John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. More and more Members of the Congress are coming on our universal single-payer health care bill. I'm very pleased about that. The judiciary, one of the subcommittees, we had a hearing about this McCarran-Ferguson bill that exempts from antitrust obligation insurance companies, and health insurance companies in particular. And I received a letter, a nice letter, from the CEO of the America's Health Insurance Plans. Her name is Ms. Karen Ignagni, and she sent us a nice letter back. She declined to be a witness. That's a subject we'll probably pursue later on. But I just checked in my little file of health insurance executive compensation, and this is public information, so I don't think she'd be offended by my discussing it here on the floor. Ms. Ignagni earns $1.580 million in compensation, but her base salary was $700,000. This was from 2007 filings. But she did also receive $170,000 in deferred compensation and a bonus. She probably works very long hours, and we concede that. But we looked at others that we want to talk with, another person that we are beginning to be in negotiations with. We have to, all of us, come around the table and discuss these matters. Let's take Aetna; one of the biggest, I presume. Its distinguished chairman and CEO is Mr. Ron Williams. Mr. Williams, I don't know what it is he does, but his income is $24,300,112 per year. Now, he's got some heavy responsibilities. Do you know how much more money he makes than the President of the United States? Look, capitalism, a love story, I'm for capitalism. He earned a total of $24 million plus for compensation in 2008 with more than half of that, $13.5 million, coming from stock option awards. I don't know how that works. He also received $6.4 million in stock awards to go along with his base salary, which was only $1 million plus. But, in addition, he has the personal use of corporate aircraft plus a land vehicle as well as financial planning and a 401(k) company matches, adding up to another $101,000 plus for Mr. Ron Williams. Now, I sent out a friendly invitation for the head of Aetna to come before my committee to discuss the incredibly important decisions involved in reforming health care in America. Here is a person who has a lot of experience in the subject matters that are being debated in three committees in the House, two committees in the Senate, and heaven only knows how many of the people in the White House are working on this. K Street, we know, is fully occupied in this matter. We need to talk. What about CIGNA? That's another big company. Its CEO, unfortunately he only makes half of what the CEO of Aetna earns. Maybe he's not as efficient or maybe he doesn't produce. I don't know what it is. But would anybody object if we invited these folks in to discuss this? I mean, we have the unemployed. Our colleague Sheila Jackson-Lee is going to have people coming in Tuesday at 5 o'clock next week to tell their problems. These are people that not only don't have income but they have huge debts. But I want to go from the other end of this, Mr. Ellison. I sympathize with all those that are suffering, but I want to try to understand--I've got to comprehend the view from the top with those who are not unemployed, who are not marginal, who are not lower income, not middle income. They're wealthy. So we have to extend these conversations both ways. What about the chairman and the CEO of CIGNA, $12.2 million annual income? What about WellPoint, Ms. Angela Braly, its president and CEO, $9.8 million every year? What about Coventry Health Care, President Dale Wolf, another $9 million? Centene Insurance Chairman Michael Neidorff, $8.7 million; James Carlson, chairman of AMERIGROUP, $5.2 million; Humana's President Michael McCallister, $4.7 million; Mr. Jay Gellert, the distinguished president of Health Net, $4.4 million; Universal American, Chairman Richard Barasch, $3.5 million; Stephen Hemsley, UnitedHealth Group, president and CEO, $3.2 million. I want to get the picture from the top. They could explain to us and maybe put into more perspective why there's such a maldistribution of health care to everybody, because these are health insurance companies. If they don't know--I mean, they have a lot to tell us, and I would like to hear them in their own way and in their own words explain this situation, because we've got big decisions to make. We don't just represent the poor and the left out and the marginal; we represent the whole country. When I cast a vote in the House of Representatives, it's from my district that they sent me, but the vote applies to everybody in the United States of America, all 350 million people, including the upper 1 percent of income earners especially in health care.

