To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, as the "Cyndi Taylor Krier Post Office Building".

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard my friend from Florida say that this is a dilatory tactic, and the idea was to, what was it, to deny a vote on this bill? For goodness sakes. Last night there were several attempts, several attempts to try to improve this bill in a way that would make it more palatable to more people in this House, and they were turned down every time by the majority, Democrat majority, in the Rules Committee. And so for my friend from Florida to stand up and say that that is an attempt to kill this bill, when last night she participated in an exercise to do exactly that, is just beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, history is being made today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Yesterday, Democrat leaders and the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose for a record-setting, a record-setting 50th time to consider legislation under a completely closed process that allows no amendments, no alternatives, no substitute proposals, and permits not a single Member of this House the opportunity to change or improve the underlying bill.

Last January, the new Democrat majority promised the American people a new era of openness in the U.S. House, but they have delivered the most restrictive and unfair process in the history of the House. It is only March in the first part of the second session of this Congress, but the Democrats have already exceeded the 49 closed rules of the entire 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, that is a historic low. We were promised change, and we have gotten it. Only it has been change, Mr. Speaker, for the worse.

Mr. Speaker, time after time, Democrat leaders have shut down any and all opportunity for Members of the House to amend, alter or debate legislation. This is a sad and disrespectful way to approach the business of the American people and the people's House. It doesn't have to be this way, and it certainly isn't what the Democrat leaders promised a little more than a year ago. That promise has been tossed out the window, along with any pretense to seek out bipartisan compromise in passing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill on mental health parity, and, Mr. Speaker, it passed unanimously. Yet House Democrat leaders refuse to even allow the bipartisan Senate compromise to be voted on in the House. An amendment to allow a House vote on the Senate compromise was blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee, just as it blocked every other amendment offered by Members of this House, and that only happened last night.

Yet the reach of this bill goes far beyond mental health parity. The $1.3 billion cost it would impose on businesses providing health care to employees is an issue that, frankly, is not addressed, or any loss of care that may result from new government mandates that are contained in the bill is also not addressed.

The reach of this bill stretches deep into the ability of doctors to provide care to patients across this country through a $3 billion cut in health care to Americans served by doctor-owned hospitals. This is the second time in 7 months that the House will vote on legislation that seeks to ban doctor-owned hospitals by cutting funding from Medicare and Medicaid to these facilities, and, as such, Mr. Speaker, it imposes a very real and serious threat to some Americans' ability to access health care.

One of the hospitals threatened by this proposal is Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district in central Washington. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, Mr. Speaker, was founded in 1940 by three physicians. In the last 68 years it has grown, and now employs 1,500 people. It serves a population of 250,000 people in an area the size of the State of Maryland and it treats 150,000 patients a year. It has been designated by the State of Washington as a ``critical need hospital'' that is serving a rural underserved area.

Today, Mr. Speaker, it is 100 percent owned by 150 doctors. Apparently, that is a crime, because this bill would outlaw this facility as it has existed for 68 years, because this bill would prohibit any hospital from being more than 40 percent owned by doctors if they are to continue receiving Medicare patients for the care that they provide to their seniors.

Mr. Speaker, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center has been treating and caring for patients longer than there has been even 50 States in our Union, and yet this bill could end that care.

When I discussed this threat to Wenatchee with the proposal sponsors last night in the Rules Committee, they said the simple answer was to sell the 60 percent stake in a government-ordered fire sale so it meets the 40 percent limit on doctor ownership. Not only is a fair price, Mr. Speaker, unlikely to be paid when selling under a threat of government action, but it is unfair and disruptive to any institution with a long record of excellent care.

Mr. Speaker, what is so nefarious about 100 percent doctor ownership, or 75 percent, or 50 percent, or even, Mr. Speaker, 41 percent? What is magically solved with the ownership of 40 percent? The answer is nothing, nothing when it comes to Wenatchee.

The irony is not lost on me that this bill only bans doctor-owned hospitals in an effort to supposedly target bad behavior. Consider this, Mr. Speaker: If a corporation engages in the exact, in the exact same practices that this bill tries to stop doctor-owned hospitals from doing, the corporation would pay no penalty. It wouldn't even be touched. So apparently patients are safer if corporations are in charge, but patients are in danger and taxpayers are being ripped off if doctors prosper from owning a hospital and are providing excellent care.

