Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make one thing really clear. The legislation before the House is really to address the problems of ObamaCare, which have reduced hours and reduced wages for workers in America.

If you really cared about the loss of work hours, which this motion purports to do, you vote for this bill because it is ObamaCare that is causing workers to go from 40 to 30 hours. If you really cared about the deficit--and we know what ObamaCare does in the long term; it increases the deficit hugely--you would support this bill so that you can get a job, a job that you can work 40 hours, so that you can increase your income. And then you can pay taxes on that income, and then our economy and our country will be better off, and the American Dream won't be in jeopardy. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the bill (H.R. 2575) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2575.

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

Today, I rise in support of restoring Americans' work hours so they can see bigger paychecks and more opportunities.

ObamaCare places an unprecedented government regulation on workers, changing the definition of ``full-time work'' from 40 hours per week to 30 hours. As a direct result, Americans across the country are having their hours cut at work, and they are seeing smaller paychecks. At a time when the costs of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, lower paychecks are simply unacceptable.

The bill we have before us today, the Save American Workers Act, would repeal ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek definition of ``full-time employment'' and would restore the traditional definition of a 40-hour workweek. Today, we are voting to restore hours and wages and to give businesses and their workers some relief from the burdens of ObamaCare. This is a critical step in creating an America that works.

I hear about the effects of ObamaCare from workers and employers across mid-Michigan. Recently, Central Michigan University was forced to cut back student employees' hours. As one student said:

Students use that money to pay for finances and school, and

I think it's going to become increasingly harder for them to

pay for school when we can only work 25 hours.

A faculty member at a community college in my district wrote to me recently, and said:

I hold two part-time positions . . . Today, I was informed

I cannot continue to do both jobs because of ObamaCare laws.

Beginning in August, I will no longer be advising and will

lose approximately one-third of my income. Last year, I

bought a house, a house I now fear I will no longer be able

to afford.

By forcing employers to shift workers from full time to part time, the 30-hour rule is destroying hardworking Americans' abilities to earn more during these tough economic times. At a time when the President is calling on Congress to increase wages, it is his health care law that is forcing Americans to see smaller paychecks. ObamaCare is putting full-time work and the potential to earn more wages out of the reach of millions of Americans. Those who are hit the hardest are low-income Americans who are already struggling in these tough economic times. According to a Hoover Institution study, 2.6 million Americans making under $30,000 a year are most at risk of having their hours and wages cut as a result of the 30-hour rule. Of that, over 60 percent are women, and 90 percent do not have a college degree.

The administration has made exceptions and has implemented delays for big businesses and political allies. Why not American workers and job creators?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed the bill we are considering today will reduce ObamaCare's unacceptable burden on job creators and will increase wages for American workers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Save American Workers Act will increase cash wages for American workers by $75 billion, repeal $63.4 billion in ObamaCare tax increases, and reduce the number of employers subject to penalties related to ObamaCare.

I applaud Congressman Todd Young, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, for his work on this legislation.

It is time to vote in support of Americans who are facing higher bills and smaller paychecks. I urge my colleagues to join me in a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) to control.

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

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to strongly support H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Provider Payment Modernization Act, as amended.

The Ways and Means Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Finance Committee have worked in a bipartisan manner to develop a permanent physician payment fix repeal.

Years of hearings, discussion drafts, and ongoing dialogues with stakeholders have resulted in H.R. 4015, a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on SGR replacement policy.

This bill has over 100 cosponsors, has the support of 18 Members of the House Doctors Caucus, and 600 national and State organizations representing physicians and other professionals.

There is a reason for all of this support. H.R. 4015 has a lot to like. It repeals the outdated SGR formula and gives seniors the certainty that they will have access to their doctors.

It incentivizes better care and better results for seniors that rely on the Medicare program, and it breaks the cycle of uncertainty for doctors and their patients, providing permanent relief and improving how Medicare pays doctors.

We must not let this opportunity pass by. Time is short. If we do not act, in just 2 weeks, doctors will see a 24 percent cut in their Medicare reimbursement, jeopardizing seniors' access to care.

