Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of five bipartisan public health bills that will help individuals with traumatic brain injuries, newborns, burn patients, and those with autism. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, under the leadership of Rep. Joe Pitts, has been a workhorse that boasts an outstanding record of bipartisan accomplishment on legislation that truly touches people's lives. With a number of bills already

signed into law, and these under consideration this evening, the 113th Congress is shaping up to be known as the public health Congress.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight each of the five bills before us this evening.

H.R. 1098, the Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act, would address a problem that affects millions of Americans, including both veterans and children. Introduced by Mr. Pascrell, this bill would assist states in developing and expanding service delivery capacity for individuals with a traumatic brain injury. According to some estimates, the economic burden of such injuries is more than $70 billion, and the physical and emotional toll endured by patients and their families is even more burdensome. This bill would help alleviate the problems associated with this unique and complex health problem, providing peace of mind to families across the country.

H.R. 1281, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act, introduced by Reps. Roybal-Allard and Simpson, funds grants to allow states to expand their newborn screening programs, educate parents and health care providers, and improve follow-up care for infants diagnosed with a condition. Before the first passage of this bill in 2008, the number and quality of newborn screening tests varied from state to state. Today, with guidelines created by the bill, screenings reach 4 million babies in the United States every year. Reauthorization will continue this important program and encourage more timely efforts to identify diseases, such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and ensure best practices. Early screening and diagnosis often means better disease management and better outcomes for these children.

H.R. 3548, the Improving Trauma Care Act, introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Bill Johnson, is designed to correct the inconsistencies in the definitions of trauma that have resulted in gaps in care and coverage. This bill will help important trauma centers like Bronson Methodist Hospital's Burn Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan to better care for their patients.

We will also consider H.R. 4080, the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization. Introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee members Dr. Burgess and Rep. Green, the bill reauthorizes two programs related to the planning and development of regional emergency care. Both of these programs will improve trauma care so that Americans can promptly receive specialized, life-saving treatment after a traumatic injury.

Finally we will consider H.R. 4631, the Autism CARES Act of 2014, introduced and championed by Reps. Chris Smith and Mike Doyle. The sad reality is that in the United States, autism now affects 1 in 68 children and can cost a family approximately $60,000 annually. H.R. 4631 continues autism-related research, early identification and intervention, education, and the activities of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. It also asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to collaborate with other federal agencies to prepare and submit a report concerning young adults with autism spectrum disorder and the challenges related to their transition into adulthood. Finally, the research funded by this legislation also permits diagnosing and intervening earlier and thus help improve the quality of life for children with autism.

This bill is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Autism Society, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which includes over thirty different organizations including Autism Speaks, the Autism National Committee, and the Council for Learning Disabilities.

We began our day in a bipartisan manner advancing the 21st Century Cures initiative and I am pleased to conclude the day by continuing our efforts to advance legislation to improve the public health. It is through these bills and this initiative that we can truly have an impact on the lives of all Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Madam Chair, it is a new era for North American energy,

and it is time for the continent's infrastructure to finally catch up. That is why I wrote H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, with my friend and colleague Gene Green from Texas. With lessons learned from the Keystone XL pipeline debacle, we are creating a fair and transparent approval process for cross-border energy projects, putting them all on a level playing field, finally, for the benefit of North American energy security, lower energy prices, and, yes, plenty of jobs.

North America's growing energy abundance has truly been a global game changer. Our continent, indeed, has the potential to become the world's leading energy-producing region, and the economic and geopolitical benefits are almost too good to believe. However, outdated or unnecessary Federal regs are standing in the way of this potential, including red tape surrounding energy infrastructure projects that cross the Canadian or the Mexican border. These job-creating projects are a critical part of the architecture of abundance, and, yes, they can provide a cheaper and more secure energy supply. Simply put, we cannot become an energy superpower without upgrading the energy infrastructure linking us with our neighbors.

We all know about the Keystone XL--the oil pipeline that would bring enough Canadian oil into the U.S. to displace OPEC imports while supporting up to 42,000 jobs, according to the Obama administration's own estimates. Many of us also know that the project has been extensively studied and has been found to be environmentally safe. Nonetheless, for nearly 6 years, this administration has come up with one excuse after another for delaying its decision on the project.

Keystone XL has yet to deliver any oil, but it has already delivered a message--that our process for approving such projects is, yes, badly broken. Yet the White House is threatening to veto the bill, claiming the bill would ``circumvent longstanding and proven processes.'' While H.R. 3301 does not address Keystone XL's permit--that is right; it does not address it--this House has already passed legislation that does exactly that. This bill would ensure that important projects would not be stuck in limbo once they were fully vetted. It would update and modernize the process for future cross-border energy infrastructure projects, eliminating the opportunities for delay and putting in place the same standards of review for oil pipelines, electrical transmission facilities, and natural gas lines.

