Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time, 2 minutes, to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), another member of the committee.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation. It is unfortunate that the majority in the House refused to pursue a strategy that our colleagues in the other body found appropriate for this legislation. Legislating, as we know, means compromising, and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol worked together to craft a consensus piece of mental health parity legislation. As a supporter of the concept of mental health parity, it is disappointing to me that the House has instead decided to jeopardize the possibility of getting legislation on mental health parity this year by ignoring the broad consensus among Members and stakeholders which was developed in the Senate. Mental illness affects tens of millions of Americans. According to the Surgeon General, approximately one in five Americans suffers adverse mental conditions during any given year. The impact from such illnesses on families can be devastating, and we must be doing more to improve access to mental health services. However, this bill before us today is not the correct approach. At a time of climbing premiums and health insurance costs, it is strange to me that we would pursue a path which the CBO acknowledges will raise the price of health insurance. CBO also projected that H.R. 1424 would cause some to lose their health insurance benefits and some employers to terminate mental health benefits altogether. In the face of a growing uninsured population in this country, statements like these from CBO concern me. We must find a more balanced approach to this problem that protects access to health insurance and mental health benefits. The bill's focus is also overly broad and includes coverage of some conditions that fall well short of diseases under most scientifically accepted definitions. Our legislation should focus on serious biologically based mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not on jet lag and caffeine addiction, as this bill would include. Employers may be willing to provide coverage for serious mental disorders, but under this bill could decide to drop coverage of mental illness altogether because they cannot afford the scope of the DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Surely, this is an unintended consequence we should all want to avoid. It is also important to note that under the bill, no executive or congressional action would intercede between the decisions of the American Psychiatric Association in the creation of the DSM and future legal requirements with which employers and insurers must comply under penalty of Federal law. I have always been concerned that this represents a likely constitutional conflict under the delegations doctrine. The bill appears to leave any update of what qualifies as mental health conditions and, therefore, coverage under the bill to the American Psychiatric Association. There are no criteria for judicial review, required notice and comment, or congressional review of future decisions made by a nongovernment entity. I want to be clear that I am not questioning the value of the DSM or the practice of medicine, or the process by which the manual is developed. But I believe giving the future decisions of a nongovernmental body the force of law raises serious constitutional questions. I would support a more balanced approach to mental health parity along the lines of the Senate bill. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' today so that we can take up the Senate bill and avoid a possible stalemate in a House-Senate conference on an issue that should be signed into law this Congress. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Ferguson from New Jersey.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy), a member of the committee.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor today to rise in support of the memory of Army Sergeant Jason Robert Harkins by dedicating the United States Post Office located in Cleveland, Georgia, as the Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office Building. I want to thank Mr. Davis and the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. It is, indeed, a sad but true honor to be able to recognize Sergeant Harkins. He was a member of the United States Army 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division of Fort Lewis, Washington. While serving his second tour of duty in Iraq, 25-year-old Sergeant Harkins was killed by a roadside bomb along with five other members of his platoon during combat operations in Baqubah, Iraq. For his valiant service to our country, Sergeant Harkins' family was presented the Bronze Star award and the Purple Heart. Born in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Sergeant Harkins was a 1999 graduate of Habersham Central High School in Georgia, served 3 years in the United States Army Reserves and was currently serving with the Stryker Brigade located at Fort Lewis when the attack occurred. Sergeant Jason Harkins is survived by his wife, Emily Renee Cook Harkins of Tacoma, Washington, formerly of Gadsden, Alabama; mother and stepfather, Nancy and Allen Fritchey; father and stepmother, Bobby and April Harkins; brothers Matthew and Daniel Harkins; as well as stepsisters Katie, Clara, Nicole, Jennifer and Emily; stepbrother Scott; and several nieces and nephews. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant Harkins and to join my constituents of Cleveland, Georgia, in naming the Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office Building. This honor will serve as a lasting reminder of his courage, valor, and the ultimate sacrifice which he paid for our country. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to include for the Record a copy of a letter from Mayor Donald Stanley of the City of Cleveland, as well as a letter from the White County Board of Commissioners requesting and supporting this designation. Board of Commissioners, White County, Georgia, Cleveland, GA, September 26, 2007. Hon. Nathan Deal, Ninth District Representative, Gainesville, GA. Dear Congressman Deal: As you are aware, recently our community suffered a tremendous loss. Sgt. Jason Harkins lost his life at 25 years of age by a roadside bomb while serving in Iraq. Weeks before his death, Sgt. Harkins went into a danger zone and saved the life of one of his soldiers. A bullet actually struck him in his helmet during the rescue. For this act of valor, his family was presented the Bronze Star Award and Purple Heart. Jason gave the ultimate price for our community and nation. As a memorial to him, we support the Postmaster Louise S. Nix's request to pursue the act of having our postal facility in Cleveland renamed the Jason Harkins Postal Facility. As we understand it, this would in no way change the addresses of residents, but would show respect and memorialize a White County native who died for his country. We would appreciate any assistance you could give to this action. Sincerely, Chris R. Nonnemaker, Chairman. Joe Campbell, Post 1. Craig Bryant, Post 2.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Army Private First Class Johnathon Miles Millican, dedicating the United States Post Office located in Lula, Georgia, as the ``Private Johnathon Millican Lula Post Office.'' Twenty-year-old Private First Class Johnathon Millican, a Hall County, Georgia, native, was killed by insurgents in Iraq while conducting a dismounted operation in Karbala on January 20, 2007. Private First Class Millican was off duty in a communications room talking with his wife when the attackers fired several rounds into the room with an AK-47 and one of them tossed in a concussion grenade. Courageously, he covered the grenade with his body, attempting to protect his comrades from the enemy intrusion. Private First Class Johnathon Millican was later awarded the Silver Star Medal of Honor for his courage, valor, and dedication for his fellow soldiers. Johnathon Millican had attended Lula Elementary, East Hall Middle School, and East Hall High school in my home County of Hall. While in high school, Johnathon was active in the community, working the concessions stand at the community ballpark and coaching a 5-year-old T-Ball team. After graduating from high school in 2005, he moved to Locust Grove, Alabama, before enlisting in the Army. Johnathon was a member of the 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment from Fort Richardson, Alaska. Johnathon Millican left behind his wife, Shannon; his parents, Mitchell and Angie Millican; and Mary and Ronald Lykins and sisters, Amber'le, Ashley, and Amanda. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to rise today to pay tribute to this courageous young man and to join my constituents of Lula, Georgia, in naming the ``Private Johnathon Millican Post Office.'' This honor will serve as a lasting reminder of the true recognition that is deserving of a fallen hometown hero who sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of the letter from Mr. Milton Turner, the Mayor of the City of Lula, requesting that this post office be named the ``Private Johnathon Millican Lula Post Office.'' City of Lula, Lula, GA, August 20, 2007. Subject: Consideration of Honorarium for PFC Johnathon Millican. Congressman Nathan Deal, Wachovia Center, Jesse Jewell Parkway, Gainesville, GA. Dear Congressman Deal: This letter represents the request of the City of Lula to recognize and honor the sacrifice and contributions made by a local young man, a fallen hero, Private First Class Johnathon Millican with the recognition and honor of his service and dedication to his country the naming of the Lula Post Office located on McLoud Street. Our 20-year-old young hero (a Hall County Native), was killed by insurgents in Iraq on Jan. 20, he had covered an enemy concussion grenade with his body attempting to protect his comrades from the enemy intrusion and was one of five U.S. soldiers killed during the attack in Karbala. Johnathon had attended Lula Elementary and East Hall Middle School and High School only recently moving to Locust Grove Alabama before enlisting in the Army. Millican was a member of the 377th Parachute Field Artillery Regiment from Fort Richardson, Alaska. PFC Millican was off duty in a communications room exchanging e-mails with his wife when the Jan. 20 attack started. The attackers fired several rounds into the room with an AK47 and one of them tossed in a grenade. In an earlier interview, Mitchell Millican told The Birmingham News his son was on one knee facing the door ``ready to shoot'' at that point and ``He could just as easily have jumped behind a desk or ducked down or whatever, but he chose to cover the grenade'' Mitchell Millican said ``and, to me, that shows character''. We know of your commitment to our service men and woman and know how moved you were at his loss; this honor would help to establish the true recognition deserving of a fallen hero. Also we would encourage your efforts to move forward the campaign to have the pentagon award PFC J. Millican with the ``Medal of Honor'' a process which we realize could take months or even years. Further we hope to have the opportunity in the near future to honor Jonathon's heroics here in Hall County and depending on your guidance will await some possible timetable for suggested dedication. Please advise the city of your schedule allowing your attendance and participation. Best regards, Mayor Milton Turner.