We must safeguard taxpayer dollars. That is why we pay for permanent repeal by delaying the health care law's individual mandate for 5 years. Americans across the country are facing higher costs, losing the coverage they have and like, and are seeing smaller paychecks as a result of ObamaCare.

Last week, the administration announced that it would continue to expand certain exemptions from the individual mandate for 2 years. This proposal would extend that further--would extend further what the administration is already doing and give all Americans relief from the mandates and penalties of ObamaCare. It is only fair.

I urge all members to support H.R. 4105. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 4118, the SIMPLE Fairness Act, which would give Americans some much-needed relief from the added costs of ObamaCare.

I don't need to remind the American people about the failed launch of the health care law, but a failed Web site is the least of Americans' health concerns.

Millions of Americans, including over 200,000 in my home State of Michigan, went out to the mailbox and found that the health care plan they had and liked was canceled.

Millions of Americans are having their hours and wages cut as employers try to struggle with this complex law. Many find that they can no longer access the care that they relied on from their local doctor or hospital. Millions of Americans are left wondering what happened to their promised $2,500 reduction in premiums. And next year, millions more will see their premiums skyrocket again due to the administration's failure to meet their own enrollment goals.

The American people have paid over and over for this health care law. They have paid higher premiums, and they have paid by having their hours cut back and their paychecks decreased. The last thing this law should do is penalize Americans for being unable to purchase a plan on healthcare.gov either because of multiple Web failures or that they were unable to find an affordable plan.

The Obama administration unilaterally exempted businesses from the employer mandate tax for 2014. SIMPLE Fairness demands that Congress provide the same relief to hardworking Americans.

When Congress can act to provide some relief for hardworking Americans, we should. Every Member here has heard from a frustrated constituent. This shouldn't and need not be a partisan fight. Granting relief to hardworking Americans is only fair. Voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4118 is the right thing to do for the people we represent.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill offered by my colleague and friend, Mr. Dan Benishek of Michigan.

The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is not just a Michigan but a national treasure. It is enjoyed by over 1 million visitors from across the State, country, and world each year. In fact, in 2011, Sleeping Bear was voted the ``most beautiful place in America'' by a poll conducted by ``Good Morning America.''

This bill is the product of years of work between members of the public, the National Park Service, and local, State, and Federal officials. It strikes a careful balance between conservation and recreation. In addition to protecting this vital natural resource, the bill ensures that the beaches of Lake Michigan will be accessible to the public and that hunting and fishing rights, as well as boating access, will be maintained.

I hope the rest of the House will join me today in supporting the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act so that this national treasure can be enjoyed to its fullest now and for many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 487, I call up the bill (H.R. 3865) to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from modifying the standard for determining whether an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3865.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014, to stop the IRS and Treasury from restricting free speech activities of social welfare organizations that have been in place for over 50 years.

Last May, we learned that the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. For over 9 months, committee investigators have reviewed hundreds of thousands of internal IRS documents and interviewed IRS officials regarding the targeting. Our investigation is not yet over, and the Ways and Means Committee continues to wait for the IRS to turn over Lois Lerner's emails. Despite the ongoing investigations both in Congress and by the inspector general, last November Treasury rushed forward with proposed new regulations to stifle 501(c)(4) groups, upending rules that have been in place for over half a century.

Under the proposed rule, social welfare organizations would face additional, unprecedented scrutiny for engaging in the most basic nonpartisan political activity, such as organizing nonpartisan get-out- the-vote drives, registering voters, or hosting candidate forums in their neighborhood. If the Treasury Department and the IRS have their way, these sorts of activities would jeopardize the tax-exempt status of social welfare organizations.

Making matters worse, the administration is pushing the proposed rule based on a false premise. Treasury issued these rules under the premise of ``considerable confusion'' in the tax-exempt application process. They use the term considerable confusion to justify their actions. However, the committee's investigation has found no evidence that confusion caused the IRS to systematically target conservative groups. In fact, we found evidence to the contrary, that IRS workers in Cincinnati flagged Tea Party cases for Washington, D.C., because of ``media attention.'' Before Washington got involved, front-line IRS employees were already processing and approving Tea Party applications with no intrusive questionnaires or signs of confusion.