What is really happening in this bill is a push to move our country ever closer to a Canadian-style government-run health care system, as under this bill such a Canadian-style system will replace good, high quality care from down-home doctors with the extensive medical expertise of Congress. The Federal Government will decide where Americans will get care and what hospitals will be banned or shutdown. The Federal Government will also decide when Americans are allowed to get care, if they are allowed to get care at all.

If the Federal Government can ban doctors from owning a hospital, then the health care access of every American, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is at risk. I fundamentally disagree with those who believe that an all-knowing Congress and thousands of Federal bureaucrats can deliver Americans the best health care possible.

Keep in mind, this ban on doctor-owned hospitals, quote-unquote, saves $3 billion. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, this is accomplished by denying or reducing access to care for seniors and poor Americans on Medicaid and Medicare. Instead of growing the size and power of the Federal Government by taking decisions away from local doctors and removing freedoms from individual Americans, we should be allowing American patients to make more choices and free doctors to focus on their profession of healing.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, the accusations of negligent care and fiscal rip-offs that are leveled at doctor-owned hospitals simply don't apply to this facility. Wenatchee is not guilty of the sins of others simply because it is a doctor-owned hospital since 1940. It should not be targeted or threatened for the real or anecdotal failures of recently created doctor-owned hospitals.

The language in this bill is simply not ready for passage as it is currently written. It is too broad and imprecise. It would punish honest, well-performing hospitals and doctors and their patients for the actions of others. If there is bad behavior, Mr. Speaker, to be banned, then target that behavior. Don't impose an overreaching ban that harms innocent patients and doctors.

My constituents are not alone in facing this threat. Both Mr. Hinojosa of Texas and Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin have similar concerns about health care institutions in their districts.

Efforts to improve this legislation so that it doesn't threaten and harm our home-grown hospitals have not been met with openness. In fact, we have been denied on a bipartisan basis. Last night in the Rules Committee I made three separate attempts to try to offer an amendment to protect innocent hospitals. However, Democrats on the Rules Committee chose to deny each and every attempt to preserve the stricture of my hospital and the hospitals of Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Kagen.

Mr. Speaker, there are legitimate bipartisan concerns about the toll this language would have on local hospitals that have done no harm and who provide important health care access to thousands of Americans.

This bill needs to be corrected, not forced through the House with zero opportunity for improvement or amendment. This record-setting closed rule denies any chance for help to be provided to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center or to patients in hospitals in Texas and Wisconsin. The rule deserves to be defeated and this House allowed to vote on correcting this flawed bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

If the issue is to go after doctor-owned hospitals that are not doing the ethical thing, then why not go after them instead of writing a bill that covers everything carte blanche including this facility in my district? The gentleman has not answered that. He didn't answer it last night, and he probably won't answer it today.

I yield to my friend from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are several parts to this bill. And obviously by the remarks that I made previously, I am worried about what we call the pay-for part of that because it would have a detrimental effect, as I mentioned, on doctor-owned facilities, particularly in my district, but also in other parts of the country.

Since this issue came up some 7 months ago, we discovered that there are very few doctor-owned facilities that are unique in the sense of what I was talking about today, and I think my colleagues from Wisconsin and Texas talked about last night in the Rules Committee, and so I want to ask my friend from New Jersey who is the sponsor of this legislation, and I will be happy to yield to him.

He talked about the issue of overutilization. Now, I simply have to bring this up because I doubt that the 150,000 patients of the Wenatchee Valley Clinic would say that they are overutilizing that clinic. I think they go there because they want to have their health needs taken care of. So I don't think that is applicable to that facility, and I mentioned that in my previous remarks.

I want to ask my friend from New Jersey a question.

As I mentioned, apparently there are just a few hospitals that fall in the category that I was describing.

But there are bipartisan concerns about the effects of this bill on good hospitals providing quality care. I made that point.

Will you work with me and other Members from both sides of the aisle to protect these hospitals and to exempt them totally from this ban on doctor ownership?

I yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I asked if the gentleman would work with me, and apparently the gentleman is saying that he won't work with me, even though this apparently is a very, very small universe, a universe of hospitals that deserve, I think, to have some sort of special consideration because if you have, for example, a government-mandated fire sale, what is the value of the enterprise that you're trying to sell? Yet that is precisely the language that you have in place.

