Brian Bilbray

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored and proud to be here today as a cosponsor of this bill. This is a bill that will protect and defend religious symbols on war memorials from Washington to San Diego. I think we need to remember that one thing that was a foundation of this country was religious tolerance. And this bill is addressing the fact that there are those who refuse to express religious tolerance and are actually after any symbol, no matter how traditionally accepted and how universally accepted by the community as a general recognition of service and devotion and memorial, that they would attack it if they could find a religious connotation in any form. Mind you, our Constitution protects the freedom of religion, not from it. But I think that this issue is one that has gone so far that we're actually talking about tearing crosses down over war memorials, and I don't think any American across the board who really believes in tolerance would support that. I'm very honored to have four plaques at this memorial in San Diego. Frankly, I have a father, a stepfather, a brother, and a stepbrother whose plaques are at the memorial at Mt. Soledad. This is a family effort. I remember as a child, my father pointing up at the cross at Mt. Soledad and that memorial that it symbolizes and said it's one of the few in the country to the men and women who died in Korea. Now, I also was very privileged in 2006 to be the cosponsor of a bill with another Duncan Hunter, Duncan's father, that specifically had Congress and the Federal Government come in to save this war memorial. Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to support this bill, if your attitude is that any religious connotation anywhere in the world that is on Federal-controlled property needs to be torn down and destroyed, then you can take that position, but don't stand in these Chambers and point at religious symbols all over in Europe or in San Diego and say they must come down or you will not defend them. If you're going to sit in these Chambers with Moses at one side, Pope Innocent and Pope Gregory on the other, and Calvin, in these Chambers, if you're not going to stand up and demand that this Congress tear those plaques off these walls, then for God sakes, leave our war memorials alone, and don't tear down religious symbols just because you're intolerant and can't stand the fact that there are some of us that respect our war service and respect their faith, but most importantly, respect the heritage that has made America what it is today.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I've got to say, quite frankly, I appreciate the gentleman from American Samoa and his position. If I represented that island, I would be wanting to defend the monopoly that island has in the western Pacific today. But the fact is, as a Nation, we've got to look at not only the great economic impact of this monopoly of forcing boats to travel for thousands of miles to get back to one centralized location because of a political decision here in Washington, but we've also got to look at this fact that the lady from California has an amendment that will address not just the economic impact but what about the environmental. And I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, consider the fact that we talk about greenhouse gasses and emissions, but, as a law, we're requiring these fishing boats to travel for 6 to 7 days over thousands of miles because of our laws here. If we truly want to say we want to reduce emissions, we should reduce the emissions forced by regulation by supporting the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as Americans celebrate Veterans' Day this year it is important to take time and reflect on the infinite contributions and sacrifices the men, women, and families of those who have served in our Armed Forces. Our commitment to veterans should not end with their service, we must show our gratitude by offering them every opportunity to experience the American dream that they fought to protect. With a veteran unemployment rate of 22 percent nationwide, much more needs to be done to create an environment that helps the private sector hire men and women who have served our country in uniform, more than 250,000 of whom live in San Diego County. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Help Inspire and Retrain our Exceptional (HIRE) Veterans Act of 2011 along with my colleague, Congressman John Barrow of Georgia. Over the next two years, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan begin to wind down, more veterans will find themselves searching for jobs in the civilian workforce. One of the biggest obstacles for unemployed veterans is connecting to employers. The HIRE Veterans Act of 2011 helps overcome this obstacle and provides opportunities to valuable members of our community with the resources they need to transition from the armed services to a civilian workforce. This legislation will authorize grants to be awarded by the Department of Commerce to local Chambers of Commerce to create job training, apprenticeship, and internship programs for local veterans. The time to act is now. As part of the record, I am submitting letters of support from the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and the San Diego North Chamber of Commerce. These letters emphasize the importance of this legislation and describe how local Chambers and businesses can help HIRE veterans. Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, November 2, 2011. Hon. Brian Bilbray, Member of Congress, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Bilbray: I am writing to support the proposed Help Inspire and Retrain our Exceptional (HIRE) Veterans Act you are proposing in the upcoming session. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce is the 10th largest Chamber in the State of California and the second largest in San Diego County. We are located adjacent to the large Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton and as such see first-hand the serious unemployment problem facing our young veterans. In response to the problem we have created the Boots in Business Military Mentoring Initiative to allow as many of the 8,000 veterans leaving the service from Camp Pendleton each calendar year to mentor with civilian employers across the county. The main issue facing these veterans is competing for jobs with civilians in the region is their ability to see first- hand the types of jobs in the marketplace and learn what employers are looking for when they hire someone both in experience and education. Our mission is to help military personnel in the last weeks of their active duty term learn about the business world through job shadowing 60 to 90 days prior to their discharge date. By showing them what it's like to work in a variety of professions, local companies will help veterans make smart future career and educational decisions. Our program (a Memorandum of Understanding MOU) is a collaborative effort between the Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and many local businesses that are willing to provide a variety of job shadowing experiences to active military members and their spouses as they prepare to enter civilian life. Military members are allowed up to 30 days of paid Temporary Additional Duty to be mentored, so they can shadow as many civilian jobs as possible during that time. A mentoring activity can be one day, one week or even one month in duration, depending on the goals of the veteran, the number of positions shadowed, and the depth of involvement with each position. We are providing resume writing, job interviews, and first- hand experience test driving as many jobs that they desire in order to see if the job fits how they can compete to get it. There is no charge for our program and their spouses are equally allowed to participate. If the veteran decides to return to his or her home town we have arranged with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to contact the local city chamber of commerce and notify them of the arrival of a new veteran and have them arrange business introductions were possible. We endorse your proposed legislation 100%. The soaring unemployment rate adds another layer of difficulty to the job search experience. Your legislation will go a long way toward allowing Chambers across the country with veterans in their community have a fair chance to be hired and begin a meaningful career. Respectfully, Ted Owens, President/CEO. Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is leading on not just an issue of jobs. This is an issue of jobs and lives. I think that is one thing we overlook so often. I am glad to hear about the hearing in Indianapolis because we had a hearing in San Diego. I'm sure that you guys are glad that you didn't have to come to the hearing in San Diego because we were in La Jolla overlooking the beach and the surf at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. But maybe some day you will be able to break away and come to one of our hearings down in San Diego. But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about an issue that is not discussed enough. I guess one of the issues that I'm really excited about on this one is it's a bipartisan effort. If there was one thing I want everyone to know about Washington, D.C.--Democrats, Republicans or Independents--the biggest problem with this town isn't that Washington tries new things or that Washington makes mistakes; but when Washington tries new things and makes mistakes, they're not willing to go back and correct it and straighten it out. They ignore it. In fact, a lot of times they think the only problem is just throw more money or taxes at it or more regulation, and somehow it will make it better. I think this is one of those items where Democrats and Republicans should get together and say, Look, this was rushed through, really wasn't looked into in depth and needs to be corrected and straightened out. That is what this bill, both the gentleman's bill and my bill say: We need a step back period, a cooling off time, and let's look at this and straighten this out. And the first thing we have to do is take this huge tax off the back of not just the producers but the American consumer. We're talking about a tax of $20 billion on an industry that can ill afford this kind of burden, especially at this time. We're talking in California alone 112,000 jobs, and something that all of us will say later if we lose these jobs, Oh, my God, how could we have done this. More importantly, we are talking about those lives of the people who depend on not just those devices that are out there today, but those that will be out there in the future. Is there anyone here that can assure themselves that their children or grandchildren or granddaughter or grandson or even their mother or father won't need to have medical devices somewhere down the line, not just to improve the quality of life, but to ensure life extension? Or the fact of just being able to survive certain medical crises? Those are all questions that we need to ask ourselves individually. But as a Nation, we need to ask ourselves: Was this the right step for us to take at this time or at any time? And if it wasn't, we have to be brave enough to do what Washington doesn't do enough, and that is go back and correct the mistakes and move on in a much better and much more secure form, something that can be substantiated. Let me be very blunt, as someone who has a major medical device industry in my community, that there are ways we can correct these things. Anna Eshoo and I, back in the 1990s, actually did tort reform for medical devices. There was a kind of bipartisan support of it saying put politics aside and put people first, and when it comes down to it, you do not provide health care to the public by taxing it out of the country. You're not going to make those kinds of opportunities available to either the people who need the jobs or those who need the medical breakthrough. I want to say again that I look forward to working on this, and I look forward to working on a bipartisan effort with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, things like FDA reform, which is going to be another essential step that we have to do to make sure that we keep this vibrant industry here, or we will all rue the day, Democrat and Republican, if we allow it to leave the country and the jobs and medical breakthroughs go with them. Also, the huge resources that we have for more research and development to be brought back into this country by repatriating American money that is overseas, that is being kept overseas, but because of punitive actions of the Federal Government here in Washington, D.C., $2 trillion that could come back to help do research and development, to save lives, to develop the next generation of medical devices, to be able to create that opportunity in economics and in medical breakthroughs, that's the kind of thing that we need to see Democrats and Republicans work together on. I look forward to building on the cooperation we see in this bill, and work on it in other bills related to public health and the economic opportunities of creating jobs in America with American jobs on American soil.