Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, today is a little like ``Groundhog Day.'' The Republican leadership has come out here and tried to decide what the weather is going to be, and they are going to get the same answer that they have gotten 49 times before. They can pass it from here, but it is not going to change anything. We have seen this poorly designed, sadly staged GOP political theater before--50 times. This is the 50th vote of this Tea Party, Koch brothers-led Congress to crash the Affordable Care Act.

It is a waste of time and resources, and ignores the facts. Americans want affordable health care, and ACA delivers it to them. ACA has saved lives and brought down our spending. New fraud measures, including new authorities imposing payment suspensions and more rigorous-provider enrollment procedures put into law by ACA, helped the Federal Government recover $4.3 billion in taxpayer money from individuals and companies that tried to defraud the health care programs. The ACA is delivering historic results for the American people, and yet the Republican leadership is hell-bent on a 50th stroke.

Regardless of the fact that our economic system remains stuck in neutral, nothing has been done about jobs, unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage, and so forth.

If that was all that was going on here, this would still be insulting and absurd. The bill under consideration today, H.R. 4118, is virtually identical to H.R. 2668, a bill passed on the 17th of July, 2013. The Republicans have already passed this bill to delay the individual mandate, something the CBO knows will result in higher insurance premiums. So beyond wasting time and engaging in stunts designed to make the producers of FOX News happy, Republicans want to return Americans to the days before ACA, when a cancer victim couldn't get covered and seniors couldn't get their prescriptions; to the day when wage workers who had paid hundreds of dollars out of pocket went without; to the days of ever-changing lists of preexisting conditions when companies tried to drop coverage.

The real business of the Congress should be to stand up for those Americans and millions more like them. That is what the American people want. That is what the American people deserve. That is why they want us to vote ``no.''

Jim McCrery, in March, 2000, said in an article in Atlantic Monthly that an

employer mandate and an individual mandate was essential.

I can't understand the Republicans saying we don't want everybody to play. We don't want everybody according to their ability to be in. Why are you so eager to let people out the door because they are going to wind up in the emergency room? Have no doubt, they will be getting health care, but they won't be paying for it. You are saying: That's okay with us, we like people who are free riders. That is not America. We are all supposed to do our part, and that is why everyone here should vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

Is the gentlelady from Kansas ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I have one Member who is in transit, but let me say a few things until he gets here.

I have been in Congress for 25 years, and I have listened to the Republicans talk about what we ought to do about health care. They have never brought a bill to the committee--a chairman's mark--for us to mark up and bring out on the floor.

Now, if you have a solution for the fact that health care costs are the biggest costs driving bankruptcy in this country, where is it since you don't like what we have here?

When I was younger, I lived through the implementation of Medicare. The American Medical Association--everybody--was just up and down, and it was the worst thing. If we put in Medicare, it was going to be the end of the world, and we would never have health care again in this country. We went on and on and on like that. They so poisoned the well that, when people went out to actually recruit people to get into the Medicare program, people said: I am not going to have any of that socialistic medicine in my house.

That is what it was called. That is what people were doing in 1964 and 1965. This is a rerun of that very same movie. The Republicans want to kill the idea and leave the American people out there on their own. It is probably the single best example of the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

The Democrats have put something out here, and we are trying to help all Americans. Is it perfect? There isn't anybody on my side who would say it is. If we had had some hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, the subcommittee could have done a whole bunch of things--there are all kinds of problems out there--but there haven't been any hearings on this bill, on how to fix it.

I talked to Bill Frist some months ago. He said: Jim, there is no reason to repeal it. You ought to fix it. Make it work. Make it work for the American people.

One of the interesting things that I hear over and over again--and it must be confusing to folks at home--is that the President said: If you like your health care, you can keep it. Now, implicit in that is that it will still exist. The President didn't say: I am going to tell the insurance companies you have got to keep those plans out there.

That wouldn't be the free enterprise system, what you have. You don't like the free enterprise system.