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm beginning to think the writers' strike in Hollywood has migrated to Washington, DC. It sounds like we're having reruns, and, in fact, we are; same speeches. But the truth of the matter is the facts themselves have not changed. The bill that is being considered for an override of the President's veto, the fact remains that if we are talking about 10 million children being covered by SCHIP, 2 million of those will be in a crowd-out, currently having private insurance but being then forced or given the enticement, because it is a government program, to move to a government-run health care program rather than the private insurance that they currently have. The fact does not change that the bill does not have stable funding. While it dramatically increases the funding for the first 5 years, it then falls off a cliff, and the funding is cut by two-thirds. The fact remains that this bill fails to prioritize poor children. It would repeal the current requirement from CMS that 95 percent of children below 200 percent of poverty be covered before you move up the poverty scale. It repeals that and gives no priority to poor children. It does not cap the income eligibility. While some proponents say that it caps it at 300 percent of poverty, States could still enroll children and families above that, using what is known as ``income disregards.'' And instead of focusing on children, which it is a children's program, childless adults could continue to remain in the SCHIP program under this bill through September 30 of 2009. And parents who are adults could also stay on until September 30 of 2012 in what is supposed to be a children's insurance program. It provides excess, unnecessary funding. It does not give States the incentive to do as they currently are required to do to continue to maintain their participation. You know, Democrats contend that we should put more money into SCHIP because of leaner times. It would seem to me that in leaner times we should give the priority to the children in the poor families, and this bill does not do that. Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, in talking about welfare, ``We should measure welfare success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.'' I would suggest the same criteria could be used in SCHIP legislation. With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the veto override.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of S. 2499. This vital legislation will help preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to their physicians' services, in addition to providing States certainty as to their ability to cover their SCHIP children for the next 13 months and to continue to enroll eligible children in their programs. While this bill does not contain the needed reform of the sustainable growth rate formula in Medicare, it averts a payment cut for physicians which, I fear, would have dramatically impacted physician participation in Medicare. Moving forward, I hope that we would work in a bipartisan way to reform this SGR system rather than continuing these short fix programs that we have seen for the last several years. The physicians who serve this Nation's elderly population should not be subject to this annual uncertainty, constantly wondering whether or not they will be able to afford to see their Medicare patients. On the second subject, for months I have supported a long-term extension of the SCHIP program to ensure that children currently enrolled would continue to have health care services, and to allow States the certainty of funding so that they can continue to enroll eligible children. In the coming months there should be ample opportunity for SCHIP legislation to move through a regular legislative process without the pressures created by last-minute expiration of the program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this bill, which would help put and continue to put low-income children first, and continues the purpose of the original program: To serve the neediest children with health care. As a supporter of the program, it is unfortunate to me that we have not been able to reauthorize it for a longer period of time, but this extension should give us the opportunity to do so in a thoughtful and appropriate process. I would hope to work on these issues in a bipartisan fashion next year, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, well, here we are again. When the bill came up the first time, we had not had a chance to mark it up in the committee. We were not allowed amendments on the floor. And the process has been a take-it-or-leave-it because it appears that the issue is let's talk about children going to emergency rooms rather than doing something about extending the SCHIP program. And here we are again saying we don't want to do anything tonight; we want to reserve the time to talk about it in January. Well, there is an old saying that we ought to mean what we say and say what we mean. If the Democrats really want an SCHIP program, which I think they do, and Republicans do as well, then there ought to be some principles which have been on the table all along that should be able to be agreed to. One is that this is children's health insurance plan, and there ought not to be either a continuation of nor an expansion of the addition of adults into that program. And yet that continues to be one of the issues on which there is no agreement. Another issue is that it was intended to be for children at the below 200 percent of poverty level. We have said we should have been a saturation below 200 percent of poverty at 90 or 95 percent of those children before States start moving up the ladder, not to the working poor, but in some cases by many States' standards to the very rich or at least the middle income when you get to 300 and 350 and 400 percent of poverty. There has never been an agreement to say let's saturate the low-income children and cover them first as a prerequisite. And lastly, it is a program for American children and the continued efforts to create loopholes so that people who are not citizens, who are not legally in our country, who are not entitled to be covered under this plan which is for American citizens, they continue to insist that that loophole should not only be continued but also expanded. I would urge us to go ahead and vote now. Let's don't just talk about it. Let's do and say what we mean.