In addition to being based on a false premise, the proposed rule was drafted in secrecy and long before the administration's proclaimed need for clarity. Our investigation has discovered that Treasury and the IRS were working on these new rules behind closed doors for years--well before the targeting came to light.

While the administration claims that the proposed rule is a response to the inspector general's audit report, IRS employees told committee staff in transcribed interviews that discussions about the rule started much earlier, in the spring of 2011. Further, a June 2012 email between Treasury officials and then-IRS director of tax exempt organizations, Lois Lerner, shows that these potential regulations were being discussed off plan--meaning that the plans for the regulations were to be discussed behind closed doors. This type of behavior raises serious questions about the integrity of the rulemaking process and counsels for putting a hold on the draft rules.

The intent of the rules proposed by the Obama administration is clear: to legalize the IRS' inappropriate targeting of conservative groups. These proposed rules severely limit groups' rights to engage in public debate by labeling activities such as candidate forums, get-out- the-vote efforts, and voter registration as ``political activity'' for 501(c)(4) groups. However, 501(c)(3)'s--which are not allowed to engage in my political activity--and labor unions are free to continue to engage in these activities without limitation.

It is clear that the American people are also concerned that these proposed rules would squash their First Amendment rights. Treasury has received over 94,000 comments on the rule so far, which is the most they have ever received on any rule ever. Given the American public's significant interest in the proposed rules, it is imperative that Treasury put a hold on them until the investigations into the targeting are complete so that all the facts are known and the public has ample opportunity to be heard.

This legislation will ensure that Treasury does not rush this rule into effect this year, allows the ongoing investigations to issue findings on the targeting, helps us to stop the IRS' targeting of taxpayers based on their personal beliefs, and is a commonsense step to preserve these groups' ability to engage in public debate.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' to this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I seek the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit actually allows and perpetuates the targeting of Americans by the Internal Revenue Service. This motion to recommit permits the government to restrict the free speech of Americans.

I can't stand for this. The American people can't stand for this and should not stand for this. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 478, I call up the bill (S. 540) to designate the Air Route Traffic Control Center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center,'' and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 540.

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

The last time I stood on the floor to talk about a ``clean'' debt limit increase, I did so to prove that we could do better. It was an effort to implore my Democrat colleagues in the House and the Senate to heed the warnings of the President's own fiscal commission, also known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which clearly noted how our economy and hardworking taxpayers would suffer under the mountain of debt Washington was racking up.

My position is unchanged. I remain as committed as ever to grappling with our debt; to making the tough decisions to reform, improve, strengthen, and protect our entitlement programs; and, most importantly, to getting this economy back on track so hardworking taxpayers start seeing their pay go up and those in need of a job can find one. In fact, that work is underway at the Ways and Means Committee where we posted for public comment bipartisan proposals to reform Medicare and Social Security so that they are viable for seniors and taxpayers, not only today but well into the future.

Regrettably, over the last 3 years, Democrats have hardened their position. The President, Senate Democrats, and House Democrats will not even entertain a discussion--let alone a negotiation--over what reforms we can make along with a debt limit increase. They have become unyielding. Democrats are totally adamant: extend the debt limit or default. That is the position of today's Democrat Party: don't negotiate, don't reach out across the aisle, ignore the past, which clearly shows the debt limit typically passes with other reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I remember serving when Bill Clinton was President. Those were different times. Despite our different opinions, we were able to find common solutions for the American people. We balanced the budget, reformed our Nation's welfare laws, and helped break the cycle of dependency by placing an emphasis on work. Today, Democrats openly cheer that their health care law will lead to less work.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the Democrats have walked away from the table, and I am disappointed we are not engaged in a more serious debate today. But as disappointed as I am, I cannot, in good conscience, let the Democrats' refusal to engage lead to a default. For that reason, and that reason alone, I will vote ``yes'' today.

