Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the President's claim that Americans can keep the plans they know and like, to me, always appeared somewhat misinformed, if not insincere.

First of all, the law was designed to completely restructure America's health care system. Some, if not millions, of Americans were bound to lose their plans.

Plain and simple, the law was designed to have a large majority of Americans give up their health care coverage, pay higher premiums, or face a tax increase. In fact, if millions of Americans did not lose their coverage, the health insurance exchanges would be full of high- risk consumers, without healthier populations subsidizing those plans.

The President's broken promises are concerning, especially for our States dealing with this growing mess.

``This bandage may provide temporary relief,'' stated the insurance commissioner in my home State of Pennsylvania in response to the President's cancelation fix. However, ``Pennsylvania will continue to see additional cancelations, rate increases, and significant problems due to Affordable Care Act-driven changes in the insurance marketplace.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much documented and published about the problems resulting from the Affordable Health Care Act. Millions of Americans are waking up to the cancelation of health insurance policies that they have depended on to meet their families' needs at an affordable price. There are skyrocketing premiums and deductible increases under the pressures of paying for coverage mandates they do not want, cannot afford, or may even have a moral objection to.

One area that has received little attention so far in this debate is what the impact will be on our hospitals, where much of the needed health care is provided by caring and competent professionals.

As a health care professional who served in rural hospitals for nearly 30 years as a therapist and a manager, I am confident that the future of rural and underserved urban hospitals is not good under the pressures and the mandates of ObamaCare.

While some point to tens of millions of Americans who were uninsured and now having some type of coverage--a plus for the bottom lines of hospitals--I would encourage a closer and more thoughtful look.

First, the CBO has estimated that, even after full implementation, there will still be tens of millions of Americans uninsured. Based on current reports from across America, this may include a lot of middle class Americans who find themselves, for the first time, unable to afford what ObamaCare dictated.

For hospitals, that ensures the continuation of bad debt and charity care that hampers their balance sheets. For lower-income individuals now insured under expanded medical assistance, it is true that hospitals will be paid, but they are going to be paid 40 to 60 cents for every dollar of care that they provide--not exactly a sustainable margin. More accurately, it is a pathway to bankruptcy for hospitals when coupled with the new-found population of uninsured.

Mix this with the cost of compliance that will be rolling out from the Obama administration of the approximately 130 new regulatory agencies founded under the ObamaCare legislation.

Today, the cost of compliance with government mandates, including Medicare billing and HIPAA, account for a significant part of any hospital's overhead expenses. Multiply this by 100 under the yet-to-be- administered mandates and the costs of care will have to dramatically increase just to keep the doors open and the lights on for every hospital.

The human resources cost of providing health care coverage for hospitals, whose number one asset is a qualified and trained employee, will increase as the ObamaCare employer mandate is finally implemented just a year from now.

Finally, consider the fees and taxes imposed on hospitals in 2014, just weeks away.

Earlier this week a hospital CEO from my district reported:

We're going to have to pay close to $200,000 next year, as

will every hospital.

Hospitals will see various new fees, including a $5,000 levy so the government can do research on the effectiveness of hospitals working within the plan. Additionally, hospitals will pay a $19,500 health insurer's fee and a $160,000 transitional reinsurance fee that will go into a pot to protect insurance companies against the risk of winding up with numerous high-risk customers.

These are added costs for the hospitals that Americans rely on for access to health care. I have to wonder what now is so affordable about the Affordable Care Act. Bankrupt hospitals serve no one.

Americans deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eric Cowden, a resident of Pennsylvania Furnace, Pennsylvania, a constituent of mine. This past month, Eric, a graduate of Penn State University, was recognized by the National Future Farmers of America with the organization's highest honor, the FFA Honorary American Degree.

As a youngster growing up on the family farm in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Eric was involved with the FFA, like many students in rural communities, showing steer, heifers, and lambs from a young age. Upon graduating from Penn State with a degree in agricultural sciences and earning his master's in business from Delaware Valley College, Eric went on to work for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. There, he administered the Rural Youth grant program, led the county fair in the agri-tourism division, and eventually rose to director of the central region office for the department. Eric also holds several leadership roles with the Marcellus Shale Coalition, bringing together two of Pennsylvania's most historic and important industries: energy and agriculture.

Eric is well deserving of this honor, and we thank him for his leadership in the field of agriculture and agricultural education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, which is located in McKean County, Pennsylvania.

Fifty years ago, Pitt-Bradford was a few buildings with just about 300 students. Over the decades, the school has grown from a 2-year feeder campus to a distinguished and thriving 4-year university.

Today, Pitt-Bradford's campus is home to 1,600 students and about 10,000 alumni from across the entire country. The university offers 37 bachelor's degrees, five associate degrees, and more than 50 minors. For the last 9 consecutive years, Pitt-Bradford has been ranked by The Princeton Review as one of the best colleges in the Northeast.

