Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was passed in order to make the flood insurance program both actuarially sound and functionally sound. And we hope that it is on track to make it actuarially sound, but it is not functionally sound, so this attempts to address this.

What this bill would do is that section 207--and only 207--would not allow it to be implemented for 1 year. After that, it would begin to be implemented.

Let me first say that the CBO has scored this as zero, and it has no impact upon the Federal Treasury.

The reason to do this, though, is that FEMA does not yet have the methodology by which to implement this program. Indeed, there was a GAO report from 2008 which shows that FEMA's rate-setting process warrants attention. As it turns out, they haven't updated it since 2008. So their over 20-year methodology still does not apply.

As it turns out, families are being terribly affected. There's one family in Louisiana which has never flooded and yet has a 6,000 percent increase in their premium. Clearly, this has grave implications for this family, but, as it turns out, it has turned their whole real estate market upside down. People can't build and people can't sell. There is an uncertainty there created by the implementation of this particular section.

Let me emphasize that this is only section 207. All other sections continue, and the CBO score is zero.

Knowing that others would like to comment upon this, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank you for yielding the time, and I'll be very short.

Let me say to my colleagues who oppose this bill that this does not repeal the entire law. This just repeals that portion which is not actuarially sound. We did vote for an insurance program, but we voted for one that was functional and, again, actuarially sound.

I'll make it clear: this does not repeal section 205. Those that built below code or in flood zones, knowingly violating local code, will still pay the penalty. This is for 207 for folks who have never flooded, who've done it right, who've built behind flood protection, to code, and yet in some cases, because of actuarially flawed methodology, they will be paying up to $20,000.

By the way, I did vote for this bill, but not to force an inaccurate, dysfunctional system which the GAO has criticized homeowners that are trying to live their life. There should be sanity and fairness. But that sanity and fairness should be addressed to having something which is actuarially sound.

One of my colleagues said, Wait a second, some will pay less and some will pay more. Actually, some may pay less, next year pay more, and then pay less again. Because they're being judged by systems which, again, are not sound.

We speak so often here of bringing certainty to business. Let's allow business to know what is going on. Why not have that same principle with homeowners? Let's get the actuarial process in which we judge their risk sound and then we can tell them their premium is high, their premium is low. Right now we're telling them it's going to fluctuate up and down because the method by which we judge them is so poorly designed.

So I do urge passage of this amendment, both for the sake of proving we can have functional government, as well as for the sake of these homeowners who are going to be terribly affected if we do not do so.

Offered by: Mr. Cassidy

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize October 10 as a very special day for the people of Taiwan. It is their National Day. I join them in celebrating their continued political freedom and democracy. Today the people of Taiwan determine their own destiny and government through free and fair elections. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou won re- election as the fifth freely elected president on January 14, 2012.

The United States and Taiwan value human rights, civil liberties, a free press and the rule of law. Our shared values have produced a strong and dependable friendship for the past century. Taiwan was one of the first countries to come to our aid after Hurricane Katrina ravaged my home state of Louisiana. They have

shown generosity and compassion by donating to the reconstruction effort.

In honoring Taiwan's National Day, we need to continue to support their efforts under the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act, to ensure that our ally has the capability to defend herself. Moreover, as Taiwan is our 10th largest trading partner, I believe we should seek ways to further enhance the bilateral trade relationship.

To the people of Taiwan, I extend my congratulations on their National Day. Our mutual relations will continue to be strengthened in future years.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the Baton Rouge Area Foundation on obtaining their National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations accreditation from the Community Foundations National Standards Board.

Achieving confirmation and reconfirming compliance with Community Foundations National Standards Board is a rigorous process, guaranteeing that every community foundation that receives the designation has adhered to excellent philanthropic practice. This program requires community foundations to document their policies for governance, donor services, investments, grantmaking, community leadership, and administration.

The Baton Rouge Area Foundation has obtained its National Standards accreditation by demonstrating a commitment to operational quality, integrity, accountability, and adherence to the highest standards for grantmaking.

The Baton Rouge Area Foundation worked rigorously in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and issued over $600,000 in emergency grants to aid organizations and shelters within 10 days of the storm. This is but one case of the exemplary work that the foundation achieves day in and day out.

