Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman and also the ranking member, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Herger, the ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as Mr. Levin for the work that they have done to put before us a bill that we can support in a bipartisan fashion. I think the gentleman from New Jersey said it best: There is nothing in life that is free. The longer we continue to talk about trade agreements as if they are free, we miss the mark. It is not about a free trade deal, it is having a deal that is good for both sides of that agreement. And in this deal, while it is not perfect, we find improvements were made that for the first time in the history of this Congress will give us a chance to vote on something that says that we will treat workers as well as we treat widgets. We will treat people as well as we treat products. We will protect our workers as well as we protect these widgets. That is something we have never done before on the floor of this House. For me, that makes this deal worth voting for because while we would like to do much better, the perfect should not get in the way of making progress. Here what we have is a bipartisan deal that will move us forward. It is difficult to believe, but in my first 14 years in this Congress, I saw us have a policy and debate on trade descend to the point where it became a partisan tool that made it very difficult for all of us as Americans who represent 300 million other Americans to come forward together. This is a chance for us to work together not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans to move forward an agenda for the people who work in this country who produce so many of those goods, for the people who produce all of those phenomenal products that make this a great Nation. It is our chance to prove that trade is an American agenda, not a political agenda, not a partisan agenda. I am looking forward to the chance to move forward even better trade deals that recognize that we have to protect and promote the rights of workers.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Ladies and gentlemen, we would not send our troops into battle without the best training, armor or weapons. And in that same vein, in today's hypercompetitive global economy, we must know that our workers are the best trained, equipped with the best tools to challenge and excel in the face of that competition. You name the time or the place, in a fair fight, give me an American worker at my side, and I know I'll come out okay. But the tragedy here is that, just as we have learned that too many of our troops deployed to Iraq without sufficient body armor or vehicle protection and too many Iraq soldiers have come home to face deplorable or indifferent health care treatment as veterans, for years, too many Americans, as workers, have faced bureaucratic indifference and roadblocks in securing training and adjustment assistance after losing a job due to expanded trade. Today, we plan to change that. H.R. 3920 doubles job training opportunities so no American worker will face getting in that line and finding out that when he or she gets up there the money's run out for training. This bill also includes service employees and public employees in the protection, which we haven't had before. If you're a truck driver who loses a job because your company, that other company tells you, well, we no longer need your trucking services because that company's now moving to another country, you've lost your job because of trade, and you should be included as well. We make sure that that employer who has to begrudgingly tell that employee ``I have to let you go,'' that that employer can make sure that if it's a main customer that went abroad, you will be protected as an employee. Mr. Speaker, this is a time for us to stand up for American workers. It's not their fault. They should be covered, just as our troops should be covered.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Monday, October 22, 2007, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall votes 983, 984 and 985. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall votes 983, 984 and 985.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and privilege that I rise today to pay tribute to the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, California. On October 21, 2007, community members and leaders throughout Los Angeles will gather at the Southwest Museum to celebrate the institution's 100 years of service, historical significance, and role as an educational pillar in the worldwide community. The Southwest Museum is the second oldest museum west of the Mississippi River, and the first museum in Los Angeles. Initially located in the Hamburger Building at Eighth Street and Broadway in downtown Los Angeles, the Southwest Museum moved into its historic home above the Arroyo Seco in 1914, opening its doors to the public in August of that year. The beautiful Mission/Spanish Colonial Revival style building, designed by Sumner Hunt and Silas Bums, has stood as a cultural and educational landmark and destination in northeast Los Angeles since that time. The Southwest Museum was established in 1907 by Charles Lummis and the Southwest Society, who originally conceived it as a museum of science, history, and art. By the 1920s, the mission of the Southwest Museum had narrowed to study the history and culture of America's indigenous peoples. Over the course of time, the Southwest Museum has assembled one of the world's largest and most important collections of Native American material, representing indigenous