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, which was originally introduced by my dear friend, the late Congressman Charlie Norwood, and has now been renamed the Charlie W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act. As a lung transplant recipient, Charlie believed in organ donation. This good piece of legislation will help facilitate life-giving organ donation by clarifying the intent of the National Organ Transplant Act to protect the commonsense practice of paired organ donation. A paired donation occurs when a donor who is willing to give an organ to a family member or a friend, but is biologically incompatible, donates to another patient, who also has an incompatible donor. By cross-matching two or more incompatible donor recipient pairs, more patients can receive organs and more donors can give them. The changes we're making this afternoon help conform the bill to an amendment that was offered in the Senate during consideration. The amendment helps to ensure this bill can adapt to advances in science should organs other than kidneys be eligible for paired donation. As we pass this bill today and later send it to the President for his signature, we honor a great Member of this House and carry forward some of his goals. I would like to thank Mr. Inslee for his leadership on this issue, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to another colleague of the Georgia delegation, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I urge the unanimous adoption of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today we are dealing with a bill that supposedly is a fix of the previous legislation that has been vetoed. We are all entitled to our opinion, but we should rely on a body that gives us the facts, and that is the Congressional Budget Office. I would like to look at some of those facts. First of all, there is supposed to have been a fix on the issue of illegal immigration. CBO still estimates that there will be $3.7 billion of increased Federal spending and complementary State spending that will total some $6.5 billion of additional spending because of this change as it relates to the immigration issue over the next 10 years, and an additional 100,000 adults will gain eligibility because of this section. The questions that ought to be asked are the two questions that were put to the staff of the Social Security Administration, because if we are going to allow Social Security numbers to be used as identification, these ought to be the questions. They were said to the staff. And the question is: Would the name and Social Security number verification system in this bill verify that the person submitting the name and the Social Security number is who they say they are? The answer: No. Second question: Would the name and Social Security verification system in this bill prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's valid name and matching Social Security number to obtain Medicaid and SCHIP benefits? The answer: No. The authors of this bill also claim there is a fix on the issue of adults in SCHIP. The fact that CBO still projects that up to 10 percent of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't, in my opinion, go to cover adults. The fix on the issue of crowd-out. The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program. Then the fix relating to the enrollment of higher income children. CBO estimates there will only be some 800,000 who are currently eligible for SCHIP who will be enrolled in the next 5 years, but an additional 1.1 million people with incomes that are not currently eligible for SCHIP will be enrolled in the program. I urge a ``no'' vote. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I understand why my colleague from New Jersey might like the bill, because his State, that's at 350 percent of poverty, gets grandfathered in and gives special treatment over the majority of States in this country. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Shadegg from Arizona.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Burgess from Texas.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. You have already heard the accolades about Charlie's service as a decorated dentist in the Vietnam era and in Vietnam, in country. I didn't know Charlie until he came to Congress, but he and I became very close friends. We worked together on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He was always dedicated to the things that he thought was for the best, especially for our veterans, for those who serve their country and who had sacrificed for our country. He was always somebody that you knew exactly where he stood, and he wasn't always partisan in where he stood. He simply took positions based on what he thought was right. In the words of Charlie Norwood, I would thank the gentleman who introduced this resolution, and, as Charlie would say, ``you done good.''

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. All of us would like to see an extension of the SCHIP program, and I think there are some very basic principles on which all of us should agree, principles that should be embodied in a bipartisan piece of legislation. I would suggest there are five. First of all, we should put the poorest children at the front of the line. That means we should require States actually to enroll 90 percent of their SCHIP and Medicaid-eligible children under 200 percent of the poverty line before they start enrolling children at higher income levels. Two, no families with incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty level should be eligible for Federal SCHIP funds. States that want to go above that should feel free to do so with their own funds; but hardworking, tax-paying families in the Midwest and the Southeast shouldn't be forced to subsidize the health care for children and families in the richer States who are making over $82,000 per year. Third, no Federal SCHIP funds for adults other than pregnant women beginning in 2009. We should give the States a year to transition their low-income adults to Medicaid, which is where they belong, and stop taking away limited resources from needy children and giving them to childless adults. Fourth, keep the existing Federal requirement that States actually document the citizenship and identity of all of the applicants for Medicaid and clearly state in the bill that illegal immigrants are prohibited from receiving Medicaid or SCHIP benefits. Being able to write down a Social Security number doesn't actually prove you're a United States citizen. Federal benefits should not go to illegal immigrants. Fifth, no millionaires in SCHIP. We should simply put a $1 million net asset cap on eligibility for Federal SCHIP funds. If you have over $1 million in net assets, you should be able to afford to pay for your children's health insurance.