On behalf of the residents of Louisiana's Sixth District, I congratulate the Baton Rouge Area Foundation on receiving its National Standards accreditation and commend the foundation's dedicated service to Louisiana's communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Louisiana's most heroic sons, Lance Corporal Clark Cavalier, 2nd Battalion 8th Marines, from the city of Plaquimine in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District.

While out on patrol in Afghanistan on April 24, 2011, Lance Corporal Cavalier nearly died in an IED explosion. Almost mortally wounded, and losing both of his legs, he is now on the road to recovery. Clark is known as a grunt, the boots on the ground who take the fight to the enemy every day. In honor of his courage and his selfless sacrifice, I hereby submit that the text of the poem ``The Couragejun Cajun!'', penned by Albert Caswell, be placed in the Record.

The Couragejun Cajun!

The Couragejun Cajun!

What is courage all about?

In times of war,

there are but all those who our peace is so insure no doubt!

Who so go where angels so fear to tread!

Who cheat death and when almost mortally wounded,

while living by a thread through the darkness of death come

out!

Teaching us all what courage is all about!

Who Dat?

Dat's Lance Corporal Clark Cavalier!

From Dat Bayou State, Dat's an American Hero so very clear!

From that great State of Louisiana,

where men come from without fear!

Dat's, A United States Marine!

One of the greatest things,

Dat D'his country Dat ever seen!

Dressed,

all so heroically all in Dat D'hose Shades of Dat Green!

Who upon a battlefield of honor,

Dat Did so convene!

For he's a grunt,

ever on the hunt for an enemy to confront!

While, out on patrol he almost lost his life so!

When, and IED took his two strong legs,

and death but lie just moments away!

But could not take his heart that day!

As this young hero from the south,

So rose up and so showed us what Dat courage is Dat courage

is Dat all about!

As this Couragejun Cajun's courage would so Dat shout!

And What Dat Honor and Duty, and Courage are all about!

Dat's Da Truth no Dat Doubt!

And his New Orleans Saints

well he just can't live without!

Yea, one day he wants to smoke a gar with Drew,

and shoot the Breese and talk about!

But, right now he got mountains to so climb no doubt!

All out on that road to recovery!

As Dat's a place where we will discover we!

What Dat Couragejun Cajun is all about you must believe!

Because, not even a GATOR could slow this man down!

And every day is Fat Tuesday in this man's heart, SO HOW!

Mr. Speaker, an issue tonight that is much more important to the American people than many realize is Medicaid. Now, for folks who don't understand this, and you really had no need to until this health care debate began, but, if you will, there are three types of coverage for folks who have insurance. One is Medicare. Medicare is the program for folks who are typically 65 and above. It is the program that all of us pay into, having a certain amount deducted from our paycheck, and it goes into this account. The second is private insurance. Ninety percent of Americans have their private insurance policy through their employer. And then the last group is Medicaid.

Now Medicaid is a program designed to support those of lower income as well as those who are elderly and, again, of lower income and long- term care--think nursing homes. And lastly, it supports the blind and disabled. The financing in Medicaid comes from your tax dollars, but it can be your tax dollars either funneled through the Federal Government paying a portion to the State, which is matched by what is called the State match, which is from the State itself.

So Medicaid is a program for lower income which receives about, on average, 57 percent of the money that goes towards it from the Federal Government and 43 percent on average from the State government. The State administers the program to take care of, again, low income for acute medical services, long-term care, think nursing homes for the elderly, and then the blind and disabled. Tonight's discussion will be about Medicaid.

Now, the importance of Medicaid is that 16 percent of the health care dollar in the United States goes towards Medicaid. So almost a little bit over one-eighth of the money our country spends is on this combined Federal-State program that provides health insurance, if you will, for the poor.

Additionally, Medicaid is important because right now Medicaid is consuming an ever larger portion of both the Federal Government's budget as well as the State government's budget. One example of this: the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan debt commission, which President Obama appointed to help give guidance as to how our country could get out of our indebtedness, pinpointed Medicaid as one of the drivers of our national debt. So first, we know that on a national level, Medicaid has been pinpointed as a driver of our national debt. On a State level, Medicaid is consuming an ever larger portion of State budgets.