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Up2Us--a leader in sports-based youth development--on the occasion of its annual awards ceremony for its Coach of the Year contest to be held here in Washington, D.C. As America's youth continue to be hit hard by the bad economic climate, it is encouraging to see an organization like Up2Us rise to the challenge. Up2Us is leading a national movement to advance sports as a tool for addressing the critical issues facing youth in this nation, including childhood obesity, academic failure and anti-social behavior. Up2Us supports a national network of nearly 500 member organizations in all 50 states, serving 25 million youths through a plethora of sports. In order to help serve this vast network, Up2Us launched its ``Coach Across America'' initiative (CAA) which is an AmeriCorps program that is the first nationwide effort to mobilize a workforce to promote positive youth development through sports. In partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service and Nike, CAA coaches use sports as a means to promote health and nutrition, education success, civic engagement and personal and social development among youth in some of the nation's poorest neighborhoods. Last year, CAA directed 250 AmeriCorps members to serve as coaches in 105 youth programs across 20 states to work with more than 35,000 kids. In exchange for college tuition awards and a living stipend, coaches completed a total of 170,000 service hours, which is equivalent to $3.5 million in national service. AmeriCorps recruited more than 1,000 program volunteers, connected roughly 500 new parents to their respective programs and conducted more than 250 service-learning projects totaling 35,000 hours of youth volunteer service effort. The 35,000 kids served by CAA coaches have access to the programs they need for their full development. They are provided a safe place to acquire new knowledge and skills and gain a heightened sense of competency and self-respect through working to make a difference in their communities. They build relationships with caring adult role models, develop leadership skills on and off the field; and have a better understanding of healthy eating and the importance of physical activity and exercise. In recognition of the powerful role that coaches have on the lives of youth, Up2Us runs an annual ``Coach of the Year'' contest to honor the unsung heroes who devote their lives to the positive development of youth through sports. Mr. Speaker, as Up2Us and its participating members honor the winners of this year's Coach of the Year contest here in Washington, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating this year's finalists. They are among a distinguished group of individuals dedicated to improving the lives of our youth through sport. Two of the winners hail from San Diego, America's Finest City. Lisa Hawk is the Exercise & Health Science Department Chair, Athletic Director and lacrosse coach at the Preuss School at UCSD. The Preuss School is a nationally recognized school that serves a diverse, low- income population. Lisa received her Master's degree from the University of Maryland, where she also served as a coach and administrator. Lisa is a proud advocate for sports as a tool for positive youth development and is changing lives through her work. Her athletes recognize how special Lisa is. ``She sees the potential in each of her players and does not quit until that spark she sees within us is released for the public eye to see,'' one of the athletes said. ``She has helped me through the turbulence of a teenage life to the hectic lifestyle at home and has given me a comfortable place to go as well as someone to turn to.'' Renato Paiva is the Executive Director of Access Youth Academy, a program designed around three pillars: academics, the sport of squash and community service. He joined Access Youth Academy in May of 2007 from Harvard University where he was the Assistant Coach of the squash team. Originally from Brazil, Renato was a Brazilian Junior Champion and a top junior in South America. Renato graduated from Ruy Barbosa University with a business degree. Many of Renato's students submitted nominations with personal stories of how their lives have been changed. ``Renato has completely transformed the lives of underprivileged inner city children in the San Diego area by teaching them the game of squash and getting them to excel in the sport, and in life,'' a grateful mentee said. In light of all the struggles today's youth face, it is time we recognize quiet heroes like Lisa and Renato as they help better the lives of thousands of individuals across the country. By encouraging programs like Up2Us and their Coach Across America initiative, we can help make the lives of many young Americans healthier and brighter.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, first of all, this is not offshore, this proposal is next door. These are our neighbors. Second of all, this is not just about great opportunities economically for America, but we hear people talk about the environment. When you recycle, so-called ``replace'' your cell phones, where do you think they go? They get rebuilt and they get shipped down to our neighbors to the south so they can have the economic opportunities, they can have the learning opportunities. This is the kind of cooperation we want to see in our hemisphere. But to attack Panama, which is the leader of showing how they can stimulate an economy, with almost 10 percent growth, to attack Panama, allowing the working class access to recycled material, environmentally friendly but economically upper lifting, to attack that kind of agreement on this floor and then say that you're for the environment and you're for helping the poor, don't come to this floor and say you care about the environment, you care about the needy, and you care about our neighbors and oppose this proposal.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 726, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' General Leave

