Employee Retirement Preservation Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time, and I thank the chairman as well.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today is simply renewing an act that will allow mental health insurance to have the same limits in insurance coverage as every other insurance legislation that you would ever have for a physical illness. However, the problem is that we keep doing this each year without addressing the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that we have here in the Congress a bill that would require parity in insurance coverage, meaning equal copay, equal deductible, equal premium for those illnesses, for those mental illnesses, when it comes to insurance coverage as there would be for any other physical illness.

Mr. Speaker, I have two major illnesses. I have asthma, which is a chronic illness; and I have an EpiPen, and I have prednisone, and I also have bipolar disorder, and I have Prozac and I have lithium.

Now, I am fortunate enough to have insurance coverage where when I go to get my coverage for my medications, I do not have to pay a higher copay for my mental health drugs as opposed to my asthma drugs. Do you know why? Because the Congress of the United States has mental health parity. Yes, Members of Congress are not discriminated against when it comes to mental illnesses.

However, you in the public out there in America, when you try to go and try to get treatment for bipolar disorder, for schizophrenia, for major depression, for any number of mental illnesses, you are told you have to pay a higher copay, a higher deductible, and you are told that you have to pay a higher premium on top of that, all because this country still treats mental illness as if it is not a physical illness.

Mr. Speaker, I have a chart here that shows that mental illness is a physical illness, for those that do not truly believe it. Here we can see in what is an x-ray called a PET scan the difference between two brains, each differentiating from the other based upon a difference in the disorder that the illness represents. In this case, we have bipolar disorder, and you can see that there is greater activity in one part of the brain here for those that do suffer from it, as opposed to this brain.

The physical qualities of mental illness are well known, so why do we not have parity in this country? Well, we do not have parity because some think that it is going to cost us more money.

Well, the tests are in, the studies have been done, and, quite frankly, to my colleagues who think that this is going to cost the Chamber of Commerce more money, all they need to do is look at The Wall Street Journal for evidence to the fact that it actually saves businesses money. It saves businesses money because it costs us $31 billion a year, $31 billion a year in productivity lost because businesses do not ensure adequate coverage for their employees in mental illness.

Just understand this: anyone who has depression, are you truly able to make it at work and focus on what you are doing? That is called presenteeism. That is when you are at work, but you really are not at work because you cannot concentrate. That is called presenteeism. Then, of course, you have absenteeism. Of course, that is easy to measure.

The fact, my friends, is that an average person who has depression loses 5 hours a week of productivity compared to one that does not. So would you not think that some mental health coverage for the person suffering from depression might actually improve productivity?

Guess what? It does. The studies are in, and, frankly, that is why I cannot understand why the majority of this House has not even brought to the floor of this House a mental health parity bill that will allow us to end the discrimination that currently exists in this country.

We are sanctioning discrimination. We are basically saying, like, for example, cancer, well, we are not going to cover cancer because it is costing too much. That is essentially what we are being told by those who do not want to cover mental illness. We are basically being told ``your illness costs money.''

Well, if it is about saving money, why not just cut out cancer coverage, because, you know, that costs us a lot of money. That is a foolish argument. And equally as foolish is the fact that we would cut out from insurance coverage mental illness simply because of stereotypes and because of stigma in this country.

This legislation today is simply one part of a farce to make people think that we are actually doing something on mental health parity when, in fact, with this legislation what we are doing today, all it does is allow the insurance companies to play the game where they do not actually have to provide the coverage. They can organize various days that actually can be utilized and the number of appointments that someone can have or the kind of drugs that they are prescribed. This legislation might as well have been written by the insurance industry when it comes to coverage for those with mental illness.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by stating a few facts. Those who are 65 or older are the highest rate of suicide in this country; 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide in this country. The third leading cause of death for young people is suicide. This year alone we are going to see 1,400 young people take their lives in colleges and universities in this country.

We are not taking this issue, this illness, seriously enough. And if it pulls your heart strings and it is simply about whether you think it is going to save money or not, you can see from these charts that even the Surgeon General of the United States has said that mental illnesses comprise the second leading cause of morbidity, meaning the lost days in life, productive life; and the World Health Organization has ranked it number one.

So how could we be so blind to look at such a significant part of our health care system and then just look the other way when it comes to insurance coverage?

