Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to congratulate the American people on how savvy and smart they

are when it comes to this health care reform effort. A survey was done recently, and the question was asked, Do you support an individual mandate, which is the requirement that people purchase insurance coverage? In answer to that, there was some ambivalence. People weren't so sure. Then they asked the question this way, they said, What if we give you a public option, would you support an individual mandate? And a clear majority said, Absolutely, we would.

Now let's think about that for a minute. What they were saying was, Don't force us to go purchase insurance coverage if we have to buy it from the same old cast of characters that's been jerking us around for decades. But if you give us a real option, then it absolutely makes common sense to require that.

So once again Americans have demonstrated they understand this problem. They understand why we need to have a public option in the mix, and that's what we're going to push forward with in this legislation.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I want to thank Congressman Murphy for bringing us here tonight to talk about this very, very important issue.

I just had a couple of things I wanted to talk about. First of all, we're bringing this thing across the finish line very soon. I know a lot of folks are excited about that. But I want to make sure people understand we are not

limping across the finish line. We're going to cross that finish line with a burst of energy that comes from understanding that we have finally addressed so many of the grievances that millions of Americans have had with this health care system for so many years.

There are a lot of things we can talk about that are wrong with the existing system. And it's important to point those out. But we need to spend just as much time about the good things that are going to happen if we can get this health care reform passed.

There's so much in all of the core components of the health reform legislation that has come out of all the different committees, both in the Senate and the House--there's so much in there that addresses these concerns people have had for so long.

I want to talk a little bit for a moment about the Medicare portions of this bill, because the other side has presented a very sort of cynical scenario about what is going to happen to the Medicare program under this bill.

In fact, every effort that we've made in shaping these bills when it comes to Medicare has been to strengthen the program, to make sure that the Medicare trust fund lasts longer, to make sure that we're looking after seniors, as we should, and protecting their interests. So let me talk a little bit about that.

We are going to parts of the Medicare program where we can find responsible savings--and I'll be more detailed about that in a moment-- but just conceptually understand that those savings are then being turned around and reinvested back into the Medicare program.

So, in other words, this is not a case of finding savings that go someplace else. The savings that we're looking to get out of the Medicare program from a more responsible approach is going to be taken and turned right back into an investment in the Medicare program.

So where are we getting some of the savings? Well, there's something called preventable readmissions to a hospital. This is a situation where somebody is discharged from the hospital too quickly. Often this occurs because the insurance companies, who don't want to pay to keep people in the hospital because they're trying to keep their costs down so they can pocket more of the profits that they get from your premium dollar, they push people out of the door too quickly. Well, that means folks are leaving the hospital before their situation has been completely stabilized or addressed--with what consequence? The consequence that a few days later, a week later, 2 weeks later, suddenly they've got complications. They've got to come back into the hospital. That's not good for them, but it also costs the system a lot of money.

The estimates are that you can save billions of dollars if you insist on better thinking at the point of discharge, so that when people leave the hospital, it's time for them really to leave the hospital and their situation has been addressed so they're not going to have to be readmitted a few days later. We're taking those savings and we're reinvesting them in the program.

You all remember the stories we used to hear about years ago about the $600 toilet seat that the Pentagon used to purchase as an example of wasteful spending. Well, there was just an article the other day in the newspaper about a company that makes motorized wheelchairs. It costs them about $1,000 per wheelchair to make this. They've been turning around and selling it to the Medicare program for $4,000. A 400 percent markup.

Well, that's wasteful. We can rein that spending in. We can take the savings, and we can plow it into things that make sense for the Medicare program. What are some of those reinvestments that are important? Number one, we are going to make sure that physicians get reimbursed at the level they should. Many seniors I have talked to have expressed alarm because either they or people they know have talked to physicians who say, We can't afford to stay in the Medicare program any more. We're going to opt out.

Well, when President Obama came in, he said, We're not going to play games any more with physician reimbursement. We're going to reimburse them fairly. And this bill does that. This bill makes sure that a cut of up to 20 percent that was supposed to occur, with respect to physician reimbursement, that's not going to happen. It will keep more doctors in the network. That is going to be better for our seniors.