peoples, spanning the breadth of North America. Its 250,000 ethnographic, archaeological, and historic artifacts comprise one of the largest nongovernmental collections of this type. On May 27, 2003, the Southwest Museum merged with the Autry Museum of Western Heritage to create the Autry National Center. Through conservation of the collections, work on rehabilitation of the historic building, and plans for exhibitions, as well as cultural and educational programming, the Autry National Center is working to secure a vibrant life for the Southwest Museum's next 100 years. I am pleased to serve as a charter member of The Southwest Society, a newly established group committed to restoring and revitalizing the Southwest Museum in the vision of its founder, Charles Lummis. Through the years I have been fortunate to hold a number of community town hall meetings and art competition ceremonies at the Southwest Museum. Each time I visit this site, I am awestruck by the combination of the buildings' architecture, the natural oak tree-covered hillside, and the display of amazing artifacts--it really takes me back in time. When I go to the Southwest Museum, I find myself slowing down, and taking time to pause and wonder about eras and peoples past. We desperately need such historic treasures preserved in our communities and as part of The Southwest Society, I am committed to helping transform these preeminent historic resources into premiere cultural and educational destinations for even more Angelenos and visitors alike. Madam Speaker, while I opened by highlighting the Southwest Museum's century-long service to the world wide community, I want to close by recognizing the nearby Northeast Los Angeles community neighbors' dedication and passion for the Southwest Museum. Many share an intense loyalty and kinship with this historic institution in their neighborhood. They've come to the museum as school children and then shared the displays with their own children. As these neighbors go about their daily errands, they gaze up to see the Southwest Museum's Caracol Tower understanding that this institution is part of their fabric of life. I know that many of these neighbors will be joining in this Sunday's celebration of the Southwest Museum's 100-year anniversary, and I also wish to salute them for their steadfast loyalty in seeking to preserve their wonderful neighbor.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, September 18, 2007 and Wednesday, October 3, 2007, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall votes 873 and 935. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 935, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 873.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, August 4, 2007, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call numbers 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845 and 846. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following roll call votes 837 and 846, and ``nay'' on the following roll call votes 836, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844 and 845.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The CHAMP Act is a victory for children's health, it is a victory for seniors' health, and it is a victory for American taxpayers who expect us to be fiscally responsible. Why shouldn't 11 million American children from working families in this country have the same access to health care that the children of every single Member of Congress has? The taxpayers pay our salary and they make it possible for us to get health care benefits. Why shouldn't 11 million American children who live with parents who are working day to day have the same access? Like our victory this year in increasing the minimum wage for America's workers, expanding health care coverage to 5 million children is long overdue. My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle voted a few years ago to add a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that costs about eight times as much as the benefit we would offer to the 11 million children would cost. Why not do it for our kids? We are doing this in a way that is fiscally responsible. The CHAMP Act will not add a single cent to the Federal deficit that the Bush administration has created. This is sound policy. Let's vote for the CHAMP Act for our kids and our seniors.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the such time as I may consume. I would say to my friend from Georgia that what he is trying to accomplish has already been included in the bill, and I would urge my friend from Georgia to consider that this looks like he is trying to target just one country in particular at the expense of American workers who happened to have worked for years in Mexico. With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment and stand to claim the time.

