Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Emily Whitehead is a young girl from Philipsburg, Centre County, Pennsylvania. Emily wants to be a veterinarian when she grows up. She loves writing and her dog, Lucy.

At the age of 5, Emily was diagnosed with leukemia. She worked through multiple different treatments. Unfortunately, in 2011, she relapsed. Emily received chemotherapy for months and was scheduled for a bone marrow transplant in 2012, but she relapsed just 2 weeks before the transplant date. Unable to get back into remission, doctors told Emily's parents there were no options left.

The family decided to take a chance. They traveled across the State to enroll her in a clinical trial at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Emily would be the first child in the world to receive modified trained cells, or T-cells, to fight her cancer. By May of 2012, Emily was in remission. The treatment had worked.

I want to thank Emily and her family for making it to Capitol Hill last week. This body needed to hear her story and about the medical research and innovation that saved Emily's life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations as DuBois Area Middle School earns redesignation status as a Pennsylvania ``School to Watch.'' This is quite an achievement, and I highly commend the administrators, teachers, and students for their efforts. It is my understanding that DuBois Area Middle School is one of only three middle schools that has been redesignated a second time, after originally earning this designation in 2007 and again in 2010.

These selections by State educational leaders exemplify DuBois Area Middle School's outstanding responsiveness to the needs and interests of its students in helping them achieve their greatest potential.

Furthermore, by working together to improve curriculum and foster continuous academic growth, DuBois Area Middle School leadership has gone the extra mile to ensure success. The example your success has set for other schools is an excellent one, and I hope it will be shared widely.

Also, I encourage all people, students and adults, to continue to learn as it is probably the single most significant ingredient in leading a successful and fulfilling life.

Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago, the House passed H.R. 1911, a bill based on the President's 2014 budget request, which would provide a market-based interest rate for student loans.

Editorial boards from across the country have lauded this bill and have called on the Senate to act on a similar proposal:

USA Today stated:

Rates on loans are now set by Washington, not markets.

Obama and the House Republicans wisely call for a market

solution.

The Boston Globe stated:

The solution President Obama and House Republicans have

proposed would prevent what has become a frustrating annual

standoff.

The Los Angeles Times stated:

Republicans are backing a long-term solution that's similar

to one President Obama proposed . . . The Senate should pass

its own version . . . then work out the differences with the

House.

With less than a week before student loan rates jump from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, the Senate has failed to pass a bill that would address the issue. It's time for the Senate to come to the table.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's excessive regulatory actions have been taking their toll on the Nation's economy for some time now.

Unfortunately, the President's new climate change plan announced today appears even more costly and contentious than his previous proposals, which were resoundingly rejected by his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

America needs a diverse supply of low-cost and abundant energy sources. Coal is, by far, the cheapest and most abundant source of energy. Protecting the environment and developing our abundant natural resources such as coal are not mutually exclusive, but that's not what the President would have us believe.

The Obama administration continues to grossly underestimate the cumulative impact of its regulatory actions, and this new plan to unilaterally impose new energy regulations will cost more jobs and further harm family budgets through higher electricity prices.

Mr. Speaker, politics trumped good government today in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Members of this body demonstrated a failure to lead by voting down the farm bill.

The Federal Government currently operates a costly maze of duplicative and outdated agriculture spending programs. The farm bill crafted by the House reflected a fiscally responsible plan that would have ended the abuses of food stamps, ended wasteful agriculture spending programs and, achieved a level of efficiency for existing programs that should be replicated in all areas of government.

The farm bill would have eliminated automatic enrollment in food stamps and prevented fraudulent benefit payments by requiring States to verify eligibility for the program. The farm bill would have ended the economically disruptive policies that have worked to further destabilize our dairy markets. The bill transitioned to a more free market approach that's better for farmers and taxpayers alike.

In the absence of this comprehensive reform package, the overspending and taxpayer waste will now continue.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, I strongly support the FARRM Bill we are considering today and the reforms that it brings.

The EPA has been implementing what is known as a ``total maximum daily load'' on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The TMDL is often described as a pollution diet because it mandates water quality standards and nutrient discharges into the watershed.