Another place we are reinvesting the savings is to begin closing the doughnut hole in the part D prescription drug program, which has really hit many seniors between the eyes when they have to come out of pocket to cover their prescription drug costs. We are going to begin to phase in filling in that doughnut hole so that coverage is there, another benefit of finding savings in one place and reinvesting it in another.

The last thing that I mentioned that is very important is we recognize that there are certain preventive kinds of services that make absolute sense, and we don't think that seniors should have to have copayment related to those services anymore.

So what's an example? The initial exam. Under the new bill, no longer will there be a copayment requirement. You don't have to come out of pocket for that service. Glaucoma screening, no longer will there be a copayment requirement, and other services like this that make sense because they save the system money overall, and they are good for the individual patient.

There is so much about this bill that makes sense. There is so much that we fashioned based on the recommendations of experts and ordinary citizens who came forward and said, We need to see a change. That's what we've done. We've answered that call. I am very excited about the prospects of crossing the finish line with that burst of energy that says, We have accomplished something that the American people sent us to do. That's what we are going to be doing over the next few weeks.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak here this evening, and I now yield to my colleague from Vermont, Peter Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairperson Bordallo for yielding her time.

I strongly urge, as one would imagine as the original sponsor of this bill, that the Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2009 be adopted by the Chamber.

I want to thank Congressman Wittman for his cosponsorship of this bill. Congressmen Kratovil and Connolly as well have been strong supporters of it. But I do want to emphasize Congressman Wittman's commitment to the Chesapeake Bay. He and I have gotten in the habit of, we sort of have a mutual admiration society going here in terms of our commitment to the bay. I think it demonstrates how the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its protection and preservation going forward is really a bipartisan concern. We hope to continue to work together with each other and with other Members in this Chamber to make sure that the Chesapeake Bay is preserved.

Now, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay office that this would reauthorize provides very important and vital scientific research and data, habitat restoration and environmental education, which all play a very critical role in the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its restoration.

There are a number of important provisions; some have been alluded to.

Just to reiterate, this will enhance the Chesapeake Bay Interpretative Buoy System, which provides real-time weather and environmental information like wind speed, temperature, and wave heights to the public, especially to boaters and researchers.

It's got an historical and cultural component as well. I just emailed my staff so they could remind me of the toll free number (877) BUOY-BAY if you want to call and tap into this information on a real-time basis, or you can go to www.buoybay.org. This is an incredible resource for people, particularly for the next generation.

That is another thing this reauthorization will do. It will bolster the Chesapeake Bay watershed education and training program, which we know as the B-WET program which provides hands-on environmental education and teaches young people about how their everyday actions affect the health of the bay.

I'm an author of the No Child Left Inside Act, which is designed to get people, young people, outdoors and into nature. This is the kind of information and data that is then made available to them so that they can really engage firsthand in this effort on behalf of the bay.

And there are many other dimensions of this that strengthen the NOAA Chesapeake Bay office, but let me just close by acknowledging again my real thanks and appreciation for Chairman Rahall, for Chairperson Bordallo, for their assistance in getting this through the Natural Resources Committee. Again, a salute to Congressman Wittman for his continuing efforts on behalf of the bay.

We're going to turn the corner on the Chesapeake Bay--I have no doubt--and it's because of the data and the information and statistics and other things that are provided by the NOAA office. So reauthorizing that component of the Chesapeake Bay program is absolutely vital to the enterprise, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairperson Bordallo again for yielding to me.

I want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1053, Congressman Wittman's bill. I'm a cosponsor and proud to be one. This is a good way of bringing more of a comprehensive perspective to our efforts on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay.

As many have mentioned, you know, we're talking about the bay, we're talking about a watershed with a tributary system that originates in six States and the District of Columbia, all flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. So we've got a lot of geographic areas to manage and link together, as well as numerous organizations, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, citizens organizations, educational organizations, that are all working on the same goal.

There's only benefit that can be had when you bring this crosscutting perspective in terms of the dollars that are spent, and I want to congratulate Congressman Wittman for bringing that kind of discipline to the overall program.

