Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 297 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, to speak to us supporting this rule. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight and a pleasure to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. As my colleagues have heard me detail earlier, he is one of three of the brightest minds in the Republican Conference, including the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a vigorous debate today about this issue. We have heard a good number of speakers say that we did it the hard way. They would have done it the easy way. I think they are right; we did do it the hard way. But I would like to be accused of doing it the right way, doing what is in the best interest of not only the taxpayer, but also in the best interest of people who have needs and who need to make sure that their insurance coverage is done right. Mr. Speaker, Members have heard the debate on this side from some of our best and our brightest. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) talk about a very difficult issue, and they have delivered on that issue. They have worked with the White House and President Bush; and President Bush is proud of the work that they have done. So whether it was done the hard way or the easy way, it did not matter to me and did not matter to us. We have done it the right way. Mr. Speaker, I can proudly ask my colleagues to support not only this fair rule, but one which has the underlying legislation which is good for all of America and will ensure that the confidence and the stability of this country is held together. I am very proud of what we have done.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, one of two gentlemen who have worked diligently to see to it that this is a good bill, the other being the chairman of the full Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a fair, modified rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3357 shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, as amended, and provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. It also provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) or his designee. The bill shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the amendment printed in the reported. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the collective memory of Americans was altered forever. The terrorist attacks resulted in an incalculable loss, both in terms of life and the destruction of buildings, property and businesses. In the 2\1/2\ months since the attacks, America has begun the painful process of recovery and healing. Today we are here to consider H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. Exposure to terrorism is not only a threat to our national security, but is also a threat to the United States and global economies. The full extent of insured losses from September 11 is not yet known, but current estimates span from the range of $30 billion to $70 billion. There is no doubt that these terrorist attacks have resulted in the most catastrophic loss in the history of property and casualty insurance. While the insurance industry has indicated that it will be able to cover total losses, and should be commended for its resiliency, we are faced with a new situation that requires an innovative and creative solution. As our President, President Bush, declared, this Nation is now faced with fighting a different kind of war against a new enemy. Just as our military leaders have had to employ new strategies and tactics to fight the war abroad, we have had to make adjustments in our own homeland. Prior to September 11, terrorism insurance coverage was generally included in most commercial and personal contracts. However, the prospect of future attacks has set off a dangerous chain reaction. The reinsurance industry, which insures insurance companies, has indicated its inability to provide terrorism coverage without a short- term Federal backstop. Without reinsurance for the risk of terrorism, insurance companies are forced to specifically exclude it from future policies. Without this terrorism coverage, lenders are unlikely to underwrite loans for major projects. This sequence of events could result in dangerous disruptions to the marketplace and further hurt our economy. While a few fully understood intricacies of risk assessment and premium pricing are apparent, the effects on our marketplace are already being felt. I would like to highlight just a few of these real live examples. There is a small construction contractor in Maryland that recently found out that his insurance premium might triple to $150,000 a year. New York's JFK International Airport terminal cannot secure the $1 billion in insurance coverage it needs, which has led the developer to reconsider shutting the terminal down. The city of Chicago has received a bill to renew its war on terrorism insurance for next year at a 5,000 percent increase over its 2001 rates. These snapshots from around the country form a composite picture of a dire circumstance that requires action from Congress. Since September 11, Congress has moved in a timely fashion to address the needs that have arisen from the bipartisan supplemental appropriations funding, provided just a few days after the attacks, to legislation that addresses the need for increased airline security, to an economic stimulus package. This House has responded to its calling. Mr. Speaker, we now must step up again to pass this bill that is before us today. Reinsurance policies are generally written on a 1-year basis. Approximately 70 percent of current reinsurance contracts are set to expire at the end of this year, December 31, 2001. As the year draws to a close, Congress must act quickly to avert a national economic disaster. The Terrorism Risk Protection Act provides a Federal backstop for financial losses in the event of future terrorism attacks. This crucially needed backstop would create a temporary risk-spreading program to ensure the continued availability of commercial property and casualty insurance and reinsurance for terrorism-related risks. Under the House plan, the Federal Government provides the necessary backstop without opening the pocketbooks of taxpayers. Every dollar of Federal assistance will be repaid. The legislation also contains reasonable legal reforms to ensure that Federal assistance reaches its intended recipient. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing which killed 6 people resulted in 500 lawsuits by 700 individuals, businesses and insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 years and the cases are only just now getting to the trial stage, and hundreds of plaintiffs have yet to even receive 1 cent of compensation. By providing reasonable reforms, victims of terrorism will more quickly and equitably receive compensation, while also reducing the substantial uncertainty facing the insurance industry when pricing terrorism risk. Finally, the bill provides for studies that examine the effects on terrorism on various sectors of the insurance industry and ways to establish reserves, and guards against losses for future acts of terrorism. Yesterday, in his testimony before the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) described insurance as ``the glue which holds our economy together.'' The ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), also spoke, saying that this bill is not a bailout for the insurance company, and is of critical importance. While there may be many competing ideas on the best way to address this situation, there is one unanimous agreement: that this legislation is absolutely critical to prevent major disruptions in the marketplace and further harm to our economy. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) stated when he testified yesterday, the only intolerable action at this time is to do nothing. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule, a fair rule, and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious we disagree on this. But for someone to stand up in this body and argue that because of what we are going to do here today, it would encumber the Senate and ultimately would mean that this bill could not be passed, I simply disagree with that. The Senate, the other body, has an opportunity to debate this issue, to bring forth their bill, and then for the conference committee, not the other body to feel like they have been put upon, but for the conference committee to be the body to determine what the final outcome will be. That is what the process should be. I am proud of what this bill stands for, and I think we are doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we are engaged in a debate, as we are every year. Several years ago we were engaged in this same debate when Republicans stood up and talked about securing our borders, taking care of this country, making sure that Americans were safe. We are doing that again today. Today our colleagues across the aisle are trying to outbid us on how much money can we spend now that the September 11 tragedy has occurred. In 1999 we had this same debate, and each of my colleagues that has spoken here today on the other side from Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas wanted to make sure that as we stood up to try to defend this country, as we were defending the FBI, the Border Patrol and our National Instant Check System which would catch these people, it is each one of these, my colleagues, who voted to take money out of those funds. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true. They wanted to eliminate cutting $20 million from the FBI for the National Instant Check System; cutting $44 million from the Border Patrol; cut $32 million from the Federal prison system; cut $24 million from the judicial branch of government that pays our judges. This is what happened just 2 years ago. They were standing up gutting every single bit of the funding that we could do for what is now known as homeland security. Now today we cannot add enough money in. After being in Washington 5 years, I will say I have learned that virtually every single vote is about more spending and more money, or less spending and less money. Today what this is about is wise and prudent spending of the taxpayers' resources, working with the administration, that has made sure what they are asking for they can adequately spend and take care of the needs of this country. This should not be a bidding war. This should not be a war where we fight each other. It should be about providing the money that this President, this administration has asked for, to make sure that DOD has what they need. This is a fair rule. It is a rule that provides money for resources and allocations for people where they know it will be effectively spent. Adding tens of millions of dollars, trying to get into a bidding war at this time after each one of these colleagues of mine has just tried to take money away in the previous years, I think is something that we should take a look at and wonder why. What this administration is trying to do, what this bill is trying to do is the right thing. I support the rule. I am going to make sure that they get this money, and I hope that each of my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, my friend, the majority leader, who just a matter of a few years ago was Professor or Dr. Dick Armey, the Professor of Economics at North Texas University in Denton. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a stimulation package, a stimulus package that would give the American people back more of their hard-earned money, and what has been talked about here today is the Democrat plan versus the Republican plan. The plan that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have presented is one whereby this government would spend more money on pork. The gentleman had the pork that was on the board. Our plan, as Republicans, is really quite simple. What we want to do is we want to, instead of having the government spend money to stimulate the economy, we would like to give people back, taxpayers, their hard- earned money. Today I would like to spend just a few minutes to show the differences in a comparison of what the two bills do when we talk about giving more take-home pay to the American public, the people who get up and go to work every single day, as I did when I was in the private sector for 16 years, and never missed a day of work. I loved it. I love serving this body, and I try and give the same vigor and vitality to this body, just like many hard-working people in their jobs give to their companies so that they can take care of their families. Our Economic Security and Recovery Act is known as H.R. 3090. If we look at H.R. 3090, it will increase by an average of $708 the disposable income of a family each year over the next 4 years as compared to $176 by the competing plan offered by the Democrats. That is $708 more take-home pay on average for a family of 4 compared to $176. Secondly, a recent survey showed that 90 percent of consumers have delayed making major purchases. They have quit buying things as a result of the economic circumstance that we have here. What we are going to do is put more dollars in people's hands where they can have not only the ability to make this decision to buy more, but that they can get it done quickly. We are not going to wait. We are going to give it to the American public now. The number of Americans claiming unemployment insurance benefits rose to an 18-year high of almost 3.7 million, which is an increase over the previous year of $1.5 million. While the Democrats focus really solely on the unemployment benefits, we as Republicans want to ensure that they get their jobs back. This is about job creation and job growth. H.R. 3090, as has been predicted, would produce twice the number of jobs that the Senate proposal would do. Also, we want to make sure that we make it easier for investment, people to invest in this country, which will produce jobs. H.R. 3090 will increase investment by $9.5 billion each year as compared to just $1.2 billion each year under the Senate plan. But we sometimes have to dig deeper. We have to look at the facts of the case, and the facts of the case that produce this money back to