Due to the university, local industries have greater access to scientific and technical expertise. Area residents have access to a growing number of jobs, and the region's economy has greatly benefited as a result.

I offer my praise to the university's founders and the generations of school administrators, teachers, and students who have worked to turn the small campus into a renowned institution of higher learning.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of years ago, America was on a path to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more a year on energy imports to fulfill its energy needs--money that could otherwise be used to invest in our kids and to pay down our debt.

Today, due to shale oil and natural gas activity, the U.S. is set to leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's biggest producer of oil and gas and, by 2035, capable of providing all of its own energy. This activity also contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 and saved American families $100 per month in the form of lower energy bills.

These amazing strides towards greater energy independence and a better standard of living for more Americans are due to energy development taking place not on Federal lands but on State and private lands, regulated not by the Federal Government but by our States.

This week, the House acted on policies to keep us on this path to greater energy security--a future where America is less reliant on the rest of the world to fulfill its energy and power needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Jim Holden, a resident of Franklin, Venango County, Pennsylvania.

An outdoor enthusiast who tirelessly promoted recreation and tourism in Pennsylvania, Jim passed away on November 9 at the age of 73.

As cofounder of the Allegheny Valley Trails Association, Jim was instrumental in the Rails-to-Trails movement, an effort in the early 1990s to rehabilitate abandoned railways into

multipurpose recreational trails for the public to access and enjoy.

Franklin's newspaper stated the following upon Jim's passing:

Largely unrealized were how Holden's efforts impacted the

overall economy of a region hard-hit over the years by the

loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs that once made the oil

region one of the most prosperous in all the country. His

passing will leave some mighty big hiking boots to fill.

Jim Holden knew that our region's recreational resources could be better utilized to the benefit of the community and its economy. He spent his life making this vision a reality.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Jim Holden and his family. He surely did leave big boots to fill but also an enduring legacy for us to cherish.

Mr. Speaker, in 1947, Major Bill Hendricks, with the support of his Los Angeles Marine Corps Reserve unit, collected and distributed 5,000 toys to needy children. Since the program's adoption nationally as Toys for Tots in 1948, the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve's Toys for Tots program has collected

and distributed close to 500 million toys.

On Monday, I had the honor of attending the Centre County Toys for Tots' kickoff breakfast in central Pennsylvania. Chaired by Gene Weller, a retired Marine major, 2013 marks the 27th Centre County Toys for Tots campaign, organized by the Nittany Leathernecks Detachment 302. About 250 collection points around Centre County will accept new, unwrapped toys, books, and games for infants to teenagers until December 15. This program has grown with the support of area food banks, fire departments, businesses, and hundreds of local volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, Marines have distributed an annual average of 15 million toys, bringing joy to an average of more than 6.3 million less fortunate children each year.

We thank you in more ways than one every day, Marines, and I thank you for supporting these children in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address what has really been going on behind the scenes in the Affordable Care Act. You see, if millions of people didn't lose their coverage, the architects of the law knew the exchanges would be full just of sick and elderly, without healthier populations subsidizing those plans.

No matter which way you spin it, the President's broken promises-- this one, in particular--should concern us all. We were promised we could keep our policies, coverage, and doctors; yet these choices are now being denied for millions of Americans.

Many of us are not surprised. For the fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act is not about consumer choice. It is about governmental control, control over our lives, control over our decisionmaking. This is social engineering at its worst.

The lackluster performance of a Web site will disappear over time. Unfortunately, the insurance cancelations and cost increases are going to continue regardless of an executive order or another ``promise'' from the White House. The American people deserve better, Mr. Speaker; and they surely can't afford more broken promises.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice the concerns of a small business in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, whose economic security is in jeopardy due to the Affordable Care Act.

The is the story of a sixth-generation, family-run business that has been marginally profitable over the years. The business has grown through tough times, while staying committed to always providing health care insurance through policies that allow their employees the choice and the flexibility to have the doctor that they want.

Since the ACA has taken effect, this business is now facing drastic increases in costs, which threaten their profitability and, in turn, this threatens jobs in our community.

The President has offered the American public little assurance that he can save the plans, plans that he originally said we could keep. The public doesn't need another press conference or PR fix. They need real solutions moving forward.

I commend my 39 Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle who joined us in passing the Keep Your Health Plan Act today. These Members realize there needs to be accountability in government. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. Speaker, it was a gamble for the President to promise the country ``if you like your plan, you can keep it,'' given that his health care proposal amounted to a complete restructuring of our health care system and 16 percent of the American economy.

By now, every Member of this Chamber has received countless letters, phone calls, and emails from millions of Americans who have had their health insurance either canceled or turned unaffordable due to the Affordable Care Act.

