Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Representatives Space, Castle and Degette, to introduce a bill that will improve diabetes screening for Medicare beneficiaries. The bill we are introducing will direct the Secretary of HHS to review utilization of screening programs and establish an outreach program to improve screening awareness.

According to the American Diabetes Association, a sizeable 32 percent of Americans over the age of 65 have diabetes and of that group, 46 percent remain undiagnosed. In my district alone, 41,000 seniors are living with diabetes. CMS data reflects that only 11.5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries take advantage of diabetes screening benefits. Awareness of screening benefits, diagnosis and early treatment are key components to ensuring that our seniors are healthy and helping to reduce overall costs to health care.

I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and consider becoming a co-sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this closed, or partially closed, rule.

Thirty-four amendments is not overwhelming. Back just a couple years ago, heck, we would have double or triple that many on an open rule. And it really saddens me to hear that if something will take time to debate or it's controversial, that we are not going to allow it on the floor anymore. Mr. Speaker, democracy isn't supposed to be easy; dictatorships are.

Now, I will rise in support of the underlying bill because I'm going to stand with our men and women in uniform, whether it's current or retired; those are our veterans.

This bill does a great deal of good for Offutt Air Force base, the Bellevue/Omaha area, for our veterans. One of the most significant is $56 million for the design of a new VA inpatient hospital facility for that entire regional area. The current facility was built 60 years ago. It is dilapidated to the point where it is no longer even safe, let alone meets the appropriate standards. So I am proud that the VA has decided and agrees with the entire congressional delegation and the community that this inpatient facility must be replaced and we begin that process.

The second has been a vision of our veterans community. There is no national veterans cemetery within the area of eastern Nebraska, western Iowa, northwest Missouri. The previous administration realized that the rule that was applied needed to be changed, and that was under Secretary Peake, and continued under the current administration--and I want to thank General Shinseki and this administration for following through--in rightfully determining that the service area for a veterans cemetery was actually 112,000 veterans that could be served. By doing that, that shot the eastern Nebraska, Omaha area to the top of the list. And so inside this bill is the appropriation to start the design and purchase of land of a new national veterans cemetery in the Omaha/ Bellevue area. That has been a labor of love that started with a small group of veterans in my office just a few years ago, and now I get to see it come to reality.

The last is specific to Offutt Air Force Base. It makes a reference in the MILCON provisions that the new STRATCOM headquarters will begin construction in 2012 and that the costs need to be borne throughout all of the branches and the DOD. This is important for the community and the psyche of the Offutt Air Force Base community.

I want to point out, in conclusion, that these are based on the merits of the project--the need for the hospital, the veterans cemetery, and the need for the headquarters. These aren't earmarks; these are things that are determined by merit by the VA and the Department of Defense. And I want to go on record as the Representative of this area in complete support of this bill and those projects.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I've talked to several of our unemployed back home. And boy, I tell you, I empathize with them. It's a tough position. I just talked to an unemployed truck driver. His benefits are running out, but yet the trucks that have been idled over the last couple of years are yet to be back onto the road because this is a jobless recovery. Well, it's a very minimal recovery at best. But they aren't creating the jobs.

The public knows and we know that the stimulus hasn't worked. The business community feels that not only does the administration not understand business, but they are now attacking businesses, and the policies have created uncertainty where they won't create the jobs. That's the issue here. There's no jobs for them to go back to because of the policies that have been adopted in the last year and a half.

We should be growing the economy and getting these people back to work. That's what they want to do.

Now, again, I empathize. But the issue here is at a time when the majority is spending probably over $4 trillion by the time this calendar year is done--and we're already at deficit spending of over a trillion dollars by June--the people are saying, Stop the spending. Stop the deficit spending.

And that's what the issue is here is the $34 billion that's not paid for that's going to go to the deficit and ultimately to our national debt, and that's what the people are telling us to stop--even the unemployed truck driver that I talked to.

So, all we ask of the majority here, $34 billion, you're telling me out of--well, we don't have a budget--but out of $3.8 trillion you can't find $34 billion to offset and keep your promises of PAYGO?

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a young man from Omaha who was killed recently in Afghanistan, in the service of our country.

PFC Edwin ``Eddie'' Wood, a scout with the Army's 10th Mountain Division, was on patrol when an IED exploded and killed him and another soldier and wounded three others. He is the first soldier from Omaha to die in Afghanistan. He had been in the Army for less than a year and had not even reached his 19th birthday.