Aside from the great cost, one of the concerns I have had is the science behind the TMDL. EPA's model is substantially different from USDA's. As such, I have been a strong advocate for EPA utilizing the USDA's data and agricultural expertise while implementing this mandate.

This is why I am offering an amendment to the FARRM Bill which will require USDA to provide such data and consultation to EPA while ensuring privacy of farmers.

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It needs and deserves our attention. However, these restoration activities, which require taxpayer dollars, should include the best science available to continue the great strides we are already making with the health of the bay.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate and share the gentleman's desire to preserve forests in danger of conversion--that's very important to me. I chair the Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, but I don't believe that this is the best way to do it. I respectfully oppose the amendment.

The Forest Legacy Program has been successful, to date, due to its unique structure, partnering with States to preserve forested land threatened by development. Since its creation in the 1990 farm bill, the Forest Legacy Program has more than been successful in fulfilling that purpose. The program has protected more than 2.2 million acres in 43 States and has leveraged $739 million of non-Federal funding over the last 20 years.

By opening the program to nongovernmental programs, we're doing nothing to promote the program's purpose. Demand is quite high for the program. For the last 3 years, USDA has only been able to fund roughly a quarter of the funding requests under this program. Additionally, this change only has the effect of making the program more similar to other conservation programs.

In the 2008 farm bill, we created the Community Forest Program with the purpose of allowing groups such as land trusts and Indian tribes the authority to manage forest easements. This was done in part to allow nongovernment groups to participate in protecting local forests.

While I'm certain the gentleman from California has the best of intentions, I don't agree we have a problem with this program that justifies opening it for alteration; and, therefore, I will oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just note that my good friend from New York--and I appreciate his passion on this--but the organizations you named already have opportunities under the Community Forest Program.

And we have two rather unique programs, one that already, well, as of the last farm bill that was done in 2008, provides the opportunity for nongovernmental groups to be able to participate.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me restate again, I recognize there's two different programs. There is one program that was created in 2008 that nongovernmental programs can participate in.

There's not capacity within the Forest Legacy Program, Mr. Chairman, to add nongovernmental programs in. It is specifically designed for partnering with States to preserve forest lands that are threatened by development.

And just as a reminder, over the last 3 years, USDA's only been able to fund roughly a quarter of those funding requests at this point, and by extending this would not serve a purpose.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, at a time when bipartisanship is rare in Washington, this past week a bipartisan majority of Members of the United States House of Representatives together called upon the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to delay further implementation of the competitive bidding program for Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies.

A growing number of flaws have been identified in the bidding program, which is being used to procure these goods and services for those facing life-changing disease and disability. We do not oppose competitive bidding. In fact, we want to ensure that true competition takes place and Medicare plays by the rules they set for the program.

Today, I stand beside 226 of my colleagues here in the people's House and urge the administrator of CMS to do the right thing and use her authority under current law to delay implementation in order to fix these abuses before moving forward in 100 areas nationwide on July 1.

Mr. Speaker, Administrator Tavenner has to know the clock is ticking, and if unchecked, the failure of this program will be on her watch.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the House Agriculture Committee's 2013 FARRM Bill.

This legislation is a product of 3 years of extensive hearings, research, and fact finding. The bill eliminates outdated farm programs, direct payments, countercyclical payments, the average crop revenue election program, and the supplemental revenue assistance payments, for example. These programs are part of an old system and need to be eliminated.

Regarding SNAP and food stamps, we have made significant reforms. Specifically, we have closed a number of loopholes and have eliminated categorical eligibility. While we have eliminated these loopholes, such as automatic enrollment, the bill still allows for eligibility, based on income, to ensure that those who truly need the assistance continue to have access.

For the second consecutive Congress, I have had the privilege to chair the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry. At the subcommittee level, we were successful in consolidating and cleaning up a number of programs. The bill consolidates 23 conservation programs down to 13. I believe it achieves this without negatively impacting the effectiveness or the goals of these programs.

We have also included several provisions to promote the health of our Nation's forests. Agriculture is the number one industry in Pennsylvania, and I am pleased to see that we are bringing much-needed reform to the Commonwealth's top sector--dairy. First and foremost, this bill repeals all of the dairy price support system, and replaces that system with a free-market margin program.