So I'm asking you again. Since there are very few of these facilities, in three different States, would you work with us to exempt them totally from the ban that's imposed by this bill?

The gentleman answered me yes. Now go ahead with your no. Please explain your no.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation.

To me, Mr. Speaker, this sounds precisely as a look into the future, as we move towards what I would consider, I know that some would want, a government-style health care in this country, where conditions are going to be set forth on what kind of care, when that care is, what's the condition of ownership. All of these things apparently are on the horizon, and we are seeing an inkling into the future of how that would be effected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of discussion here today on the underlying bill, the subject of which has broad support. The issues are the PAYGO and the issues are the denial, denial of the Democrat leadership in this House to allow a vote on a bill that passed in the other body unanimously. So much for openness that was promised a little over a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my closing remarks on another issue, another issue that has not been taken up and needs to be addressed, and that's the FISA issue that we have talked about so many times.

It has come to my attention today, and it will be in a publication presumably tomorrow, that the distinguished majority leader said that the electronic surveillance bill, or the FISA bill, will not be taken up this week.

We are becoming unprotected in this country because we don't have all the capabilities that we need in our intelligence community.

With that, Mr. Speaker, in this rule, Democrat leaders have blocked the House from voting on a bipartisan compromise on mental health parity, as I had mentioned.

I want to talk now about modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into the 21st century. The Senate has passed legislation that will

bring this 1970s Jimmy Carter-era law up to date to reflect today's age of disposable cell phones and the Internet. Yet for weeks now, House Democrat leaders have refused to allow Representatives to vote on this Senate bill. They've done this despite the public support given the bipartisan Senate compromise by 21 members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

House Democrat leaders are tying the hands of our intelligence professionals to make them jump through unnecessary red tape and paperwork to protect our country. If foreign persons in foreign places are conspiring and plotting to harm Americans and our country, then our intelligence personnel should be listening to them. They shouldn't have to waste precious time and energy on bureaucratic hurdles.

We can protect and are protecting the constitutional rights of Americans, but we also must protect their lives by recognizing the terrorist threat to our country and modernizing FISA.

I ask all my colleagues to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to vote on the bipartisan Senate FISA bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 50th closed rule, record-setting 50th closed rule that denies every Member from offering an amendment on the House floor, and to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes the terrorist loophole.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1014 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I strongly oppose the gentleman's point of order.

This point of order is being raised today for one purpose and one purpose only, that is, to block this rule and ultimately the underlying bill, an underlying bill that prohibits discrimination against Americans with mental illness.

I'm heartened by the fact that I do not believe the gentleman's point of order comes from a unanimous opinion of the other side of the aisle because the underlying bill is a bipartisan effort cosponsored by 274 Members of the House of Representatives. Yet there are opponents of this bill, and they will raise these dilatory tactics. The opponents don't even want to allow a debate or a final vote on this critical measure. They simply want to stop the process and kill the bill through this procedural maneuver.

So despite whatever dilatory procedural devices the other side tries to use to stop this bill, we will stand up for the millions of Americans who need parity in mental health coverage, and we will vote to consider this important legislation today.

We must consider this rule, and we will pass the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act today.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

At this time I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the consideration of the resolution so we can move forward on the rule and to consider the bill.

Those that oppose our efforts to end discrimination when it comes to mental health services will get their opportunity to debate the bill and to vote against these measures.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote to consider the rule.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1014.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1014 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to provide for equity in the terms of employer-sponsored health benefits for mental health and substance-related disorders compared to medical and surgical disorders.

Mr. Speaker, this is an anti-discrimination bill, this is a health care bill, this is a pro-business economic development bill, this is also a pro-family bill, and this is a bill that supports our veterans. This is a bipartisan effort, with 274 cosponsors in the House, of which I am proud to be one.

Unfortunately, Federal action is necessary because Americans who suffer from illnesses like depression, postpartum depression, severe anxiety, bipolar disorder, and many other diseases are being discriminated against. You see, HMOs and many health insurance companies have been more focused on their bottom lines than on the health of our families. Mental health is just as critical to our lives and well-being as any physical ailments or disease. And yet health insurers continue to treat mental illness differently from physical illness.