But today's legislation is hardly a solution to our looming debt crisis. That is why the Ways and Means Committee will continue to carefully review and advance policies that not only reform our entitlement programs, providing greater protection for seniors and greater savings for hardworking taxpayers, but also policies that will create a stronger economy with more jobs and higher wages for workers. It is only through a combination of such policies that we can truly solve this problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Budget Control Act was signed into law on August 2. On August 5, Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States credit rating and did so because:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal

consolidation plan that Congress and the President recently

agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be

necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt

dynamics.

There have been some speakers who have come to this floor who said we were downgraded because of brinksmanship. We were downgraded because there were those of us who wanted to see some approach to fiscal responsibility in our debt limit negotiations.

Clearly, that is revisionist history, and the facts bear out. Standard &

Poor's own quote was it was because we didn't go far enough, not because we tried to address our medium term and long-term debt.

So this reinforces my point. We can't be satisfied with just increasing the debt limit. I realize that is where we are today, and as I have said, I will vote for this legislation, but as another speaker has said, they have viewed this as nonnegotiable, and what we really need to do is reach across the aisle and work together to find long- term solutions to both our medium term and long-term debt obligations so that these programs, like Medicare and Social Security, these valuable programs that serve many of our citizens, are not only viable and there today, but there well into the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I point out to my friends on the other side that, in recent memory, there have been seven instances where debt limits were part of other major pieces

of legislation. For example, in the first Bush administration, there was a Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Act; in the Clinton administration, there was the Reconciliations Act, as well as the Contract with America Advancement Act; in the Obama administration, there was stimulus, Pay-As-You-Go, Budget Control Act. This has happened seven times in recent history.

What is different? Why can't it happen now? Well, the difference is that you had both parties willing to come together and negotiate major pieces of legislation that would help to address the short-term, medium-term, and long-term drivers of our debt. What we have now is a very open admission that it is absolutely nonnegotiable. There is a straight increase in the debt limit without any legislation, even though this happened seven times in the past.

So I would just say that debt limit increases are often parts of larger pieces of legislation and it would not be unusual. And it is, I think, a sad day when the other side has a take-it-or-leave-it approach and is unwilling to come together with the Republicans to find a way to bring other legislation to the floor that will help address the drivers of our debt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close.

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

We have heard a lot of talk about how our Nation must pay its bills. But one major reason we are in this position is an unpaid for trillion- dollar stimulus bill that did not increase economic growth, did not create jobs, and simply added to our debt.

I know there are some on the other side who want to keep on spending no matter what the impact is on our credit rating. While I believe that we must increase our debt limit, I am clearly not satisfied that there are no provisions that would help us address the long-term drivers of this debt.

But I will say that it is disappointing the Democrats have walked away from the table. It is disappointing that we are not engaged in a more serious debate today, a debate about policy and how we reign in what really has become runaway debt.

But as I have said, as disappointed as I am in that, I cannot in good conscience let the Democrats' refusal to engage lead to a default. I will vote ``yes'' on this legislation today. But it is hardly a solution to our looming debt crisis. That is why the Ways and Means Committee will continue to move forward on reforming Medicare and Social Security, as we have, with bipartisan proposals that are in legislative form, published for the public to view on our Web site.

We will move forward on tax reform, one that will help grow our economy, create jobs, and help address our debt crisis by a stronger, more vibrant economy that will provide opportunities for individuals to get work, increase their wages, and provide for themselves and their families.

I hope that Democrats will join me in these efforts. I believe it is only through a combination of those policies can we really get to the true solutions to this very significant problem facing our country. While this is a short-term solution to prevent what I think is essential that we do prevent, a default, it is not enough. As I have said, there is so much more to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This legislation codifies the longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment, which prevents taxpayer funds from being used for abortion-related costs.

The legislation before us today imposes restrictions with respect to two ObamaCare-related tax benefits: the Exchange subsidies and the small business health insurance credit.

These two provisions were included in a broader bill passed in the 112th Congress. The legislation is necessary because the Democrats' health care law included a massive expansion of the IRS's authority and funneled taxpayer funds for various costs and procedures, including abortions.

This legislation will prevent the use of taxpayer funding for abortions--reflecting the spirit and the intent of the Hyde amendment.