Mr. BECERRA. I say to my friend from Michigan, as he knows, and we are working through the process in the Ways and Means Committee to try to figure out how we reform Medicare to make it more available to seniors throughout this country, and at the same time Medicare Advantage to find out a way to finally fund at an adequate level to fund the State health insurance program that is funded by the Federal Government, so that we can somehow find a way to cover the 9 million children in this country who still receive no health insurance coverage, that this amendment seems to do two things. One is unnecessary, and that is to say that we will try to make sure that no one is denied access to any coverage under a Medicare Advantage plan. I know of nothing that would deprive any individual who seeks to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan that opportunity to do so. Secondly, it seems geared to spook seniors who might not know what's going on if they see language or hear that there is some provision in law through the appropriations process that would say that we can't deprive them of an opportunity to apply for a particular type of Medicare coverage. It might seem to lend some credence to those who are trying to make seniors believe that they are going to be deprived of the Medicare benefits. There is nothing further from the truth. In fact, every effort that is being made, as the gentleman knows, in the Ways and Means Committee is to actually enhance the benefits that our seniors will receive under Medicare. What we have found is over the years that many Medicare providers are finding it very difficult to stay within the Medicare system because of the lack of reimbursement, or so at least they claim. And in many cases we do find areas of the country that are finding fewer and fewer providers available to Medicare recipients to be able to access their health care. I would say to the gentleman that if indeed this amendment is targeted at something in particular, it would be great if we could have that identified. But at this stage, I see nothing in the current law or anything on the horizon emanating from the Congress and certainly from our committee that we both serve on, the Ways and Means Committee, that would in any way jeopardize any individual's opportunity to access Medicare coverage through the Medicare Advantage plans that are available. And for that reason I would hope that, if nothing else, seniors who might be watching this debate at this time take nothing from this particular amendment to indicate to them that they should have any reason to fear that anyone would try to deprive them of their Medicare benefits. In fact, what I think they will find is that under the program that will be provided or will come to the Ways and Means Committee will enhance seniors' opportunities to obtain not just adequate medical services through Medicare but enhanced services through Medicare. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BECERRA. I am opposed to the amendment, yes.

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I would like to say to my friend, Mr. Gingrey, and I think he knows, that there was an amendment accepted in committee that addressed any concern that anyone might have with regard to any type of totalization agreement that this country might sign with a partner, friend, or ally which would require that any totalization agreement conform with existing American law and that no law, including immigration law, could be violated. Secondly, I think the gentleman is aware or should be aware that there is no way under existing law that anyone who does not have authorization to work in this country, including undocumented immigrants, qualify for receipt of Social Security benefits. Therefore, I would say to the gentleman that his amendment is not only unnecessary, not only overly prescriptive and not only harmful to American workers who are called to service in other countries, including Mexico, and as a result of their service, whether privately or publicly in these other countries, they are paying into a Social Security system which they may never have a chance to benefit from. And when they come home to the U.S., they may never qualify with enough credits, 40 quarters, to qualify for American Social Security benefits. We would harm those American workers here in this country under this amendment. But beyond all that, I think what the gentleman tried to explains with regard to his concerns relating to undocumented immigration are totally off base because existing law would not allow anyone who works in this country without authorization to collect those Social Security benefits which he seeks to protect. I would also say that of our 10 largest trading partners, we already have totalization agreements with seven of them. Two of those trading partners don't qualify for totalization agreements, Taiwan and China, because they don't have comparable Social Security systems to ours; and, therefore, we would not have a way to have a compatible system to exchange those benefits among our workers. The only one of those top trading partners with whom we have not yet finalized a totalization agreement is Mexico. We happen to have totalization agreements with 21 of our allies, partners, and close friends and neighbors, including countries like Korea, Chile, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Spain, and Canada. A totalization agreement with any country, including Mexico, must go through this Congress before it could ever be approved. It would have to go through a public hearing that would be held by the committee of jurisdiction, and each body in this Congress would have an opportunity to vote for disapproval in which case the totalization agreement signed by any administration would not go into effect. Finally, we must remember that there are millions of American workers who have worked abroad who are impacted by not having a totalization agreement. The estimates are that American workers would benefit to the tune of $140 million, and that is on a yearly basis, if we had a totalization agreement with Mexico because of the large number of Americans who go and work in Mexico. How much would it cost us to finalize this agreement? The estimates are it would cost us about $105 million, less than we would collect for our American workers. And for comparison purposes, I should mention that the totalization