In America, more than 50 million adults, at least 22 percent of the U.S. population, suffer from mental health issues or substance abuse disorders. In addition, one out of every 10 children or adolescents has a serious mental health problem and another 10 percent have mild to moderate problems. Untreated mental illness harms our families and children, emotionally and financially. Untreated mental illness results in higher costs for businesses in lost productivity. Untreated mental illness often leads to criminal activity, which is very costly. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability for individuals aged 15 to 44 in the United States.

A study sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health revealed that mental and addictive disorders cost our country more than $300 billion annually. This includes productivity losses of $150 billion, health care costs of over $70 billion, and $80 billion for costs such as criminal justice.

Unfortunately, less than one-third of the people with a mental disorder who seek care receive adequate treatment. Despite the losses suffered in our society as a result of mental illness and all of the studies that demonstrate this, national employer survey data indicates that mental health coverage still is not offered at comparable coverage to other medical conditions.

Even after passage of the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act and all of the efforts of the States, the Government Accountability Office found that 87 percent of plans had more restrictive design features for mental health benefits than for medical and surgical benefits. In addition, many employers have adopted restrictive measures, such as limiting the number of covered outpatient visits for mental illness. This is so shortsighted. It is so costly.

Former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher found that when health insurance plans unevenly impose higher costs for mental health services, the result, of course, is a reduction in treatment for those who need it, lost productivity and higher costs in the long run. Dr. Satcher stated that this is a true issue of fairness in coverage.

Similarly, another recent study found that deductibles and outpatient cost sharing were much higher for substance abuse than for general medical care. Well, this legislation addresses those inequities and provides a cost-effective way of providing increased access to mental health care. The bill prohibits discrimination by diagnosis by requiring coverage of all mental illnesses and substance-related disorders, just as we provide for Members of Congress and others covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Treatment for mental illness is a proven money-saver. In fact, for every $1 spent on treatment, we save over $12.

Mr. Speaker, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island and Mr. Ramstad of Minnesota for their bipartisan leadership on this legislation and their work to provide for the mental health needs of our families, our neighbors, our veterans and our children. We also owe great thanks to the Wellstone family. But, most of all, we can't forget the families throughout America who have a modest request of their Congress, and that is that they be treated fairly.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a good-news story for American families today, because not only are we going to outlaw discrimination against those who suffer from mental illness, but we adhere to the pay-as-you- go rules that were adopted by this Congress, led by Democrats, at the beginning of this Congress. Pay-as-you-go means that this bill is paid for.

And while I certainly respect the gentleman from Washington for speaking up for a medical center which operates in his district, there is a bigger picture here. And to explain that bigger picture, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who chairs the Subcommittee on Health for the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the powerful Rules Committee and the State of California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, a champion for America's families, children, and veterans, and the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and we do not have any additional speakers, so I will reserve the balance of my time until my colleague has made his closing remarks.

Mr. Speaker, back on the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equity Act, I submit for the Record a letter of support from the Federation of American Hospitals along with a related letter from the American Hospital Association, Coalition of Full Service Community Hospitals and Federation of American Hospitals.

Federation of American Hospitals,

March 3, 2008.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC.

Minority Leader John Boehner,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: The Federation of

American Hospital (FAH), representing America's investor-

owned and managed hospitals and health systems, supports

swift passage of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and

Addiction Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 1424). This 1egislation

will provide greatly needed access to mental health treatment

for Americans who need it most.

This bipartisan legislation would end prevalent forms of

health insurance discrimination against patients with

debilitating chronic mental illnesses. Additionally, H.R.

1424 will assist millions of Americans in obtaining the

necessary hospital care they need and were previously denied

because of inadequate mental health coverage.

H.R. 1424 is paid for, in part, by prohibiting physician

self-referral to a hospital in which a physician has an

ownership interest. Physician self-referral presents an

inherent conflict of interest, creates an unlevel, anti-

competitive playing field; threatens patient safety; fails

low-income and uninsured patients; and, has resulted in the

overutilization of limited Medicare resources. We strongly

support this provision.

We deeply appreciate Congress's ongoing commitment to

mental health parity and strengthening the Medicare program.

Sincerely,

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

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration of the resolution because it is in violation of section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution provides that ``all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI.'' This waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes the resolution to be in violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I have both professional and personal interest in this bill. I'm a medical doctor, and for years I've treated depression, anxiety, a lot of panic disorders. I'm also an addictionologist. I've treated drug and alcohol addiction and eating disorders. And so I've had many patients over the years that have had these kinds of problems.