As soon as the President passed this bill, immediately, we had people in the insurance industry pulling down plans all over the country, sending out mailings, saying: You have lost your health care coverage.

I sometimes wonder if global warming--or climate change--is really not because of Obama's health care. I hear that it is the cause of every evil--of people losing jobs. I don't know. Whatever is going on in the country, it is because of ObamaCare. That is foolishness. When you are trying to change a program for 20 or 30 million people, you are bound to have some problems. We are having them, and we are working them out. It was awful at the beginning, and it is better now. It is better today than it was 3 months ago, and it will be. It will continue to improve because the American people need it. They absolutely need it even with the foolishness coming out of here, of trying again to convince the American people to get rid of this.

I had a woman in my district who was an opera singer. She went to Germany, and she got into the German health care system. Instantly, boom, you are in. Anybody who goes to Germany is in. Her daughter got leukemia. Her daughter was treated for leukemia, and she went into remission. The mother finished her contract and came home to the United States. She could not find an insurance company anyplace in this country that would give her insurance for her daughter--none.

Now, that is what you want to go back to. You want to go back to the time when a parent can't find an insurance company that will take care of his kid, and that is the kind of thing that we have been watching for as long as I have been in Congress and before that, and this bill has begun to stop that.

We had lifetime limits. Some cancers eat up a lot of money real quickly. Bone marrow transplants are $125,000 or more, and people wind up being unable to purchase the medication. All of that is covered by this bill, and you are saying to people: No, we want to go back to 1930. We like the Dust Bowl. We like the hard times of the thirties. We don't want any of this stuff.

In my view, this is a perfect place for Democrats to vote ``no,'' and Republicans, of course, will vote ``yes,'' and the American people will make a judgment in the next election.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 89 I was delayed getting to the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, Washington State's economy depends on its thriving ports. And yet, for too long, funds collected to maintain our Nation's waterways have been diverted elsewhere. In spite of urgent needs for maintenance, historically, less than half of the collected amount has actually been spent each year. As a result, American ports are struggling to make the infrastructure investments they need to support American businesses.

Since the original enactment of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) in 1986, global shipping has undergone considerable change. Current policy incentivizes maximum use of foreign ports to import US-bound goods in order to bypass the HMT on which our ports are so dependent. Annually, this amounts to $30 million in losses to maritime infrastructure, with losses expected to increase if current trends continue. This status quo is inequitable, unsustainable and unacceptable.

Today, I introduced the Maritime Goods Movement Act of the 21st Century to address this growing state and national concern. This legislation will replace the HMT with a new user fee that will provide for the full expenditure of revenue collected to benefit waterways and freight, ensure that all US-bound cargo is treated equally regardless of point of entry, and provide federal support to address critical freight needs at our Nation's largest ports and intermodal freight choke points.

Congress has struggled for years to ensure that our Nation's waterways are funded with little to show for its efforts. It's time to move forward with a solution that will ensure that American ports remain competitive while meeting the realities of global shipping in the future.

Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers and Pacific Northwest ratepayers have little to show for the more than $11 billion they have spent on salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia and Snake River Basin. Since being listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act in the early 1990s, most of the thirteen native salmon and steelhead species remain near the depressed levels that triggered their protected status in the first place.

The value of these fish populations is undeniable, holding major economic, environmental and cultural significance to the Pacific Northwest. Even now, at their historically low levels, salmon add over a billion dollars to the region's economy and constitute a vital part of communities throughout the Northwest.

While continuing our efforts to protect salmon and steelhead populations is critical, it is

clear that our current approach is not working. Over twenty years and $11 billion later, their vulnerable status remains virtually unchanged. Four Biological Opinions have been rejected by the courts as insufficient for fish survival. Last month's latest BiOp represents little change from the previous version, stoking the possibility of renewed court challenges.