I should also emphasize that the pipeline and transmission line projects impacted by this bill would still be subjected to the same environmental and safety reviews as would a comparable project that stayed within the United States. Those safety measures have been an important priority for our committee and for the Congress, including through the tough new pipeline safety measure that we enacted 2 years ago, signed by President Obama, but these cross-border projects would no longer face additional red tape and open-ended delays simply because they would cross a national border, which is what this bill does.

This commonsense bill enjoys bipartisan support, especially from border State Members who know full well the economic benefits to the U.S. of such projects. I urge all of us here this afternoon to join us in supporting the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. We need to stand together and say ``yes'' to American jobs and ``yes'' to energy.

Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a series of letters between me and the chairmen of the Natural Resources Committee and of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, June 19, 2014.

Hon. Fred Upton,

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

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review

the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 3301, the North

American Energy Infrastructure Act. As you are aware, the

bill was primarily referred to the Committee on Energy and

Commerce, while the Committee on Natural Resources received

an additional referral.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner, and,

accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 3301 from further

consideration by the Committee on Natural Resources. I do so

with the understanding that by discharging the bill, the

Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future

jurisdictional claim on this or similar matters. Further, the

Committee on Natural Resources reserves the right to seek the

appointment of conferees, if it should become necessary.

I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters

into the Congressional Record during consideration of this

measure on the House floor.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

Doc Hastings,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Commerce Committee has

been tackling the issue of LNG exports for quite some time now.

What began as a solid case in favor of these exports has only grown stronger. I support this bill, H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and I applaud, in particular, the sponsor, Cory Gardner, for his efforts on this important bipartisan bill.

Last October, we held a forum that consisted of nearly a dozen representatives of foreign governments, as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, all of whom expressed their strong interest in buying LNG from the U.S.

Three of them--Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania--are Eastern European allies that are currently dependent on Russia for natural gas. They described in great detail how Russia wields natural gas as a weapon against them, threatening to raise prices or to even cut off supplies as a means of exerting political pressure.

We need to respond, as we are seeing their warnings playing out with the ongoing crisis, obviously, today in Ukraine. If Putin is not deterred, he will likely use the same tactics on other Eastern European countries in the years ahead. Russia's aggression is real, and American LNG can provide a much-needed lifeline away from Putin's grip as an alternative supply source.

The Energy Information Administration's estimated reserves of natural gas continue to be revised upward, ensuring that we can continue to provide American manufacturers with low-cost supplies, while having enough for export markets, and the Department of Energy has even concluded that natural gas exports will be a net benefit to our economy.

Early in our efforts, the DOE insisted that its process for approving LNG export facilities wasn't broken, but over the last year, there have been very few approvals, and most applications continue to languish-- some for even more than a year--and the line continues to grow.

The DOE's most recent changes to the process, while a slight improvement from the existing queue, are still very disappointing. They do nothing to address the core problem of open-ended delays. Congress needs to act.

Throughout our efforts on this topic, there has been bipartisan interest in LNG exports. Since the bill was first introduced, the bipartisanship has only grown, and for that, I commend the bill's author, Cory Gardner, for working with Gene Green and others on an amendment adapting the bill's language to address a number of concerns.

I know that we have reached the point where the passage of this bill, H.R. 6, will be seen as a bipartisan success story, as it should; and the Senate should follow our lead, stand up for jobs, as well as our allies, and quickly send this bill to the President's desk.

Because of advances in technology and innovation, we are now entering a new era of abundance. America is emerging, yes, as an energy superpower. We can enjoy the domestic benefits of being an energy superpower while also projecting our influence as a force for good abroad. The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act allows us to do both.

This commonsense bill says ``yes'' to jobs, ``yes'' to energy, and I would urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, Women's History Month is a time for all Americans to pay tribute to the generations of women who have made our world a better place in which to live. Today, it is my great honor to recognize Kalamazoo, Michigan's Lucinda Hinsdale Stone for her efforts to advance education reform and women's rights.

Lucinda was born 200 years ago this year, at a time in our history when women did not share the same rights as men.

Upon moving to Michigan in 1843 with her husband, Dr. James Stone, Lucinda became the first principal of the Ladies Department at the Kalamazoo Branch of the University of Michigan, which would soon become Kalamazoo College. Together, Lucinda and James Stone helped shape the school's direction, in part by introducing coeducation and promoting abolitionism and women's rights.

