up

for something if you feel it is right. I don't think--few

do--that we should run the country exactly as Congressman

Kucinich believes we should, but there always needs to be

someone to say the things that he is saying--to have the bold

ideas, even if they're not always feasible, to have the

idealism and hope, even if it's sometimes fleeting.

``Courage is when you know you're licked before you begin,

but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter

what''--Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird

Congressman Kucinich made this quote come alive for me. He

stood up for peace, for health care, for the environment, for

reform, even when he knew he wasn't going to win--because he

believed in it. And while he never should have (and never

did) run the table, he always brought something to our

national discussion that contributed. It was a light, an

optimism, a compassion, and a humanism.

He was willing to take a political bullet to spread that

message. Tonight, that's what happened. Here's to a

courageous man who stood up for what he believed in, who

stood up for helping others, and who would rather lose an

election than lose his principles. A man who taught an 8-

year-old that believing in yourself held a far greater reward

than selling yourself.

Rock on, Dennis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Belva Davis, an icon of San Francisco Bay Area journalism for nearly half a century. Ms. Davis has announced that she will step down as host of public television's, ``This Week in Northern California''. Her final broadcast will be November 9, 2012. She is the winner of dozens of journalism awards, including eight local Emmys.

Her retirement will mark the end of her 19-year career as anchor of the program. After her departure, for the first time since 1964, Bay Area television viewers will be without coverage from the journalist who used grace and brains to face down the era's virulent racism and sexism and become the first black woman TV journalist in the Western

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to legislation that would trample the state's rights of California and overturn a carefully crafted agreement about how our state's fresh water is allocated.

This Republican legislation is a threat to the ecology of the Sacramento Delta and the San Francisco Bay, the safety of drinking water for many Bay area communities, and the many California jobs that depend on productive fisheries and a healthy Delta and Bay. The bill has many losers and the only winners are the large agri-business interests in the Central Valley, who already receive lavish taxpayer handouts in the form of subsidized water and crop subsidies.

Three years ago, in a bipartisan fashion, Congress and the California General Assembly approved the landmark San Joaquin Restoration Agreement. This agreement was based on the latest science and settled over 20 years of litigation regarding the use of water in the Sacramento River Delta. The San Joaquin Restoration Agreement brought together multiple water users, including fishermen, farmers, cities and communities, and conservationists and provides a fair allocation of the fresh water that flows through the Delta and into the San Francisco Bay. It also created a roadmap for the further restoration of wild salmon populations. Now, some of the very same interests who signed onto the recent agreement have convinced their allies in Congress to bring legislation to the floor to overturn it.

In addition to throwing out the San Joaquin Restoration Agreement and overriding state law, the bill before us also pre-empts the Endangered Species Act and proclaims that the science regarding the Delta and the Bay that was used in 1994 is current and cannot be updated. Rather than turning back the clock nearly 20 years, ignoring scientific advances, and undermining one of our nation's most important environmental protections, we should vote against the legislation and respect the rights of the State of California.

Both the Governor and Attorney General of California oppose this legislation, as do my colleagues in the Bay Area delegation. The President has rightfully said he will veto this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support clean water, jobs, and the environment and vote against this misguided bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation to extend the payroll tax cut through 2012, delay a massive Medicare physician pay cut until January 1, 2013, and extend unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed workers.

It's not often we get to laud bipartisan legislation these days. Nor did this bill start out that way. The bill the House Republicans passed late last year on this topic was highly partisan. While extending the payroll tax cut for a year and preventing a physician pay cut for two years, it achieved those goals by shifting costs to Medicare beneficiaries and undermining low-income financial assistance in the Affordable Care Act. It extended unemployment benefits, but the price for that extension was cutting off benefits for the long-term unemployed and mandating onerous new rules such as drug testing and GED requirements. It was standard Republican fare--give with one hand, but take away more with the other.

After an embarrassing debacle to end 2011, House Republicans backed down. Now, with today's legislation, they've backed down even more. That's good news for working families, Medicare beneficiaries, and unemployed workers. But don't be fooled that they're suddenly ready to govern. They are not.

They recognized the political risk of not enacting this legislation and then reluctantly came to the conclusion that they had to work with Democrats to get this done.

Once this bill passes, they'll go right back to the issues they really care about: lambasting President Obama for creating a solution that protects religious institutions while providing free contraceptives to American women; trying to require the building of the Keystone pipeline across our country--putting our environment at risk-- in order for Canada to export oil to other countries; and pursuing the most partisan transportation authorization bill in history--one that actually defunds mass transit and eliminates vital safety programs. All the while, doing nothing to create jobs or strengthen our economy.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3408, the so- called ``PIONEERS Act.'' The Republican majority is bringing this bill to the floor under a procedural charade that has us voting on three separate bills that will magically become a transportation bill at some

point in the future when the Speaker is able to twist enough arms to pass the other pieces.

An obvious question to ask about H.R. 3408 is: what does it have to do with transportation? Not much. Although this bill is a grab bag of goodies for the oil and gas industry, it will do virtually nothing to repair our crumbling roads and bridges.

The legislation requires drilling off the coast of Southern California and overrides current law to forbid the State of California from haying any input into where, when, and how the drilling will occur. So much for states' rights. In their drive to hand out drilling leases to oil companies, Republicans are preventing my constituents in California from having any say on an issue that could have profound consequences on our state's economy and environment.

In the unlikely event that this bill becomes law, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be opened to oil drilling and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be approved despite the fact that the President found the pipeline is not in the national interest. This legislation also mandates oil shale production on millions of acres of taxpayer owned lands in the West without environmental review. Producing oil from oil shale is an unproven process that requires massive amounts of water and energy and produces equally massive amounts of waste. That's why the Obama Administration continues to study the process and conduct research and development on the feasibility of oil shale extraction prior to opening up federal lands. Instead of following this reasonable approach, Republicans are ignoring science and pushing ahead.

Republican leaders claim that all of this new drilling might raise some money in the future that can then pay for transportation projects. Instead of relying on fictional revenues, we could simply end the $4 billion in yearly tax subsidies that the big oil companies enjoy. These companies raked in $137 billion in profits last year, yet taxpayers are still forced to subsidize them. Let's end those handouts to pay for transportation projects not provide yet more giveaways to the oil industry.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against this dirty energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to compliment a staff member for years of service to the U.S. Congress.

Last week, Jon Traub ended his service as the Staff Director for the Majority Staff of the Committee on Ways and Means. He'd spent five years in this role working for both Chairman Camp in the majority and Ranking Member McCrery in the good old days when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives.

Whether Democrat or Republican, I hope all Members of Congress recognize the important contributions our staffs make. In general, they work longer hours than we do, they get more into the details of policy- making, and we count on them to make us look good.

In his time at Ways and Means, I always found Jon to be a straight shooter. We didn't often agree on policy, but I always knew he'd give me a straight answer when I asked him a question and I always knew he had the confidence of the Chairman so I could count on his answer being correct.

I wish Jon the best in his future endeavors. I'm always sad to see good people leave Capitol Hill, but with a young child, I can certainly understand the desire to lead a more normal life. Again, I thank Jon for his service, wish him the best in his future, and hope to see him in public service again.