It's time to reevaluate our failed efforts and consider the best approach forward, including the possibility of removing four dams on the lower Snake River. Last century, over 1,100 dams were removed throughout the country. Last month marked the start of the removal of yet another dam: the Rockford Dam on Iowa's Shell Rock River is being breached, among other reasons, to restore fish passage to 21.5 miles of the river. The legislation I am re-introducing today, the Salmon Solutions and Planning Act, commissions studies to focus our efforts so that all factors are taken into account when considering dam removal. Our salmon recovery efforts must be informed, cost effective, and successful.

Inaction is not an option. We must use the best available science to protect this vital American resource before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers and Pacific Northwest ratepayers have little to show for the more than $11 billion they have spent on salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia and Snake River Basin. Since being listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act in the early 1990s, most of the thirteen native salmon and steelhead species remain near the depressed levels that triggered their protected status in the first place.

The value of these fish populations is undeniable, holding major economic, environmental and cultural significance to the Pacific Northwest. Even now, at their historically low levels, salmon add over a billion dollars to the region's economy and constitute a vital part of communities throughout the Northwest.

While continuing our efforts to protect salmon and steelhead populations is critical, it is clear that our current approach is not working. Over twenty years and $11 billion later, their vulnerable status remains virtually unchanged. Four Biological Opinions have been rejected by the courts as insufficient for fish survival. Last month's latest BiOp represents little change from the previous version, stoking the possibility of renewed court challenges.

It's time to reevaluate our failed efforts and consider the best approach forward, including the possibility of removing four dams on the lower Snake River. Last century, over 1,100 dams were removed throughout the country. Last month marked the start of the removal of yet another dam: the Rockford Dam on Iowa's Shell Rock River is being breached, among other reasons, to restore fish passage to 21.5 miles of the river. The legislation I am re-introducing today, the Salmon Solutions and Planning Act, commissions studies to focus our efforts so that all factors are taken into account when considering dam removal. Our salmon recovery efforts must be informed, cost effective, and successful.

Inaction is not an option. We must use the best available science to protect this vital American resource before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, while we fool around again with a lot of minor bills here today, we refuse to deal with the ones that we ought to be dealing with. We need to be involved in passing things that create jobs.

Now, the production tax credit is an absolute no-brainer. We have used it for years and years. As long as I have been in the Congress it has been here, and the wind industry is dependent on it.

It is 3,000 jobs in my State, and thousands of jobs across this country. We passed it in the nineties. We let it expire. We lost all the jobs, and we are doing it again.

Now, climate change ought to be impressing people that we have to move away from fossil fuels and look for alternative energy, and this is the way we are going to do it.

In the 20th century, we invested in aerospace and microchip industries through the production tax credit, and we made all the advances of the Internet and everything else on the basis of these Production Tax Credits.

The 21st century is going to be about alternative energy, and this House dawdles around, attacking the IRS, and trying to repeal the ACA and all of this.

Why don't you make it a suspension bill?

It would pass in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, here we are back in the theater of the absurd. The Republicans are wasting valuable time and resources on political theater, crafted to make the producers at FOX television happy while they should be moving forward with the country's business.

There have been six separate investigations. Not a single shred of evidence has been found demonstrating political motivation or White House involvement in the IRS grouping of the tea party applications by name. Now, one of my colleagues is a physician. He is from Louisiana. He has operated many times. You do not begin surgery until you know what is going on with the patient. We have six investigations which found no reason to operate, no reason to pass this legislation. Yet here it is. Ironically, the real trickery of this is this bill. It is designed to protect Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brothers of Houston from exposing where the money that they put into the political process is being used.

Everyone knows what a 501(c)(4) is about. You give the money to the organizations. They don't have to report your name to anyone, and then the organizations can use it any way they want. Now, if an organization goes to the IRS and says, ``we want a 501(c)(4),'' the IRS should ask a few questions, don't you think, if they are going to give an exemption from the American people, from those people paying the taxes who put it in there? Karl Rove and all of his cohorts ought to pay taxes if they are going to use it for the political process, and it is the IRS' job to find that out. It is the same with liberal groups. Any group that comes in has to explain what it is going to do with the money.