Now, there are many examples of the importance of this, but as Medicaid is costing more and more, State dollars for other programs are less and less. Senator Lamar Alexandria from Tennessee said that the reason that tuition is increasing at universities in Tennessee is because there is less public support. More tax dollars are going to Medicaid, and so therefore, to make up the budget for the universities in Tennessee, they have to increase tuition.

One example of this, as well, for K-12 is that for the first time beginning around 2009, States spent more of their income upon Medicaid than on education. And so this is a chart from the National Association of State Budget Officers, and it shows how total State spending on Medicaid now surpasses K-12 education, and K-12 is kindergarten to 12th grade. So this is primary and secondary education. In this blue line you see funding for education, and you can see the percent of total State expenditures devoted to, in this case, education.

So in 2008 it peaked at around 22 percent, and now in 2011, it has decreased down to roughly 20 percent. Here you can see that in 2008, Medicaid expenditures were about 20.7 percent of the State budget, and they are rapidly rising. They are now up to almost 24 percent.

We are now spending more money providing Medicaid services for those who are eligible than we are educating our children. Now, it isn't as if this is something that is temporary, related to the recession; this is actually expected to continue to worsen. So Medicaid, again the program that both the Federal and State Governments--which means both taxpayers paying to the State and taxpayers paying to the Federal Government--finance, is growing so rapidly that it is cannibalizing the rest of the State budget.

An example of this is that expenditures for primary and secondary education now for the first time in history are lower than those expenditures for Medicaid. And this is expected to worsen.

So if you will, we have this program which is important. It's a safety net program. But under its current construction, it's costing more and more.

Now I'm joined by a couple of my colleagues, and I will first go to Dr. Nan Hayworth, who is an ophthalmologist--she held up a note earlier that my eyes are not good enough to read--an ophthalmologist from New York, and she can discuss how President Obama's health care plan expands Medicaid, a program which is rapidly expanding in cost but nonetheless will be further expanded in terms of those who benefit.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Federal and State Medicaid spending in billions of 2010 dollars by 2009. It's down here, the year. So 1993, 2009, going out to 2081. And so here is about $400 billion. This is combined Federal and State spending. By 2017, this rises to $750 billion. By 2025--obviously within our lifetime--that will rise close to $1 trillion. And projections are by 2081, it will be over $4.5 trillion.

Will the gentlelady yield?

So just to emphasize, Medicaid is an important safety net program for those folks without means. It was traditionally designed to take care of the blind and the disabled, the elderly and long-term care, and then

oftentimes focused upon pregnant women and upon children. So the importance of making sure the program is sound is that we continue to care for these people.

If the gentlelady will yield, I'd like to bring in Dr. Harris, who is an anesthesiologist from Maryland, the Eastern Shore.

You just mentioned how Medicaid, as it attempts to expand and be all things to all people, becomes stressed and in that stress becomes less capable of being anything to anybody.

So the concern regarding a program which becomes, again, too stretched, too unfocused is that it becomes ineffective at its original mission.

Dr. Harris, I can leave this one or go to the next one.

I think the point being made is that not only will the safety net become tattered in and of itself, but, rather, even though tattered, it will destroy our ability to finance these other governmental functions.

Reclaiming my time, if you could elaborate. We know that under the President's health care proposal, Medicaid--a program which right now is driving Federal indebtedness and which is threatening to bankrupt States, despite that was greatly expanded under the President's health care proposal to include people up to 133 percent of Federal poverty level. So I'll yield back to the gentleman if he will just comment if this is what he is referring to regarding expansion, and if so, any further thoughts he has.

That is correct.

Now, if the gentleman will yield, I'll go to Dr. DesJarlais who joined us, who although he has a French last name and you would think he is from Louisiana is actually from Tennessee.

Now, Dr. DesJarlais, obviously, to you and me, but perhaps not to those who are listening, Tennessee experimented with using Medicaid as a safety net program back in the nineties and, if you will, extended it to many others. If I can yield to you, please, could you please comment as to the results of that.

If the gentleman will yield.