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate Genomatica for being selected as one of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2011 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award winners. As America and the world faces the difficult challenges of addressing problems with our environment, it is reassuring that there are companies such as Genomatica taking the initiative and working towards a cleaner environment. Green chemistry is a philosophy of chemical research and engineering that encourages the design of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances. This technology includes improvements to the environment such as cleaner processes by using safer raw materials. Green chemistry technologies also reduce cost and in most cases are less expensive when compared to conventional chemical products. For the past 16 years, the EPA has commemorated innovative, clean technologies by presenting its Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Together, the program's 82 award winners annually: Eliminate on average 199 million pounds of hazardous chemicals and solvents--enough to fill a freight train nearly 11 miles long; Save over 21 billion gallons of water--enough to meet the annual needs of over 820,000 people; Eliminate more than 57 million pounds of carbon dioxide--equal to taking 6,000 automobiles off the road. Collectively, the winners, as well as the nominated technologies, annually reduce the use or generation of more than 1 billion pounds of hazardous materials. Genomatica received the Greener Synthetic Pathways Award for its production of High-Volume Chemicals from Renewable Feedstock's at Lower Cost. The company's 1,4-Butanediol (BDO) is one of those green chemicals. BDO is a high-volume chemical building block that is used to make many common polymers, such as spandex. Genomatica has developed a microbe that makes BDO by fermenting sugars. When this is produced at a commercial scale, Genomatica's Bio-BDO will be less expensive, require around 60 percent less energy, and produce less than 70 percent less carbon dioxide emissions than BDO made from natural gas. Genomatica is now partnering with major companies to bring Bio-BDO to the market. Let history show that this year will be the year Congress makes progress on Green Chemistry and cleaning up the environment. All Americans want to come together to keep the environment safer and cleaner for both the present and the future. With influential companies like Genomatica leading the way, our nation is on its way to a greener tomorrow.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, we are really at a threshold of making decisions of: Are we willing to do what it takes to prove to the American people that this Republican form of government actually can function and address the long-term needs of America? We're at a point to where we have to be able to show not just the American people, but to people around the world, that our Republican experiment, the Republic that we call the United States of America, can function not just for 200 years but for hundreds of years on top of that because we can make the tough decisions not just to go to war, not just to respond to disasters, but to take care of our financial well- being and that the elected representatives cannot use tax money to buy votes and cannot be bullied by scare tactics away from doing what is essential for the future of this country. That is a real test. And remember, when we talk about Washington taking money, and I think this is one thing Republicans and Democrats don't talk enough about. I used to be a mayor. I was a mayor in my twenties. We forget that this is not government--and I say this to my Republican colleagues. We say that too much. This is not government we're talking about, but this is Federal Government. This is totally different than your city council. This is totally different than your county commissioners or supervisors. This is not going to your school board. There, if they tax you, you can go to their meetings and you can stand up at a podium and you can tell that mayor what you think about his spending habits. You can tell the county chairman what you think. The school board member is required, by law, to hear your opinion about that. But when your money is taken to Washington, you don't have the right to even stand up and speak to the Congress. You try to stand up without getting permission, they've got security to drag you off. There is a big difference between sending your money to city hall and sending your money to Washington, D.C. One, you are vested with rights to participate in how that money is spent. Here in Washington, you are disenfranchised except for one person, your Congressman. And that person darn well is diluted and cannot speak for you personally but has to represent you as part of a group. So when we talk about Washington taking money, remember you've got school boards, you've got counties, you've got cities. But Washington is not just taking it away from the business community; it's taking it away from the local government agencies that provide the baseline services that are essential to all of us. We keep talking about Washington is the great safety net. Excuse me. Your city and your counties are the great safety net of civilized services that we get into. The Federal Government, anybody that's lived in Washington, D.C., understands that, that the local government is where the essential services have gone. And when we take money out of a community and bring it here to Washington, we're depriving those same mayors and school board members and county commissioners the essential services that make every day possible for our citizens. And when we do that, even more importantly, we deprive the individual the ability to participate in how their hard-earned money is spent. So we should take as little as humanly possible to execute the responsibilities and the mandates of the United States Constitution. And maybe if we looked around a little more and focused on the responsibilities that the Constitution gives us, Washington, D.C., as opposed to mayors, council members and State legislators, maybe if we didn't try to be everything to everyone, maybe we wouldn't be so greedy at taking so much from the citizens of the United States. So I think that that is one of those items we've got to constantly try to remember. And I say this to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues. When we're talking about the Federal budget, we're not talking about government. We're talking about Federal Government taking these funds. And I think those are the central issues.