Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise today in support of this legislation. We cannot afford to enforce the proposed MACT regulations, especially when unemployment exceeds 9 percent. These new burdensome regulations would result in the loss of over 200,000 jobs, over 8,400 of which are in Tennessee.

When will this administration learn that further burdening the job creators does not create jobs?

This is just another example of failed leadership, and it is our duty to the American people to ensure that the EPA does not continue down the same path that will only lead to job loss.

The new rules affect approximately 200,000 boilers. These boilers burn natural gas, fuel oil, coal, biomass, refinery gas, or other gas to produce steam, which is used to generate electricity or to provide heat for factories and other industrial or institutional facilities or schools.

This will especially affect the economic outlook in the agriculture community. Agriculture accounts for more than 950,000 jobs both on and off the farm--a large portion of the American economy. In Tennessee, 13.8 percent of the workforce is employed in agriculture, and these are jobs we cannot afford to lose to government overreach. If forced to replace current coal-fired boilers with natural gas-fired boilers at this time, there is no doubt that the cornerstone of our economy would suffer.

Or consider Eastman Chemical, a manufacturing company headquartered in my district. Eastman generates $6.9 billion in revenue and employs over 11,000 Tennesseans. There is no doubt these new regulations would negatively impact their business, the effects of which they estimate for their company alone would be in the tens of millions of dollars. In fact, the Boiler MACT regulations could cost the manufacturing sector over $14 billion in capital, plus billions more in annual operating costs; and complying with the incinerator standards could cost even billions more.

As the EPA has acknowledged, the rules were finalized with serious flaws because the EPA was forced to meet a strict court-ordered deadline. This commonsense legislation does not repeal these rules; it simply allows time to come up with a plan to support clean air efforts without more burdensome regulations on job creators.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of America's job creators, the rule, and H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

What this bill does is it simply amends the NLRA, which was passed in 1935, and prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from ordering employees to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstances. In other words, it allows managers to make business decisions that are in the best interest of their company and their employees.

Let's just give a CliffsNotes version of this.

Boeing is a great American company. I visited that company in Washington State. I've also seen the Boeing plant in Charleston, South Carolina. What happened was they moved a second line of business there. The Machinists Union disagreed with that. Lodge 751 lodged a complaint.

What the NLRB is supposed to be is an impartial referee. It's like a basketball game. When you go into a gym, you expect the referees to be fair to both sides. And to my friend on the other side, the NLRB oversees elections, but you have a right as an employee to vote for or against a union. You have both rights.

What this is doing is: What about the people who work in South Carolina? The company has invested over a billion dollars to create good-paying American jobs. One week ago today, the President of the United States stood right where you are and made a very eloquent speech about job creation. But I guess it doesn't matter in South Carolina where those 1,000 jobs--1,100 people are working. It's not a very complicated issue. A company should be allowed to move within the borders of this country.

I was raised in a union household. My father belonged to the union. He lost his job several decades ago to a foreign country, so I know what that's like. Certainly I am very pleased that the people in Washington State have added jobs, not lost jobs out there.

So I believe that this absolutely is an egregious overreach of the NLRB, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote for this very important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of America's job creators and H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

What this bill does is simple. It amends the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, which was passed in 1935, and prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from ordering employees to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance. In other words, it allows managers to make business decisions that are in the best interests of their company and their employees.

In filing the complaint against Boeing, the NLRB's general counsel has put 1,100 good-paying South Carolina jobs at risk. Mr. Speaker, I was in South Carolina about 5 weeks ago and viewed that plant. It's a huge plant with 1,100 people working today--American people working. This shot across the bow of American business sends a clear message: Don't do business in a right-to-work State.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that Boeing decided to build a plant in South Carolina as an act of retaliation against a unionized workforce, but not a single worker in Washington State has lost his or her job. They've added jobs. And I'm glad that they have. I'm left to wonder that if the fact that South Carolina, like Tennessee, is a right-to-work State has the NLRB to conclude that a job created in Washington is more valuable than a job created in South Carolina.

I grew up in a union household. My father worked in a factory making shoe heels for BFGoodrich and Co., and his job was outsourced to Mexico in the early seventies. So I've been through that as a family. I understand that very well.