My mom has been involved in dealing with her own depression all the way up until she died of metastatic breast cancer, and she worked with the mental health society in our home community.

I also have personal interest in this bill because my wife has suffered from depression. She has an eating disorder and has dealt with this in her history. She has suffered from depression to the point that several years ago she even tried to take her own life, and except for the grace of God she should have died. And so I do have a very personal interest in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is why I have a vested interest in how Congress addresses health care, and especially mental health coverage.

CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates to the private sector in this bill would be at least $1.3 billion in 2008; and this would rise to $3 billion in 2012. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA, establishes an annual threshold that cannot be exceeded, at least without Congress waiving this rule. For 2007, that threshold amount is $131 million, a great deal of money. This bill exceeds the $131 million threshold by over $1 billion, and it will place a crushing burden on private health insurers and millions of Americans seeking affordable health insurance. These mandates will directly harm businesses and Americans' ability to obtain affordable health insurance.

This legislation is very well intended. It is also rash and very poorly drafted and I assure you that if this mental health parity bill is signed into law in its current form, it will result in at least three things:

H.R. 1424 will increase health insurance and mental health costs;

H.R. 1424 will result in Americans losing their mental health coverage due to the mandates and the increased costs of those mandates;

H.R. 1424 will result in a myriad of lawsuits.

I testified before the Rules Committee last night and offered two amendments that would have drastically improved this legislation. Well, the Democratic majority, instead of choosing to allow an honest dialogue and an open debate on an extremely important issue of mental health, they chose to deny all amendments to this legislation. Not only that, the majority changed the underlying bill's language late last night and inserted the text of the Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act. This legislation will further erode mental health parity and jeopardize affordable group health insurance in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I resent my sincerity on this being questioned by the gentlelady from Florida. I am very sincere about this.

No, ma'am.

I am very sincere about this. I talked to the Rules Committee last night. I have talked on this floor here tonight. And for you to make these charges that I'm not sincere about this bill is absolutely incorrect. Maybe the gentlelady didn't hear me, but I have very personal interests in mental health. It is an extremely important issue to me, to my wife, to my family. And for you to say I'm not sincere about this, I am just very shocked about that. But I am sincere.

This bill, the way it's written, is going to actually deny people mental health coverage. We tried to fix it last night, make it better. And those attempts were denied over and over and over again.

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the concerns that I raised earlier regarding the provisions of the mental health parity bill, that it will actually decrease mental health coverage and increase health insurance costs, let me share several additional concerns I have with the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act that was inserted late last night.

Title I of the GINA legislation imposes Federal mandates on health plans regarding insurance coverage, while title II imposes mandates on employers regarding employment and related hiring decisions. However, there is no explicit language in this legislation clarifying that group health insurance plan sponsors may not be subjected to the more expansive remedies provided by title II.

Why is that a problem? Because title II provides for rulemaking by the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and remedies before the EEOC and, ultimately, Federal courts.

During floor debate on H.R. 493, Congressman Rob Andrews suggested that ``employers, including to the extent employers control or direct benefit plans, are subject to the requirements of title II of this bill,'' including the much broader definition of genetic testing and tougher penalties associated with that title.

I believe that this lack of clarity could and will lead to additional lawsuits through the use of broader remedies available in title II that are intended to be reserved for employers who violate their employees' civil rights, not for employees seeking to litigate group health plan disputes.

Further, section 502 of ERISA says that all lawsuits must go through Federal court, which is not addressed in the mental health parity legislation. Nothing in this bill states that section 502 is preserved, so lawsuits can and will be brought in State court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through just a list of some things that this bill will do.

It's going to increase health care costs. CBO estimates that H.R. 1424 would impose mandates on private insurance companies, a total of $3 billion annually by 2012. These costs will ultimately be borne by employers offering health insurance and employees seeking to obtain coverage.

Number two, it will increase the cost of business due to private sector mandates. The bill contains multiple new Federal mandates on the private sector, affecting the design and structure of health insurance plans.

The bill also increases the threshold level at which employees suffering increased claim costs as a result of implementing the new Federal mandates can claim an exemption from the provisions of H.R. 1424.

Number three, I think this will decrease the mental health coverage. While the bill imposes several new Federal mandates on those employers who choose to offer mental health coverage, there is nothing in H.R. 1424 that would require plans to cover these conditions. Thus H.R. 1424 could have the perverse effect of actually decreasing mental health coverage by encouraging an employee who is frustrated with the bill's onerous burdens to drop mental health insurance altogether.