I hope my good friend from California will help me in getting his leadership to help bring to the floor of the House a parity bill that will allow us to finally end the stigma and discrimination that still exists in this country towards those with mental illness.

Let me just say, with respect to our veterans coming back and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, when we say that we are not going to cover mental illness, we are making an implicit message out there to America that somehow it is not real, somehow it is not real health care, it is something on the order of cosmetic surgery. You know what that does? That means that there will be fewer veterans coming forward and asking for help. Ninety-six percent of the veterans coming back from Iraq right now are not signing up for any mental health consultation whatsoever. And the reason they are not is because of the stigma.

And by not bringing a bill like parity to the floor, another thing that we do that is unjust is we reinforce the image in America that if you are mentally ill there is something wrong with you, that you ought to just get up, pull yourself up by you bootstraps, and you ought to get with the program, and that it is some moral failure of yours as opposed to it actually being a physical disorder with its roots in the biology of the brain.

I thank the chairman and my good friend, the ranking member from California, for giving me this time to speak. There is so much here to discuss. I would not have all the time that I would need to discuss it. But hopefully if we do get a parity bill on the floor one of these days, we can have an even fuller discussion of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 623 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, 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, this resolution provides that certain specified measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time on the legislative day of Saturday, December 17, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House has set forth a positive legislative agenda for the remainder of this week and the balance of the first session of the 109th Congress. The goal of this plan is to address a number of outstanding issues remaining on Congress's calendar before we adjourn that maintain our commitment to improving America's economy and national security.

Over the past year, we have passed a number of important new education, health care, tax, trade and national security bills that will keep Americans safer and healthier, create new jobs and improve our economy. This rule will allow the House to consider a number of additional bills today under suspension of the rules that will ensure that Congress can complete some additional important work before we adjourn for the holidays.

This rule makes in order the consideration of nine bills under suspension

of the rules. These bills accomplish necessary and noncontroversial goals, such as extending funding for the operation of State high-risk health insurance pools, providing for collection of human cord blood stem cells for medical treatment and research, and improving the proficiency testing of clinical laboratories.

The suspension authority will also allow us to consideration legislation to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice, improve medical benefits for patients, extend important educational programs and help NASA to continue its human space flight, aeronautics and science programs.

Perhaps most notably, it provides for consideration of the conference report to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Extending TRIA is a goal upon which I have worked very closely with my friends and fellow House conferees, Chairman Mike Oxley and Chairman Richard Baker, and I commend them for their hard work in preparing this bill for President Bush's signature.

This legislation represents a fiscally responsible response to the threats that acts of terrorism pose to the American economy. It also includes important taxpayer protections and will ensure that this important program does not expire and leave the marketplace for terrorism insurance in uncertainty.

After the tragedy of September 11, the marketplace for terrorism insurance largely disappeared. This lack of terrorism coverage terminated or delayed billions of dollars in commercial property financing, threatening business operations and development and job creation and our overall economy.

TRIA has proven its ability to stabilize the market, and it will continue to provide essential protection for businesses of all sizes in our country. I urge my colleagues to take the opportunity later today to follow up on this program's successful record and to reauthorize TRIA so that the program does not lapse and hurt businesses and policyholders around this great Nation.

Like TRIA, all of the bills scheduled for consideration by the Republican House leadership on behalf of all Americans enjoy broad support from Members of both the majority and the minority parties. This rule simply provides us with the tools needed to ensure that all of the important work is completed before we adjourn to our families and communities to celebrate for the holidays.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this uncontroversial and balanced rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, like my wonderful colleague, Mr. Hastings, am here doing the work of the American people. We are proud of what we are doing. It is just 1 week before Christmas, and we have a lot of work left to do. That is why we are here. We are here to work.

There are a number of my colleagues who showed up for work today prepared and ready. We know they miss their family and friends. Nathan Deal of Georgia, Tom Price of Georgia, and John Shimkus of Illinois are just an example of three Members of Congress who, even on a weekend and even a week before Christmas, show up.