Mr. CONYERS. But they make the policy. I'm not a work inspector that wants to know how many hours they worked or what they did, but they make the decisions that lead us to be here, the whole Congress, two committees in the Senate, three committees in the House. We have caucuses every single day. Talk to me, somebody. If I'm going to be working on something this enormous, a multitrillion dollar decision, the people that have been making the decisions all these years, they have got to send me some letters.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I don't claim them to be voices of opposition. I don't know what their position is.

Mr. CONYERS. I just want to find out.

Mr. CONYERS. And I offer the hand of cordial exchange of views that we always do in the Judiciary Committee, and that is can we talk. Let's see where we have areas of agreement and where we have areas of disagreement. That's how the legislative process works. And then get all of the facts out on the table and decide what form and shape health care reform is going to take. I can't predict it now. If somebody asked me to tell them what a strong public option is--I've never seen a public option in my life. I don't know what it is. I know that it's an alternative to the 1,300 private insurance companies, that every industrial company has at least one or more public options. But what its precise characteristics are, nobody's ever handed me a sheet of paper and said, This is a public option.

Mr. CONYERS. Could we have friendly CEOs of health insurance companies join us at that hearing? Would they be invited too?

Mr. CONYERS. I just want to close the debate hoping that one of the dozen presidents of the health insurance companies will join us--maybe all of them or as many as schedules will permit. What I want them to know is that they've never said that they didn't care about the 47 million people who aren't insured.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2009, I regret that I was not present for the following vote: On the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question for the Rule on the Conference Report on H.R. 2997. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and service of General Casimir Pulaski, who gave his life on October 11, 1779, to the cause of American independence. General Pulaski, born in Warsaw, Poland, on March 6, 1745, arrived in Philadelphia in 1777, where he met General George Washington and made the heroic decision to support the colonies through the American Revolution. Through subsequent battles, General Pulaski distinguished himself as a relentless, courageous, and unwavering leader towards the fight for our Nation's independence. The life and valor of General Pulaski is celebrated with great pride back in my home district of Michigan. A statue of General Pulaski was erected in 1966 at the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Washington Boulevard in Detroit, a mere block and a half from my District office, as a gift from the large Polish-American population in the Metropolitan Detroit area. This community is one of many that together contribute to the richness and diversity of my home district, and that of this great Nation. Even before America was a Nation, General Pulaski exhibited two traits that Americans still embody today: self-sacrifice and fighting for a cause greater than oneself. It is with great honor that I rise to express my support for House Joint Resolution 26, which will proclaim General Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States of America.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on September 29, due to personal reasons, I was unable to cast the three votes that were called on that day. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 740 (H.R. 905); 741 (H. Res. 16) and 742 (H.R. 2997).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on September 30th, due to personal reasons, I was unable to cast the three votes that were called on that day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 743 (H.R. 2442); 744 (H.R. 1771) and 745 (H.R. 1053).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on September 24, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes: On the passage of H. Res. 766, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H. Con. Res. 163, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of my fellow jazz enthusiast, Jimmy Cobb. Born in Washington, D.C. in 1929, Jimmy has for more than fifty years moved audiences with his recordings and live performances. Jimmy's passion for jazz began at an early age. He performed his first recording with Earl Bostic, and then played extensively with Dinah Washington, Billie Holiday, Pearl Bailey, Clark Terry, and Dizzy Gillespie. In 1957, Jimmy Cobb joined Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers, John Coltrane and Julian Adderley; two years later they recorded the groundbreaking Kind of Blue album. Kind of Blue stands in American history today as one of the most influential albums in jazz history, ranking number 12 in Rolling Stone magazine's 500 greatest albums of all time. He collaborated with Wynton Kelly and Paul Chambers to produce the Wynton Kelly Trio Albums, and later released albums with Kenny Burrell, and J.J. Johnson, among others. Jimmy then worked with Sarah Vaughn for 9 years, and freelanced with other acclaimed artists worldwide throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s including, Sonny Stitt, Nat Adderly, Ricky Ford, Hank Jones, Ron Carter, George Coleman, Fathead Newman, The Great Jazz Trio, Dave Holland and Warren Bernhardt. Jimmy has also performed on Sketches of Spain, Someday My Prince will Come, Live at Carnegie Hall, Live at the Blackhawk, and Porgy and