This is the devastating reality for this family. Lisa and her husband, Bob, from Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, are just one of many families in the Fifth District hurt by this law.

Lisa and Bob are self-employed. They are small business owners with five children and bills to pay. After receiving notice their affordable health plan is being canceled, they are now facing cost increases of more than $20,000 a year for a plan that actually covers less.

Mr. Speaker, the only solution is a transition to health reforms that actually contain cost and expand access. The President's promise alone is certainly not enough.

The American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are now experiencing firsthand the failures of a massive undertaking to roll out the Affordable Care Act. While well-intentioned, our colleagues who had a Democrat supermajority in the White House, the Senate, and this House pushed through a partisan bill ignoring warnings of those like myself who have worked in the health care field for decades.

Prior to being elected to Congress, I spent nearly three decades in a nonprofit health care setting, serving my neighbors who were facing life-changing disease and disability. When it was time to weigh in on public policy, Members like me were muzzled. We were told to pass a bill to see what was in it. Well, that is exactly what happened, despite our continued dissent.

Phones are ringing off the hooks in Members' offices. Constituents who have lost their health insurance policies and experienced unaffordable premium hikes are angry. They were made a promise by the President that they could keep their health plans. Now, reportedly, more than 5 million individuals have lost their policies. Undoubtedly, this is just the beginning of Americans not being able to keep the insurance that they like.

One of my constituents, Sam, from Erie County, Pennsylvania, has been affected. He has been on the same policy that has provided him with adequate coverage, exactly what he was looking for, for years. He no longer has access to that coverage.

Or Lisa and her husband, both self-employed and hailing from Punxsutawney in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. They have five children--two in college, one in high school, and two working. After receiving notice that their effective and affordable health insurance policy was canceled, they have now been saddled with cost increases of over $20,000 a year.

How about John from Clearfield County, who emailed my congressional office this week after being informed by his insurer that, due to changes under the Affordable Care Act, his policy is now canceled. He owns a small business that no longer qualifies for the group plan under the law's requirements.

Then there is Sonya from northeast Pennsylvania, right on the shores of Lake Erie. She has had the same policy for the last 4 years, and it is being canceled. She stated that it is unfair she should have to buy more expensive insurance; not to mention, she says, it will cost much more over the long run when you factor in her new deductible.

Madam Speaker, this is an outrage. These are just several of countless examples--I want to say ``endless examples''--of real harm being experienced by hardworking Americans, my constituents, as a result of this flawed law.

Madam Speaker, the time I have been granted on this floor is not sufficient for me to share the growing number of voices from the Fifth District of Pennsylvania who are having their policies canceled and being forced to buy insurance that they can't afford, that they don't want and they don't need.

Those at the White House that masterminded this catastrophic attack on insurance affordability and choice released their preliminary numbers for winners and losers yesterday. Nationwide, roughly 100,000 have obtained insurance policies through the national and State exchanges combined. Many of these individuals, unfortunately, are now experiencing the sticker shock of significant costs when premiums and deductible expenses are combined and considered. The sad part is that these are the winners. That is just how bad this health care law is. Americans deserve access to health insurance that they choose and can afford.

Madam Speaker, a large block of Members in this body are standing up and putting forward solutions to these failures, including some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, recently announced she would propose legislation to ensure all Americans could keep their existing insurance coverage under ObamaCare. But ``it's not just red- State Democrats,'' as Politico reports today. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, yesterday announced she would support the bipartisan effort to allow Americans to keep the plans they know and like.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, these proposals that are being put forward by my Democratic colleagues mean that we would have to change the law. Unfortunately, Senate Leader Reid doesn't like the optics of having this debate on its merits, even if it would help Americans keep the insurance they know and like, as the President repeatedly promised.

I want to thank the growing number of my colleagues for doing what is right and placing good policy before politics. This law is flawed. It is sinking by its own weight. Now we must act to fix its fatal flaws. If we don't, those who want to protect the political reputation of the White House will allow it to continue, no matter how much harm is caused upon the American people.

Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, the White House has been under pressure for weeks as millions of Americans have started receiving health insurance cancelation letters despite repeated assurances from the President that this would not be the case.

Earlier today, former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the debate. He stated the following:

I, personally, believe, even if it takes changing the law,

the President should honor the commitment the Federal

Government made to those people and let them keep what they

got.

Last week, the President apologized, despite American families continuing to lose their coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, rather than apologize to the millions of Americans who are losing their coverage, the President should fulfill the promise that was made.

This week, the House will consider H.R. 3350, the Keep Your Health Plan Act, which will allow insurance companies to continue offering the plans that millions of consumers were happy with and would like to keep.