However, I want to be clear about what the legislation would not do.

It would not affect either the ability of an individual to pay for an abortion (or for abortion coverage) through private funds, or the ability of an entity to provide separate abortion coverage.

It would not apply to abortions in cases of rape, incest or life- threatening physical condition of the mother.

It would not apply to treatment of injury, infection or other health problems resulting from an abortion.

Simply put, this bill is about making sure taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions and does not affect the use of private funds. As such, this legislation takes the necessary steps to codify the Hyde amendment in the tax code so that it appropriately reflects changes that have occurred as a result of ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Frankenmuth Rotary Club in commemoration of the group's 75th anniversary.

The Frankenmuth Rotary Club began operations on April 21, 1939, with a goal of gathering community leaders to provide humanitarian services to those in need--from the local to the international scale. Over the past 75 years, the members have continued to promote a high moral standard in the community while providing assistance with philanthropic projects.

The club began as a small gathering of 35 charter members. Today, the club boasts over 125 members. Over the course of the club's presence in Frankenmuth, various projects helped change the landscape of the community. On multiple occasions, the club has collaborated with area foundations and businesses on building projects, maintenance funds, and renovations throughout the community. These endeavors have emphasized the club's passion for growth and goodwill in Frankenmuth.

In addition to supporting local events and activities every year, the Frankenmuth Rotary Club has supported international service programs; each with a specific cause tailored to the project involved. The club has conducted philanthropic work in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, and South America. These projects have provided beneficial services such as clean drinking water pumps, school facility improvements, and dental work for those in need. Through these efforts to improve communities and lives both locally and abroad, the club has served as a model for humanitarian action.

On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, it is with great honor that I commemorate this 75th anniversary of the Frankenmuth Rotary Club. I offer my sincerest thanks for all that the organization has done and all that it will continue to do in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. There is widespread agreement that the ObamaCare rollout was a failure. Most of us believe the administration's lack of transparency and candor with Congress and the American people caused most of the problems.

Since the beginning of the rollout, I have pressed the administration to release enrollment data to Congress. That data, including who is actually enrolling and what the mix of those who signed up looks like, are the kinds of hard facts we need before us to evaluate how this fundamental restructuring of our health care is really operating.

Yet the administration did not provide that long-promised transparency. Instead, I was forced to subpoena the administration to get any information. While I received some of what I requested, it is not enough for Congress to understand the true impact of this law.

It is clear that, more than halfway through the enrollment, the administration is failing to meet its own goal of 7 million enrollees by March 31.

Last week, the administration released data that showed it has failed to meet an even more important goal--the right mix of young and healthy enrollees. The reality is that you need a good balance of young and healthy individuals in order to offset the more expensive costs of those who are older and less healthy.

Without enough young and healthy enrollees, millions of Americans, including those who have had their plan canceled as a result of the President's broken promise, will see higher costs and fewer choices. With the little data we have, we can see this is actually what is happening.

The American people deserve better than the administration's empty promises. They deserve to know what is really going on. Additionally, the administration has not provided any information on the number of people who have completed enrollment. We don't know how many people have paid their premium.

Taxpayers don't know how many people are receiving tax credits. There is no harm to national security if the administration provides this information to Congress, the media, and the American people; but there may be harm to an individual's health security if their interests aren't protected.

Frankly, I believe this administration cares more about implementing this law than protecting the health care of American families.

The American people have every right to know this information and the future of their health care. Having this data will not change the President's broken promise that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it,'' or his promise that families will see a $2,500 reduction in their premiums.

However, it will undoubtedly affect Americans' health care future. This is not just arbitrary data. This information will determine how much premiums will increase next year, whether access to care will become more limited, how many insurers may no longer offer coverage, and whether or not you can keep seeing your current doctor.