I'll say, just out of pride of authorship, there's another alternative, a Republican Medicaid proposal, one that I and others are sponsoring, and it does, if you will, similar to the block grant, it readjusts as your population changes.

I'm from Louisiana. When Hurricane Katrina hit, we had lots of folks who moved to Atlanta and moved to Houston. If you will, the dollar would follow the patient. It wouldn't just stay in Louisiana. I love my State, and it would be nice to have the extra money. But it is more important that, where the patient is, have the money. It's a variation on the theme. But also part of it is that the State has flexibility, freeing them from the money-consuming regulations that the Federal Government puts on how those monies are applied.

I thank the gentleman.

One thing I am struck by--and I'd like to bring Mrs. Lummis in-- oftentimes it is, when folks say, Wait a second, it's Medicaid and the government will pay for it, or the State should enroll because the Federal Government is going to pay so much more, and there's a sense that it is the government that is paying for it but not the taxpayer. Now, what we know is the government is nothing but an aggregator of our pocketbooks, and it will take that money and bequeath it.

I asked Mrs. Lummis to come tonight because she is a former State treasurer in Wyoming and will discuss the impact this program is having upon State budgets and, therefore, other State services.

Thank you, Dr. Broun.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to invite Father Bayhi here today to speak. Father Bayhi is a native of Baton Rouge and was ordained at St. Patrick's Church in 1979.

He has many academic achievements, but he is actually best known for spiritual stewardship of his parishioners. You can see this both in how his calling and ministry manifest in the opportunities that he has sought and the activities he currently does.

Among these he has worked with Mother Teresa's church in Calcutta. He currently is the director of Closer Walk Ministries. He has written several books, such as ``Paved With Souls,'' speaking about his experience with Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, as well as produced videos of his experiences on mission trips. He has worked in prison systems for the criminally insane. He works with youth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I was struck that his prayer for us reflected his life, one of humility, courage, accountability to God, calling us to service.

Mr. Speaker, as a practicing physician still seeing patients in a safety net hospital, I support repealing ObamaCare.

Let's look at Medicaid, a broken program bankrupting States and driving Federal indebtedness and, most importantly, under which patients do poorly.

Under ObamaCare, Medicaid is greatly expanded, spending increases $100 billion, straining State and Federal budgets. We need an alternative to ObamaCare's Medicaid bankrupting governments and Medicaid's poor patient outcomes.

One reform I propose is the Medicaid Accountability and Care Act, or the MAC Act. The MAC Act controls spending, incentivizes quality care, helps Federal funding to follow the patient. There are other needed reforms.

Chief Justice Roberts' opinion said that it is not the duty of the Supreme Court to rescue the American people from bad public policy; that is up to elected officials. Republicans seek to rescue Americans from bad policy. We offer positive policy for States, taxpayers and, most importantly, patients.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 452 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I have an amendment at the desk.

As that reading suggests, this amendment addresses accountability for the Essential Air Service.

Earlier this year, the House and Senate agreed upon an FAA authorization after a fairly contentious debate. Chief among the issues which were resolved was a dispute over the Essential Air Service program, which provides Federal subsidies for airlines which provide flights to rural or otherwise remote airports.

While the work done by Chairman Mica and his colleagues adds several important reforms to the EAS program, a number of issues have since surfaced. Tonight, I'm offering an amendment to hopefully resolve one of those.

As currently written, the T-HUD bill funds the Essential Air Service program through a $114 million appropriation from the Airway Trust Fund and via what are called overflight fees, which are charged by the FAA to foreign aircraft using American airspace and navigation assets. In 2011, as a result of an annual increase of 17 percent to the overflight fee, the Department of Transportation estimated that the fee would bring in around $69 million in revenue for fiscal year 2013, which, when paired with the annual appropriation from the Airway Trust Fund, would provide all the money needed to operate the EAS program.

DOT, however, was wrong about their original $69 million projection. According to the President's budget and report language in this bill, the projected revenues from the overflight fees are actually $100 million. That means that when you combine $114 million appropriated in this bill plus the $100 million in revenues from the overflight fees, the EAS program has $214 million.