Four, I think it will increase the number of uninsured. It will erode the Federal preemption for employers. This codification of treatment mandate for health plans, they are going to use DSM-IV to codify that. And this book, DSM-IV, was generated for physicians to use just to be able to classify mental health. It has a whole lot of things in here that most employers would not want to cover.

It will increase an intergovernmental mandate. It is a violation of UMRA. It has a lack of conscience clause, and it has a lack of medical management tools.

I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.

I am shocked and stunned that we financed overutilization and that is why we are doing this. Yet we understand that utilizing these physician hospitals, these new hospitals, saved the government money and are all about patient choice and are all about making sure that people who utilize these new hospitals don't get infections, don't get sick, don't check into a hospital to have surgery where other sick people are. It is a concept that keeps America not only the leading health care provider in the world; it is done in an efficient and cost-effective way. I am surprised that we find out it is overutilization.

Mr. Speaker, rather than taking this opportunity to bring parity to our health care delivery system, the Democrat leadership today is using this legislation as a vehicle to restrict future health care choices for Medicare patients. That is what this is about. It is to further own the opportunity for Medicare patients to be able to get the choices that they want, and the Democrat leadership is taking that away. Instead of using this opportunity to focus on mental health parity, the Democrats have decided to pay for this bill by pushing patients and limiting their options that they can receive for their own care.

Mr. Speaker, we will be real honest about this. According to HealthGrades, which is a nationwide study to look at hospitals and how efficient they are and how safe they are, three of the Nation's top 10 cardiac programs and three of the Nation's top 10 programs for joint replacement are at physician-owned hospitals. And despite the fact that these physician-owned hospitals make up only 3 percent of the Nation's hospitals, they are among the most efficient and the safest hospitals for people, our seniors, to go in and receive care. What will happen here today is an absolute mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy on this issue and I will quote from that:

``First, the bill would place new restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. This administration opposes this provision, which is unnecessary and could restrict patient choice without decreasing Medicare costs.''

That is right, it is going to be more expensive to argue about overutilization. Incredibly silly.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1424--Paul Wellstone Mental

Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007

The Administration supports passage of mental health parity

legislation that does not significantly increase health

coverage costs. However, the Administration has concerns with

H.R. 1424, which would effectively mandate coverage of a

broad range of diseases and conditions and would have a

negative effect on the accessibility and affordability of

employer-provided health benefits and would undermine the

uniform administration of employee benefit plans. For

example, the bill's confusing preemption provisions could be

read to add a patchwork of remedies that vary from State to

State. Therefore the Administration strongly opposes House

passage of H.R. 1424 or any legislation that expands benefits

and remedies beyond what is included in the Senate-passed S.

558.

H.R. 1424 also includes two provisions to offset the

approximately $3 billion in on-budget costs associated with

the bill. First, the bill would place new restrictions on

physician-owned hospitals. The Administration opposes this

provision, which is unnecessary and could restrict patient

choice without decreasing Medicare costs. HHS already has

administrative policies in place to address concerns about

physician-owned hospitals, including disclosure of physician

ownership, patient safety measures, and revisions to

Medicare's payment systems to better reflect patients'

severity of illness and the resources needed to treat

patients.

Second, the bill also would increase the Medicaid drug

rebate. The Administration objects to any offset that would

legislatively mandate an increase to the rebate percentage.

As CBO has noted in its 2007 analysis of budget options, it

is unknown how this change would impact non-Medicaid

beneficiaries and other payers. The Administration is

concerned that the proposal would have an adverse impact on

private purchasers, including the uninsured, further distort

the market for prescription drugs, and discourage innovation

in the drug development process.

The Administration urges Congress to offer meaningful

protections to American workers and their families by

eliminating the disparities between mental health benefits

and medical and surgical benefits, without broadly mandating

new benefits. The Administration believes the Senate bill

strikes the necessary balance of treating mental illness with

the same urgency as physical illnesses without significantly

increasing health care costs. The Administration would also

urge the House to preserve uniformity in health plan

administration as has been done in S. 558.

Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act

The rule requires that the provisions of H.R. 493 as passed

by the House be added to the Mental Health Parity bill after

the House passes H.R. 1424. While the Administration strongly

supports passage of legislation to prevent the misuse of an

individual's personal genetic information and believes such

legislation is critical to realizing the full potential of

genomic medicine, the Administration has both substantive and

process objections to the rule. The Administration is

strongly opposed to the lack of a clear ``firewall'' between

title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

(GINA), which addresses genetic discrimination in health

benefits provided by health insurers and plans, and title 11

of GINA, which addresses genetic discrimination in

employment. The Administration is concerned that the bill

fails to ensure that health benefits disputes are properly

brought under the appropriate remedies in ERISA, the Public

Health Service Act, or the Internal Revenue Code and that it

could unintentionally permit ``forum shopping.'' The

Administration also is concerned that unless the legislation

is clarified, the bill could be construed to have the

unintended effect of prohibiting health plans and issuers

from using information about the manifested disease of a

dependent covered under an individual's plan for appropriate

and routine insurance purposes. The Administration also

believes it is important that the legislation's relationship

with other provisions of law, such as Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act, be clearly defined.

Finally, the Administration looks forward to working with

Congress to address these concerns and pass Mental Health

Parity and Genetic Nondiscrimination legislation this year.

Madam Speaker, during the week of February 25-29, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 69-87.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 69, H. Res. 978, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 70, H. Res. 930, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 71, H. Res. 944, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 74, H. Res. 974, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 75, H.R. 3521 the Sires of New Jersey Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 76, H.R. 3521 the Meek of Florida Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 81, H. Res. 1001, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 83, H.R. 5351 on Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 84, H.R. 5351, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 85, S. 2272, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 86, H.R. 4454, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 87, H.R. 4454.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 3-7, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 88-106.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 88, H.R. 1143, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 89, H.R. 1311, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 90, H.R. 816, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 91, H.R. 4191, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 92, H. Con. Res. 278, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 93, H. Res. 951, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 96, H. Res. 1014, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 97, H.R. 4774, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 98, H. Con. Res. 286, ``nay'' on rolicall vote 100, H.R. 1424 the Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 101, H.R. 1424, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 102, H.R. 5400, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 104, H. Res. 1015, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 105, H.R. 2857 the Flake of Arizona Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 106, H.R. 2857 the Inslee of Washington Amendment.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 10-14, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 108-145.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 108, H. Res. 537, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 109, H.R. 3196, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 110, H.R. 4166, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 115, H. Res. 924, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 116, Motion, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 117, H.R. 2082, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 118, H. Res. 948, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 119, H. Res. 493, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 122, H. Res. 1031, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 130, H. Res. 1036, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 131, H.R. 5563, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 132, H. Con. Res. 316, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 133, H. Res. 936, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 134, S. 2733, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 137, H. Con. Res. 312 Kilpatrick of Michigan Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 138, H. Con. Res. 312 Lee of California Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 140, H. Con. Res. 312 Ryan of Wisconsin Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 141, H. Con. Res. 312, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 142, H. Res. 991, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 143, H. Res. 1041 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 144, H. Res. 1041 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 145, H.R. 3773.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 31-April 4, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rolicall votes 147-160.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 147, H.R. 3352, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 148, H.R. 2675, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 149, H. Con. Res. 302, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 150, H. Con. Res. 310, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 151, H. Res. 1005, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 152, H. Res. 1021, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 154, H. Res. 1065 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 155, H. Res. 1065 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 156, H.R. 5501 Carson of Indiana Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 157, H.R. 5501 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 158, H.R. 5501 On Passage, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 159, H.R. 4847 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 160, H.R. 4847 On Passage.

Madam Speaker, during the week of April 7-11, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 161-182.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 161, H.J. Res. 70, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 162, H.R. 2464, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 163, S. 793, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 164, H. Res. 1084 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 165, H. Res.

1084 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 166, H. Res. 1077, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 167, H.R. 2016 the Grijalva of Arizona Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 168, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 169, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 170, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 171, H.R. 2016 the Altmire of Pennsylvania Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 172, H.R. 2016 the Pearce of New Mexico Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 173, H.R. 2016 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 174, H.R. 2016 On Passage, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 175, H.R. 2419, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 176, H.R. 5489, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177, H.R. 5472, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 179, H. Res. 1083, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 180, H. Res. 1038, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 181, H. Res. 1092, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 182, H.R. 2537 the Flake of Arizona Amendment.