Lucinda flourished in her role and assisted in the education of a variety of professions and skills for women who came through her school. When Lucinda was ultimately forced to resign her office because of her advocacy for women's rights, she devoted her life to women's education and founded the Women's Club Movement in Michigan. As our country faced a turning tide of abolition and women's suffrage, Lucinda took it upon herself to educate and lecture from in her own home and doubled her efforts to give women everywhere a better chance.

Lucinda quickly became one of the foremost individuals in the state promoting women's rights and soon her tireless battle to bring higher education to women spread her reputation from coast to coast. Susan B. Anthony would share the works of Lucinda Hinsdale Stone and affectionately gave her the title, the ``Mother of Women's Clubs in Michigan.''

In the more than 50 years that she served as a leader in Michigan, Lucinda watched her groups expand as the rest of the country

caught on to the women's rights movement. Twenty years before areas in the Northeast formed associations for women, Lucinda was leading the Kalamazoo Ladies' Library Association as a model for the rest of the nation. That Association and its present members like Betty Lee Ongley--the first female mayor of neighboring Portage, Michigan--have continued to play a major role in keeping Lucinda's legacy alive today.

Lucinda would go on to work in social reform movements and women's organizations throughout the state and became a pillar for American women to turn to for strength and guidance. Her life's work was recognized in 1890, when the University of Michigan bestowed upon Lucinda their first honorary doctorate to a woman.

She lived to watch her very own pupil, Madelon Stockwell, become the first woman to be granted admission to the University of Michigan, and watched as Kalamazoo College granted its first academic degree to a female student. The legacy of her work for women and education remains evident today.

Throughout her extraordinary life, Lucinda became friends with other suffragist and abolitionist leaders including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, and the Grimke sisters. She was also a lifelong friend and admirer of Helen and Frederick Douglass, and even played host to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Lucinda Hinsdale Stone represents the strength that we all hope to have in the face of oppression and inequality. Her lasting impacts have motivated women for generations and her name lives on in Michigan lore as one of the finest Americans to stand up for what they believe in.

I thank the distinguished chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, here we are at the very end of when the doc fix expires, March 31. That is next week. We have tried in a very responsible way for many months to try and resolve this issue, and I commend my friend Mr. Waxman and others for passing our bill out of committee last summer at 51-0. I think it was Speaker Boehner who said he

didn't think we could honor Mother Teresa for sainthood with a vote like that.

I commend my good friend Mr. Camp from Michigan and Sandy Levin, the gentleman from Michigan, who is on the floor now, as we worked together and worked with the Senate as well to actually lock in place a bill on literally the last day that Chairman Baucus was in the United States Senate in order to try and resolve this, and we knew all along that we were going to have to have a pay-for. Here in the House a couple weeks ago, we passed a bill, somewhat on partisan lines, I know--it was not 100 percent on either side--but we passed a 10-year fix with a pay-for.

Now, I had a great ninth grade civics teacher, Mr. Denekas, who is no longer with us. He is with the Lord. I will tell you, as I sit down with my students as I did this week--a lot of them are here in town, my Close Up groups and others--and as I speak to my high schools and colleges, they know there is never such a thing, maybe, as a perfect bill. One of the first lessons in civics is that you pass a bill in the House, and you pass a bill in the Senate, and they are always different. You go to conference, and you work out the differences, and it comes back.

Nobody wants this expiration of the doc fix--nobody. It hurts our physician community. They care about the folks that they treat. Literally, they are going to have almost a 30 percent reduction cut as early as next week in the services that they provide. Let's think about our most vulnerable, too--our seniors. They have got those doctor appointments, and they want to be there. Maybe, with a 30 percent cut, those physicians will say: Gosh, we just can't do this. That appointment is canceled. We are going to just stop serving Medicare patients--period--those over 65.

We don't want that. We don't want that hurting our most vulnerable. So we passed here in the House a couple of weeks ago a 10-year bill. The response from the Senate is--nothing. Yes, we have had some discussions. We have talked with Senator Wyden, a former member of our committee. He is diligently trying to get something done, but they have got no bill ready for passage on the Senate floor that matches what we did to go to conference. They have got nothing. There is a lot of talk about maybe just doing a bill without a pay-for or some phony savings. That is not what this House is about. It is a lot of money, and we have some rules in the House that you have got to have a pay-for for it, and that is the real difficulty in trying to get things done.

So here we are at the end of the week. The cuts come in next Tuesday, April 1, so we are trying to send another offer to the Senate. If you are not going to take the 10-year fix, let's try a 1-year fix. It is paid for. It is about $20 billion, and there are a number of little provisions that are in there that, I think, are important, again, in working with all sides. Last night, we were somewhat surprised that a number of groups came out against it, but the alternative is that the door gets shut. We don't have a backup plan, all right?