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, there ought to be something that we can agree on. The first is that the program ought to be for children. And yet we are told that in the bill the President has rightfully vetoed, in 5 years there will be 780,000 adults still in a children's health program. Secondly, this program ought to be, as its primary target was, for children below 200 percent of poverty. We know that in States that have gone above the 200 percent level, they have left behind up to a quarter of their children in their State that are below 200 percent of poverty, and there is nothing in this bill that requires them to go back and make sure that they enroll those children. In fact, this legislation repeals the outline that CMS had put out to require 95 percent saturation of children below 200 percent of poverty. So there is no effort to go back and do what the program was designed to do, and that is to help those between the 100 and 200 percent of poverty. Madam Speaker, the third thing is that we all ought to agree that Medicaid and SCHIP ought to be for Americans, for American children. The change that this bill puts into place will allow people who are not qualified under our current law for Medicaid or SCHIP to become eligible. CBO says that the Federal cost of that alone is $3.7 billion. I think the last thing we ought to agree on is that we should not take a major step toward socializing health care in this country. This bill does nothing to prevent States from having what is called ``income disregards.'' That is, if a State says, well, we just won't count what it costs for housing, we won't count what it costs for food, we won't count what is costs for transportation in computing your percent of poverty eligibility, then you can go up to 800 percent of poverty. And that certainly distorts the program. Madam Speaker, lastly, we want to talk about time and the use of time. We knew 10 years ago that this bill was going to expire at the end of last month. This was a 10-year authorization bill. We knew in 1997 when it was put in place that it was going to expire at the end of September of this year. We knew 9 months ago when this Congress went into session that unless something was done, the legislation was going to expire the end of September. And yet only at the last minute was legislation presented in this House, with no legislative hearing, and then asked to be voted on, and not a single House Republican participated in the conference committee report that we are now being asked to sustain and to agree to at this point.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill before us which extends Transitional Medical Assistance and the Title V Abstinence Education programs, and the Qualified Individuals programs, more commonly referred to as QI-1 program. I am pleased that the Congress can work together toward extending the funding for these particular programs. I support the reauthorization of Title V Abstinence Education program, a program that provides resources to educate our Nation's youth about the benefits of an abstinent lifestyle. I'm sure many of my colleagues have heard, as I have, from the numerous programs within my State that rely on this Federal funding. They believe in the program, and they hope to continue providing abstinence educational opportunities to local teens. The QI-1 program provides money to States to pay the Medicare part B premiums of low-income beneficiaries ineligible for Medicaid. Without this relief, the low-income beneficiaries enrolled in this program would have to start paying for their part B premiums, which have risen over the past few years due to overspending in Medicare. I am supportive of extending this program in order that we may continue to provide assistance for our low-income seniors and beneficiaries as we've done in such a bipartisan manner each year for the past several years. This bill also corrects a provision that was included in a bill for money for our troops in Iraq passed earlier this year. There is a provision in that bill that denies payment for any Medicaid prescription that isn't written on a Secretary-approved, tamper- resistant drug pad. Since then, we've heard from doctors, nurses, pharmacists and State health officials across the Nation that the October 1 implementation deadline required by that bill is much too soon. I am pleased we are affording our Nation's health care providers the flexibility needed to properly implement this new requirement so as not to jeopardize access to care for our Medicaid beneficiaries. In addition, this package includes $385 million in new funding for the Medicare Physician Assistance and Quality Initiative fund created by last year's tax relief bill. That fund provides bonus payments to physicians for reporting on quality measures this year, and includes over $1 billion set aside for bonus payments in 2008. I am pleased to see this fund extended into 2009 and beyond. It is a bipartisan recognition that incentivizing physicians to provide quality, efficient and effective health care holds the promise of a better Medicare physician reimbursement system, one that reflects accountability for the type and volume of Medicare services. The Physician Assistance and Quality Initiative fund that we put in place last year takes an important first step in that direction, and I'm happy to see that the House Democrats agree with that position. In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for the bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time. I reserve the balance of my time at this point.