Very simply what happened, Mr. Speaker, is this, is that a company wanted to expand a business line, a 787 Dreamliner, and they built a huge factory in Charleston, South Carolina. A complaint was brought by the general counsel, NLRB, against this. It's now being adjudicated very expensively in the courts. Think what a message this sends to job creators in America. If I were a business, there is no way I would move to a non-right-to-work State because you can never get out if this ruling is upheld.

And I might add also that there are over a dozen remedies that the NLRB has: awards for backpay, effective bargaining, offer of employment, placement of preferential hiring, payment for travel and moving, and on and on. Over a dozen remedies.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage us to support this bill. The fact is, with 14 million Americans out of work, 2 million more than when I came to this Congress 3 years ago, we need every job in every corner of the country. The administration's answer is more spending and more regulation. It's a recipe for failure.

It's time we recognize a fundamental truth that government doesn't create jobs; businesses do. But instead of trying to get the government out of the way of our job creators, this administration seeks to throw up more roadblocks.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the start of National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week, and we must renew our efforts to help ensure every American is literate.

Today, 93 million American adults function below a high school level of literacy, lacking the most basic skills needed to compete in the 21st century economy. The unemployment crisis falls most heavily here-- 14.3 percent of Americans without a high school diploma are unemployed; among high school graduates with no additional education, the rate drops to 9.6 percent.

By supporting efforts to expand literacy, we can extend a hand to individuals and families across America. Making sure adults can read to their child or understand printed material at work isn't just good for them, it's essential for competing in the global economy.

Learning is a lifelong process. It doesn't stop the day you leave school. So let's renew our efforts to promote adult and family literacy both for the good of families and for the good of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act. It's heartening to see strong, bipartisan support for a bill that will do a lot of good for America's children.

A high quality education should be the birthright of every American child. As a society, we must ensure that they have the tools needed to chase their dreams and to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. A child growing up in Cocke County, Tennessee, today will some day compete for jobs with young people in China, India, and around the world. It's our duty to prepare our children and this great country for this reality.

Sadly, we're falling short in this responsibility. While many of our traditional public schools are outstanding, others leave students falling through the cracks. That's why an increasing number of parents are turning to charter schools to educate their children. But the supply has been unable to keep up with the demand. An estimated 420,000 students are on the waiting list to be admitted to charter schools. It's heartbreaking to know that the trajectory of these children's lives will be, in no small part, determined by a lottery. We can and must do better.

H.R. 2218 will help more students gain access to a quality education by facilitating the development of high performing charter schools. It reauthorizes the charter school program, which provides start-up grants to help charter schools open the doors, buy classroom materials, and teach new students. The bill also encourages States to support the development and expansion of charter schools, while ensuring an emphasis on quality and innovation.

The best educational system is one in which parents, teachers, and local school boards collaborate to set the agenda, not Washington, DC. This bill puts more power in the hands of those who know our children best and their needs best.

Charter schools are not a silver bullet, but they offer a way out for students who otherwise would be trapped in a failing school. Every charter school that is supported through this program is one more choice a parent will have to ensure their children's future success.

I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It's a pleasure to be here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I go back to when Medicare first began. In 1965, there was a problem identified in America where we had a group of our citizens, as they became 65 years of age and older, that didn't have access to quality health care. So a plan was put in place, along with Medicaid for our poor citizens at that point, to access quality care.

In 1965, the Medicare program was a $3 billion program. There was no Congressional Budget Office at that time. The estimates were in 25 years that this would be a $15 billion program. It actually turned out to be over a $100 billion program in 1990. In 2010, it will be somewhere about $550 billion.

We also have, as has been pointed out in our previous hour by our friends from the Congressional Black Caucus, that we have a tremendous deficit. We're borrowing 42, 43 cents of every dollar that we spend in this country. So that's why the discussion was started.

I came to Washington--really, I practiced medicine, as Dr. Gingrey said, for over 30 years and realized that we had a serious problem not just in Medicare but in health care. So we came to work on health care reform. In the Physicians Caucus in the previous Congress, there were nine of us in the caucus. Not one of us was consulted on the Affordable Health Care Act. I mean, decades worth of experience, over 200 years of experience in the Congress at that time, and no one--not one of us--was actually consulted.

The way I looked at the problem in our health care system was we had three problems:

One is we had a problem where the system was too expensive. When you go to the doctor, it cost too much money to go see a physician. Number two, we had a group of people out there who didn't have affordable health care coverage. Maybe the husband is a carpenter, as in our area, maybe the wife worked at a local diner or somewhere else that didn't provide insurance coverage. Thirdly, we had a liability problem in this country.