This is the bill. If we can get 290 votes--everybody is here--a two- thirds vote, that is great. We will send yet another offer to the Senate, and they can choose either one. They can take our 10-year bill. They can take a 1-year bill. They can pass something different, and we can go to conference. I must say that this bill is now a 1-year bill, but it doesn't stop us from still trying to negotiate something for a permanent fix, because that is what every one of us wants. It doesn't stop us from getting that done, but at least it stops what otherwise will be the denial of services to the most vulnerable, our seniors, who may not understand what is happening. It continues the process moving forward.

We have got a couple of options that we are teeing up, but, obviously, we have to pass it today, here, with a two-thirds vote. Then let the Senate decide which alternative or it can pass something else, but pass something so that we can go to conference; but if that happens, then the doc fix is not fixed, and for however long that period is the cuts go into place. It would be nice if we could actually pass this by voice. What do you think? It will get us off the dime, and, again, we will toss it to the Senate to try and get it done. No one wants it to expire, but without one of these two bills, it expires, and we don't want that to happen.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--my friend Mr. Pallone, my friend Mr. Waxman, and others--because, yes, we need to get this done. It is the best that we can do right now, and there is not a plan B for next week.

Mr. Speaker, the specter of physician cuts under Medicare, or SGR, has been an unwelcome threat to seniors' access to quality health care well for over a decade. I rise in support of Chairman Pitts' H.R. 4302, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, so we can ensure that seniors' access to quality health care is not jeopardized as we continue the effort to permanently resolving this broken system.

While we're not yet over the finish line, we are closer than ever before. Republicans and Democrats of the House and Senate have agreed to the policy of a permanent solution, and this chamber has already passed a bipartisan, fully paid-for bill that would make it a reality.

We understand that our colleagues in the Senate may have a different vision for next steps, and we'd be happy to meet with them to find a package of true offsets that we can all get behind. But, while we wait for the Senate to join us, it is important for us to keep the promises we have made to seniors who depend on the Medicare program.

By coming together with this patch, we will ensure that care will be there when Medicare beneficiaries need it. This package prevents the scheduled 24 percent cut in payment rates, updates the rate through the end of the year, and maintains many of the so-called extenders programs for another year, including the Special Diabetes Program and abstinence program. Finally, it includes important mental health provisions like the Assistant Outpatient Treatment program from Chairman Murphy's H.R. 3717, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2013. All of this is achieved in a fiscally responsible manner, saving $1.2 billion while we continue to strive for our permanent solution.

Our work is far from done, but today we restore some certainty to our seniors that their trusted doctor will be available when they are in need of care.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on February 17th, we lost an extraordinary American with the passing of James C. Dowdle, who was 79. I rise today to do something a bit out of character. As many folks know, I am a proud University of Michigan Wolverine. Jim, on the other hand, was a Notre Dame grad. In the Midwest, the Wolverines and Fighting Irish mix, at least in athletics, about as well as the Hatfields and McCoys. In fact, Jim was a physically gifted athlete who played basketball for the Irish. It takes a special individual for me to put aside a rivalry that runs that deep. Jim Dowdle was that unique.

I got to know Jim on a professional level. He was hired by Tribune Company in Chicago in the early 1980s to head its broadcast operations until his retirement in 1999. Tribune Company remains the largest media company headquartered in the Midwest. Of particular interest to me, Jim engineered the Tribune's purchase of the Chicago Cubs from the Wrigley family. As a lifelong, diehard Cubs fan, Jim and I agonized over the team's progress many an afternoon at Wrigley Field. Jim also persuaded legendary Hall of Fame broadcaster Harry Caray to be the Cubs' play-by- play announcer on Tribune's WGN-TV. That powerful combination spread WGN's telecasts throughout the land as cable systems and home satellites grew WGN into a national superstation. What makes the story even more remarkable is that Jim was a proud Irish-American son of Chicago's Southside, that sliver of greater Chicagoland where your allegiance is to the White Sox and whatever team is playing the Cubs. Jim used to say, ``Thank God my father is buried in Calvary Cemetery. If he knew I bought the Cubs, I'm not sure he would talk to me.'' Over the years, Jim gambled on the future of television--investing in little-known cable channels such as the Food Network and others, adding to Tribune's broadcast station holdings, the value of which is now in the billions.