I also just wanted to emphasize the adaptive management strategy, because in a way this dovetails very nicely with the bill we just spoke about regarding reauthorization of the NOAA office, and the reason is that what adaptive management strategies are all about is recognizing if you can adopt a certain strategy to deal with the health of the Chesapeake Bay, and then just put it on a course, it never changes.

Science is always changing, and because science changes, we have to adjust to make sure that our management strategies reflect that science. The very kind of information and data that the NOAA office will be producing because it is reauthorized is the exact kind of data that can be used for this adaptive management approach.

So I think this is a very good and strong bill, and is going to enhance our efforts to protect and preserve and strengthen the Chesapeake Bay over time. I congratulate Congressman Wittman for his efforts, and I urge support of the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important bill, and it's one that we need to pass today.

In August, as was referenced, many of us heard from our constituents that they were going to be in this crunch where, on the one hand, the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security was

not going up based on the formula that looks at inflation cost but, on the other hand, they were facing an increase in their Medicare part B premium. I pledged actually on the spot that I knew we would come back and we would be trying to take a look at this and explore various options that could help 10 million Medicare beneficiaries across the country, including thousands in Maryland.

There are a number of ways to address this issue. I think what happened was the idea of looking at the Medicare part B premium and making an adjustment there instead of holding it down is one that came into focus recently. We might have been able to go do hearings based on that, but we realized we've got to move quickly because the Medicare program needs to implement this right away if it's going to be put in force. So that's why we're moving quickly.

The bottom line here is people spoke to us and we listened, and that should be an assurance to all those seniors out there who are expressing some anxiety about where we are going generally with our health reform efforts. We are hearing those concerns. They're part of what we're trying to do here to keep the Medicare program strong and to look out for the best interests of our seniors, and that's why we ought to support this legislation today.

I want to thank Chairman Grijalva, and Chairman Rahall as well, for their strong support of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

This is a bill that is, I believe, quite noncontroversial. We are here today debating it because there is some difference of perspective with respect to whether there ought to be a permanent authorization to this bill or not. That is something I strongly support because I think it sends a very powerful message to the citizenry in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that the Federal Government is ready to be a partner on a permanent basis. If we want people to step forward and take ownership at the community level and across the watershed, we need to send that message to them, and there is no better way to send that message than to permanently authorize this program.

The Chesapeake Bay has a tremendous story to tell. I'm from Maryland, of course, and we consider ourselves in many ways principally stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a national treasure. It is the largest estuary body in the United States. But it doesn't just touch the State of Maryland; it touches six States and the District of Columbia. It touches New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia.

The watershed stretches from Michael Arcuri's district, where he represents Cooperstown, New York, where it begins, to Bobby Scott's district in Virginia. The cosponsors of this bill are both Democrat and Republican, indicating the strong support that it has had from the beginning of the program.

Some of you know I have introduced other legislation which is focused very specifically on how we engage the next generation, engage our young people in the environment and get them outdoors learning.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network is a wonderful resource for that. There are over 156 sites, historic, natural, cultural, recreational sites across the watershed that are available because of the funding that comes through technical assistance and other grant funding, that are available as a resource for the next generation to take advantage of, available for older generations to pass on the history of this area and this region to the next generation.

So I am excited. And I appreciate the gentleman's sympathies to me, but I must say any opportunity that I have to talk about the importance of this network is one that I would seize happily.

I do want to reiterate that this represents the National Park Service's component of a larger partnership that exists on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay on the part of the Federal Government that includes the National Park Service, that includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, and this is a partnership that has just worked fabulously over many, many years.

In closing, let me just emphasize again, and I know we will debate it a little bit later with respect to the amendment that is going to be proposed by Congressman Bishop, but let

me just emphasize again how important it is that this be a permanent authorization. We need to send a message, a powerful message, to the citizens that are part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed that the Federal Government is here to stay when it comes to preserving and protecting this incredible resource that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I agree there's going to be plenty of time to debate the health reform bill and to demonstrate very clearly that it does not extend benefits to those who are here unlawfully. But I hope the American people have the confidence that we can debate the health bill at the appropriate time and in the appropriate ways, while also conducting other business that faces the Nation which, of course, is what we're trying to do this morning with respect to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

And responding to some of the points raised by my colleague, Congressman Bishop, I do just want to emphasize we understand that it's not maybe standard to move to a permanent authorization that typically would go to 5-year reauthorizations.