So what did we do? We had an over 2,000-page bill that got through the House and got to the Senate and failed. The Senate dusted a bill off that was 2,500-plus pages, that never went through a committee hearing, that nobody on the House had a chance to do, and I know that the three physicians that are here tonight all read that bill. When I read that bill, Mr. Speaker, I found some things in there, as did my colleagues, which greatly worried us.

How do they fund this bill? Only Washington could fund anything like this. Dr. Gingrey has pointed out that we're trying to save Medicare. Medicare is a system that the Congressional Budget Office says by 2020 will be out of money; 2024, by the actuaries at CMS say will be broke.

There are four parts of Medicare:

Medicare part A, which is paid for by your premiums. That's your hospitalization.

Medicare part B, that's doctor services and some lab services. That's only funded 25 percent from your premiums. The other 75 percent comes from the general fund, the taxpayers.

Medicare Advantage, which was cut drastically by the Affordable Care Act.

And Medicare part D, which is a prescription drug plan, also is only funded 25 percent by our premiums. I'm a Medicare recipient myself, as of last year.

So what did the administration do and the Senate do to fund this Affordable Health Care Act? They took out of an already underfunded program, as I just pointed out, $500 billion, and Dr. Gingrey just pointed out moments ago that we're adding about 3 million baby boomers per year, so 10,000 per day or more. We're adding millions of new recipients while pulling out of that over $500 billion, and we call this ``saving Medicare.''

We're not talking about tonight, on our hour, the budget impasse. We're talking about what's already been passed. And one of the things I found in there, Mr. Speaker, was a very little known board called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Before, Medicare has had this board in there, which was strictly that, MedPAC. It was an advisory board to Congress, to say, hey, we've got some problems here with funding; maybe we should look over here. Congress would then have the ability to make those decisions.

Mr. Speaker, what I did when I read this, I looked at it and thought, how was this created and why was it created?

This board has 15 members that are appointed by the administration, by the President, and, quite frankly, I don't want a Republican President or a Democratic President doing this. These people are then approved by the Senate for a 6-year term. They're paid about $165,000 a year.

And what is their charge? Well, their charge is, is if Medicare spending hits certain targeted limits, that cuts occur first to providers and for prescription drugs and then later to hospitals. What worries me about this is right now we have a problem--and Dr. Paul Broun is here tonight, who's a primary care physician--with our patients with their Medicare, finding a physician to take care of them.

What happens is if you hit these targeted limits and physician payments are cut, access to care is going to be cut, quality of care is going to be cut, and, thirdly, the cost to our seniors is going to go up. What also worries me is that this board very much mimics the board that's in England called NICE, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. This board makes recommendations to their health board there about what care is provided to patients. President Obama has taken this board, he's going to use this, and he actually wants to increase the power of it to help hold Medicare costs down. Ultimately what will happen, when you have more demand for services than you have money to pay for it, is your care will be rationed. That's the fear that we have.

Our concern is, and I've gone to seniors in my district and been very clear and pointed this out at town hall meetings and have held town hall meetings with seniors and said, We want to provide you quality access of care. That's what I do as a doctor. I want to be able to see those patients and have them

help us solve this problem. I think that's the issue that we have, Mr. Speaker, is how do we provide the care for the money we have and provide quality of care and access for our patients? I am extremely concerned that the IPAB will do just the opposite of that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out one thing that Dr. Gingrey just pointed out, which was one of the reasons that the American people don't trust politicians. The CLASS Act may be a good idea. The CLASS Act began this year where you have some money taken out of your paycheck and put in a savings account over here. It's supposed to be about $87 billion in 5 years, and we can't get it out until that 5-year period of time occurs and this money has accumulated. At that time it's supposed to pay for long-term care, about $50 per day. But guess what happens, Mr. Speaker? What happens is that we borrow the money out and spend it on current health care and call this an asset.

We have counted that money twice; two times. We have done that with Social Security already. I find this absolutely offensive, on August 2, 10 days, about a week from now, we have had the audacity to tell people who have paid into Social Security for 40 or 50 years they will not be able to get their check. Why? Because the Federal Government has spent that money. We are doing the same thing again with the CLASS Act. There has already been legislation to perhaps overturn that.