Private First Class Wood was a graduate of Omaha North High School, where he was involved in Boy Scouts, drama, and was a member of the ROTC all 4 years. He also participated in early American re-enactor events with his father.

Scouting was a big part of Eddie's life. He started as member of Cub Scout Pack No. 5 and then moved up to Boy Scout Troop No. 20, earning all the ranks up to Life Scout--just below Eagle Scout. He earned and was awarded 32 merit badges. In 2006, I wrote a letter to Eddie, helping him to earn his Citizenship in the Nation badge. His love for Scouting continued even after he enlisted in the Army. He was listed as an active member of the Boy Scouts Mid-America Council.

Madam Speaker, it is times like this when we truly realize the sacrifices that are being made every day by the young men and women who serve in our armed forces. It also brings home the sacrifices that families make in watching their children go off to war. We are so grateful to them.

Today, I join my colleagues in extending our thoughts and prayers to military families, especially the Wood family during this difficult time.

I reserve the balance of my time at this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce, as a representative of the Energy and Commerce Committee, that we are not opposed to this bill and we're pleased with this these corrections. It is especially important that our veterans' access to care is not impeded or delayed and that these other corrections will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of some of the programs that our citizens depend on the most.

This bill, as the gentleman from California mentioned, is budget neutral. In fact, there may even be as much as a $50 million savings if everything goes right here, which I think is important. It's a small number with regard to the trillion-dollar deficit that we've already hit by the end of June and the

$1.5 trillion deficit that we may experience for this year.

I would like to see a budget where--I think we're missing an opportunity with items like this where we can save $50 million here, hopefully save $50 million here. If we had a budget, it could be part of a master plan to reduce our deficits and empower the private sector to create jobs.

These are technical corrections that are necessary. But this is what happens when the majority works in secret, crafts legislation that doesn't receive the input from others, the minority side. And, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised that, after drastically altering the health care system so quickly, we'll have many more technical corrections necessary as time goes on.

The technical errors, however, are hardly the biggest problems facing this country's health care system. Far worse are the looming ill effects of the majority's basic policy mistakes. Who doesn't know the problems in that they refuse to exercise the fundamental responsibility of the House to conduct oversight hearings on how this is set up. And the grandfathering clause has already been very confusing. This is what we'll have to look out for as the health care bill proceeds.

Now, just for the record, let's consider some of the problems that we face from this bill. The law will cut $575 billion out of Medicare. Concerning me equally as much is that it's with no direction from Congress, leaving these decisions to Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In Nebraska, in my district, many of my seniors rely on Medicare Advantage as a program, but $145 billion will be taken from Medicare Advantage, reducing the enrollment, according to the nonpartisan estimates, by as much as 50 percent.

It will raise spending nearly 90 percent for States in Medicaid programs, squeezing State taxpayers and crippling State budgets.

Despite the claims that the bill would lower health care costs and deficits, the Chief Actuary of Medicine has since concluded that spending won't go down, it will actually go up, as many people believed.

And remember the promise that if you like your coverage, you can keep it? With the new grandfathering rules that are being rolled out, it is now estimated that, and this is the administration's estimate, that as many as 66 percent of small businesses will not be eligible to keep what they have and will have to accept something from the exchange which will be pre-approved by HHS.

We're also learning the recession might worsen now because employers are hesitant to expand. We're hearing from many employers, articles in the Wall Street Journal, that they're sitting on cash because they don't want to spend now, be hit with these higher costs, and then have to lay off later. So it's arresting investment and hiring of new workers because businesses don't know the costs of implementation of this health care bill.

Now, the Democrats at every level are in hiding mode. They don't want a new public debate on this. We had a recess appointment of Donald Berwick, Dr. Donald Berwick, who is a great intellectual on medical savings, particularly in a British system that says that a rationing- type of system relies on a mathematical formula of age, as well as comparative effectiveness. And the comparative effectiveness provision in this bill provides Dr. Berwick carte blanche to implement those type of British policies.