I want to make sure people understand that this is not being done lightly. This is being done for a very specific reason. There are times when, based on the experience of a program and an initiative, as in this case, you reach the conclusion that the program is worth authorizing on a permanent basis because you want to send a message, and it's particularly important to do that in circumstances where a key ingredient of the success of the program is the fact that you have thousands of ordinary citizens through community groups and nonprofits and other organizations stepping forward on a daily basis, saying, Yes, we want to be partners in this effort.

The last thing we want to do at that moment when so many people are saying, Yes, you can count on me at the community level to take up this charge to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay, is say to them, Well, we're not sure this commitment on behalf of the Federal Government is going to be there for the long term. That's why it is critical to this program that we authorize it on a permanent basis, so I want to urge that we do that.

I do also want to note that this program couldn't be further away from an earmark program. There was a suggestion made there. In fact, the National Park Service makes judgments on which partners to recognize based on applications that come in for grant funding, and the Congress has never approved an earmark as part of the Chesapeake Bay Gateway program.

So this is a good program. I think it's one that deserves to be authorized on a permanent basis for the reasons that I indicated, and I would urge that we oppose the Bishop amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just take a moment and speak about two very important elements in the health reform initiative that we are considering in the House. Both of these are things that will help to strengthen the relationship between the physician and the patient.

The first is something called medical-loss ratio. That's a technical term, but it basically means how much does that insurance company use of the premium you give them to actually spend on medical care. If they don't spend at least 85 cents on the dollar, it means they're not giving the kind of care to the patient that they deserve.

The second important thing is the investment in preventive care that we're going to make in this bill so that a physician can spend more time with the patient. There are elderly patients all across the country who wish that their physician could spend a little bit more time with them to really understand their situation. We don't reimburse for that right now. But going forward, we can do that, and that will promote the relationship between the physician and their patient and lead to overall better care for that patient and a better relationship with that patient's family.

Madam Speaker, today I rise, like so many have done before me for 35 years now, and lament the unjust division of the Republic of Cyprus.

For more than 60 years, the United States has extended the hand of friendship to Turkey, offering her material support, offering her military protection and most importantly, engaging our Turkish friend and ally with the respect, admiration, and dignity that emanate from our great Nation's democratic values.

Just a few months ago, President Obama paid a historic visit to Turkey where he called upon the European Union to embrace Turkey's application to join that body of peace loving, democratic nations, and as well, he called for a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

Last year, upon this remembrance, I commended the noble efforts exerted by the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities to reunify their island republic. Today, 1 year later, I again praise President Dimitrios Christofias and Turkish Cypriot Leader Mehmet Ali Talat for their commitment to peace and unity.

So why then, with Cypriot leadership committed to reunification, Turkey's NATO membership since 1952, United Nations' diplomatic initiatives and the appointment of numerous special American, British and E.U. envoys, does Cyprus remain divided and occupied for 35 years?

For three and a half decades, the international community has unequivocally called for the removal of the 45,000 Turkish troops garrisoned in the occupied north, so that the people of Cyprus may be relieved of the humanitarian hardship and injustice brought on by Turkey's hostile occupation.

In 1975, this Chamber imposed sanctions upon Turkey and refused to allow sales or aid of American military equipment to Turkey, because of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Cyprus. That embargo was lifted by the exigencies of the Cold War, because the Turkish military retaliated against the United States by denying use of strategic military assets located in Turkey.

From the outset of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus to this day, the United Nations has repeatedly called for the removal of Turkish occupation forces and for the respect of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

Following high level U.N. brokered talks in 1979, Turkey agreed as a confidence building measure to withdraw and handover the uninhabited city of Famagusta to its rightful inhabitants. In this regard, U.N. Security Council Resolution 550/1984 calls for the transfer of the occupied, but uninhabited, city of Famagusta to the United Nations for the orderly resettlement of the city by its rightful inhabitants. To this day, Turkey has reneged on its pledge to comply with the agreements achieved during the high level talks and has completely disregarded the U.N. resolutions on Famagusta.