We have had six investigations, but now we have a bill without any conclusion from any committee or any investigation that there is a problem. The floor of the House should not be the stage for the Republicans to work out their November election strategy and funding. If Republicans really want to work on behalf of the American people, they should get serious and roll up their sleeves. The production tax credit ought to pass out of here as a unanimous consent. There are a thousand things that ought to be happening here today instead of this silly bill, which will have no effect. It is not going through the Senate. The President isn't going to sign it. It is simply political theater to give the directors at FOX TV things to put on television.

If you intend to do something real, you can, but this bill is not real. It is simply to reignite the baseless allegations against the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Access to Hearing Healthcare Act of 2014. This important legislation will allow Medicare beneficiaries the option of going directly to a qualified audiologist for hearing and balance diagnostic tests. Medicare presently requires that beneficiaries with hearing loss or balance disorders obtain a physician referral before seeing an audiologist.

This referral requirement differs from other federal health agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Office of Personnel Management, which allow patients to directly access audiologists. Hearing impairment is one of the most common conditions affecting older Americans, with approximately 33 percent of adults aged 60 and over and 40-50 percent of those aged 75 and over with hearing loss. Hearing loss among senior citizens, if left untreated, can result in isolation and depression.

We need to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries can obtain audiology services in a timely manner. 1 ask that my colleagues support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Homeowners Tax Fairness Act. In 2012, the 49 state attorneys general announced that they had completed negotiations with the country's five largest mortgage servicers to settle claims arising from mortgage fraud and wrongful foreclosures. The settlement, which amounts to over $25 billion, is the largest settlement this country has seen since the 1998 Master Tobacco Settlement.

This historic settlement will allow hundreds of thousands of distressed homeowners to stay in their homes through enhanced loan modifications and principal reduction, and it will also provide payments to victims of unfair foreclosure practices. Unfortunately, under current law, those settlement payments would subject the homeowners and servicemembers who receive them to additional tax burdens. For instance, homeowners receiving relief in the form of mortgage debt forgiveness and direct cash payments for wrongful foreclosure could be subject to Federal income tax. Moreover, additional tax would be owed on the payments made to servicemembers who were wrongfully foreclosed on while deployed overseas.

To prevent that injustice, the Homeowners Tax Fairness Act would extend the exclusion for debt forgiveness on a primary residence and exclude the relief payments from income for homeowners and servicemembers. This bill also considers the particularly egregious actions taken by the five largest banks in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Over the past three years, the five largest servicers violated the law and wrongfully foreclosed or overcharged mortgage interest on servicemembers, many of whom were deployed overseas in combat zones. Accordingly, the Homeowners Tax Fairness Act not only excludes this relief from income to servicemembers, but denies these banks the ability to deduct these payments from their Federal income taxes.

The estimated 1.7 million homeowners eligible to benefit from this settlement deserve to receive the full benefit of this relief--relief that was negotiated in good faith by the States, the banks, and the Federal Government. Collecting Federal income tax on relief for struggling homeowners is not only bad policy, but is simply the wrong thing to do.

As we move forward from one of the worst recessions in American history, we must be vigilant and provide as much help to the American people as possible. This bill will do just that, and will ensure that our homeowners and servicemembers get every bit of relief they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2014. This legislation offers a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to reforming our estate tax system that is supported by voters across all income levels. As America comes out of one of the worst recessions in its history, this Congress must carefully consider all sources of revenue that are not only effective, but fair and equitable. This estate tax embodies those values.

The past decade of failed tax policies have killed jobs and resulted in significant income and wealth disparity in this country. The promise and strength of America lies in a system that benefits everyone. These tax policies have steered us away from this promise and crippled the American economy. The middle class continues to shrink as more and more wealth flows to the top--and this country's current tax system makes this unfairness worse. The current estate tax policy is the poster child for the unfairness we all see.

That is why I am introducing this legislation. This bill will bring the estate tax back to the rates and exemptions from before the Bush tax cuts--a time when this country experienced continued prosperity and budget surpluses.