agreement we have with Canada cost us $197 million in the year 2002 alone. So this is a good deal for American workers because many of them have given a lot of their service, good service, to this country and other places outside of the U.S. They should have an opportunity to benefit from our Social Security system. They should not be deprived of that opportunity simply because they didn't fulfill those 40 quarters all in the U.S. That is what totalization agreements are about. They have to benefit our country, otherwise they wouldn't be reached. For anyone to say otherwise is to mask an argument, perhaps the issue of immigration, at the expense of American workers who are trying to get their pension and future retirement benefits under Social Security. So I would hope that the Members here in the House would recognize that we won't reach any totalization agreement with any country unless it is in our interest. Secondly, it shouldn't be just one country that is singled out if a totalization agreement is bad. It should be with any country that it doesn't benefit us to have this agreement with. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 540) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in this bipartisan effort to try to move forward legislation which is not only important but precious to many people in this country who are keen to be American citizens. H.R. 2608, the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, is something that won't affect most Americans because most of us don't have to worry about this. But if you are a Russian Jew who was escaping persecution in the former Soviet Union, if you're one of the minority populations in Somalia that escaped the persecution going on there, or if you're a former Yugoslav who was trying to leave the devastation that was occurring in the former Yugoslavian countries that now have become part of the Balkans and the war that we saw in the Balkans, or if you're an Iraqi Kurd who is trying to escape the ill effects of what was going on during the Saddam Hussein era, then perhaps you'd understand why this is so important, because these are individuals who, because of the good graces of the American people, have an opportunity to start a life here, even at their late stage in life, and have an opportunity to recognize and appreciate our freedoms. But for too many of these refugees, that might all come to an end if we don't come to their rescue, because they did not expect that, all of a sudden, because of the massive waiting line there is for people who are applying for citizenship, legal immigrants who are applying for citizenship, that all of a sudden their cut off of SSI benefits would imperil their ability to pay their rent. Or they didn't expect that, all of a sudden, because of the fact that the paperwork was more difficult than they thought to fill out, or the fee was more expensive than they could afford to pay to be able to become U.S. citizens, that all of a sudden they run out of time with their SSI benefits. This bipartisan legislation strikes the right chord. It says, we recognize that you came to this country fleeing persecution, fleeing threats of death, and you're elderly or disabled, or perhaps both, and we need to do something to try to show you that we meant what we said when we were taking you in as refugees. I think this is legislation that really brings us together, not as Democrats or Republicans, not as urban Members or rural Members, but it brings us together as Americans who recognize there are many people around the world who still look at America as the beacon for the rest of the world. And I hope that what we are able to do here, at no taxpayer expense, no taxpayer expense, is to continue to show the rest of the world that we do extend a hand to those who are facing persecution. So I want to applaud Chairman McDermott and Ranking Member Weller for their great work in putting together a bipartisan bill that should receive the unanimous support of this House.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act (MMNTA) of 2007. This legislation is cosponsored by my friends and colleagues Representatives Michael Castle (R-DE), Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). The MMNTA of 2007 authorizes Medicare to expand the use of medical nutrition therapy to treat any disease for which empirical research has shown clinical value. The American Dietetic Association has endorsed this important legislation. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences found that medical nutrition therapy is effective as part of a comprehensive approach to the treatment and management of the following conditions: diabetes, heart failure, kidney failure, dyslipidemia (a total cholesterol condition as well as other abnormalities in blood lipid levels) and hypertension. In response to this study, Congress allowed Medicare to reimburse medical nutrition therapy for beneficiaries with diabetes and renal diseases. Specifically, the benefit Congress added includes an initial assessment of a beneficiary's nutrition and lifestyle, nutrition counseling, information regarding managing lifestyle factors that affect diet and follow-up visits to monitor the beneficiary's progress. Medicare covers three hours of one-on-one counseling services the first year, and two hours each year after that. The benefit provides additional treatment hours when the beneficiary's condition, treatment, or diagnosis changes and a physician refers the beneficiary. A physician must prescribe these services and renew them yearly if continuing treatment is needed. In 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report