Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity for all of us, both Democrats and Republicans, to talk openly and frankly about the fact that we are at a point in our history where we need to not only spend money, but we have to be smarter, too. I think too often in Washington we are thinking that our degree of efficiency or compassion is based on how much we spend and not how well we accomplish our goals. I would only ask my colleague who just addressed us to join with some of us who say that we need to be smarter. As a former member of the Air Resources Board in California, I can show you studies that have been done by very noted research people that point out--one study alone that says we could reduce fuel and emission problems by 22.6 percent. But to do that, we not only have to address what is the private sector doing in Detroit in building cars, but what is the government sector doing in controlling those cars when they are on the road. One of the biggest problems we have is Washington sends money out for projects, but we do not hold those projects to a standard that has been upgraded to 21st century standards. An example: There are studies that have shown that 97 percent of all stop signs that you and I stop for every day, Mr. Speaker, don't have to be stop signs. Those could be yield signs. Now granted, there are those sites with sight-distance problems where you have to have stops. But when you and I go drive down out of our home tomorrow morning, think about when you stop, why are you stopping? It's not for safety. Lord forbid, it's not for fuel consumption or for environmental conservation; it is because the law says you have to stop, even though there is a cost in environmental and economic impact. The safety factor is not the factor being determined. It is easier for a local government to give you a ticket on a stop sign, or at least that perception is there, when a yield sign is just as enforceable. A good example is why is a four-way stop always the easiest and the cheapest way for a government to be able to control an intersection when everybody knows that a roundabout has been proven to be a major source of safety and environmental and economic benefit. The fact is that communities that have been brave enough to try new traffic control, like the new computer-engineered roundabouts and traffic circles, have not only proven that it reduces congestion by a huge amount because it stops the queuing approach; it also eliminates that pollution that stop signs cause by five times more polluting than allowing somebody to drive through an intersection at low speed, that roundabouts do. But it also eliminates, as the gentleman who just spoke brought up, the safety factor. A roundabout eliminates the T-boning where fatalities occur. Actually, by going to the next generation of traffic control, we can not only address fuel consumption and pollution, but we can make our roads safer. So I really call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's look at making sure that when we send this money over to the States and the cities and the counties--and I was a mayor. I ran a transit system, the San Diego trolley system. We helped build that system. We need to make sure that we are doing the right thing in government. And one of the things that we are not doing in government that we can do and lead through example, if we truly care about public safety, environmental protection and fuel efficiency, if we really want to lead, let's not mandate on the private sector that they have to do something if we're not willing to look at our colleagues here in government and say: We have to reform ourselves. I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's work together. Let's start saying, look, local governments, counties and cities; the environmental, economic, and safety impacts of you not upgrading your traffic control to an efficient system is costing our economy 22.6 percent more than it should. It is costing our environment 22.6 percent that it shouldn't. And the fact is, we don't know how many lives we can save until we are willing to do that. I call on both sides, let's get together and work on this and set an example for the rest of the world.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let me say as somebody who had the privilege for 18 years to be in local government, I think those of us in the Federal Government have to understand that there are jurisdictions and priorities that we need to set. Some people believe that it is as much a responsibility of the Federal Government to hire police officers as it is to maintain a military. I'm sorry. The constitutional line for those of us who are mayors and county chairmen recognized that we need the Federal Government to concentrate on our responsibilities--defending our borders, defending our national security. Those of us that served at local government would be able to address their issues much more appropriately and have a lot less burden. But I really want to speak about the opportunities we have to work in a bipartisan effort. When we talk about budget reduction, rather than denying Americans the right to live in the United States unless they buy certain insurance, why aren't we talking about doing cost reductions like California has done, not exactly a right-wing legislature? MICRA there has had such an impact on the cost of insurance on physicians that an OB/GYN in Los Angeles pays 30 to 40 percent less for insurance than the same doctor in New York. Now, you can't tell me the cost of living is that much different, except for the fact that Sacramento has recognized that tort reform and limitations of trial lawyers' impact on health care is an essential one. If the legislature of California can agree to maintain that, why can't we work together to address those issues? If we're talking about wanting to reduce costs, why didn't the health bill allow Americans, rather than taking away the rights to live in the country, the freedom to buy across State lines? That is well within our jurisdiction as a Federal body. Why didn't we give freedom the answer to be able to reduce costs rather than talking about taking away the rights of Americans to live here? That is a real scary concept that we can't join on tort reform-- and let's face it, the liability issue is sort of an interesting one. The Federal Government and States can actually address issues that say that somebody who is----

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me point this out. I know this because I was at the county running a health care system and supervising the health care system for over 3 million people. The Federal Government has special protection for physicians if they're in community clinics that we do not give to other physicians. The Federal Government accepts the situations where somebody on Medicaid has more right to sue their physician than the men and women in uniform in this country. And I challenge you to tell me how it's justifiable that, if somebody doesn't pay for their medical costs in the military, they don't get to sue their doctor, but somebody who is on welfare and public assistance, they get to sue them. Can we talk about bringing those issues together and addressing the ability for a lawyer to get into an operating room is not as important as the right or the need of physicians to be able to do their job that is so essential? And I want to close with this. We have not been talking about health care in the last year. We've been talking about health insurance. And the crisis that's coming down this pike is that in 10 years you may be able to call the health insurance people, but you won't be able to find a doctor unless you call 1-800 and get it over the phone.