If the President is sincere in keeping his promise, the very least he could do is support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, a bipartisan bill to delay further implementation of flood insurance rate increases that took effect on October 1, 2013, under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Congress last year, on a bipartisan basis, passed the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The measure included long overdue reforms to strengthen the financial solvency and administration efficiency of the National Flood Insurance Program. The rationale for the 2012 law was the need for the National Flood Insurance Program to more accurately reflect flood risk.

Historically, most low-risk States subsidize high-risk coastal States. Similarly, low-risk areas within States tended to subsidize those areas with higher risk, which were more prone to flooding.

The linchpin of the 2012 law was to use true actuarial rates in order to prevent very low-risk areas from subsidizing moderate- to high-risk areas.

The unintended consequence has been drastic premium increases for those plans that were traditionally subsidized by the National Flood Insurance Program. Under the 2012 law, Congress mandated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, complete an affordability study to further evaluate any unintended consequences as a result of the changes. This study was to be completed before the rate increases went into effect, which was crucial to understanding the full scope of the new risk model.

FEMA has failed to complete the affordability study that was required

under the law. Additionally, it remains a huge concern that FEMA does not have the data it needs to accurately determine risk under this new policy regime and is incapable of creating a new mapping system that truly reflects true actuarial rates.

While 80 percent of policyholders will not see increases as a result of the new policy, a small portion of properties are being hit with staggering increases. This is a serious concern for communities and individuals across the country, including many from the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, which I am proud to represent.

I joined yesterday with colleagues on both sides of the aisle as an original cosponsor of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, legislation to delay, for 2 years, the higher rates brought on by the 2012 law until there is an affordability study completed by FEMA. The bill also makes structural changes at FEMA to assure that there is an advocate for homeowners when flood maps are drawn or adjusted.

Mr. Speaker, improving the financial viability of the Nation's Flood Insurance Program while ensuring that the program protects those it was designed to support is something every Member of Congress should support. I encourage my colleagues to join in this commonsense effort to protect and improve our Nation's Flood Insurance Program by cosponsoring the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have become all too accustomed to government glitches, which result largely from government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, and too difficult to navigate.

Every day, with a dedicated and compassionate staff, I assist constituents in navigating the frustrating and challenging bureaucracy of the Federal Government. On a daily basis, we attempt to problem- solve issues that citizens face when seeking resolution on issues with Federal agencies, agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Veterans Affairs, or FEMA, just to name a few.

The frustrations and difficulties created as unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act have dramatically expanded how large and damaging government glitches can be. The Web site glitches are just icing on the cake; for over the last several years, the broken promises have continued to mount. One of the more glaring broken promises was reported yesterday when Americans found out they won't be able to keep the plan they have, despite what the President has been telling us.

Yesterday, NBC News aired a report that sources involved in the Affordable Care Act have admitted that:

Fifty to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy

their insurance individually can expect to receive a

``cancelation'' letter or the equivalent over the next year

because their existing policies don't meet the standards

mandated by the new health care law.

One expert was reported as predicting that number could reach as high as 80 percent. All of the four NBC sources said that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience ``sticker shock.''

While millions of Americans are being shocked by cancelation letters for their health insurance, the Obama administration has known of this government glitch for at least 3 years.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called Affordable Care Act has been anything but affordable. Prices continue to rise on insurance premiums, and the cost of care nationally continues to go up.

Mr. Speaker, this law was intended to expand access and quality. Yet in Pennsylvania, children are being forced out of the Children's Health Insurance Program, commonly known as PA CHIP, and into medical assistance. CHIP is serving our kids adequately through commercial products that are widely accepted by physicians. It is low-cost, market-based health insurance coverage. Moving these kids onto Medicaid has the potential to dramatically limit access to care.

Given the mounting evidence of glitches in ObamaCare's rollout, affordability, and individual choice, you have to wonder about what the future holds. From the missed deadlines, delays, and special waivers to, now, Web site crashes and Americans losing the plans they have, the outcomes we are encountering with this law are completely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the administration to delay and fix all these glitches that are so evident in the Affordable Care Act. It is time for the Obama administration to do the right thing. The American people deserve as much.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the massive technological failures of the online rollout of the Affordable Care Act; and while some of my colleagues would lead you to believe that these are only minor Web site glitches, I rise to address a more basic, fundamental flaw in the construct of the Affordable Care Act.

The structure of the design, admittedly by an MIT economist who helped create ObamaCare, was to increase rates for the young and healthy while decreasing rates for the elderly or sick. The problem is this only serves to deter young Americans from purchasing health care when faced with the costs of education, a first home, and the prospect of starting a family.

We all want Americans to be covered, but higher premiums for the young and healthy to subsidize those who are greater consumers of health care was not the bill of goods the American people were originally sold. Mr. Speaker, young Americans deserve better.