As recently as May 2009, the U.N. Secretary General placed the blame for the failure to return Famagusta to its rightful inhabitants squarely upon the Government of Turkey. This Chamber has also enacted section 620C(a)(5) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2373 (a)(5)) in support of the United Nations Secretary General's efforts to resettle the occupied, but uninhabited, city of Famagusta by its rightful inhabitants. Turkey, our NATO ally and beneficiary of significant American support, has ignored America's calls for compliance with the return of Famagusta, just as it has ignored the U.N.'s.

Today, Senator Cardin and Congressman Hastings of the Helsinki Commission held a briefing on the destruction of the history, heritage and culture in the occupied north of Cyprus. As that briefing pointed out, despite clear international commitments on the importance of preserving religious and cultural heritage, hundreds of churches, chapels and monasteries in the northern part of Cyprus remain in peril. Thousands of icons, manuscripts, frescos, and mosaics have been looted from sites in northern Cyprus--many ending up on international auction blocks. The United States, the E.U. and the United Nations have all called on Turkey to honor its international obligations and cease and desist from this further hostility to the people of Cyprus. This begs the question, how can Turkey seek to join the European Union, all the while it is destroying the very existence of European history and culture in the north of Cyprus.

The European Union has also called on Turkey to honor its agreement to open its ports and airspace to Republic of Cyprus flagged vessels. Rather than comply with its commitments, Turkey demands that the E.U. engage in international economic activity with the unlawfully occupied north of the island republic. It is incredible that Turkey would refuse to open its ports and airspace and extend legal recognition to a member state of the European Union all the while it seeks to become a full fledged member of that Union.

The United States rightly places great importance in strategically mooring Turkey to the E.U. and America, but I am greatly concerned that Turkey does not share our vision or commitment to the liberal democratic processes that works to ensure global peace and stability. There are no greater advocates for Turkey's acceptance into the European Union, than Greece, Cyprus and the United States. Despite the fact that Turkey has bullied and beaten the small island Republic of Cyprus, Cyprus has shown great humanity by demanding of its fellow E.U. members that Turkey should be afforded the right to join the E.U.

The Republic of Cyprus has gone the extra mile to keep its Turkish speaking citizens engaged in its democratic and economic successes, it has gone the extra mile to engage Turkey and normalize relations, and it has gone the extra mile by becoming an advocate of Turkey's entry into the E.U. Unfortunately, Turkey has not responded in kind. To this very day, Turkey violates the territorial integrity of Cypriot seas and air space. It acts to limit the economic activities of the tiny republic and it subjects it to the menacing threat of a massively armed contingent of 45,000 soldiers.

The division of Cyprus is a matter of invasion and occupation, and not as Turkey claims, a matter of inter-communal conflict. On this very point, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held time and time again that Turkey exercises ``effective overall control of northern Cyprus through its military presence there . . .'' and stresses the point ``that Turkey's responsibility under the [European] Convention could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials operating in northern Cyprus, but was also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration . . ., which survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support.'' There can be no doubt from the rulings of the ECHR that the division of the Republic of Cyprus continues because of the Turkish military occupation.

The Cyprus problem pits American allies against one another and impedes the orderly progress of NATO and the E.U. in a strategically vital part of the world. The time has come for us to ask ourselves, is the Government of Turkey part of the solution or is it the very heart of the problem. How Turkey resolves the division of Cyprus will work to define how Turkey will be engaged by Europe. Should Turkey continue to occupy Cyprus as a post-imperial power with no regard for its prior commitments to international agreements and with no sense of obligation to the very European heritage, history and culture that it must uphold as an aspirant member of the E.U., Turkey will by its own hand foreclose its chances of joining the European Union.

Madam Speaker, Turkey is gambling with more than even the democratic liberties of the people of Cyprus. I fear that should Turkey fail to honor democracy, human rights and the rule of law, Turkey will drift away from the United States and Europe and chart a course that will be openly adverse to the interest of NATO, America and the E.U. It is high time that we engage our ally, while we still can, and ensure a democratic resolution to the division of Cyprus.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the 110th Congress that would correct a longstanding disparity between professional firefighters who are employed by States, counties, or municipalities and Federal firefighters.