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, one of our Nation's most core beliefs is that everyone is equal before the law. From the richest men and women, to the poorest we are all subject to the laws of our country. Today though, we have gathered to debate a bill, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, that would undermine that very principle and reward individuals who have broken our laws at the expense of those who have followed them. The so-called ``DREAM'' Act, a bill that would establish a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants as old as 29, as long as they arrived before age 16, based on the promise that they will complete two years of college or serve in our armed forces. Importantly, for the first time ever, this bill would equate a willingness to serve in defense of our country with just two years of a college education. This vote is a slap in the face to the dedicated men and women in our military who have spent, in many cases, years working toward legal immigration to our country. Moreover, it sends a mixed message to those one day hoping to call themselves Americans, effectively encouraging them to come to this country illegally and break our laws. Unfortunately, all too often we have seen the direct impact these mixed messages have had, which have put would-be immigrants at great risk. This includes the 72 would-be illegal immigrants who were murdered by drug cartels in Mexico this August as well as the human trafficking ring that was broken up in Phoenix last week where nearly a dozen smuggled children were being held for ransom. The immigration system in our country is undoubtedly broken. Today, there are more than 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S., but this bill does nothing to address the underlying causes of illegal immigration or create a single job during the largest economic recession in more than a generation. Instead, this bill proposes a massive amnesty for what the Congressional Budget Office projects will be 1.1 million individuals at a time when we already have 9.8 percent unemployment. I suppose it is fitting then that the House had to break its own rules to even begin debate on the DREAM Act. Earlier today, the House passed a resolution that exempts the DREAM Act from the rules that we obey in the House of Representatives in order to bring this bill up with less than one day's notice and without any opportunity for amendment. Beyond that, this Congress has failed to even hold a hearing on the DREAM Act over the last 2 years. And now, we have been asked to vote on this legislation in the dead of night and in the waning days of this Congress and let me be clear: this is unacceptable. The American people deserve better than this. They deserve an open debate before the people where there is an opportunity for amendments to be made. They deserve the rule of law to be followed. As the proud son of an Australian immigrant, I firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. For that reason, I strongly oppose the DREAM Act and the circumstances in which it was brought up for debate. Going forward, I will do everything in my power to ensure Congress focuses on real immigration reform that enforces the rule of law and addresses the root causes of illegal immigration: employers who hire illegal labor.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the gentlelady from the Federal district's proposal. I think that not only does this fall within the category of article I, section 8, but I think that it also falls into a category that we would be more familiar with, especially those of us in California, where you have over 400 cities that have these type of regulations regulated by the State legislature, not by the city councils, basically limiting how often and when you can move. I think it's quite appropriate that we review this and have the final say on this, but I think it is appropriate that we modify it as proposed by the gentlelady from the Federal district and make sure we address this thing appropriately. Just as a State legislature would do that for any other city, I think it's appropriate that this body at this time make this modification. With that, I will again ask for support for the proposal. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6237, which is appropriate, seeing I am one of the 52 original cosponsors to the item, and I strongly urge support for the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady from the District supporting the bill. Let me just point out as an interesting procedural note, for Mr. Thompson to bring this before us he had to get 52 cosponsors. The House rules require that everyone in the State sign on. So where Delaware may only need one or Nevada may need only three Members, those of us in California have a very high threshold we have to fulfill to be able to take this, and Mr. Thompson took this action. It is something that we should all consider in the future: Should this judge be required to have 52 Members of the House cosponsor a bill when someone from another State may need only two or three or four or five? So it is an interesting part of our process here. Some people may say that it is unfair, but it happens to be the House rules, and the Congressmen have to live within those rules. I strongly support the passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1475. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1428, recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5758 and strongly request support for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1529, commending Bob Sheppard in his long and respected career. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the honor of yielding to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) so that she has plenty of time to address this item.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5655, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 6278, the Kingman and Heritage Islands Act, and would just ask for support for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 5367, the D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2010, and I would ask for support for the bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge support for Senate bill 3567, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H. Res. 1494, and ask for support of the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6387, and I think it is quite appropriate that we pass this bill. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving as a fellow mayor with Mayor Sam back in the late seventies. We actually served in the League of California Cities together. I just find it interesting that all these years later I stand here on the House floor voting on a post office named after a colleague of mine who, though he lived almost 1,000 miles away, was a fellow mayor in my State at one end, while I was at the southern end. I would ask that we support H.R. 6387. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask again for support of H.R. 6387. Seeing that this is our last bill for at least the foreseeable future, I would like to just point out I think there is one thing that all of us have seen, and today probably is a good example, especially those who have been watching. This process that we have gone through today is one that we have gone back into over the last decade, and a lot of Members have raised the issue, is this the most prudent way of us handling these procedures? I know the gentlelady from the Federal district has raised issues about how to streamline it and expedite the process. I think these issues of the resolutions and the way we are naming the post offices are ones that need to be reviewed, and hopefully both sides in the new Congress will be willing to look at this and say, look, historically this type of process has been used to buy time for leadership to be able to try to get individuals to vote their way, not necessarily the way the district constituency wanted them to vote. I think that this is one place that we should be able to have a frank discussion in January. Hopefully we will see this type of process be put in, let's just say the trash heap of history, and we go to a much more expedited process that talks about substance. I don't think any of us were very happy with what happened in the last few years while we were doing resolutions and naming post offices while there were major budgetary and financial crises going on. I think we can all agree, especially after what we just went through today, let's try to look in January at having a better process that talks about more substantive issues. Even though these are important to the individuals involved, the Nation is in a very critical time, and for us to be spending the majority of our time in the last few years actually doing things that the average citizen would say were not critical, I think that this is one time we can get together and say this process needs to be reformed, and hopefully in January we will not be going through a day like we just did. I want to thank the gentlewoman from the Federal district for working with me today on these items. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.