Now, you could ask, Is this adequate to fund the program? It certainly should be. In fiscal year 2011, before the plan began to start scaling back the program, expenditures were around $195 million. Put differently, as we've scaled back the program, we have actually increased funding by about $19 million. Only in Washington would that be a scale. I shouldn't laugh.

But that's not the only source of funding that the bill provides. It also allows the Secretary of Transportation, at his discretion, to provide more funds in case the $214 million in revenue does not cover all obligations. How is this possible? Through the authorizing language tacked onto the end of the EAS section at the bottom of page 7:

Provided further: That if the funds under this heading are

insufficient to meet the costs of the essential air service

program in the current fiscal year, the Secretary shall

transfer such sums as may be necessary to carry out the

essential air service program from any available amounts

appropriated to or directly administered by the Office of the

Secretary for such fiscal year.

Let me repeat: ``such sums as may be necessary to carry out the essential air service program.''

In other words, this is a blank check for the Secretary to redirect to EAS if they overrun their $214 million allowance.

I have introduced this amendment to correct this issue and enforce the fiscal discipline that I think even the strongest proponents of the program hope to see. The amendment preserves the EAS program, but forces it to live within its mean and prioritize spending to where it is most necessary and cost effective.

My amendment nullifies the Secretary's authorization language from the bill and allows the FAA to spend only the money appropriated to it through both the Airways Trust Fund and the overflight fees.

Some may oppose this and point out that the section in question does not deal with any new spending or funding, only with allowing the Secretary to direct unobligated balances. However, this perpetuates the ``use it or lose it'' mentality in the Federal Government. It should be a principle that agencies ask for and receive only the funds they absolutely need for their programs and that any unnecessary overpaid funds be returned unspent to the taxpayers. Empowering the Secretary to use unspent money on more EAS flights is a step in the wrong direction.

Under the bill as written, there will be no impetus for FAA to prioritize funds or substantially cut back on unnecessary flights if too much is spent. Any gaps in funding can simply be filled in by the Secretary at his discretion without congressional approval.

I voted last night for the McClintock amendment to phase out the EAS program, but I respect the decision of the House and the Members who voted to keep it in place. The program is going to stay; my amendment doesn't change that. However, just because someone voted not to eliminate the program does not mean they cannot vote to impose reasonable rules and limits. Simply put, spending $214 million for EAS is enough. Please keep it from going any higher and preserve the congressional power of the purse.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It may be that in practice it has not resulted in a problem. It certainly is a loophole that evades the congressional power of the purse.

Now, if in some way we could look into the future and know it was never going to be an issue, you're right, it would not be an issue. On the other hand, without that kind of prescience, it seems to be the better part of valor to reclaim our power.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the National Black Home Educators, which is located in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District. This week they celebrate their annual banquet marking twelve years of service both locally and nationally.

Founded in July 2000, the National Black Home Educators supports families who are actively involved in their children's education. The NBHE is comprised of more than 5,000 families, organizations, and companies which offer services, tools and resources to assist in children's education. The NBHE assists and equips families to best educate children at home while empowering children, with the support of their families, to achieve academic excellence. NBHE acts as a cornerstone in the homeschooling community by facilitating a supportive environment for all black home educators through field trips, meetings, and conferences.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily commend the National Black Home Educators in their success and efforts in supporting and facilitating parents who are whole-heartedly invested in their children's education. The National Black Home Educators are an important asset to Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District as well as the rest of the nation. I wish them continued success in their mission to promote and support the homeschooling community.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 264 I inadvertently voted ``yea.'' My intention was to vote ``nay.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I'm a doctor. And as a doctor who still treats patients, I understand how important it is to have health care for the millions of Americans who depend upon it, particularly Medicare. Therefore, I fully support the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a new government bureaucracy of 15 unelected, unaccountable officials created by the President's health care law.

Now, as it turns out, the IPAB can only save money by slashing payments to physicians, to Medicare Advantage plans and prescription drug plans--things that our seniors depend upon daily. I cannot imagine why my Democrat colleagues support making it more difficult for a senior to obtain the care that she needs and deserves.

The faith that centralized planning of the IPAB will be successful in controlling costs brings to mind Samuel Johnson's quote regarding second marriages: ``It is the triumph of hope over experience.''