Bess. Jimmy was honored for his contribution to the world of jazz in 2005 when New York's longest running jazz series Highlights in Jazz chose Jimmy Cobb for its annual salute to a living jazz legend. In 2008, Jimmy received the Don Redman Heritage award. He was one of six chosen on October 17, 2008 to receive the 2009 National Endowment for the Arts, NEA Jazz Masters award. He was also honored with his own album on the Marsalis Music Honors Series. He currently performs and tours with his So What Band, featuring Miles Davis' protege Wallace Roney on trumpet, Vincent Herring on alto saxophone, Javon Jackson on tenor sax, Larry Willis on piano, and Buster Williams on bass. To commemorate the 50th anniversary of Kind of Blue, Jimmy and the So What Band will perform on September 24, 2009 in Washington, D.C. for the Congressional Black Caucus' Jazz Forum and Concert. Today, Jimmy Cobb stands as the only surviving musician of the original Kind of Blue Sextet. His work remains a legendary standard in American jazz. Through the medium of music, he continues to inspire generations of performers and audiences.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. Both the House and Senate today have introduced identical language to reduce insurance prices for consumers. I want to thank my friend Senator Leahy for his leadership on the bill and for working with the House on this joint introduction. I am joined in my efforts on the House side by the honorable Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, and Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado. The purpose of this bill is to extend antitrust enforcement over health insurers and medical malpractice insurance issuers, which currently enjoy broad antitrust immunity under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This immunity can serve as a shield for activities that might otherwise violate federal law. This bill would specifically prohibit price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation, pernicious practices that are detrimental to competition and result in higher prices for consumers. The House Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings on the effects of the insurance industry's antitrust exemption throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. It became clear that policyholders and the economy in general would benefit from eliminating this exemption. The bill I introduce today is intended to root out unlawful activity in an industry grown complacent by decades of protection from antitrust oversight. In doing so, we aim to make health insurance more affordable to more Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote for a motion to recommit on H.R. 3200 and did not vote for final passage. I intended to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yea'' on final passage of the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act,'' legislation that modernizes, simplifies and improves the compulsory copyright licenses governing the retransmission of distant television signals by cable and satellite television operators. I am joined by Representative Boucher, Representative Wasserman Schultz and Representative Johnson. Both the cable and satellite industries rely on these licenses to provide television programming to their customers. The satellite Section 119 license will expire on December 31, unless we act. This legislation renews the satellite license for five years. These compulsory copyright licenses were designed to facilitate investment in new creative works by the satellite and cable industries by eliminating direct negotiation with the copyright owners for the use of distant signal programming. These companies pay copyright royalty fees to a pool, at a rate set by statute, and are then distributed to the copyright owners by the United States Copyright Office. In the five years since we last addressed these issues, the cable and satellite industries have changed dramatically. The country underwent a transition from analog to digital television, the cable industry has grown and consolidated, and the satellite industry has expended its reach, signing up more subscribers and providing more markets with local-into-local service. This legistion reflects the recent transition to digital television by clarifying that the compulsory licenses apply to digital streams instead of just analog streams, and by providing for an updated technological model to predict the eligibility of satellite subscribers for distant signals under the Section 119 license. It also takes into account the advent of multicasting, which is a direct result of the new capacity created by the transition to digital signals and was not contemplated by the previous licensing schemes. One important purpose of the Section 119 license is to ensure that consumers who live in markets that may be missing certain network affiliates can receive the full complement of network programming. The new language clarifies the ways in which the license can be used by satellite companies to accomplish this. Changes in the cable television marketplace have resulted in confusion over the proper way to calculate royalties under the Section 111 cable compulsory license. This so-called ``phantom signal'' uncertainty has chilled both the cable and content industries, creating legal ambiguity that deters investment and growth, and threatens to raise cable price and disrupt cable service. This legislation alters the way the royalty rates are calculated to restore certainty to the marketplace and make the compensation for copyrighted content more fair. This legislation also gives television and cable providers the flexibility they need to assist the United States Government in times of national