that reiterated that medical nutrition therapy is effective as part of a comprehensive approach to the management and treatment of dyslipidemia (referred to as hyperlidemia in the HHS report) and hypertension. This study's corroboration of 10M's earlier findings demonstrates that many Medicare beneficiaries who could benefit from this treatment cannot access it through Medicare. Moreover, expanding the use of medical nutrition therapy has the potential to be a cost effective means of providing health care. Recently, the Pfizer Corporation piloted a 6-month nutrition and exercise intervention program for employees with hyperlipidemia. The study concluded that this intervention reduced Low-density Lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol 12 months later. And, the participating employees had their risk for heart disease reduced by 19 percent. The intervention could save an estimated $728,722 annually if offered to the entire Pfizer population. Unfortunately, the method that Congress established to determine eligibility for medical nutrition therapy is flawed. Congress specified in law which diseases should receive medical nutrition therapy instead of leaving that judgment to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as is the custom for other benefits provided by the program. CMS has the experts and infrastructure to make these important decisions based on empirical research. As part of its administration of the Medicare program, CMS determines the items and services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury suffered by Medicare beneficiaries. CMS makes national coverage determinations by evaluating medical literature and data and information on the effectiveness and appropriateness of medical items and services that are being considered for Medicare coverage. During this process, the public has the opportunity to provide comments. In some cases, CMS' own research is supplemented by an outside assessment and/or consultation with a Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MedCAC). A MedCAC consists of outside experts who supplement CMS career staff examination of an issue. These committees examine the strength of available evidence and make recommendations to CMS on coverage decisions. By passing this legislation, Congress would increase access to medical nutrition therapy to Medicare beneficiaries through a thoughtful and scientific approach. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have the appropriate access to medical nutrition therapy.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 18, 2007 and Wednesday, June 20, 2007, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 499, 500, 501, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525 and 526. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following rollcall votes: 499, 500, 501, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 521 and 526, and ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: 517, 518, 519, 520, 522, 523, 524 and 525.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 5, 2007, Tuesday, June 6, 2007 and Tuesday, June 12, 2007, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439 and 459. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following rollcall votes 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 and 439 and ``no'' on 459.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, today, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall No. 482. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 482. Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joan Lundy, a passionate community activist and loving family woman, who passed away on June 7, 2007. Family and friends will gather on Saturday, June 16, in Los Angeles to honor Joan's full life which was marked by dedicated community leadership, a devoted family and tireless advocacy. Mother Teresa is known to have said: ``Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.'' Joan never waited for leaders to enact what she knew was right, instead she became a leader and influenced people one-by-one throughout her life. When she passed away at the age of 68 she had bestowed her strength and wisdom unto many through the years. In the early 1980s, after raising her five children, Joan put herself through California State University of Los Angeles' geology program, and went on to practice engineering geology for many years--a career in which she thrived. Joan possessed a passion for fairness and social justice throughout her life--she served as the president of her community parent teacher association and worked to desegregate schools in Altadena. Her community activism continued to flourish when she moved to Northeast Los Angeles in 1987. She led the Glassell Park Improvement Association for more than a decade and was president from 1996 to 1999. Joan spearheaded the effort to adorn neighborhood streets with beautiful, flowering jacaranda trees. The rows of jacarandas that were planted along San Fernando Road and Eagle Rock Boulevard have become a well- recognized symbol of Glassell Park. In the spirit of community pride and improvement, Joan negotiated the upgrading of Glassell Park's community center and the completion of many public works projects. Joan was the best kind of constituent any elected representative could ask for: she not only committed herself to creating solutions for the community and presenting them to her representatives, she also knew how to mobilize her friends and neighbors toward civic engagement. I extend my deepest sympathies to her beloved husband, Bill; her children: Beth Oberholtzer, John Oberholtzer, Laurie Oberholtzer, Margie Oberholtzer, and the late Tim Oberholtzer; and her 10 grandchildren. Madam Speaker, it is with heartfelt sorrow, yet deep pride and admiration, that I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Joan Lundy. Her influence lives on, especially in those hearts and minds she touched so deeply in Glassell Park and Northeast Los Angeles.