Like many of my colleagues, I have significant concern with the supply management portion of the dairy title. However, we can address this matter in the amendment process.

This bill is not perfect. However, it does make significant changes to both farm and nutrition programs, and will save the taxpayer over $40 billion. Without passage of this bill, none of these reforms will be made, none of the savings will be realized, and we will continue these broken policies or, even worse, revert to the permanent law for the 1930s and the 1940s.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and I thank both the chairman and ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, America is blessed with abundant, clean, and affordable natural gas. As the amount of known natural gas reserves continually increases, we are also blessed with the technology to be environmentally responsible when accessing this resource.

In my home State of Pennsylvania, the discovery and extraction of the Marcellus shale has been transforming. During the difficult years of an economy in recession, unemployment numbers in the Keystone State have remained well below the national rates. We can attribute a substantial portion of this prosperity to development related to this plentiful natural resource.

A study by the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy is a recent testament

to this fact. The report shows that rents and royalties reported on Pennsylvania income tax returns from 2006 to 2010 have increased 61 percent statewide and 119 percent in counties with Marcellus shale activity.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to responsibly develop this resource so that we ensure it offers future generations the same and greater economic opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will be voting on the National Defense Authorization Act, known as the NDAA. The NDAA's purpose is to ensure that our brave sons and daughters who serve this country will have what they need to be trained and resourced to do their jobs effectively and safely.

This authorization is one of the few policy matters in Washington not viewed through a partisan lens. As a father of a son and daughter-in- law currently serving our country in Afghanistan, I'm proud to say that that is the case.

Today's NDAA includes an amendment I added that would mandate the Department of Defense implement a preliminary mental health assessment before individuals join the military. The goal is to assure mental health resiliency for those who will be facing the combat realities of war. The suicide rate among our military is unacceptable, and this amendment will help reduce it.

The Department of Defense has done medical assessments for many years. It is time we bring mental health to parity in preliminary assessments. We must focus on the overall well-being of the force.

Mr. Speaker, for those serving our country in uniform, transitioning to civilian life can be a stressful process, especially when the transition is involuntary or unexpected.

Currently, the Transitional Assistance Management Program, or TAMP, offers 180 days of health care coverage to certain servicemembers transitioning from military service to help bridge the insurance gap until coverage can be secured through employment or outside the service.

In many instances, traumatic brain injury symptoms do not appear until 8 to 10 months after deployment, and it is important that these individuals have mental health care access during that time.

This week, during the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, I've offered two amendments, one of which would extend the TAMP coverage for servicemembers by an additional 180 days for any treatment provided through telemedicine.

Through the expansion of telemedicine, we can offer greater access to health care while lowering the cost. It's time we fully utilize these new technologies, which is why I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. This commonsense, zero-cost reform will help those who serve our country transition to civilian life without unnecessary burden or undue delay.

Madam Speaker, Friday's job report clearly reminds us that the number one issue remains jobs and the economy.

Every day the House majority fights for solutions to grow the economy by advancing an all-of-the-above energy plan, promoting a fair and simpler Tax Code, and making it easier for families and students to afford college.

On May 23, the House passed H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, a bill based on the President's 2014 budget request that would provide a market-based interest rate for student loans and prevent the scheduled rate hike on July 1.

Rather than encouraging the Senate to join the House in this good- faith effort, the President chose politics over students and threatened a veto--for a solution that is based on his own proposal.

From student loans to reliable jobs, Americans want a strong economy and a more secure future. We can deliver on this, Madam Speaker, but only if the President starts leading and the Senate stops campaigning, and both start working for the greater good of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a bill that's going to be on the House floor here in a couple of weeks. It should be certainly of interest to every man, woman, and child in this country because we all shake hands with a farmer at least three times a day--breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

And also it's relevant to my home State, the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, as agriculture is the number one industry in Pennsylvania. Some folks would be surprised to hear that.

But the fact is we'll have the farm bill before us. I'm proud to be a member of the Agriculture Committee. We have worked long and hard on this farm bill. We've made some great improvements.

We've eliminated many of the subsidies that have kind of clouded the farm bill, in my opinion, for decades; and we've moved towards a more free-market, risk-management approach, protecting our farmers, providing them some access to crop insurance and a dairy margin insurance to protect against the weather.