I want to get back to something a little more basic, and that is to the examining room with the patient. The people who should be making health care decisions should be a family, the patient and their physician, sitting around and talking about what their options are, not some 15 people appointed bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

By the way, Dr. Gingrey and Mr. Speaker, we have over 190 cosponsors, including a bipartisanship cosponsorship to the repeal of IPAB, including every physician, every health care provider on the Republican side and Dr. Christensen, who was down here just a moment ago on the Democratic side. It is a bipartisan agreement that we should overturn this. The American Medical Association believes it should be overturned. Over 270 major medical organizations see through this as a very bad thing for patients.

The reason we are worried about it, we have heard Dr. Broun speak about it, and we have heard you speak about it, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately it will affect the quality of care. Why? Because if you don't have access to your doctor, the quality of your care will go down.

The other thing I want to mention is we talk about changing Medicare. Quite frankly, I'm going to go through just a few of the things that already have been changed in this Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2010, there were Medicare cuts to hospitals, long-term care and inpatient rehabilitation services.

In 2011, it has been pointed out that the Medicare Advantage plans, the seniors did get a $250 check to fill the doughnut hole. The wealthier seniors began paying higher premiums for Medicare part D; that's in 2011. Medicare imaging cuts, Medicare reimbursement cuts: when seniors get a CT scan or an MRI, Medicare cuts for durable medical equipment began, ambulance services, ambulatory service centers, diagnostic labs, durable medical equipment, wheelchairs. Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they rent for 13 months.

In 2012, elimination of the deduction for the employer expenses for Medicare drug subsidies, that is how they raised $4.5 billion. And that is not to improve our current underfunded Medicare plan. That is to create another entitlement. Medical expense deduction, you raise the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7\1/2\ to 10 percent. That raises $15 billion to be spent elsewhere. That is a tax right there.

Hospice care is being cut. Dialysis, Medicare cuts to dialysis treatment will be cut in 2012.

In 2014, this Independent Payment Advisory Board begins. And, by the way, they are getting, I believe it's $12 million a year to fund this right now. If there is any way we can cut off funding to that board right now, it should be done.

In 2015, a permanent cut to the payment rate to home health agencies. On and on. We have felt these cuts because they haven't come to fruition yet. What we are trying to do with Medicare is to salvage the program for future generations.

A promise made is a promise kept. If you are 55 years and older, with Social Security and Medicare, nothing happens. I hear all the time about a voucher. This is a voucher system and so forth. Here is what a voucher is. A voucher is when I go to my mailbox, something comes that says this has so much value. You take this piece of paper and purchase something with it. Premium support is where the Federal Government, through its massive ability to go out and negotiate prices, exactly like they do for you and me, Mr. Speaker, in our health care plan here in Congress, they negotiate with numerous companies through the Federal exchange. Our plan is called the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and they negotiate the best price. And what happens is all during the campaign, the last 2 years I have heard seniors and others say, Congressman, I want exactly what you have. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

A higher income senior like myself, and you and the others in this room, will pay a higher premium. And folks with preexisting conditions and lower income will pay much lower. And they will have those choices. As Dr. Murphy pointed out, why do we think that will save money and why are we doing it. It has been pointed out that it is a catastrophe waiting to happen if we do not do something.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I want to emphasize is having no plan is a prescription for disaster for our country. We have a solemn obligation to provide health care for our seniors. We have made that promise. And how do we do it? Again, back to what I said, I do not want a board that is appointed by a Democrat or Republican or any bureaucrat. What I want is I want health care decisions made by physicians, the patient, and their family. The way that is going to happen is through this plan where we use premium support to allow people choice and to have them make those choices, not insurance companies and certainly not the Federal Government.

From what I have seen up here in my two terms is I don't want a bunch of Federal bureaucrats in charge of my bypass operation or my gallbladder operation--or my bunion operation, for that matter. I want my doctor in charge of it. That is who I want making those decisions, along with my family.

I think this is one of the biggest discussions we will have in this Congress is how we do this right. Not only does it affect the budget. Forget the budget. Forget all that right now. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about the care that they get. And right now, as I mentioned, these changes are already made. This is already in the current law that I talked about just a minute ago.