Specifically, the Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2014 will return the top marginal rate to 55% and lower the exemption for individuals to $1 million. Estate tax loopholes are also addressed, including a 10-year minimum on grantor retained annuity trusts, limitations on the generation skipping transfer trust exemption, and rules for consistent basis reporting.

Succeeding financially in life is a wonderful American right and the families of wealthy people should benefit from that good fortune. But no one gets wealthy on their own. Financial success for any American is achieved by using the roads, schools, and public services that all Americans pay for. It is only fair that they reinvest in the country that provided them with so much opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, in the Seattle tradition I would like to rise and recognize the football game that was played last night in New Jersey. Our team played very well, and no one in Seattle was the least bit surprised at the result.

Madam Speaker, when you are not limited by the facts, you can say almost anything out on this floor; and we are hearing that today because, in the grand tradition of the anti-choice terminology, the title of this bill is an absolute farce.

Taxpayers do not currently fund abortions, and this legislation would do nothing more than make it difficult for private businesses to provide adequate health care for their workers, restrict how our Nation's Capital conducts its affairs, and generally block poor women from accessing safe and legal abortions.

In 1963, I was an intern in Buffalo, New York, before the Hyde amendment, before all the business and abortions were illegal. I stood there on the general medicine ward with two women, one with eight children, one with 12 children, who had gotten septic abortions done in a back alley, and they died.

They left eight and 12 children in that situation. Now, they did that because they didn't have access to clean abortions. They had made a choice. They can make a choice.

If we say women can't make a choice, that is very simple. We will just tell women what to do, which is really what this bill is all about.

The Republicans want to tell women what to do. Stay out of our lives, get the government out of our lives. No, in every area except women's health.

Now, the truth of the matter is not tax credits or health coverage. The heart of this debate is a simple question about does women's health count?

Do women deserve comprehensive health care?

Or are they some kind of submissive person who hangs around the house and we tell them what to do?

Are their health care needs real?

And does 51 percent of our population deserve control over their own health decisions?

Or are they special exceptions who need to be taken care of because they can't decide for themselves?

Do they have a right to make health decisions for themselves?

Does Congress have a right to stigmatize a safe, legal procedure?

Imagine if we were standing up here debating whether or not private business would be allowed to help employees get coverage for prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction drugs or vasectomies. Suppose we were to pass a law and say you can't pay for that kind of stuff?

Imagine if we told men that they would lose their deserved tax credits in the exchange if they purchased insurance that covered their health needs as they decide them?

Women's health care is health care. It is not Congress' job to stigmatize legal medical procedures and punish women who use them. It is also not Congress' job to tell Washington, D.C., what to do or to stop people from having their options.

This bill is insulting to women, and the Republicans are asking for it in the next election. If anybody votes for you, it is because they haven't paid attention to what you are doing out here today. You are insulting every woman in this country. She can't make her own decision about her health care.

I urge you to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in today is what I call loving a bill to death. Every legislator knows how you do it. You load it up with a bunch of stuff to kill it. They are still trying to do this. They are not talking about transparency or accountability. It is simply another plan to muck up the path to better health for Americans.

It is not surprising, because the House Republicans don't want a health care system that works any more than they want a balanced budget. If they wanted a balanced budget, they wouldn't push for health care policies that cost more to get less.

America spends more on health care than any other advanced nation, and we get worse outcomes. Let me tell you one of the reasons for that. We spend less on social services. Instead of helping people afford good food to stay in shape, we cut food stamps. Instead of supporting families who care for their parents in the comfort of their home, we force them to push them into nursing homes. Instead of helping people to stay in their homes, instead of strengthening the bridge between job and new career, we pull the rug out from under them.

And right now, every 8 seconds, another American loses his unemployment insurance. While I am speaking, 15 families will lose their way of supporting themselves.

Where do these people go? How do they stay healthy? Is it any wonder our diet is full of what we call comfort food? And is it any wonder that we are the most anxious country in the world? Is it any wonder that the ER has become more common than the doctor's office?