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2206, the revised Iraq Accountability Act. This legislation fully funds the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, provides health care to our active duty soldiers and veterans, holds the Iraqi Government accountable, and continues to pressure President George W. Bush to change the course and responsibly end our military involvement in Iraq. The American people have spoken clearly time and again that the United States must find an end to its commitment in Iraq. Last month, Congress responded to the American people by sending President Bush a bill that required him to be accountable in his execution of the Iraq war. He responded to that legislation by vetoing it and asking for a blank check for his Iraqi misadventure. How symbolic that the President vetoes the Iraq Accountability Act on May 1, 2007, the 4-year anniversary of his ``Mission Accomplished'' speech. In an attempt to compromise with President Bush, the House of Representatives has revised its legislation. H.R. 2206 provides over $42 billion immediately to fund the operations and equipment needs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. To ensure real accountability over execution of the war, the bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress by July 13 regarding the success of the Iraqi Government in meeting security and political benchmarks. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush proposed these very benchmarks in January 2007. These benchmarks include provisions such as eliminating militia control of local security, disarming the militias, and enacting a bill to equitably share oil revenue among all Iraqis. After the submission of this report, both houses of Congress would vote on whether to release an additional $52.8 billion for military operations and equipment in Iraq. Before such a vote, H.R. 2206 would require an important vote on an amendment to use these funds only to plan and execute a redeployment of troops from Iraq in 180 days. This is the crucial vote: will we finally change course in Iraq and represent the aspirations and the best interests of the American people? This legislation requires the President to confront the realities of the Iraq War and take account of the facts on the ground. Since President Bush has shown a tin ear by failing to listen to the American public's discontent concerning the Iraq War, it is the responsibility of Congress to lead America out of this war. By sending this strong piece of legislation to the president, we are one step closer to reaching that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to bring accountability in Iraq and provide the necessary help to our troops and veterans at home.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, more than anything else I'd like to thank Chairman Mike Honda from California for organizing tonight's special order to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month because it's important for us to not only say it today, but have it recorded in the Congressional Record for all time that we appreciate what members of American society have done for us, especially members, this month we want to celebrate of Asian Pacific American heritage, who are Americans, patriotic, hardworking, and in every respect trying to live the American dream. And so I stand here with a great deal of pride as a Member of Congress who represents a portion of the city of Los Angeles, a very diverse district with a substantial Asian Pacific American population. I stand here as a very proud member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus' Executive Committee. And I also stand here very proud to say that on many occasions I've had the opportunity to author legislation very important to the Asian and Pacific American community here in this country, whether it has been the issue of reuniting families of Korean descent who have not seen family members in North Korea for many, many years, or whether it's been legislation to try to help obtain justice for Asians of Latino descent who were deprived of their rights back during World War II and never, never received the recognition they deserved to get their rights and their property back. I had that opportunity. But rather than talk about the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act which began the whole process of discrimination and racism towards Asian and Pacific Americans in this country, or rather than dwell much longer on the history of the internment of Japanese Americans, some 120,000 back during World War II for no reason, without due process, when, in fact, we found out that Japanese Americans served this country proudly and patriotically. In fact, they were among the most decorated of American soldiers during World War II. And rather than talk about, as I just mentioned, the plight of Filipino soldiers during World War II, who as Filipino veterans, served under the American flag, yet, by an act of Congress in 1946, were deprived of the rights to veterans benefits in this country, let me talk about something else, and not in general terms. Let me talk to you a little bit about America's leaders today and tomorrow. Just yesterday I had the opportunity to award