This is probably--this won't be the last time that we hear about health care, but probably we won't hear about it until after November 2. The American people know why. I can only hope that we choose to conduct oversight of the new health care law and fix its disastrous effects.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I definitely agree, in part, with some of this bill in that we need transparency and some accountability, especially in the exotic instruments, but this bill also grants some carte blanche power over the financial markets, not just on Wall Street but on Main Street, too. This bill is going to raise the costs for small business operators and consumers who will use financial institutions.

I also find it interesting that part of the discussion here is to criticize or is to try to suggest that the Republicans want to cut Social Security. I'm curious as to how the Members who are raising that issue on the floor today voted on a health care bill that actually took $500 billion out of Medicare, which our seniors rely on. They voted to cut $500 billion out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our guest chaplain, a constituent of the Second District of Nebraska, Father Steven Boes. On July 1, Father Boes will celebrate 5 years as the national executive director of Boys Town, one of the largest nonprofit, nonsectarian child care organizations in the United States. He is the fourth priest to succeed Father Edward Flanagan who founded Boys Town in 1917.

A native of Carroll, Iowa, Father Boes holds a bachelor's degree in sociology and master's degree in theology and divinity from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He also holds a master's degree in counseling from Creighton University in Omaha.

A priest of the Omaha archdiocese, Father Boes previously served as the director of St. Augustine Indian Mission in Winnebago, Nebraska, before coming to Boys Town. He has over 20 years of experience in nonprofit administration and youth advocacy and will be a great leader in carrying out Boys Town's mission in the 21st century.

For 93 years, Boys Town has helped at-risk youth and families through a variety of services, and the organization has now expanded to 12 locations nationally. Last year, the organization served nearly 370,000 children and adults across the U.S., Canada and the U.S. territories, as well as in several foreign countries.

Boys Town has grown significantly since Father Flanagan's era. In 1977, the Boys Town National Research Hospital opened its doors and has become a national treatment center for children with hearing and speech problems and other communication disorders. Boys Town also opened its national hotline in 1989. Currently, Boys Town is implementing its Integrated Continuum of Care, which allows each child or family to make progress within the same treatment model while still getting individualized care.

Today, I honor Father Steven Boes. He is dedicated to the children and families throughout our Nation, representing the true spirit and tradition of Boys Town.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today on behalf of our side of the aisle of the Energy and Commerce Committee and report that we have absolutely no opposition and actually support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Collinsville Renewable Energy Promotion Act. This bill was considered in a markup of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 24, and in a markup of the full committee on May 26, both times passing by a voice vote.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also known as FERC, to reinstate the terminated licenses for the Upper and Lower Collinsville Dams hydroelectric projects, and to extend for 2 years after the date of any such reinstatement the date by which the licensee is required to commence construction, and, in the event that FERC reinstates the licenses, to require FERC to transfer such licenses to the town of Canton, Connecticut.

I commend Representative Murphy for offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the full committee markup that made two important changes. The first is requiring FERC to provide an opportunity for the submission of comments by interested persons before reinstating one or both of the terminated licenses. Therefore, interested parties will have an opportunity to address any concerns with FERC. And the second is to include a new Section 6 which would clarify that nothing in H.R. 4451 would diminish or extinguish any existing rights under such license.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has no direct cost. We are in support of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has short-term extensions and permanent tax hikes and still, over time, puts $54 billion onto our national debt.

Now, there are some of these extensions that we would all support if they were offset. But adding to the national debt is the wrong way and a harmful way.

This is not a time to raise taxes on investments and business. That's a sure way to kill jobs. For example, one of the provisions, higher taxes on carried interest means less dollars into real estate investment development. In Omaha alone developers and contractors have gone bankrupt, jobs lost, projects stalled or killed because of lack of capital, and this will make it worse. More taxes equals less capital, means more jobs lost.

This is a job-killing bill, and I am going to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee which would protect small businesses that support business on bases.

There's a movement right now to convert private employees to public or government employees at the detriment of small business. But this Rules Committee voted in a straight-line partisan way to deny this amendment to protect small businesses. And I am frustrated that as we are trying to help this economy, help small businesses grow, that they denied an amendment that would have protected small businesses.

Here's one small business owner in Bellevue, Nebraska, in support of Offutt Air Force Base. Dave Everhart, president of Veterans Defense Services, a small business in Bellevue, says, In many cases our employees are being told that they can either accept the government position at a reduced salary or lose their jobs. This is causing--when they are taking these employees from small businesses, many times they are taking their best talent, leaving only one option for these small businesses, and that's shuttering their doors, which leaves vacant bays and is impacting our communities in a negative way.