This administration's failed rollout has given the American people little confidence that they can effectively oversee the overhaul of one-sixth of the economy. What possible reason, other than politics, could there be for the administration not releasing this information? This is data that Congress and the American people deserve to know and that the administration should readily and willingly provide.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill today, and I call on the Senate to take quick action to move this commonsense legislation forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair for that admonition, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this legislation is important is that, from what little information we do have, we know the administration is not meeting their stated goals, and they are not on track to meet 7 million people by March 31. We don't know the mix of people that have enrolled. We don't know how many of them are young and healthy. We don't know how many of them have paid a premium. The reason these things are important for us to know and to track is, this is a big deal. This is one-sixth of the American economy. There is probably no legislative area that affects people more than their health care.

The reason we have to know this information is because if they aren't meeting their stated goals and their projections in terms of the cost of this bill, it could mean that people's premiums skyrocket next year. It could mean that the physician that they are used to seeing and being treated by, many times for an ongoing illness, may not be available to them under their insurance plan.

So these are important issues. These are important benchmarks for us to know. It is important for the American people to know. It is important for the media to know. Because then, if we can understand what is really happening as we are in the middle of this, constructive changes could be made to this bill. What they want to do is keep us in the dark. They say vote ``no.'' Make sure we don't know what is going on, and then we will have a health care crisis even greater than the one we have now.

So I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Midland County Probate and Family Court Judge Dorene Allen in recognition of her receiving the Daniel J. Wright Lifetime Achievement Award, presented on November 26, 2013. This honor is extended to those with the most distinguished careers in serving Michigan's children and families. Judge Allen's passion for improving the lives of children and strengthening families in my hometown of Midland and across the state of Michigan makes her more than deserving of this award.

Graduating with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan, and a Juris Doctor from the Michigan State University Detroit College of Law, Judge Allen began helping children as a private practice attorney handling probate and family law cases. In 2001, Judge Allen was first elected to the Midland County Probate Court.

Throughout her time on the bench, Judge Allen has focused her courtroom on successful outcomes for our community's youth, and worked to strengthen all families. Her outstanding efforts have resulted in the use of a multi-systemic therapy program, which has helped to significantly reduce the county's juvenile delinquency rate. Additionally, Judge Allen's involvement was instrumental in establishing Midland County's Baby Court, a ground-breaking collaborative effort to stop the neglect and abuse of infants and toddlers, while keeping families united.

Judge Allen's service to children and families does not stop in the courtroom. Judge Allen serves on the Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice, a 15 member committee focused on implementing and improving effective juvenile justice policies and programs. She is also an active member of the Michigan Probate Judges Association, serving as the Chair of the Juvenile and Adoption Committee, and Juvenile Issues Committee.

Judge Dorene Allen's many successes, continued dedication to public service, and ongoing commitment to the families of the State of Michigan distinguish her as a deserving recipient of the Daniel J. Wright Lifetime Achievement Award. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I extend my congratulations to Judge Allen upon receiving this high honor, thank her for her contributions to our community and state, and wish her continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the people I represent in Michigan's Fourth District who are feeling the real impact of ObamaCare. They are paying more for health care, losing the coverage they have and like, and having their work hours cut.

I have been receiving calls, emails, and letters from people worried about the negative impacts ObamaCare is having on their lives.

Jeff Frazier from Midland, Michigan, wrote:

My wife has been recently informed by her insurance carrier

that her health care policy ``does not comply with the

Affordable Care Act.'' Now we must purchase a new policy to

get the same coverage at an 18 percent increase in our

premium. So, what happened to the ``if you like your

insurance, you can keep it''?

Unfortunately, Jeff's story isn't unique. He and an estimated 225,000 people in the State of Michigan and millions of Americans across the country are losing the coverage they have and like because of ObamaCare.

I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up against higher health care costs, dropped coverage, and reduced work hours that are hurting the constituents I serve in Michigan and Americans all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee for yielding and for his leadership on this very important issue.

I rise in support of this legislation, which is designed to encourage the adoption of more children from foster care.

I spent much of my career promoting adoption of children by loving parents because every child deserves a loving and safe home. As an attorney in private practice, I worked with parents and children in the foster care system. Those sorts of experiences provided much of the background for changes in landmark adoption legislation I and my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee crafted in 1997 called the Adoption and Safe Families Act. That legislation streamlined the adoption process to help more children in foster care quickly move into permanent adoptive homes. It also for the first time offered incentives to States to safely increase the number of children adopted from foster care.