people comes from us offering a rebate to people. The people who got the $300 checks this year represented a lot of Americans and they needed that money, but there were a lot of Americans that only got $150 rather than the $300. The Republican plan, the economic stimulus plan gives money back to the middle class workers of this country, and that is going to provide $13 billion over 10 years where people will get this money back. Secondly, we are going to reduce the tax burden on people, on Americans who get up and go to work every day. We are going to change those in the 28 percent tax bracket today to effective immediately this tax year, to the 25 percent tax bracket. One might say, boy, you are helping out some middle class people, yes, but how much money? $53.6 billion over 10 years. That is what Republicans are trying to do. We are trying to take this package and instead of having government spending to stimulate the economy, we are trying to make sure that people who work for a living have more take-home pay, to where they can make decisions about how they want their money spent, how they can make decisions about the things that are important to them and their families and give them back the power. The fact of the matter is this: money equals power. And if you have the money, you have the power. In this instance, one party wants the money in Washington so they have the power, and in the same circumstance, another party, the Republican Party, wants to give money back to people, because we believe the middle class of this country, the people who work for the money, deserve to get it back. I applaud the gentleman from Texas, our majority leader (Mr. Armey), not only for being the catalyst of today's presentation, but him embodying the things which I believe in of what this economic stimulus package is about. I am proud to call him my friend, and I am very pleased to participate today. I want to thank the majority leader for the time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for that. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, which will allow us to consider this important conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 272 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2311, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial conference report, and I am asking for us to support this rule and the underlying legislation. I want to congratulate the conferees on their hard work and urge passage of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 272 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the majority wishes to reserve its time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear several speakers who have talked about some very important aspects of what this legislative appropriations bill does. We have also heard some of the perhaps downsides or fallacies. I, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), wish to express confidence in the men and women who come to Washington, D.C., who work for the legislative branch. They work tirelessly. They are people who are up till late at night. They are people who care deeply about not only the success of the House of Representatives and the people who work here but also the institution. It is my hope that in the coming years we will be able to further work on issues related to employment, issues related to pay, issues related to student loans. But I would add an overriding remark, and that is that I believe that this institution and body is well served by the men and women who are here. And we have not only respect for them, but we also give them our gratitude and our thanks; and that goes for all the people who are living through some very difficult times now, when we have some offices closed, when we have some uncertain times that we are dealing with. And I think that they should hear, just as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) have stated, that we are proud of the men and women who work here, the police who protect us, and the people who day-to-day come into contact with us, including those people who serve in our cafeterias and other avenues to support this institution. Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report which we have been discussing. It is one which responds to the critical needs of the first branch of our government, which is the legislative branch. Adopting this rule will allow us to consider this important conference report and send it quickly to the President for his signature. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and adoption of this must-do piece of legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 273 is a standard rule waiving all points of order against the conference report, and provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the fiscal year 2002 legislative branch appropriations bill. The conference report provides yet another example of a carefully crafted bill from the Committee on Appropriations that balances fiscal discipline with the true needs of our first branch of government, the legislative branch. This legislation represents a responsible increase in overall spending of 4.6 percent. I would like to also commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor), the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and other members of the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work on what is truly a noncontroversial conference report, and for maintaining the position established by the House in almost every instance. Mr. Speaker, the legislative branch appropriations conference report ensures that the diverse funding needs of this institution are met, from legislative work to security to tourism. Specifically, this bill funds congressional operations for the House of Representatives, including our staffs and employees. It addresses the needs of the United States Capitol Police, and continues to support their efforts to modernize as they perform essential security functions for the protections of not just Members of Congress and our staffs, but for the millions of visitors who come to our seat of government every year. This bill includes important funding to hire additional new officers, and provides needed funds to bring their salaries in line with other Federal law enforcement agencies. I would like to take a minute to express my personal gratitude to the men and women of the United States Capitol Police for their tireless efforts during this time of war. Day after day, regardless of the hour, truly in rain and shine, these men and women faithfully carry out the duties which ensure the safety and security for all of us who live, work and visit our Nation's Capital. Their dedication, professionalism, and seemingly endless hours of service to ensure our security have not gone without notice and are most appreciated. Mr. Speaker, this conference report also provides for the needs of the Architect of the Capitol, including the various operations and maintenance activities under his jurisdiction for the Capitol, House office buildings and the surrounding grounds, and including an additional $70 million for needed House and Senate office space at the