emergency. Previously, during national emergencies, the compulsory licenses precluded cable and satellite companies from broadcasting certain distant signals to government organizations. Now the licensees can provide the government with the information it needs to monitor and respond to a natural disaster or man-made catastrophe. This legislation also attempts to help rural markets that are currently not receiving ``local-into-local'' service. To incentivize satellite companies to serve these disadvantaged markets, the legislation restores the section 119 license to DISH network, which lost its license three years ago for noncompliance, on the condition that DISH enter all television markets in the United States. It is anticipated that this change will spur price and market competition between the major satellite providers to broaden and improve service to consumers. The legislation streamlilnes and updates the compulsory license system in several other ways. It substantially heightens the penalties for copyright infringement. It provides a verification right for copyright owners to ensure that they are being properly compensated for the use of their intellectual property. It corrects and updates provisions related to rate-setting proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Judges. It adds a royalty filing fee to defray the administrative costs of disbursing the copyright payments to the pool. And it moves provisions for low power television and ``significantly viewed'' stations from Section 119 to Section 122 to reflect the ``local'' nature of those signals. The current compulsory licenses were not designed for this new digital era. This legislation is necessary to avoid immediate disruption in service to satellite consumers, long-term deterioration of service to cable consumers, and to enhance and protect the rights of content-creators.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank one of the most dedicated and indispensable members of the Judiciary Committee staff, Lillian German. For the past 6 years, Lillian has served as a counsel to the Committee, working principally as the Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel during the 110th and 111th Congresses. A proud native of Houston, Texas, Lillian graduated from the University of North Texas where she was a leader in student government and a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. She earned her law degree from Southern Methodist University, and, following her graduation, served as a briefing attorney for the Texas Attorney General and in private practice in Dallas. Lillian came to Washington 15 years ago to work on the Hill, and has served in the offices of many of our dear friends and colleagues. Lillian first worked as press secretary and then Chief of Staff to Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. With Congresswoman Johnson, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund, Lillian helped organize a historic bus tour throughout the south to highlight the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Shaw v. Reno (1993) on voting rights and minority districts. Lillian went on to serve as the Legislative Director for Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins, with whom she worked to draft several amendments to the 1996 Telecommunications Act to increase minority ownership of commercial broadcasting companies. Lillian continued on as Press Secretary and Chief of Staff for Congressman Alcee Hastings. She organized Vice President Al Gore's first environmental justice site tours of southern Florida's minority communities and brownfield lands, and during the 2000 Presidential election, Lillian served as an area political director for the Gore recount committee. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Lillian helped usher through a $125 million grant to assist the Nation's tourism industry, and she successfully managed the effort to secure the Health Care Financing Administration's approval of the Dean Ornish Program for reversing coronary heart disease. Lillian then served as the Chief of Staff to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, where she worked with the Houston community in the wake of Enron's collapse. During the 2002 Florida Governor's race, Lillian worked as the Get-Out- the-Vote director for Miami-Dade County Democrats. Lillian joined the Judiciary Committee in 2003 and has made numerous contributions to the committee's civil rights, criminal justice, and government oversight work. She helped secure funding for the expansion of the U.S. Marshal Service's Safe Surrender Initiative to seven additional States, including the District of Columbia and my home State of Michigan. She visited the Texas-Mexico border several times to investigate government's response to the high-death tolls and helped with the committee's immigration field hearings in Texas, Michigan, California, and Iowa. She led the House's investigation into the wrongful firing of rail workers under the Transportation Security Administration's Transportation Worker Identification Card program, which ultimately resulted in the reinstatement of 36 workers. She successfully led the Committee's effort to release three inmates wrongfully incarcerated in solitary confinement for 36 years in the Angola Penitentiary in Louisiana, and she and I recently met with Governor Bobby Jindal to discuss the prisoners' final release. She organized committee hearings on FBI whistleblower protections; the Justice Department's role in the Jena Six cases; and voter intimidation during the 2006 elections, which featured then-Senator Barack Obama as a witness. On behalf of the Judiciary Committee, its staff, and this distinguished body, I would like to thank Lillian for her service. Throughout her time on the Hill, she has been a stalwart voice for social justice and the under-represented. Lillian is a tour-de-force that will be sorely missed. Her spirit, loyalty, wit, generosity, and professionalism have made all of the offices in which she has worked places to belong and places to thrive. We are losing a dear advisor, mentor, and friend. We wish her the best of luck and extend to her our deepest gratitude.