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I am honored to speak to the words of my dear colleague from Arizona, and I appreciate that he not only quoted Shakespeare but that he also made a nautical reference to the facts of life when the tides change. As a child of the ocean, I appreciate that. Let me just say we've all got to understand how we got where we are today. The fact is, in '06, the American people were fed up with the Republicans spending too much, not because we had raised taxes or cut taxes, but they were fed up with our spending habits. Four years later, the same voters threw out the Democrats, not because they hadn't raised taxes but because they had expanded expenditures extraordinarily. So I think, if there were one indication that we ought to understand, it's that when you navigate on the ocean you've learned to know which way the waves are coming, which way the wind is coming, and you learn from your experience that there are some things that you don't want to fight. One is the will of the American people. As we look around the world, everybody celebrates the Arab Spring where the average person in Arab countries is standing up and saying, Not just ``no,'' but ``hell no.'' We're going to stand up and say, We've had enough. What's happening there is happening in America, too. The fact is that the average citizens in America, just like around the world, now can communicate through the Internet, and no big government, big operation, big cartel can keep them from communicating. So there is an energy let loose not just in Arab countries but here in the United States that says, America, we've got to live within our budget. You're not going to tax us anymore. Madam Speaker, I think we've got to remember that the American people saw this coming. They saw starting in '08 a spending spree of extraordinary spending that went off for 2 years. Actually, even before the new administration went in there, the American people saw that there was going to be spending done by Republicans or Democrats that was going to be used as an excuse to raise taxes, and that's why they said, We're taxed enough already. So we need to get down to the fact that we're talking about where is the credibility of this government. It has to be reinstalled by the fact that we can be trusted with the budget--not trusted with raising taxes, but trusted with spending control. That is going to be the real crisis. Notable economist Art Laffer just said recently that he almost compares what's being proposed by some in Washington to a couple going out to Monaco and then to Italy and then to France and running up a big bill and then coming back to their boss and saying, Oh, by the way, Boss, we spent all this money. We need a pay raise--or how about this: why don't you split half of the expense of my vacation with me. You pay half of it and I'll pay half of it. That kind of logic doesn't sell when you're facing off with your employer. It darned well doesn't wash when you're facing off with your employer here in Washington, which is the American taxpayer, and I think we need to recognize that. So, in all fairness, there are things we can do, Madam Speaker, to stimulate the economy without borrowing money from China. We can bring back almost $2 trillion of American money to create American jobs here on American soil. Congress and the President just have to agree to do it. The money is out there. It's not being taxed, and it's not coming back if we don't eliminate the 35 percent penalty for it coming back. Here is a place where we can invest in research and development, like the President wants, and in construction. We can go into manufacturing expansion--things for which the President and the Democrats in the past have borrowed money from China in order to create that kind of stimulus to the economy. We can create a stimulus to the economy, we can create jobs and help to balance the budget, but first we've got to understand that taxing people to death is not the answer to prosperity. The answer for this family, called the American Nation, is just like that of every other family: living within your means, understanding your limits, spending within those limits, and not asking people to pay for your extravagances. So as we face a lot of challenges, I've just got to say to everybody that you can look at what's going on in California today. Madam Speaker, it is a State that is controlled by the left, that has driven business out of the State, and the money now has run out. Not only did citizens lose jobs when those businesses left; but because those jobs are not there to pay the taxes, the citizens of California, who have depended and expected to have their health care paid by the State now are being told they have to expect less because there is no more money to pay for those social benefits that they were promised--promised in such inappropriate ways. As we destroy businesses, we destroy jobs. Even those who are on public assistance will be affected by this kind of destructive behavior. The difference between raising the debt limit today and in the past is that, in the past, all you had to do was raise the debt limit to have groups like Moody's be able to talk about addressing this issue. Fine, that's enough. Now the people who are raiding our dollar are saying, You can't just raise the limit. You've got to show us that you are serious about controlling the spending. Now this Congress has to do something that no Congress has been forced to do in the past: We have to address the issue of the debt limit but address the issue of the debt at the same time.