I am very frustrated with the Rules Committee's denial of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

On behalf of the Republican side of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise in support of H. Res. 407, to support the designation of May as National Asthma and Allergy Awareness Month. About 50 million Americans suffer from allergies and around 20 million suffer from asthma. Of those 20 million asthma sufferers, over half have both allergies and asthma.

While it's rare, allergies and asthma attacks can be deadly. But even a more mild attack can keep a child home from school or a parent out of work. While allergies and asthma are often chronic conditions, they can be managed with medication. Inhalers, for instance, allow people with asthma to participate in sports, and a wide range of medications are available to those who suffer from allergies. In fact, my nephew Raymond played baseball all through his youth having to carry his inhaler.

Many of us rely on common, everyday over-the-counter medications to deal with allergies. Unfortunately, the health care bill will increase the cost of drugs to Americans because they will no longer get the benefit of untaxed dollars through their FSAs to purchase over-the- counter drugs for conditions like allergies. The actual cost to Americans for these medications will therefore increase, forcing them to go to prescription drug levels, and increasing the costs to health care. Additionally, the majority's health care bill will increase the costs or create a direct tax on inhalers and breathing devices.

Now, some might try to say that the savings really wasn't that great, and the benefit of this massive trillion-dollar government scheme will far outweigh the costs. But the fact is that Americans who suffer from chronic allergies and asthma have to purchase medications on a regular basis. Over time, savings from an FSA can add up. And it's kind of like how massive deficits year after year lead to a $13 trillion deficit. There may be some benefit to someone at some point in time from the President's health care bill, but in the meantime all the American people are getting is higher costs.

I support this resolution and urge Members to vote for it. However, I am opposed to some of the policies implemented by this Congress that would increase the cost of treatment for those with allergies and asthma.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentlelady is prepared to close, so at this

time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

We all want all people to have access to affordable health care, but this trillion-dollar tragedy is just bad medicine. Medical costs are high, but this bill does absolutely nothing to help reduce costs. It does take $500 billion from Medicare, resulting in cuts in service to seniors. It does raise taxes on many small businesses, including new mandates on businesses and actually increases premiums as much as 13 percent.

In committee, I introduced an amendment that gives people access to exactly the same care that we have as Members of Congress, but Mr. Markey and almost all the Democrats voted against it. All Republicans voted for that. Last, the clear language of this bill allows abortion, and I encourage all Members to vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unprecedented legislation that will affect one-sixth of our economy, saddle our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, and lead to a government takeover of America's health care system.

As a member of one of the House Committees with jurisdiction over health care, I have had a front row seat to watch a legislative process that has had one over-riding theme--no reform idea, bill, or amendment on health offered by a Republican or even a moderate Democrat was given any consideration. From the start this has been a process that is best described as, ``our way or the highway.''

This bill will result in rising health care costs and premiums. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, reported in December that if the Senate bill was passed, average premiums per policy would rise by 10 to 13 percent in 2016, resulting in annual premiums of $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for families.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the health care bill carries a price tag of $940 billion over 10 years. Most revenue raisers come from new taxes on small business, individuals, and medical goods. Furthermore, the health care bill includes significant payment changes for Medicare Advantage and $500 billion in cuts to both Medicare and Medicaid. A number of arbitrary cuts are made to skilled nursing facilities, hospice, home health, Medicaid DSH payments, and popular Medicare Advantage plans. Specifically, the bill reduces Medicare Advantage payment benchmarks over the next 7 years, resulting in reduced access for millions of beneficiaries currently on Medicare Advantage plans. The ``savings'' Democrats purport are truly cuts to services that our seniors need. I don't think we can afford this plan and it will, in time, hurt both our economy and beneficiaries.

The scoring used by CBO and our Democrat colleagues can best be described as ``new math.'' For example, a 10-year fix for Medicare reimbursement to physicians will cost $208 billion, yet that is not counted in the CBO score. But a separate deal has been struck with the doctors to do that later this year. So by my math, the real cost of health care reform is closer to $1.3 trillion, not $940 billion.