We can pay now. We can invest in a country where people have jobs. We can help people keep their homes and care for themselves, or we will pay later in skyrocketing health care costs and the economic drag of a sick nation.

If Republicans wanted a health care system that works, we would be investing, not wasting our time in forcing States and the Federal Government to spend more on useless bureaucracy.

Nobody is asking for this. Maybe the insurance companies want to have more data. I don't know. But nobody who is administering this program has said, Let's have more reports. We don't know enough.

It is like babies; you don't weigh them every day to see if they have gained weight. You take them in every couple of months or every month to get the baby checked. That is what we are doing here already. And they say, No, let's do it every day. Let's do it every week. Let's waste more time and money.

Vote ``no'' on this wasteful, destructive bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Bob Drewel on the occasion of his retirement as the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council. Throughout his service in this capacity for most of the last decade, as well as his long tenure as Snohomish County Executive, Mr. Drewel demonstrated time and again his dedication to the continued development and success of the Puget Sound region. His civic service, by even the strictest of standards, is second to none. During his tenure as Executive Director, Mr. Drewel built effective partnerships among business, labor, government, and civic interests. Most notably, he spearheaded creation of the Prosperity Partnership, a broad coalition devoted to the advancement of long-term economic prosperity in the central Puget Sound region, and VISION 2040, the region's integrated growth, economic development, and transportation strategy. It is my privilege to thank him for his years of public service and for his unwavering commitment to the prudent growth of our region.

Mr. Drewel's many contributions to the Puget Sound region also include leadership to assure assembly of the Boeing 787 jet airliner in Everett, and subsequent efforts to secure development of a new Air Force Tanker and the Boeing 737 MAX family of aircraft in Renton. In addition, Mr. Drewel was the first President of the Aerospace Futures Alliance, and he is the founder and President of the Washington Aerospace Partnership. He also is a past President of the Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the former Chairman of the Sound Transit Board that led the successful attempt to win voter approval of the Sound Transit system in 1996. A man of seemingly endless energy (and forbearance), Bob also was Chairman of the Highway 520 Tolling Implementation Committee to fund replacement of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, an absolutely crucial transportation link in the region. Finally, Bob served as Co-Chair of the Transportation Partnership of 2008 that advocated Washington state's largest-ever transportation improvement package, which ultimately was approved by the voters.

Bob Drewel exhibited remarkable conviction and resolute commitment to the central Puget Sound region through the many roles and positions he held during his three decades of civic service to King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. On behalf of the people of the City of Seattle and the State of Washington, I extend our gratitude and our deep appreciation to Robert J. Drewel for his extraordinary leadership and deep commitment to our region. We wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two technical corrections to the Affordable Care Act. These two bills provide minor technical corrections to avoid confusion and to ensure that regulators can effectively do their work in combatting fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program. We need to extend the solvency of the Medicare program and to do so, we must ensure that the regulatory agencies are empowered to fully enforce provision to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program.

The first bill would allow certain physician extenders, including physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists, to document that the face-to-face encounter required by the Affordable Care Act has occurred. The Affordable Care Act currently requires that a physician document that a face-to-face encounter has occurred, even though the law allows the face-to-face encounter to be performed by a physician extender. The face-to-face encounter is an important tool to combat fraud and abuse in the durable medical equipment context, and it is important to recognize the role that physician extenders play in many instances.

The second bill would correct an error in the ACA that was carried over from an underlying law, which prevents regulators from stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. A provision in the Affordable Care Act intended to allow regulators additional discretion to impose a surety bond on home health agencies based on the volume of payments they received from the Medicare program. However, due to a drafting error in the underlying law that was inadvertently perpetuated in the Affordable Care Act, the bond that regulators can require from home health agencies is essentially capped at $50,000. For large providers, this amount is too low a sum to have a meaningful impact and directly contradicts Congress' intention to require a higher bond from home health agencies that receive substantial Medicare payments.

We must continue our efforts to extend the solvency of the Medicare program. Fighting fraud is a nonpartisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support these technical correction provisions.