It worked. In the decade following that legislation, the number of U.S. children adopted from foster care increased by 71 percent. In the years since, adoptions have continued to remain higher even as the foster care caseload started to decline.

Overall, almost 300 children have been adopted as a result of the increases in adoptions since 1997. One study even estimated that the Federal Government saved $1 billion over 8 years by ensuring children were adopted instead of remaining in foster care.

That is the successful incentive program this legislation extends and updates. We add a new award for States that increase adoptions of older children, who are the hardest to adopt and have the worst outcomes if they ``emancipate'' from foster care without a family to call their own. We also add a new award for increases in guardianship, when family members step up to care for their nieces and nephews, grandsons and granddaughters. And this bill ensures States maintain their commitment to post-adoption and related services so that children may truly have a family forever.

I note that this legislation is fully paid for by a simple and real reform requiring States to reduce Federal income tax refunds when someone wrongly gets an overpayment for unemployment benefits. Those savings not only cover the cost of this legislation, but reduce the deficit by $24 million over the next 10 years. That is a win-win for children, for families, and for taxpayers alike.

The bottom line is this: children in foster care deserve a place to call home, not just for a few months or years, but for good. We have already seen great progress in increasing adoptions since the Adoption Incentives program was created in 1997, and it is our hope that we can continue this progress with this bill.

I thank my colleagues who joined me in introducing this legislation: Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Reichert of Washington State, and Mr. Doggett of Texas. They are all leaders on this issue in the committee and this House, and I value their help in developing and advancing this legislation.

I would also like to recognize the public comment we received in crafting this bill. A draft bill was posted on the Ways and Means Committee Web site in August, and the public was given a month to provide their thoughts on how to ensure more children are adopted. The bill we are considering today incorporates many of those suggestions, and we are grateful for the public's comments and their participation in this process.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill in the House, and I hope the Senate will act as soon as they can so we can continue to move even more children from foster care into permanent, loving homes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former State Senator Robert D. Young in honor of his dedicated service to our country and the people of the State of Michigan in light of his recent passing. Senator Young's devotion to his community and this nation is something that is to truly be admired.

Senator Young's career began in Spaulding Township where he built homes and managed a large farm. In 1974, Young won the election to the State Senate where he served for the next eight years.

Upon leaving his successful career in State politics, Young took a position as the Executive Vice President of the Great Lakes Sugar Beet Growers Association. From this position, he advocated agricultural policies in Michigan, and Washington DC for thirteen years.

Senator Young's career was dedicated to public service and the betterment of the state of Michigan. I stand here today to honor Senator Robert Young for his many accomplishments. On behalf of Michigan's Fourth Congressional District, I offer my appreciation for his years of service and extend my heartfelt condolences to his family upon their loss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Ranking Member Levin, to honor Jeff Hornbeck, Specialist in International Trade and Finance in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). After a distinguished career of more than 32 years at the Library of Congress, 25 of which were at CRS serving Congress on international trade and economic policy issues, Jeff retired from government service on September 3.

Jeff developed a remarkable record of accomplishment during his years on the Hill. His authoritative, non-partisan, and objective expertise and analysis, as exemplified in his many reports, memoranda, and confidential consultative work for Members and congressional staff, have addressed just about every major international trade and economic policy issue before Congress. His institutional knowledge of U.S. trade policy and the policy-making process has been invaluable, especially to the Ways and Means Committee and its Members. His expertise on Trade Promotion Authority, for example, is well-known and will be missed as Congress works on legislation to renew TPA.

Jeff's deep institutional knowledge of U.S. trade policies and laws, the global trading system and architecture, a wide range of trade negotiations particularly with our trading partners in Central and South America, and the fundamental trends in the global economy have played a critical role in Congressional consideration of these issues. He has also provided intellectual leadership to the overall research agenda of the CRS Trade and Finance Section, ensuring that the CRS international trade and finance work was provided in an authoritative, objective, and bipartisan manner.

We congratulate and thank Jeff for his years of excellent service to Congress. We wish him the very best in his retirement.