Jim Dowdle's family and civic legacy is just as remarkable. He married his beloved Sally Sayers in 1956 shortly after graduating from Notre Dame. To all, they are known as Honey and Doods. He was the father of five and grandfather of eighteen. At his funeral Mass, nine handsome grandsons, all at least six foot two, dressed in suits and Kelly green ties, served as pallbearers. At the altar, two Catholic monsignors, twelve priests and his godson (a deacon) celebrated his Mass before as many as 1,500 mourners--a powerful, visible testament to a life well led.

Long before I got to know him, Jim had conquered alcohol addiction. For decades, he counseled countless others, often complete strangers. When the word spread that Jim was nearing death, the family received numerous calls and messages from people who wanted them to know how Jim Dowdle had impacted them--saving careers, marriages, and lives. Without those unsolicited testimonials, no one would have known.

A former Marine lieutenant, years later, Jim received the Marine Corps' Semper Fidelis Award. He also received the broadcast industry's highest honor, the National Association of Broadcasters' Distinguished Service Award, as well as the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences' Trustee Award and induction into the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame. A devout Catholic, Jim was a director of Mundelein Seminary's Board of Advisors and Big Shoulders Fund. He served as a former board chairman of Junior Achievement of Chicago, director of Loyola University's Health Systems, director of Robert R. McCormick Foundation, director of Hazelden Chicago, and trustee of Chicago's Museum of

Science and Industry. I mention these. There are more.

Throughout his remarkable life, Jim Dowdle never lost the common touch. He stayed humble. He volunteered. He served. He gave. He never forgot what is truly important in life. I think the Marine's motto aptly describes the great man: ``Semper Fidelis!'' Always Faithful! It was my great privilege to know him and my honor to pay tribute. God bless Jim Dowdle.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend Republicans and Democrats for getting the policy right. This is a tough nut to crack. It was 51-0 in our committee, led by Joe Pitts, Dr. Burgess, the Doc Caucus, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Pallone. We worked long and hard to get the policy right, and we worked with the other committees to do it as well.

The difficulty we always knew was going to be on the pay-for. I would suggest this: we want to work with the Senate; we want to get this thing done; pay-for is the toughest part, but let's go to conference. Let's work with the Senate to get a pay-for that can work.

Now, we know that there is a deadline coming up at the end of this month. As we look to try and find a pay-for, let me go through some of the other delays that this administration has already done:

Individual mandate delay, Americans with canceled coverage due to ObamaCare; delayed.

Individual mandate, deadline for purchasing coverage; delayed.

Individual mandates for non-ACA compliant plans; delayed by the administration.

Annual limit requirement; delayed.

MLR requirement; delayed.

MA cuts through demo bonus money; delayed.

Employer reporting; delayed.

Employer mandate; delayed.

Subsidies only in State-run exchanges; delayed.

High-risk pool closure; delayed.

Out-of-pocket waiver for group health plans; delayed.

Verification of eligibility for exchange subsidies; delayed.

Reinsurance fee for some unions; delayed.

Nondiscrimination requirement for employer coverage; delayed.

Subsidies only through the exchange; delayed.

Shop employee choice delay; delayed

Shop online purchasing; delayed.

Numerous HealthCare.gov technical; delayed.

This was never ready for prime time. We have said that from the start. If the administration has decided to delay all these things, almost two dozen, why not delay this, too? And why not use the savings then not only to help the physicians, we have to think about the seniors.

This isn't just to help our physicians, it is to help the most vulnerable, our seniors, because if we don't reimburse our docs, the ``closed'' sign is going to come up where they go for services. They are going to be denied the coverage that they have paid taxes for, that they expect to have, and yet another broken promise will be there.

If the administration can delay these things, why don't we delay this? Why don't we use the savings then to pay for a program that works, and I would suggest that we vote for this. Let's work with the Senate to get it done.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to vote for a bill that would provide certainty and peace of mind to our nation's seniors and fairness for all Americans under the president's health care law. Repeal of the system of physician cuts under Medicare, or SGR, has been a problem that has plagued seniors, doctors, and Congress for well over a decade. These cuts have threatened access to our seniors' health care and the Medicare promise that our country has made to every American--both those in the program today and those who count on it as part of their future retirement.

Our purpose here today is Medicare reform so that we can keep the promise made to all seniors, current and future. The Medicare program is going insolvent, and Congress will need to act if we are to prevent bankruptcy. Today is one step toward keeping the Medicare promise. Many of us did roundtables with our doctors back home, I did so in Michigan, and we visited with countless seniors. We heard their concerns loud and clear and have acted.