new Capitol Visitor's Center. In addition, it funds the needs of the invaluable but often behind- the-scenes work performed by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. The conference agreement also provides funding for the Library of Congress and for the Congressional Research Service, including the employees who collectively help us and our staff make sense of the many complex issues we face every day. Mr. Speaker, this conference report maintains the House-passed measures aimed to help meet the needs of an ever-changing and dynamic workplace. It helps this institution keep pace as an employer, including a monthly transit benefit, and makes modest infrastructure changes to make cycling to work more appealing; that is, as in riding a bike cycling. These transit benefits will help reduce demand on the already-limited parking, and help reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the conference report calls for a study of options for a self-sustaining staff fitness center. Finally, the conference report recognizes our need to become more environmentally friendly and efficient in reusing and recycling our waste by directing a review of the current recycling program, identifying ways to improve the program, establishing criteria for measuring compliance, and setting reasonable milestones for increasing the amount of recycled material. Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report and deserves our support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this straightforward rule, as well as the underlying noncontroversial legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we have said here several times, this is a noncontroversial conference report that has been agreed to by the House and that has been agreed to by our conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 273 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, from small-town doctor to chairman of one of America's premier health insurance companies, Dr. Rogers Coleman has made countless contributions to the nation's health care system for nearly half a century. A staunch supporter of the managed care system, which has introduced disease management and helped control escalating health care costs, Dr. Coleman also has been a leader in forging partnerships between the public and private sectors to provide basic medical care benefits for all Americans. For 10 years, Dr. Coleman led Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas-- the state's first and largest not-for-profit health insurer--through the most progressive change and largest expansion in its 62-year history. For seven of those years, he oversaw significant expansion of the company's Medicare business. From 1991 to 1996, he led Blue Cross' transformation from a fee-for-service to a managed care organization to better meet the health coverage needs of Texans. During that time, the company expanded its HMO statewide and introduced PPO and point-of- service coverage. Then from 1996 to 1998, he led the Texas Plan through significant regulatory hurdles to complete its merger with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois--quadrupling Texas' financial reserves and ensuring that for many years to come, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas would continue to help meet the health care needs of Texas communities. As chairman of Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) following the merger between the Texas and Illinois Plans, Dr. Coleman has overseen HCSC's acquisitions of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico and NYLCare's commercial HMO operations in Texas--increasing HCSC membership to approximately 7.4 million. Over the past decade, Dr. Coleman has made quality health coverage a top priority at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas. Under his leadership, the company has received five consecutive two-year accreditations from the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission for demonstrating a commitment to providing excellent service and quality PPO and point-of-service products. Over the past two years, Southwest Texas HMO and Texas Gulf Coast HMO have received NCQA accreditation for service and clinical quality that meet the NCQA's rigorous requirements for consumer protection and quality improvement. And much of Dr. Coleman's vision for a health improvement organization has been realized with the strides Blue Cross has made in health and wellness programs. Since 1995, he has overseen the company's development of a new maternity program, a nurse counseling service, and disease management programs for asthma, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure and HIV. While Dr. Coleman has done much for HCSC during the last three years and for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas over the past quarter century, he will be most remembered for his efforts on behalf of the uninsured. As one of only a handful of doctors in America to head a health insurance company, he has been uniquely qualified to address one of the country's most difficult issues. He says that what he remembers most about his 18-year private practice in general medicine and surgery were the people who needed medical attention but had no health insurance. To help solve this problem, in 1991, Dr. Coleman spearheaded the effort at Blue Cross to establish the Caring for Children Foundation of Texas, which provided free outpatient health coverage to nearly 7,000 Texas children whose parents could not afford such coverage. In 1997, he supported the company's effort to create the Texas Care Van Program, which has provided more than 70,000 free immunizations to medically underserved children and seniors in the state since it began. In 1998, he saw that Blue Cross became the first administrator of the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool, a program that today is providing health insurance to 14,000 Texans who, otherwise, might not be able to obtain coverage. Dr. Coleman led the organization's 1999 media campaign in Texas' largest cities to address the unprecedented level of legislative involvement in the health care industry. Instead of more mandates that he said would worsen the uninsured problem and push the private, employer-based health insurance system closer to the breaking point, Dr. Coleman advocated innovative solutions like health insurance tax credits for the uninsured--an idea that is today clearly on the table in Washington. And last year, Dr. Coleman helped develop a proposal for the Texas Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Uninsured that would allow Texas workers to take their health insurance with them as they move from job to job. Although Dr. Coleman's accomplishments have been many and impressive, including the ``Award of Exceptional Service'' from Medicare, one wouldn't know it given his unassuming and gracious demeanor. He always has recognized others for their accomplishments, never failing to say thank you for even the most ordinary contributions. Ironic in a way, since for the last half century, his contributions to the health care field have been anything but ordinary.