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Les Cross, the CEO and President of DJO Global, Inc., one of the leading global providers of high-quality, orthopedic devices with a broad range of products used for rehabilitation, pain management, and physical therapy. Under his leadership, DJO's impact on the San Diego region has grown tremendously. He is a true testament to the American entrepreneurial spirit. During his time at DJO, Mr. Cross has implemented a business model that demonstrates creativity and innovation in product development and services. DJO is unique in that it offers healthcare professionals and patients a diverse range of orthopedic rehabilitation solutions to address the entire spectrum of preventative, pre-operative, post- operative, clinical and home rehabilitation care. Most impressive are his philanthropic efforts. Les Cross has made the Community Outreach Program a priority at DJO. This program has provided exceptional support to communities in and around the San Diego Area. Some of DJO's largest multi-year contributions to date have been to support the Vista Community Clinic, and the U.S.S. Midway Educational Programs, with employees raising thousands of dollars for Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and many other charitable organizations. Les Cross and DJO have also done extensive work to end the homeless cycle including recognizing North County Solutions for Change with a multi-year sponsorship, and The Monarch School, which provides accredited education to homeless and at-risk kids while caring for basic daily needs. Furthermore, since September 2001, DJO has provided multiple scholarships each year to San Diego children through the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation. Les Cross has received many honors from the San Diego community including Ernst & Young Master Entrepreneur of the Year, and Boys & Girls Clubs Man of the Year. Most recently in 2010, the Boy Scouts of America and the City of Vista, CA named him Distinguished Citizen of the Year. Not only has Les Cross played a significant role in the benefit of our community, but he has professionally developed a culture of urgency, accountability, high performance, continuous improvement and teamwork to drive growth and profits through DJO's people. I wish Mr. Cross well in his retirement and thank him for his many years of service to the San Diego area.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. We're talking about the fact that those who want to stand up and say we'll spend Federal funds to create an environment to provide health care but then are not willing to say, not just the fact that we find special tort coverage--and I know that the gentleman from Texas knows because I was at a county level providing those services. We have Federal programs that protect those in the community clinic. But we're not just talking about the little bit of protection we get with our Federal protection. We're talking about the whole tort exposure needs to be considered. And if you want to talk about access and stand up here and have the moral high ground on access, you've got to be willing to take on the big guy, the powerful trial lawyers, and say, look, physicians are going to be held harmless from your lawsuits. We're going to find a reason to encourage young people to go to school not just by providing Federal subsidies to their tuition, but also telling them, once you get your degree, you'll be able to go into a field where you'll be able to practice your art of medicine without having somebody who has never had to make a life-and-death decision drag you before a judge and a jury and attack you for your decisions.

Mr. BILBRAY. Reclaiming my time, look, the fact is these physicians are being held with a liability that is inappropriate, way over the head, and it is not justifiable----

Mr. BILBRAY. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman from Texas to understand that when a physician or a student is planning on getting into a field, they not only look at will the government guarantee that I'll be able to get the tuition, but they're looking at what field am I moving into. And let me just tell you, as a fact, in California, even with our tort reform, somebody who wants to volunteer as a Medicaid volunteer has to file an $80,000 or $90,000 insurance policy just for volunteering. So when the gentleman talks about the educational side, that it's essential that we encourage people to get into the field, my point for being here is you cannot talk about the educational when you ignore the environment that you're asking them to go into. And the fact is: What parent would ask somebody to go into this field and be a physician with all the education and all the expenses when they can tell their kids to be a lawyer and sue those physicians for every cent they have ever been able to earn? That's why we've got to talk about both of these together. But you can't stand up and say we want these essential services but not be willing to get the trial lawyers off the backs of these physicians so they can provide those essential services.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't planning on addressing this item, but I heard so many of my colleagues, especially those on the other side, talk about the crisis of providing the doctors that are going to be essential for health care, and finally we are talking about health care, not health care insurance. As somebody who spent 10 years supervising the safety net for a community of 3 million in San Diego County, I just wish my colleagues on the other side, when they're worried about pediatricians and primary health care people, would understand that if you really want to protect those providers, why don't we sit down and talk about true tort reform, especially for the pediatricians. This is a cost that is bearing down. And when you're asking young people to get an education to be a primary health care provider, especially a pediatrician, explain to them why somebody on public assistance, on welfare, has more right to sue their physician than those men and women who are serving in uniform. The fact is there is no way that we should be sitting up here saying that we really want the next generation to get into health care unless we're willing to tell our friends who are the trial lawyers that we're going to take the physicians off the counter; we're not going to allow lawsuits to be part of the overhead that is driving people out of the health care business. And I hope to say to both sides, if you really want to make sure there are future doctors, then let's have the bravery to stand up today and do something about the tort that those future doctors are looking at before they go into school.