H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act, is the product of years of bipartisan efforts to remove the threat of SGR. The legislation would once and for all repeal the broken SGR and replace it with a system that promotes the highest quality of care for seniors, eases the burden on physicians who are struggling under an increasing number of government programs that take time away from patients, and promotes new forms of health care delivery and innovation with an eye on the future.

We stand here today on the House floor in no small part because of our speaker, John Boehner, who charged the Energy and Commerce Committee to find a workable solution to get rid of SGR. This has been a long journey with many important players on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers. I do want to commend Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts for helping lead the effort and the bill's sponsor Dr. Michael Burgess, for his tireless commitment from day one. We also would not be here without the efforts and support of the GOP Doctors Caucus--a group who understands all too well the threat that SGR has posed. And of course I appreciate our partnership with my good friend Dave Camp and the Ways and Means Committee.

While this is a significant milestone, the cost of SGR repeal is not insignificant. We have strived over the past few months to find common ground with the Senate to identify a way to pay for this agreement that both chambers can support. Time is not on our side as the current patch is set to expire at the end of this month. So today the House has chosen to act rather than stand idly by and is prepared to send a bill to the Senate with a bipartisan payfor: relief for individual Americans from the mandate that they purchase government-approved insurance.

The White House has already seen fit to delay many parts of the president's health care law, including the employer mandate. And it has also quietly delayed the individual mandate for the millions of Americans whose health care plans the law cancelled. If Senate Democratic colleagues don't want to afford individuals the same rights as special interests with a direct line to the president, then I would ask them to simply pass their own fully offset SGR package and let's go to conference to iron out our differences. But make no mistake, SGR must be paid for.

We have never come this far in finding a permanent solution. But there is still much work to be done after today's vote, and I call on my Chairman Ron Wyden to pick up the torch and work with Majority Leader Harry Reid to put politics aside, stand up for our seniors and doctors, and let's solve SGR this year.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4015 and the millions of seniors who are watching us here today.

Mr. Chairman, today, we are going to continue our pursuit of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, taking up legislation to address the EPA's pending greenhouse gas rules for power plants, which is the latest threat by the Obama administration to affordable and reliable energy.

While the President may boast support for an all-of-the-above strategy, his policies have been anything but. The President's approach seeks to limit our energy choices, to jeopardize jobs, to raise energy costs, and, indeed, to threaten America's global competitiveness.

Our Nation has become the envy of the world because of recent breakthroughs unlocking vast amounts of oil and natural gas, but the game-changing developments do not give cause to regulate an entire fuel category out of the mix--gone--especially a resource that comprises, today, 40 percent of the fuel that provides affordable electricity for millions of Americans and countless job creators. Given that the U.S. has the world's largest coal reserves and is the largest producer of coal, it should remain a critical contributor to a diverse electricity portfolio for decades to come. We should proudly embrace that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal reserves.

Fuel diversity gives us the flexibility to keep electricity costs low and to ensure reliability, particularly for the most vulnerable. As we have heard from many witnesses in hearings, the coal-fired power plant shutdowns already underway pose a serious threat to reliability in many regions, particularly in the Midwest. That threat will continue to get worse if the shutdowns increase in the years ahead while we will limit our options for new base load power. In sum, fuel diversity gives us a more stable, reliable, and affordable

electricity supply, and any threat to coal, including the EPA's pending rules, is a threat to that diversity and a threat to affordable energy.

I applaud both Chairman Whitfield and Senator Manchin for their efforts in authoring a workable bipartisan and bicameral alternative to the EPA's pending power plant rules. Their legislation is a good faith effort that requires a critical check on the EPA's misuse of the Clean Air Act to try to accomplish through regulation what was rejected by Congress through legislation.

Their approach does not prohibit the EPA from setting a standard for new plants, but, instead, it focuses on setting standards that have been adequately demonstrated--a key ingredient missing from the EPA's regulatory proposal. Just in the last 2 weeks, as Mr. Whitfield indicated, we have heard testimony from administration officials that carbon capture technologies, which are not yet commercially viable, could increase electricity costs by, perhaps, as much as 80 percent. This important legislation provides a role for Congress in setting the effective date for any regulation for existing plants.

Mr. Speaker, today, we continue our pursuit of a true all- of-the-above energy policy as the House considers H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act. I am very pleased that this bill combines four individual bipartisan proposals developed by members of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Energy efficiency measures are some of the simplest and most affordable methods to address U.S. energy demand and lower costs, but significant energy efficiency opportunities and challenges certainly remain. This legislative package helps embrace these opportunities and meet many challenges to advance U.S. energy goals.

Using a voluntary, market-driven approach, this bipartisan legislation will help harness new technologies and support private sector innovation to develop more efficient ways of utilizing energy.