So it is my hope that this same spirit we all talk about today, of accomplishing our work on behalf of the American people, the importance of completing our work because we said we would do it, to be responsible to the people of this whole country, all the people, that that spirit will carry through because that is why we are here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has very appropriately talked about this important act, this TRIA legislation; and I would like to take time to thank the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts) for not only his work for a long time on this bill but for working clearly and closely with industry and consumer groups to make sure that what we had control over of here in the House that we passed.

I do admit that there is frustration. There is frustration on my part, too, as the gentleman is well aware. And I will tell you that the process that has taken place may not be perfect, but I want to thank the gentleman not only for his support of the work that we were able to accomplish but for sticking with it.

The good part is there will be a process here today and the gentleman will be able to speak very clearly about his thoughts on that, and we will move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their thoughtful comments this morning about the circumstances, as we are here on December 17, almost a week before Christmas. I would like to thank all my colleagues for coming down and speaking clearly.

There is a lot of frustration, but I believe the process is important for us to follow through. I am proud of what we are doing. We can accomplish it all together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was struck by the gentleman from Texas crediting his fellow Republicans for showing up. Because if it were not for the combination of institutional incompetence and ideological extremism that dominates the Republican Party, none of us would have had to be here. So I guess we all deserve recognition as victims of that.

I actually think this motion should have been retitled. It should have been called Subversion of the Rules, not Suspension of the Rules, because that is what is happening. We are being at almost gunpoint, the metaphorical, parliamentary equivalent of gunpoint, being asked to debate under very restrictive measures bills that deserve more.

Let me talk about one, the terrorism risk insurance. I think it is an important bill, and I agree substantively with what the gentleman from Texas said. Unfortunately, the right wingers who dominate this administration and much of the congressional leadership in both Houses do not agree. They tried to kill this thing, until finally, at the overwhelming insistence of people who are involved in the economy of this country said that that would be irresponsible, they did the next best thing. They have forced us to deal with it in a constricted and inappropriate way.

We did take it up in the House, and we had a full markup in our committee, and we voted on it on the floor. In the Senate, and let us praise the rule change that now allows us to tell the truth about what goes on in the Senate, the Senate passed a very restricted version of this. The Senate chairman of the banking committee then refused to appoint conferees.

Interestingly, we are going to have to amend this rule, because the rule, reasonably, said let us take up on suspension the conference report on TRIA. And then the Rules Committee had to be reminded that there is no conference report on TRIA, because the Republican Senate chairman, knowing that he would have been outvoted in the conference, refused to allow one and, instead, individually dictated what would be in it.

So we are going to have to amend it, because if we had a vote on a conference report on TRIA, we would have no TRIA. They would not have a conference. The regular order has been totally subverted. Unfortunately, we have to accommodate it because we are up against a December 31 extension.

By the way, if the House Republican leadership had not delayed consideration of this bill, we could have done it months ago and not been vulnerable to that kind of extortion.

What we have now is a bill that leaves out, for example, the commission on how to deal with terrorism insurance that the families of September

11 have asked for. We will go into that further when we debate it, but the families of September 11 asked for a commission. We included it in the House bill. Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker accommodated that reasonable request. It is not in the Senate Bill. And because of this outrageously high-handed legislative procedure, we do not have a chance to include it.

An important provision was adopted here in the House, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida, to prevent people who are traveling to what some insurance companies think are dangerous areas, like Israel, from being denied life insurance. That is not in the bill. Maybe some people do not like it, but we should have been able to have had a forum in which it could be debated and decided.

Instead, we have the right wing that controls the executive branch and both Houses of Congress grudgingly allowing a bare bones and, I think, inadequate form of extension. It is better than nothing. It is important to the economy, and the gentleman from Texas is right. But here is a combination of ideological extremism and a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a democratic process here.

As we salute democracy in Iraq, and I am glad we saw it yesterday, I guess I am starting to get jealous of the Iraqis, because as of now there is more democracy being practiced under American auspices in Iraq than the leadership here in the House of Representatives is allowing on the floor of this body.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment, I want to thank the gentleman for his graciousness on that, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4579) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by one year provisions requiring parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4579.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will extend provisions under ERISA, the Public Health Services Act and the Internal Revenue Code regarding mental health parity for 1 year until December 31, 2006.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 17, 2005.

The Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: I write regarding our mutual

understanding for the consideration of H.R. 4579, a bill

amending the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),

the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal

Revenue Code (IRC) to extend certain provisions on mental

health benefits. The provisions of this bill amending ERISA

are within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce. The provisions of this bill

amending PHSA are within the sole jurisdiction of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce. The provisions of this bill

amending IRC are within the sole jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means.

As you and I understand the importance of extending the

provisions to each of these Acts, we have agreed to the

scheduling of this bill for consideration in the House of

Representatives. However, I agree that we have done so only

with the understanding that this procedural route should not

be construed to prejudice the jurisdictional interest and

prerogatives of the Committee on Education and the Workforce,

the Committee on Ways and Means, or the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, respectively, on these provisions or any other

similar legislation, and will not be considered as precedent

for consideration of matters of jurisdiction to each

committee in the future. Finally, I would support your

request for appointment of conferees on the provisions in

your Committee's jurisdiction should a conference arise with

the Senate.

A copy of our exchange of letters will be inserted in the

Congressional Record on this bill. Thank you for your

consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his moving testimony today on the issue of mental health. I would be the first to agree that the mental health parity bill that we have will now, as Mr. George Miller of California says, and has for the last 10 years been an important step in the right direction.

Is it enough for most people? Probably not. And I think that all of us are aware that Congress and the American people have been in this debate for a long time. We have 45 million Americans who have no health insurance at all, and we know that every time we mandate a benefit on employers' insurance policies, we raise the cost of those policies. And what is the result of higher health insurance policies? More uninsured Americans.

So there is a balance, and I realize that people want more mental health coverage. The debate will continue here in the Congress; but in the meantime, I think it is important for us to make sure that the mandate that is in the current law that does provide some coverage for mental health illness that is going to expire will do so unless we extend this provision. And that is all the bill before us does is extend the provisions already in law to make sure that at least there is a foundation of coverage in the law as people have come to expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to put the House on notice that I intend to ask for a rollcall on this rule. And if we do have a rollcall, I am going to vote against it, and I want to explain why.

One of the bills that this rule makes in order is the continuing resolution. At this point, this Congress has not passed the defense bill. It has not passed the Labor, Health, Education and Social Services appropriations bill. Together that equals about 65 percent of all the discretionary spending in the budget. We still have not passed those bills almost 3 months into the fiscal year.

Now, this resolution will allow the continuing resolution, which expires today, to continue until February 15. Now, it also says that we will not be able to amend the CR. However, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from amending the CR when it goes over there, and I fully expect them to try because they have a different set of priorities than the Republican House leadership. If you do not believe that, just ask Mr. Stevens.

There is another problem with the CR, and that is that it funds both the Defense bill and the Labor, Health, and Education bill at a very much lower level and on a very much more restricted basis than I think is healthy. Example: on the Defense side, if the Defense appropriations bill does not pass, it means that money will trickle out to the military, but they will not be able to do the advanced procurement expenditures that they need if you are going to have intelligent planning.

On the Labor-Health side, what it means, and this is even more serious, I think, because I think there is a better chance that the defense bill may pass, but the Labor-Health bill right now is so inadequate that the majority leader in the Senate cannot get enough votes to pass it. And so now what they are doing is setting up this scenario: they are going to fund Labor-Health programs at a level $1.4 billion below the House-passed bill and $3 billion below last year. And because of the peculiarities of the formula, programs such as the Community Service Block Grants are going to be funded at a level 50 percent below last year. You might as well gut that program if you let that happen.

And why are they doing it? I think the reason they are doing it is because they know they cannot pass that turkey of a Labor-Health bill now as it is, so they are trying to set up a scenario in which in February Senators will have to vote for that inadequate bill in order to escape from the crisis which was manufactured by this inadequate and rigid CR.

I think House Members, if we are going to be asked to pass another CR, ought to have an opportunity to amend it. Coming from an agricultural State, I am told that the agreement just reached between the House and the Senate is going to allow Senator Cochran to put $2 billion wherever he wants it in agriculture, and I would kind of like to see some of that money going to the MILC program. But it is not going to under the way this is set up.

I would also like to amend the funding rate for a number of programs so that you do not indirectly, under the table, without a frontal vote, gut programs like the Community Services Block Grant.

So I want to put the House on notice, despite any agreement at the leadership level, I intend to ask for a rollcall vote because this is nuts.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.