In 1985, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act so that firefighters around the country could engage in a practice called ``trade time.'' Trade time allows two firefighters, solely at their option and with the approval of their supervisor, to switch shifts without affecting the pay rate of either firefighter. The Congress made this change because firefighters work uncommon schedules involving 24 hour shifts and 72 hour work weeks, followed by a period of time away from the firehouse. Trade time enables firefighters to meet personal obligations such as attending a child's birthday or assisting a sick family member without exhausting their annual leave. It also ensures that firehouses across the country can maintain staffing requirements and keep our communities safe.

Federal firefighters are not covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore have been ineligible for trade time. I am introducing this bill to amend Federal employee labor law to fix this problem.

Federal firefighters work side-by-side with their non-federal colleagues, so this is an issue of equity. Correcting this inequity will help Federal agencies recruit and retain firefighters. Just like other firefighters, Federal firefighters risk their lives on a daily basis. They also accept the irregular hours that their jobs require. This legislation merely gives them some modest flexibility to balance that irregularity and meet their family obligations.

I hope my colleagues will support this simple but overdue legislation.

I want to thank the chairman for his leadership, Chairman Serrano, on this bill, for giving me the opportunity to speak on an important issue impacting my district.

The District of Columbia operates a juvenile detention facility named New Beginnings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which is in my district. Since its opening this May, there have been two separate instances of escapes by juveniles housed at the facility. In the last instance, six juveniles escaped without any notification to the county in which the facility is located. From all accounts, these escapes occurred through easily breached doors and windows. Both of these episodes have raised troubling questions about the level of oversight and security at the facility.

Applicable District of Columbia law requires: ``Developing and maintaining a system with other governmental and private agencies to identify, locate, and retrieve youth who are under the care, custody, or supervision of the department, who have absconded.'' Unfortunately, these and other standards relating to the security at the facility have not received adequate attention from District of Columbia authorities.

I'd like to yield to the majority leader who I know has a perspective on this.

I want to thank Chairman Serrano for the opportunity to speak about this important issue; and as we move forward with this legislation, I hope we can work together with the District of Columbia to make sure that we can protect the surrounding community.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Thank you.

I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for organizing this very important discussion today.

We have got some terrific Members who have been very engaged in this health care topic for a long time, and I say ``a long time'' because, even though these are folks who came to this Chamber in January of 2007, all of them are people who have been working on this issue for many, many years. So this is going to be an important discussion tonight, I think a stimulating one, and one that will be enlightening to all of those folks who are very concerned about where we are right now.

Today was an incredible day because today there was introduced in this Chamber the Health Reform Act, which, I think, is going to form the basis of moving us forward in a very meaningful and significant way in this country. This has been a long time in coming, this day. We ran on this issue in 2006, not because we made it up out of thin air but because everywhere we went we heard from constituents and members of the public who were saying this was their number one issue. We ran on it again in 2008 because this was the number one issue that people brought to our attention and because of the stories like the one that John Yarmuth just told. There are legions of those stories that we've heard.

I mentioned that this was the number one issue in '06 and '08 for a specific reason, and that is that there are some on the other side and there are even some in the public who are saying we're moving too fast on this--slow down--that we need to take more time to deliberate. It's a fair point but only to a point, because the people who we were elected by and the people from whom we hear every weekend when we go home to our districts have been clamoring for this kind of reform for decades, and they really can't wait to change the situations they're in right now. So this is a great day because, after decades of struggle and after the past few years when the call for this kind of change has reached a fever pitch, we are at this moment finally at the point where we are putting legislation on the table that is going to make a difference.

I want to yield soon to my colleagues who are here, but let me just mention a couple of things and dispense with some myths.

You know, before we began this exchange, I heard a few folks who were critical of the proposal saying we don't need a government takeover. Well, this bill couldn't be further from a government takeover. What this is doing in a very American way is offering more choices out there. Too many Americans feel that they have been shackled by a private health insurance industry that was more interested in seizing profits for themselves than in really providing high-quality and accessible care to most Americans. Folks are fed up with that. So we're not talking about a government takeover. We're talking about trying to get out from under the takeover that the private health insurance industry has had for so many years. That's what this is about.