H.R. 2126 also seeks to improve Federal energy efficiency, a critical initiative, given that the Federal Government is the Nation's largest user of energy. Utilizing energy savings techniques can significantly reduce the amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on Federal energy costs.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to American energy, everything needs to be on the table: coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar--you name it, and yes, improving energy efficiency is an important part of the all-of-the-above equation.

The passage of this important energy efficiency bill will help us as we continue to work together on a bipartisan basis in the coming months and years to tackle the many energy challenges facing the Nation. We have a lot of work to do.

Basically, what this bill does is takes four individual bills that we had. One was led by the really good work of Mr. Welch and Mr. McKinley to establish a Tenant Star program to voluntarily certify within Energy Star, which would promote energy efficiency.

It takes a Whitfield bill on grid-enabled water heaters. I commend Ms. Eshoo and Mike Rogers--again, a bipartisan combination--in adding more energy efficient savings technologies in a major way to help us.

It also takes a Castor bill on energy information for commercial buildings.

Together, many of us sat down with the then-chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Mr. Wyden, about a year ago on things that we could work on together, and we have proved it with this legislation. These bills had

unanimous support within our committee. We worked together. Ultimately, it is going to help the American consumer and the Federal Government-- again, the largest user of electricity--and shows we can get things done.

So we have Mr. Welch, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Whitfield, Mike Rogers, Ms. Castor, and also Mr. Waxman and his staff, too. I know that he wishes he was on the floor. Together, we really did get this thing worked out in a way that the American public would be certainly very proud of.

I know that we have lost Mr. Wyden. He has moved to another committee, but I would hope that a strong vote this afternoon would send a pretty good message to the Senate that in fact they can embrace these bills.

A week or two ago, the majority leader said something along the lines of he wanted to pick a number of issues we can work on together and get them out of the way and get them to the President's desk. These are pretty good bills. I would like to think that once we pass these, the new leadership there in the Senate Energy Committee could simply move these bills from the desk and get them to the President's desk in an expeditious way.

So I want to conclude by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for developing this legislation that in fact we are supporting. I would encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for an all-of-the- above energy policy and support passage of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86 on the Cummings amendment on H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 87 on the Connolly amendment on H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 88 on the Jackson Lee amendment on H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 89 on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 90 on passage of H.R. 899, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 71 on the Rothfus amendment on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 72 on the Connolly amendment on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 73 on the Jackson Lee amendment on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 74 on the Jackson Lee amendment on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 75 on the Miller (CA) amendment on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 76 on the Miller (CA) amendment on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 77 on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 78 on the passage of H.R. 2804, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 79 on Ordering the Previous Question on H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 80 on Adoption of the Rule on H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 81 on the Rigell amendment on H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 82 on the DeSantis amendment on H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 83 on the Moore (WI) amendment on H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 84 on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 85 on passage of H.R. 492, I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act.

This bill would require that HHS provide weekly progress reports regarding the President's health care law and attempt to ensure greater transparency from an administration that has done everything that it can so far to bury the facts when it comes to its signature health care law. Remember, this is the administration that knew millions of Americans would receive cancelation notices, but they only acted to allow people to keep their health care plans that they had and liked after we forced their hand back a few months ago. Perhaps by acting today we can again force them to do the right thing and share basic information with policymakers and the public about how the law is working or not.

In building healthcare.gov for the October 1 start of open enrollment, the administration chose not to allow Americans to window- shop and find accurate and reliable prices of health care plans in the exchange.

Over the last 17 weeks since the law was launched, this administration has released enrollment figures on just a handful of occasions. We are still left asking the most important question: ``Who's paid?''

Instead, the administration has gone to great lengths to redefine enrollment as the number of folks who have selected a plan through the exchanges. These numbers simply don't tell us the true status of the law, however. More than 3 months after the start of open enrollment, we still don't know how many Americans have actually enrolled in health plans by paying their first month's premium.

Just 1 day before the start of open enrollment, Secretary Sebelius defined success as enrolling 7 million Americans by the end of March of 2014. The administration has since distanced itself from enrollment being a measure of success at all. If enrolling individuals in health plans is not the goal, what is?

Preventing access to reliable data about the exchanges is not exactly what you would expect from the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history.'' It should not take a vote in Congress to get basic information from the administration, but without voluntary transparency, we don't have any other choice.

The bill before us would require HHS to provide accurate, useful figures about enrollment and the operation of the exchanges on a weekly basis. It also is going to require HHS to report to the American people other key metrics, including demographics of enrollees, Medicaid enrollment, regular reporting on ongoing problems with healthcare.gov, and HHS' efforts to address those issues.