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Al Wanamaker, outgoing president of the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club, located in my congressional district in North San Diego County California. Under Mr. Wanamaker's leadership, the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club personified its motto of ``Building Communities and Bridging Continents.'' The club has contributed resources and financial assistance to various causes including: youth and women, student achievement, military, the disadvantaged and humanitarian efforts around the world. Some of the projects undertaken by Mr. Al Wanamaker and the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club include hosting a Rotary Youth Leadership Award (RYLA), a youth awareness leadership conference, and business and ethics conferences for Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, school students. They sponsored a Four-Way speech contest to help develop public speaking skills for high school students and a golf tournament that benefited scholarships for Carlsbad high school students and returning marines. The Hi-Noon Rotary Club provided dictionaries for English and Spanish speaking elementary school children, as well as meals and gifts to needy elementary school children; and finally, the Club actively supports the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club. For the greater community Mr. Wanamaker and the club co-sponsored an Oktoberfest fundraiser that benefitted the Carlsbad Women's Resource Center; provided support to the Veterans Association of North County, and La Posada, a facility for the homeless; assisted in the distribution of food, clothing and toys to over 400 needy Carlsbad families in conjunction with the Carlsbad Christmas Bureau; as well as refurbishing, relocation and dedication of a city landmark structure for public enjoyment. In the international arena, Mr. Wanamaker and a team of Carlsbad Hi- Noon Rotarians joined with others to build a house in Mexico for a needy family. Through the Paul Harris Foundation, the club co-sponsored numerous other humanitarian projects all over the world including: an effort to eradicate polio worldwide; contributed one hundred goats to needy families in a small village in India for the purpose of providing a source of nourishment, income and an opportunity to develop entrepreneurial skills that promote self sufficiency; participated in the Shelter Box program to help the needy in Haiti and Japan that were devastated by earthquakes; provided support to build a school for girls in Afghanistan and developing a source of safe drinking water for a small village in Africa; finally, hosted several foreign exchange students to promote better understanding of other cultures. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the many fine achievements of Mr. Al Wanamaker and his colleagues at the Carlsbad Hi- Noon Rotary Club. Without question, his leadership and their fine work are worthy of recognition by the House of Representatives today.

Mr. BILBRAY

Mr. BILBRAY. I apologize, but I have to say to the gentleman, you know, wood burning, under oxygen-deprived environment, is a terrible particulate pollutant. So I don't think anybody involved in air pollution issues would ever point out that wood burning is something we want to point to. It may be renewable--and I appreciate you saying that, and I think it's very good that you said that because I think we mix renewable with clean all the time. But there are those renewable sources that are very, very bad for the air pollution issue. I just wanted to make sure we went by and didn't point at that. In California, we have actually tried to outlaw wood-burning stoves because of the problems with the air pollution and the toxin emissions that are caused by the particulate problem with it.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I always enjoy my colleague Mike Doyle because I have a good friend, Mike Doyle, who was actually the first world champion surfer; so I always remind him of that connection. But let me just say to my colleagues, I hope you're not under some illusion that China is even considering reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent within this decade. I hope you don't have that illusion. But let's point out what we really need to address with this issue. You do not need a study, Congressman, about the impacts. Your State is sitting at 8 percent. My State is sitting at 12 percent unemployment. If you really want to see what happens if you're not careful about the impacts and the costs of going green, which we have, we've had a great breakthrough. Our air has been cleaned up a lot more. But there are challenges of going beyond that and going into things that are not cost effective. Let me remind you, the great successes we've had with cleaning up our air in California is we always gave priority to those emissions that had the greatest health risk. We didn't go after one that wasn't even on the scale. CO2 is not even on the health risk scale. Let me just give you a good example. I'm a big supporter of algae. Our scientists in California developed algae fuel. Our State institutions and our educational institutions had the scientists that developed the technology to be able to make fuel out of algae. But when it came time to produce it, when it came time to create the jobs, I hope the gentleman understands that our scientists had to leave the State and go to New Mexico, because our environmental regulations were such that it didn't allow us to implement our green revolution. So, I hope all of those that are talking about a green revolution today are willing to take on the environmental, regulatory, and oversight problems that exist in implementation, because without casting those aside, you'll never see that revolution.