The second thing is that this bill invests in primary care and in preventative care. It does the kind of commonsense things that the American people have been calling for for so many years with respect to their health care coverage. Let's treat people on the front end, and keep them from getting sick in the first place rather than waiting for them to get sick on the back end. That makes common sense. The other thing is it invests in our health workforce. If we are going to presume, as we should, to cover everyone in this country and to provide them with health care coverage, we have got to make sure that there are enough caregivers to deliver that care to them.

Let me close with this observation, which is what, I think, most Americans are thinking to themselves. They're thinking: If America could have accomplished all of the things that we've managed to accomplish over the last few decades, even as we were carrying this broken health care system around on our backs, imagine what we could accomplish as a society, as individuals, if we could fix this health care system. Imagine if your mother, who goes to work, who leaves a child at home who has got a fever of 100 degrees, but you don't have to worry because you know that your family has decent health care coverage. Imagine how much more productive you're going to be at work that day. Imagine you're a small business that wants to do the right thing

for your employees, but you could never afford to do it, but now you can. Imagine if you're a large business that's trying to compete with a competitor overseas that has more of a shared obligation from the public and private sectors to help it with the cost of health care. Imagine how much more productive and competitive you could be.

So, given that America has been as successful as we've been all of these years, even with this monkey we've been carrying around on our back, just think of and just imagine the heights we're going to reach as a Nation and as individuals if we can fix this health care system. That's what this bill is all about.

So I want to thank you, John, my colleague from Kentucky, for convening us today to talk about this very, very important issue. Let me yield my time back to you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Reverend Richardson Armstrong Libby, a community leader in Annapolis, MD, that is highly regarded for his dedication toward historic preservation--a natural pastime in our State's capital. He has become rather famous locally because of an important discovery he recently made concerning the history of the United States Flag.

A navigator and intercept controller for the U.S. Air Force during the Korean war, Rev. Libby has spent the past 40 years in service to the Episcopal Church. Throughout this time, he has maintained a strong interest in U.S. History, especially in the flags of the Revolutionary War.

Following his retirement from the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, Rev. Libby and his wife Kathryn moved to Annapolis in 1999, where he reconnected with his passion for historic preservation. He is a member of the Maryland Historical Society, the Historic Annapolis Foundation, and Board of Trustees for

the Hammond-Harwood House. While following that passion, he managed to correct the history of one of Annapolis's proudest moments.

In 1783, Maryland's governor commissioned the ``Shaw Flag,'' designed by a local cabinet maker named John Shaw, to fly over the State House when it served as the home to the U.S. Congress. This flag flew over the building when General George Washington resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army--an unprecedented act of selfless leadership and enduring symbol of democratic government. It was also atop the State House during the signing of the Treaty of Paris. After the Revolutionary War ended and the Congress moved to Trenton, the Shaw Flag was lowered and virtually lost to the history books with no replicas available.

In 1983, a reproduction of the Shaw Flag was designed to celebrate the bicentennial of Annapolis' time as our Nation's capital. The flag had 13 red and white stripes and 13 stars in a blue field in the upper left corner of the flag. Later, Rev. Libby was enjoying a watercolor painting by Cotton Millbourne from 1794 that hangs in the Hammond- Harwood House in Annapolis when he made a surprising discovery. The painting depicted the State House during the same era but the flag in the painting contained a blue field running vertically the entire length of the flag. This discovery prompted Rev. Libby to conduct more thorough research on the Shaw Flag and ultimately resulted in a correction of the reproduction. It was this corrected flag that hung in our State's capitol this Flag Day, June 14.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to represent Rev. Libby in the U.S. House of Representatives. I appreciate his service to our Nation and the State of Maryland, as well as his keen interest in historic preservation and our national symbols.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a few minutes today and talk about health care, because that is really the most pressing issue that's facing our country right now. It's inextricably tied to the economic situation of millions of Americans. So even as we struggle to deal with this difficult economy, we can't lose sight of the importance of health care reform.

Now, we have in this country a real paradox with our health care system, because on the one hand America has the best doctors, it has the best nurses, it has highly, highly trained professionals. And I believe, having worked with caregivers for almost 20 years representing providers in Maryland, I think we have the most compassionate caregivers you can find any place.