Agriculture is probably one of the most vulnerable parts, vulnerable industries, when it comes to all extremes of weather.

The farm bill also, I'm proud to say, ensures that every man, woman, and child in this country will have access to nutrition, every income- eligible man, woman, and child, because it also, the House version, ensures some reforms to stop the fraud and abuse that has run rampant with the farm bill.

So I encourage my colleagues to support the farm bill when it comes to the floor in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a situation that is evolving within this Nation where older adults on Medicare who have the misfortune of experiencing disease or disability and require durable medical equipment, equipment that is designed to allow people to live with dignity and independence in their own homes, we're seeing, through the actions of CMS, through Medicare, of preventing their access.

Medicare is awarding contracts to companies who are not even licensed in States to do business. In the end, it's going to cause a terrible disconnect with people being able to access the equipment that they need.

And not just the equipment. I spent 30 years working rehabilitation services as a therapist, rehab manager, and as a licensed nursing home administrator. I saw what difference this equipment makes, but also what the service makes, the technical assistance means for people who are living at home on oxygen or using wheelchairs or other types of medical equipment.

In the evenings, I actually was a volunteer EMT and firefighter; and frequently I'd find myself in the middle of the night, pager would go off and I'd be out in the community, in neighbors' homes, and be able to witness firsthand how important that equipment is there.

This week the National Association for the Support of Long Term Care and its members are in Washington to represent ancillary providers of products and services in the post-acute care industry. Now, as part of this work, these individuals will be garnering signatures on a letter that calls on CMS, Medicare Administrator Tavenner, to delay implementation of the widely criticized Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies Competitive Bidding Program.

Now, this competitive bidding program--and believe me, it was misnamed when it was passed; there's nothing competitive about it--was intended to reduce Medicare costs, ensure that beneficiaries have access to quality services. In practice, the system denies competition while worsening access to quality goods and services and harming seniors.

In many ways, their mission today in Washington reminds me of one of my favorite movies, and a piece of our history in this country, the Apollo 13 mission. The story of Apollo 13 is that what could have been the worst space disaster in history became one of NASA's most spectacular conquests.

Everything had gone wrong. An oxygen tank exploded in the service module, damaged a nearby oxygen tank, and rocked the command and lunar modules. Mission controllers struggled to isolate the problems, with no success. The mission and the astronauts' lives were in jeopardy.

To conserve power, the astronauts had shut all of the spacecraft systems down except the radio. The carbon dioxide rose to toxic levels, and crew members managed for 6 days with hardly any food, water, or sleep in freezing temperatures. There was clear danger the astronauts might not survive, but they did.

Apollo 13 Flight Director Gene Kranz famously rallied his team to do what is necessary to get the astronauts home safely, declaring ``failure is not an option.''

One of NASA's greatest achievements had become not the next feat in space exploration, but the brilliant rescue of crew members aboard Apollo 13.

Similarly, when it comes to competitive bidding, failure is not an option. CMS' competitive bidding is our damaged spacecraft. Individuals in need of durable medicine equipment for prosthetics or orthotics are the flight crew. They are in danger. We need competent technical support professionals working together to achieve our mission and bring this crew home safely.

After years of bureaucratic delay and mismanagement, we're no closer to a system that works for both providers and beneficiaries--that would be the seniors of our Nation.

Now, it appears providers are being awarded contracts by CMS to provide services for round two competitive bidding that lack the required licensing or accreditation for specific States in which they're supposed to service those seniors.

I'm extremely concerned that mishandling of the bidding process is going to have a devastating impact on beneficiaries. This is a serious issue that warrants a full review of the process and a delay of round two until this fatally flawed program is fixed.

For this reason, I encourage my colleagues to sign on to this letter to Administrator Tavenner requesting a delay through the end of the year so that we can have more time to review how round one was implemented and fix the problems that exist with the administration of the program.

I'm proud to say that, as of today, we have 129 signatures from Members of the House of Representatives; and I encourage my colleagues who have not taken the opportunity to sign on to the letter to do so today.

We need to replace this fatally flawed program with one that's not just labeled competitive, but is competitive

and maintains beneficiary access to durable medical products and quality services.