A recent New York Times article highlighted a growing trend of physicians dropping Medicaid patients because of low payments--and the Democrats' solution to our health care crisis is to expand Medicaid eligibility to an additional 16 million more individuals over the next 10 years? In a letter to Congress following the Health Care Summit, President Obama acknowledged the need to increase Medicaid reimbursement to ensure future services and yet, those anticipated additional costs are nowhere to be found in either H.R. 3590 or H.R. 4872.

Another ``new math'' trick being used by the Democrats is to tell the American people that the Medicare Part D drug benefit ``donut hole'' will be closed. Yes, the ``donut hole'' is partially closed by this legislation, but not closed entirely until the year 2020 which is after the scoring period used by the CBO. Again, this ``new math'' is being used as a gimmick to make it appear that this bill will reduce the deficit. But it will not. This bill costs more than Democrats claim.

Last year, one of my Democratic colleagues stated, ``The fact of the matter is that some in the Republican party don't want these problems fixed because they're already doing just fine. They've got choice, they've got the federal plan, that's what I have. Well in the Democratic party we're saying something else, we want the American people to get at least as good as my friends in the Republican party have. We want at least the benefits that we have here in Congress-- choice, affordability, lower cost and lower taxes for all Americans.'' I wholeheartedly agree with Congressman Weiner that Americans should have access to the same plans as their Members. Last year I offered two amendments to Speaker Pelosi's bill. The first was my alternative plan called Simple Universal Healthcare, SUH, which creates a new health insurance program similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan now available to the President, Vice President, Members of Congress and all federal government employees. The plan allows the uninsured and small businesses access to more affordable insurance with options, portability and no mandates. The other amendment I offered would require that the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress enroll in Pelosi's public plan. Both amendments were prevented from a floor vote by Speaker Pelosi's rules.

Yesterday, I attempted to offer the Simple Universal Healthcare plan as an amendment in the Rules Committee, however Speaker Pelosi ordered the nine Democrats on the Committee to kill all Republican amendments and therefore my bill did not survive.

Madam Speaker, there are some in this chamber who may consider this a momentous day. And that it will be if the House of Representatives votes to spend trillions of dollars and forwards the bill to future generations. While we ramp up spending, we have not dealt with the exploding costs of Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. We are on a path of fiscal recklessness that threatens the future economic growth of America. So for me, this is a sad day, one that could have been avoided had the House worked together on a bipartisan basis to provide the American people greater access to health care that we can afford.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

There will be no straight up-and-down vote on a health care bill. Instead, the leadership has chosen a procedural trick to insert the Senate bill into a rule deeming the Senate bill passed. So if you vote for the rule, you are voting for the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, and language that allows funds to flow to abortions. What won't be in this bill is the Terry bill or amendment that allows people to join the same health care plans that we have as Members of Congress. Why? Because it's not controlled by the government and its bureaucrats.

Yes, this is about government control, where bureaucrats and Congress will be in control of your health care. And somehow the leadership and authors of these tricks in this bill wonder why the American people don't want this bill.

Madam Speaker, since 1961, the Peace Corps has had 200,000 Americans volunteer in 139 different countries around the globe. Today, the Peace Corps currently has 7,671 volunteers working in 76 countries.

In observance of National Peace Corps Week, I would like to honor 20 volunteers from Nebraska's 2nd District currently serving around the world:

Thomas Connelly, Steven Easterby, Jennifer Gaspers, Ashley

Gries, Brandon Gries, Laura Groggel, Victoria Hasiak, Curtis

Hudson, Margo Hunt, Annette Hunthrop, Mary Johnson, Laura

Koonce, Nathan Lee, Keith Petit, Terri Pohl, Brigitte Pohren,

Clara Reyes, Diane Ruskamp, Jessica Scates, Kacie Sis.

These men and women have done a great service to the Peace Corps, their country, and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4247, the ``Keeping All Students Safe Act.''

I have spoken with officials from the Nebraska Department of Education and superintendents in my District and the overwhelming conclusion that I reached was that my local school districts are doing a good job of dealing with student discipline. The guidelines and procedures that are now in place are intended to keep every student safe in the school environment.

Like many states, Nebraska makes any form of corporal punishment illegal and teachers or staff can be disciplined for unprofessional behavior or even be terminated for

any verbal or physical abuse of a student. Based on the information provided by my school officials, there has not been any significant problems with the treatment of students in my district. Therefore, I really do not see the need for this legislation. It will become just one more federal intrusion into our local education systems.