The President's health care law will cost the taxpayers an estimated $2 trillion over the next decade. At the very least, the administration should provide the American people regular and ongoing information about its implementation. There is no reason for the administration to keep the public and the Congress in the dark. Whether the news is good or bad, it is time for full disclosure.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I applaud Mr. Terry for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014.

Security and transparency are both critically important to every American, and the public expects and deserves to have them both when it comes to health care.

Sadly, I believe the administration has failed to deliver. This important bill seeks to provide peace of mind to folks in Michigan and across the country who have submitted personal information to a Federal health insurance exchange. Americans have the right to know in the event that their sensitive personal information provided to an exchange is compromised, especially as it is the law's individual mandate that forces them to purchase the government-approved health care coverage. Why wouldn't we want the public to know and be alerted right away?

Just this morning on CNBC's ``Breaking News,'' the CEO of Target apparently is indicating that as many as 70 million Americans--their customers--may have had their private information stolen. Would it have been right for Target just to sit on that information? Or was it appropriate for them to try and put the word out so that at least the consumers would have the right information?

Let me tell you what this bill does. It is a commonsense bill. It is going to require that the administration promptly inform individuals within 2 business days if their personal information has been stolen or unlawfully accessed through an exchange. Through the Energy and Commerce Committee's thoughtful oversight, we have uncovered troubling information regarding

the security of the health insurance exchanges. What this bill does is preventive medicine. Do we want to wait until the horse is out of the barn before we take action? I don't think so.

We found that the administration did not perform a full security control assessment before healthcare.gov opened for business on October 1. We have also learned that just days before healthcare.gov went live, senior officials at HHS expressed serious concerns regarding the protection of personally identifiable information that was entered into their Web site.

These facts, on top of the fact that the administration has repeatedly misrepresented the functionality and the readiness of the health care law, raise significant questions regarding the security of healthcare.gov and the information available in the exchanges.

A few weeks ago, the administration was willing to let millions of Americans lose their health insurance, despite the President's solemn promise that they could keep their health plan if they liked it; and it took the House, acting in a bipartisan legislative manner, for the administration to confess that, yes, they had broken their promise.

Now the administration is saying it opposes this requirement that it notify Americans when personal information is stolen.

So the self-proclaimed, most-transparent administration in history has come out against transparency. I am sorry Republicans and Democrats may disagree on the merits of the President's health care law, and we do; but I think that we should all agree that Americans deserve to be notified if that personal information is put at risk by the law.

I want to thank Chairman Pitts for putting security and transparency above politics, and I would urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support this bill this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends, Mr. Engel, the lead Democratic cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, as well as Mr. Terry, who has helped champion this, not only in this Congress, but for the last number of years, as well.

This bill needs to get done. H.R. 3527 is really good legislation, and it's bipartisan. It funds more than 50 poison control centers across the country. In 2012, almost 4 million calls were managed by our Nation's poison control centers. These centers and the physicians, the nurses, the pharmacists, and toxicology specialists who staff them save lives by providing free and confidential health services regarding potential exposure to harmful toxins 24/7 and in 150 different languages.

So let me tell you about Michigan. The Michigan Regional Poison Control Center at DMC Children's Hospital in Detroit is one of the largest and busiest poison centers in the country, offering leadership in new data collection processes and identification of new trends in poisonings. The center provides assessment, triage, management, and continued monitoring of more than 90,000 poison exposures in Michigan every year at no direct cost to the patient, the practitioner, or the health care institution.

Poison centers like this save money, as many of these crisis calls avert an expensive trip to the emergency room. In fact, a 2012 report by the independent Lewin Group determined that the Nation's poison centers save more

than $1.19 billion in avoided medical utilization and reduced hospital length of stay every year. In addition, every $1 of funding saves about $13 in unnecessary health care costs and lost productivity in the country.

Our Nation's poison centers exemplify successful public- private partnerships, with Federal funds providing only 18 percent of the poison center budget. That partnership saves the Federal Government a lot of money while also delivering access to critical services for Americans across the country, let alone the lives that we save. So I would ask every one of my colleagues to support this very important, bipartisan legislation.

Again, I want to commend the leadership of Mr. Terry and Mr. Engel for their continued effort on this to ``git-r-done.''

Will the gentleman yield?

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have an additional 2 minutes.

In the gentleman's remaining time, I would just say congratulations to Florida State. We from Michigan would love to see a unanimous consent that perhaps the Seminoles could play the Spartans for a national championship, and see that occur in the next couple of months. But, congratulations. It was a great game. It kept us up watching it.

We will be ready.