We have wonderful, fine institutions in my district--the University of Maryland medical system, Johns Hopkins health system. These are some of the finest institutions in the world, year after year being identified at the top of their class.

And we have amazing technology. Every year the advances in technology make it easier for us to address some of the most persistent health care problems in our country. So that's on the one side of the equation.

On the other side we have the highest health care costs in the developed world, we have tremendous shortages of our caregivers, shortages of physicians, shortages of nurses and many other categories of those who provide care.

We have millions of people, millions of people who have no health insurance, and we argue over the number. Some say it's 47 million, some say it's less. But we're talking about tens of millions of people who don't have health insurance coverage in this country. Means we have got a problem.

There are millions more who are underinsured. What does that mean? That means that they have health coverage, but they are one serious health crisis away from pitching over the edge in terms of their families and themselves.

And then those who do have coverage, adequate coverage, are paying premiums that go up by 15, 20, 25 percent a year. So we are all in it together. We all understand at some level that the current system is broken. This is our chance, this is our time. This is the moment to fix it. The American people have been clamoring for this for decades.

So we have to take up the charge. We are not going to borrow anybody's model. We are not going to import a model from England or Canada or France. We are going to design our own brand of American health care, and we are going to fix this system. We can do that.

There are two parts of the discussion. There is a coverage discussion. How do we get to where everybody has decent access to care? I think we ought to pursue this public plan option, because it will keep costs down. It will compete with the private health insurance plans who had kind of a stranglehold on the system, and Americans understand this.

They have moved past this in the discussion. They know we need the public option, because it will create a more level playing field. And, in the words of the President, it will keep the insurance companies honest.

But on the other side of the equation, in addition to the coverage issue, is the delivery of care. And we have got to look at investing in our workforce, and I am glad to say I have introduced legislation that attempts to do that, the health care Workforce Investment Act of 2009, which would create a national workforce advisory board to do just this, look at this question of filling in the workforce.

We have got to focus more on primary and preventive care so we can keep people healthy on the front end instead of just looking after them after they get sick on the back end. We need to change our system and move in that direction.

I like the idea of play space health care. What is that? Instead of expecting people to come to the health system let's figure out how we can take the health care system to people where they are already gathered. Let's go to our schools, where 98 percent of the people between the ages of 5 and 16 can be found 5 days a week, and let's intervene there.

Let's go to senior centers and provide care to our seniors where they are already gathering. And let's go to workplaces and incentivize with tax breaks and tax incentives large employers to put clinics in place to serve working adults right there where they are in the workplace.

These are all things we can do to improve the delivery system.

So let me just close with this: As this health care reform leaves the station, there are three things that need to be on that train so that it's a train to somewhere, not a train to nowhere.

Those three things are universal access to coverage, and I think this public plan option is a wonderful way to go. Second, investment in our workforce, and, third, focusing on primary and preventive care. If we do that, we are going to fix this health care system for millions of Americans across this country.

I want to salute Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey for their tremendous work on this bill.

When it comes to energy policy, the United States has been a sleeping giant; but the giant is beginning to stir. And with the passage of this legislation today, we'll awaken to a new era of possibility. That's what makes this so exciting.

This bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, is going to create a new framework and new space so that ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs can jump into that space and take us to the next level. And what most excites me is that this is about the future. The next generation is going to take these clean technologies, they're going to take this knowledge, and they're going to lead us to a new place.

I urge passage of this bill, and I congratulate its architects.

I want to thank Chairman Skelton for yielding. I want to salute him for his work on this bill and for including an amendment that we crafted that would promote efficiency and effectiveness within the Federal acquisition process. This amendment would create a procurement professionalism advisory panel.

My interest in this comes from two perspectives. One was serving on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee last session and seeing many instances of fraud and abuse that we can do something about, and also working with contractors in my district who want to make sure that their partner on the other side of the table, the Federal Government, is strong and has good procurement.

This advisory panel will focus on whether the government's procurement personnel have adequate resources, are adhering to high ethical standards, are receiving high-quality professional development and otherwise are being the best they can be, which will ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the procurement process.