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. If you yield to me just very, very briefly, I want to tell you and Chairwoman Woolsey and the good doctor who is on the floor with us that I have listened to everything you said. And I want to commend you. I'm so proud that this discussion goes on immediately the night after the inspirational remarks of the President, especially, at the end. There was one part that I wanted to remind all the Members of the caucus about. It was the part where he compared the Progressive Caucus and the single-payer concept on the other hand with those of a totally different viewpoint that feel that there should be no employer connection at all. That was a tremendously effective rhetorical flourish. But the fact remains that I guess there is somebody--oh, come to think of it, I am one of the people that would like to separate the employer connection from health care. I hope that doesn't make me a conservative or whatever group that has been promoting that, because I think now that I reflected on it, I think that is not a bad idea. The question is, after we separate it, we separate all people that work for a living with the employer connection to their health care, which has been very hurtful for most people, take for example the automobile workers in the Detroit area with three major automobile plants. Their connection to, the relationship worked out between their collective bargaining agent and the corporations has been disastrous because when they close down or move out or relocate, guess what? The employer loses not only his job, but he also loses his health care, and he also loses his pension in many cases. So I think that this should be carefully considered and reconsidered by everyone that heard the brilliant speech last night. That is to say that to reject both of these ideas out of hand, the single-payer concept and an end to employer connection, I don't know who is advocating that, but to say that everybody goes out and get his own insurance, well, maybe there are 432 other Members besides ourselves, so maybe somebody is, but I don't take it as a serious consideration in this very complex subject matter that brings progressives to the floor today. Now, on the other hand, the universal single-payer health care bill is not just a few people that have come up with something to involve themselves in the discussion with health care reform. As a matter of fact, the single-payer concept is one of the oldest serious major notions that has been around. That is to say, for those of us who were here when the President was Bill Clinton and he assigned his wife the task of taking on the reform of health care, we were summoned, we who were supporting single-payer, were summoned to the White House collectively. I remember very well that Jerry Nadler of New York was there, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee. And what happened was that we were urged to step back from our initiative which had been going on for years before the Clintons assumed their responsibilities on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and after some brief discussion, we agreed that that was the appropriate thing to do. We did it. We did step back. That concept is now undergoing a very short shrift in this whole discussion, namely because this whole discussion was initiated on the premise that universal single-payer health care was too new, too startling and too complex. It would take too long to institute. And so we are going to start off by not including it in the mix. I'm proud to say that some of the committees did include it in the mix. Predominantly, George Miller of the Education and Labor Committee had Members testify before his committee. Charles Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee had testimony on universal single-payer health care. And there may have been testimony in the Energy and Commerce Committee under the distinguished leadership of Henry Waxman, but I cannot really attest to that at this moment. What I am saying is that those Members who support universal single- payer health care have already made a major concession in the discussion, major concession. And it just seems to me that this could have been addressed in a different way, and it wasn't. That's water over the dam. But still, 86 Members, and there are more who are not cosponsors of the bill, were never cut into the major premises of how we go about it. So for the President to compare that with those people who want everybody to go buy their own insurance any way they can, I think, was a mistaken metaphor. I just wanted to inject that into the discussion because this was a speech that was a call to arms to the American people and the Congress that there is going to be health care reform. Now, the consideration is, however, that where we are right now, as you have said so articulately, you and the chairwoman, is that we have to not have a public option. We have to have a robust, strong public option. And my job, as I see it, is to pursue this, not that we have one that we discussed or that we may stick one in or that is a sliver of the whole subject matter. For the reasons you have already articulated in this Special Order, it's critical. It's not I hope we can get it. We've got to get it. This bill's name of health care reform will only be justified if we do get it. I want to pledge to the many people in the many places that I have been around the country who are not happy that H.R. 676 was not more thoroughly considered, single-payer, that we definitely must have an alternative to the dozens and dozens of private insurance companies if we are to have any savings and have any real meaningful reform worthy of the name. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CONYERS. To my dear colleague from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, there are only several things that can happen in this great historic debate that is now proceeding after the President has summoned us all together to suggest the direction that we might want to take: One, we get a strong public option; two, we get a weak public option; three, we get no public option. My prediction is, with all due respect to all the bean counters--of which there is a profusion in the Capitol Hill area--is that this bill will more than likely succeed if there is a strong public option. I think that that is the way that health care reform will attract the largest number of votes. And conversely, I fear for the health of the health care bill if we don't have a strong public option. Now, that's my view. I've been in enough of these debates long enough to make this assessment based on the fact that I've been working on health care for more than half of my political career. And so that's why I think this discussion is so important, and I want to keep it alive by offering to take out a Special Order next week-- maybe even tomorrow if it's feasible--because there are so many parts, it's important that we understand this. What would it do to this bill if we tack on some of these suggestions? And I realize the President has to bring us all together, but what would tort reform do to this bill? What would all these exchanges and other contraptions do to a bill like this? I want to examine everything, and we want to work with it. I saw Members, to their credit, I'm presuming that those that were holding up papers last night, I presume those were health care bills with a number on it. If they weren't, if they were just holding up papers, then somebody has to explain to me what was the purpose. But I remember a discussion that we had in the Detroit area. It was a bipartisan television discussion, but Members were talking about provisions and notions that there were no bills for. Well, how do you know that? Well, I asked for the number of the bill and there weren't any. So I know there are a lot of theories and a lot of ideas and a lot of possibilities, we're loaded with them, but until a possibility has actualized enough to be dropped into that hopper and be assigned a number--and I'm for talking--hey, let's discuss all we want.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes

Mr. CONYERS. Fee for services. Well, doctors sometimes run more tests than might be actually required because they're compensated on the basis of fee for services. And there are instances where tests have been run by one hospital and another doctor and yet another doctor, and they're all the same tests but everybody ran their own tests because you could bill it. And these are the kinds of efficiencies that we can squeeze out savings. And so it's very important that we understand where the costs are and how they might be contained.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on July 30, 2009, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote for H.R. 3326. I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in honor of the people of Canada as they celebrate their ``Canada Day.'' The United States and Canada share a unique history of friendship and brotherhood that has intrinsically tied our two people together. Celebration of the founding of Canada is joyous time to celebrate our very special friendship with our neighbors to the north. Our two nations share a common cultural, historical, and economic past and future. For centuries Michigan has been the focal point of relations between our two nations. A mere eight miles separate downtown Detroit and the great nation of Canada. Detroit and Canada share a unique story that was started by the French explorers as they mapped our shared waterways and continues today. Canada and the United States share more than a common border. As both our nations have flourished we have developed strong cultural bonds that have greatly contributed to the cultural fabric of both our nations. Significantly, Detroit and Canada share a devout love for hockey. Spectators and players from both our nations often cross the border to attend games and take part in friendly rivalries. Our shared cultural affinities have brought our two peoples together in a relationship unlike any other. Our two people also share fundamental ideals rooted in similar traditions and histories. We look to each other to grow intellectually as we face the complex issues of our day. Specifically, we look to Canada as a nation that has provided a national health care system to every Canadian citizen. As our country now addresses health care reform, we will do so through a uniquely American solution. Though our systems will be different at the end of the day, it is my desire that every American has access to health care. Our two nations hold a deep- seated belief that health care ought not to be object of profit, but a guaranteed right of all human beings. In an era of heightened security and economic uncertainty the bond that ties the United States and Canada together has only grown stronger. For these reasons I am proud to lend my voice to the chorus of American voices congratulating Canada on its celebration of Canada Day.