the winner of my Congressional Arts Competition, which we do every year, so the one winner in my district in high school who has an opportunity to present his or her piece of art work in the Capitol of the United States is introduced on that day of the selection. And that was yesterday. My winner, for the 31st Congressional District, was Julie Lee, a high school student in my congressional district who did a phenomenal piece of art work. She will be a leader tomorrow. We know it not just because of her artistic talents, but because she came forward to participate in this process. I could name the various military academy nominees that I've sent off to, whether it's West Point or the Air Force Academy of Japanese, Chinese or Korean American descent that I've had the pleasure and honor to send on to become leaders of this country. Or I could simply talk about someone by the name of Christine Oh, who happens to be a legislative assistant in my Congressional office here, or Henry Truong, who happens to be my executive assistant here in my Washington, D.C. office, who many would consider my gatekeeper because he decides what my schedule looks like; or perhaps Melvin Tabilas in my district office in Los Angeles, who is one of my field representatives who helps me manage an area that has some 650,000 people there to try to make sure we give the people in my district the coverage they need. Or perhaps I could mention the names of people like Stuart Kwoh, who has been a champion for civil rights and simply the rights of Americans, especially those of Asian Pacific American descent in Los Angeles through his work with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. Or I could speak to you about Grace Shimizu, who has been a champion to have restored to those Japanese Latin Americans the rights they lost during World War II through the organization Campaign For Justice, which she is a part of and leads. Or I could mention Hyepin Im, who is the leader of the Korean Churches for Community Development in the Los Angeles area, now a national organization, which tries to help, through the Korean churches throughout this country, to bring Korean Americans forward and to receive the benefits of what this society offers to Americans. Or perhaps I could mention Joel Jacinto, who is the Director of the Search to involve Filipino Americans, SIPA, an organization which truly goes out into the community, especially in the Filipino American community in Los Angeles to make sure that whether it's on education, housing, health care issues, SIPA is there to offer Filipino Americans those services. Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Honda we say, thank you for letting us have this opportunity to talk about the achievements, the accomplishments of people of Asian Pacific and American descent. Clearly, these are Americans who have persevered and excelled in this country. We could talk about the difficulties of discrimination and racism, the violence that has been experienced by many. But rather than that, I think it's better, most fitting to talk about today's leaders, and tomorrow's leaders in this country. So to one of today's leaders, Congressman Mike Honda, I say thank you for letting us talk today about tomorrow's leaders in this country as well. And with that, with great pride in helping to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Medicare Anesthesiology Teaching Funding Restoration Act of 2007. This legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Darlene Hooley (D-OR) and Pete Sessions (R-TX). This bill would restore 100 percent payment of the Medicare physician fee schedule (PFS) for teaching anesthesiologists involved in training physician residents in two concurrent anesthesia cases. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has endorsed this important legislation. Paying teaching anesthesiologists 100 percent of the PFS for two concurrent anesthesia cases was the policy of Medicare until 1994. In that year, the Health Care Financing Agency (now called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) issued a rule reducing the Medicare payment to teaching anesthesiologists involved in training physician residents in two concurrent anesthesia cases to 50 percent for the second case. This rule has reduced the financial viability of medical schools and hospitals which have teaching anesthesiology programs. Since the 1994 rule change, 31 anesthesiology residency programs have closed. An ASA survey of anesthesiology residency programs found that the average program was losing $400,000 per year partially as a result of the payment reduction. Some programs serving larger Medicare populations report losses in excess of $1 million per year. The UCLA program reported annual losses in excess of $600,000. Many programs receive subsidies from their medical schools or universities to offset these losses. However, some programs are experiencing additional losses as local commercial health care providers, including United and Blue Cross/Blue Shield in selected areas, drop full payments for overlapping cases and adopt the Medicare 50 percent policy for their commercial beneficiaries. By passing this legislation, Congress would increase the flow of Medicare funds into these important teaching programs while also providing the programs an opportunity to dispute pay reductions by health care commercial providers. By increasing access to well-trained anesthesiologists, the ultimate result will be healthier patients. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure that Americans have access to the highest quality anesthesiology services.