When you talk about Medicare as it is, folks, it's been changed, big time. When this board kicks in--and there's a very good article if you are sort of a wonk like I am and want to go back to the New England Journal of Medicine, one of our major journals, in, I believe it was, May of 2010. Their estimate was--this is one of our major scientific journals--that this IPAB board would have kicked in 21 of the last 25 years if it had been in place. So it's not some idle threat that this will happen. If you look retrospectively at what's happened, it would have happened 21 out of 25 times.

What would that mean? That would mean, as Dr. Broun, Mr. Speaker, pointed out just a moment ago, as these payments for physicians go down and down and down below their cost of providing the care, they no longer can see you. You lose access to your doctors, like Dr. Broun.

A good point.

Peter Orszag, who was the previous OMB Director here, said this is one of the biggest losses of power the Congress has given up since the Federal Reserve. That's been almost a hundred years ago. What we're doing is the Congress takes two-thirds to overturn what they recommend in this IPAB. We could do it if we get a two-thirds vote. And it is not appealable. You don't have any appeal to a court system to do anything about this.

The gentleman is correct.

What would happen is we could make those cuts, but they have to be made somewhere else. The cuts have to be made. Nowhere should Congress give up its ability to do that. We are, our House, the House side, we're the representatives of the people. We are the closest to them. We have 700,000 constituents that we go talk to every time we get home. And we ought to be beholden to those folks in our districts across this country and not to some board up here in Congress that is not accountable to anybody.

I rise today in support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act because American families deserve to have a government that lives within its means, just like they do.

Our national debt has grown in excess of $14 trillion--that's more than $46,000 for every man, woman and child in this country--and we continue to borrow, roughly, 40 cents of every dollar we spend. This is a path to financial ruin that will leave the next generation with a less prosperous America than the one we inherited.

Now, I find it astonishing on the House floor that balancing our budget would have a devastating effect on our economy. It's hard to believe, but it has been said.

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act keeps the promise we made to the American people to cut spending while also granting the President's request for a debt limit increase. By cutting spending $111 billion the first year alone, by capping future spending and by laying the groundwork for a balanced budget amendment, this package will save $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. This bill is nothing more than good old-fashioned common sense, and I urge my colleagues to support this.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true American hero, Private First Class Joe Meade. Private First Class Meade was a member of Mike Company, 3rd Battalion, 26th Marines. He died in Vietnam when his battalion was fighting outside Da Nang. While carrying a wounded comrade to a waiting helicopter, Joe stepped on a land mine and, sadly, was killed. Private Meade was only 19 at the time. In recognition of his valor, he was awarded the Silver Star.

Duane Crawford, Private Meade's former commanding officer, who recently founded a scholarship in his honor, had these words to say about Joe's actions:

``With total disregard for his own life, he continually exposed himself to danger by administering first aid to his wounded comrades, offering them comforting words and helping them to medivac helicopters. His courageous actions saved many lives.''

Even though he lived only 19 years, the legacy Joe left behind is truly remarkable. Private First Class Meade exemplified the best of America and the United States Marine Corps. For this reason, I ask you to join me in commemorating the life of this extraordinary marine.

Semper Fi, and this is an honor for the 58,479 of our comrades who died in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, on June 22, President Obama released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--just over a day's worth of oil. The administration continues to play politics rather than develop a comprehensive national energy plan, which will lay the path for future economic growth, help lower unemployment and improve our stagnant economy. This country's economy was built on inexpensive and abundant energy.

Folks are frustrated now. A fellow stopped me the other day, and said, Doc, it's a sad day when a guy can't buy a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk for $10.

And it's true. People don't want half measures that don't address their problems. They want solutions. They want to work. They want to provide for their families.

It is way past time to ease this pain at the pump. The President has shown no interest in the Republicans' all-of-the-above energy strategy that encourages oil and natural gas development in places like ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. With national unemployment stubbornly above 9 percent, the American people expect us to work together to lower the cost of energy, reduce our dependency on foreign oil and create American jobs.

Mr. Chair, on July 6, 2011, I missed 3 recorded votes because my return flight from Tennessee to Washington was significantly delayed.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote numbers 495, 496, and 497.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. Speaker, today I hope to raise awareness of lymphedema, a

debilitating disease for which no cure has yet been developed.

Lymphedema is a blockage of lymph vessels that causes an accumulation of fluid, protein, and other cellular waste. This results in a swelling of the body in places where the blockage occurs. Though lymphedema can be passed down genetically, it most frequently occurs after surgical procedures to remove damaged lymph nodes or vessels. Often it is a tragic side-effect to cancer treatments, the highest risk occurring in breast and prostate cancer patients.