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I regretfully rise in opposition, not because the intention of this amendment isn't appropriately placed, but the science doesn't reflect the concern that the gentleman has pointed out. I say that with the understanding that the science, not talking about the concern about climate change, but the lack of science behind the proposed regulations that EPA has even discussed. There is no one who has been before our committee, as the gentleman knows, that has said that the proposed changes that EPA is bringing forth today or in the future is going to address or solve the problem. The fact is that the problems that the gentleman is concerned about may be out there somewhere, but no one is saying that what the EPA is doing is going to avoid those problems. So by not having the EPA implement a program that nobody in the scientific community says will address the problem doesn't mean that somehow this will de facto cause the problem to be implemented or not avoided. Basically I guess it says, again, what is being proposed by the EPA is an agency that was not designed to address climate change, with plans that not only were not designed, and using a vehicle that was not designed regarding this problem, but by the own admission of the administrator does not even know, and can't give us even a slight percentage of what reduction we would have. So I just have to say to my dear colleague from Illinois that I appreciate his concern, but his concern should not be us telling EPA not to implement rules that they admit will not address the problem and will not solve the problem. Our issue ought to be talking about how do we address those problems down the pike, because let's be very frank about it. The problems you are talking about are going to happen, and it is not because anyone on this side is denying the science; it is because people are trying to take advantage and exploit a crisis rather than address it. I ask the gentleman again to be concerned but make sure that when you propose an action, let's make sure that those actions have a possibility of addressing the issues that you so sincerely are concerned about.

Mr. BILBRAY. Let's be clear: We are not talking about greenhouse gases here because the regulations that have been proposed by the EPA do not address climate change. They don't address climate change. We are not talking climate change here. We are talking about EPA proposing regulations that admitted by the administrator does not have any projections of what reductions you will have here. Remember, the minimum that we need to do to address the threat of climate change is 17 percent within 9 years. So let's be up front. This is not about climate change. This is about proposed regulations by a bureaucracy in a field of law that was never meant to address this issue at all. And I say that as somebody who worked for over a decade at implementation of the Clean Air Act. All I have to say to the colleague, with the problems that you are pointing out, they are legitimate issues. But what is being proposed as an answer to a problem has not only nothing to do with and will not affect climate change, but it also will not affect the issues that you have raised. So in reality, your amendment is not germane because the issues that you are concerned about don't exist. Because when you do nothing, you can't change anything. And the fact that it is keeping somebody from selling a placebo does not solve the problem, or it does not aggravate the problem. The fact is what has been proposed by EPA is a placebo under a law that was never meant to administer this. So let's not be concerned about if the placebo is not available to the public somehow there may be a concern with these items. They are legitimate items. But the EPA and the underlying bill does not affect those issues. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I want to point out the comment was made about the precursor to ozone. Thirty years of air pollution regulations. Ask the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles. It never regulated CO2 as a precursor to ozone because it was so miniscule that there are so many other issues that are absolutely essential to address that you didn't even look at that. And if you didn't think those of us in California, that we're working on air pollution, air quality, our county in San Diego went from ``severe'' down to ``serious'' because we were successful. And it wasn't chasing ozone. I mean, not chasing CO2. It was tracing true toxic emissions. So when you talk about implementing these plans, understand you're talking about sacrificing efforts that are at true risk.

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that. Let's talk science, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone wants to talk about the threat of climate change, but no one wants to address the fact that what EPA has proposed, by the admission of the administrator, cannot even indicate what percentage of greenhouse gases those regulations could reduce. And not one scientist, not one expert in our committee, or I have seen anywhere else, has ever said what is being proposed by EPA, that is going to cost at least $200 million, will not avoid the problem of climate change. So the question is this, what are the American people getting for their $200 million. Now, I'm sorry, some of us have worked on air pollution issues. I know the precursors to ozone. If they are saying that the problem is it's a precursor to ozone, believe me, it is so small and minute that those of us that are working in non-attainment areas never even gave a second glance at CO2. So don't talk about it being a health risk based on a precursor to ozone. Look at what we are getting for the money. What we are actually talking about here is not allowing EPA to go out and implement programs that the administrator admits that she cannot tell us what the American people are going to get for their dollars. If you want to do a study, then let's do a study on what would have to be done to address this issue the way that some of us think it should be addressed. But let's not say that somehow that by holding up a program that is admitted not to be able to deliver any tangible benefits, that holding up that program is somehow going be a threat to public health. So let's just get back down to the real science, and that is no one in this establishment is talking about addressing the climate change issue. Some people are saying it doesn't exist and others are trying to sell an environmental placebo that makes you look good because you are doing something, but spends huge amounts of money, has a great impact, and does not address the problem and would not avoid the problem. One thing we have got to make clear. Don't talk to me about incrementalism when we talk about climate change. You talked to the same scientists that you say are telling us about climate change, and they say if we don't get the job done within the next decade or two, forget about it. It's over with. The fact is that climate change will happen. And, sadly, what I have seen in the last 2 years about this issue, I have come to the conclusion this body really should be talking about what we need to do to mitigate the impact, because you are not doing anything to avoid it, and we shouldn't tell the American people that we are.

Mr. BILBRAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILBRAY. As I said, it's not germane to the issue.