Doctors can screen for lymphedema using a number of diagnostic tools, and early detection is important to minimize the effects of this disease. Lymphedema, sadly, is not curable, but it is treatable through compression, specially designed exercises, or, in some cases, surgery.

One of my constituents, Jennifer Onks Hovatter of Johnson City, lost her husband Thomas to complications arising from lymphedema in 2007. Every year on June 18th--the day that Thomas passed away--Jennifer holds the Thomas Hovatter Lymphedema Awareness Day in memory of her husband.

I hope others will join me in tying a turquoise ribbon around their tree the weekend of June 17-19, and help Jennifer bring awareness to this chronic, debilitating disease.

Mr. Speaker, today our guest chaplain is Dr. Phil Hoskins, a native east Tennesseean.

Dr. Hoskins attended East Tennessee State University, Milligan College, and Andersonville Baptist Seminary, where he earned his Doctor of Theology degree. For 12 years, Dr. Hoskins served as a full-time Southern Baptist evangelist and has conducted over 400 revivals and crusades in 28 States and Canada.

Dr. Hoskins is now the pastor of Higher Ground Baptist Church in Kingsport, Tennessee. Since accepting the pastorate of Higher Ground in 1991, he has helped his congregation grow from under 200 to well over 3,000 members.

Dr. Hoskins is here today with his wife, Brenda, and his two beautiful daughters, McKenzie Paige and Madison Jade.

It is a great honor to introduce Dr. Hoskins, whose dedication and commitment to serving God and his fellow man is unwavering.

I would like to yield to my friend from North Carolina, Heath Shuler.

Offered By: Mr. Roe of Tennessee

Amendment No. 21: Page 45, line 15, after each dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000,000)''.

Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $3,000,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The amendment I've offered the past week would simply reduce the information technology account in the VA by $70 million and increase the same account by $70 million.

My intention is to make it clear to the Department of Veterans Affairs that we must see progress on efforts to integrate the Department of Defense's and the VA's electronic medical records.

It is unthinkable that as we seek to make the transition from the military back to the homeland as seamless as possible we have a system as befuddling as the one we have, where a servicemember literally needs a paper copy

of his or her medical records to ensure information isn't lost in transitioning between the two systems. When severely injured patients are released and transferred from Walter Reed to the VA center at Mountain Home in Johnson City, Tennessee, all the information regarding their injuries and transfers can be terribly difficult to access. That shouldn't be the case.

This is why I support Chairman Culberson's report language, which recommends that the Department of Veterans Affairs set aside $70 million of the overall $3.25 billion in the Information Technology account for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Medical Record system. I would, in fact, like to strengthen this language by putting it in the underlying bill to ensure this money gets spent on integration.

The VA and DOD maintain the two largest health care systems in the Nation, providing health care to 6 million veterans and to over 1.5 million active duty servicemembers respectfully. Within the VA alone, there are over 1,500 different facilities that provide care to veterans. To provide this care, the DOD and VA both rely on electronic health record systems to create, maintain, and manage patient health information; but the two agencies for years have operated different systems that can't talk to each other.

Let me give you an example: Ten billion dollars has been spent. A soldier leaves the military, and his records can't be transferred electronically to the VA. I had someone in my office just before I walked over here on the House floor who showed where an electronic medical records system would have prevented the delay in treatment of a veteran.

This general lack of cooperation between the two Departments has occurred for years at the collective cost of billions of dollars. I first became aware of this problem when I arrived in Congress and didn't realize it had been worked on for years.

I applaud the Appropriations Committee for highlighting the need for the VLER in its committee report, and I think this language should be put in the bill to ensure the VA spends the money for this purpose. A lifetime electronic health records system would improve the delivery of care to servicemembers who are transitioning from military to civilian life.

As a physician myself, I know the importance of having an organized and efficient electronic medical records systems. In fact, I helped put an electronic medical records system in my office for over 70 providers and tens of thousands of patients. I do understand the difficulties, and I know how hard it is to be done, but I know the importance of it. I hope the committee will adopt this amendment and work on strengthening it in the final bill to ensure we make clear to the VA that this integration must be a priority.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I apologize to the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Niswonger Foundation as last month it celebrated its 10th year of service to Northeast Tennessee this month.