Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts of the case that have been clearly enumerated by both sides are very important for this Congress to understand in that this is an agreement on both sides. Yet I think what has happened is that, due to the bipartisan leadership back on the committee between not just Mr. Holt and the chairman but also with the gentleman, Mr. Fleming, it has really come to the aid and assistance, not just in a bipartisan way but in a commonsense way.

It is the opportunity for 1.6 million people who need this desperately to be able to get water at a time of drought, at a time of much consternation in Texas where we have fires and drought and heat and a lot of problems. This means that the people of North Texas know that Chairman Ralph Hall and this committee worked very carefully to make sure that they went through regular order, to make sure that they knew the facts of the case, to make sure that they studied this well.

I really want to offer, not just my support for this, but my thanks to the committee and to the committee chairman for the hard work that has been done by this. I don't make apologies for coming to the floor to do things that are in the best interests of the people of Texas, but this has become necessary as a result of directives back in Texas and the inability of people to clearly resolve this. So I am very pleased to support not just this bill, H.R. 6007, but also the concept of Congress working together through using common sense.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss an issue which is vital to North Texas. H.R. 6007, the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act, provides an elegant solution to a growing problem. Currently, 1.6 million customers of the North Texas Municipal Water District, many of whom are my constituents, have restricted access to water as a result of the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Texoma. Additionally, water transfers have become complicated because of a surveying error resulting in the incorrect designation of the District's Lake Texoma intake station as being in Oklahoma rather than in Texas. This surveyor's error, made more than a decade ago by the Red River Boundary Compact, means that water transfers of zebra mussels now cross a state line. Such a transfer triggers the Lacey Act, which is designed to prevent the spread of invasive species across state lines.

In response, the North Texas Municipal Water District has been forced to suspend all pumping from Lake Texoma for the past three years. This water source constitutes roughly 28 percent of the North Texas Municipal Water District's available supply of raw water. Such a reduction in available resources has put a tremendous stress on the District and its ability to assure its customers that there will be an adequate supply of water in the future.

H.R. 6007 would allow North Texas Municipal Water District to resume water transfers from Lake Texoma through a completely closed conveyance system that delivers water directly into their water treatment facility. To achieve this, the North Texas Municipal Water District has committed approximately $300 million to build a 46-mile long pipeline. The District has approved the funding and obtained the necessary 4-0-4 permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction.

Such a conveyance system would provide safe and dependable means for the District to access the water they have legal rights to while ensuring, with 100 percent reliability, that Zebra Mussels will not be transferred into Texas waters. Their treatment facility will employ chemical and mechanical means of filtration to eliminate any risk of propagation of invasive species. Such techniques have been proven successful in other areas of the country and have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ultimately, H.R. 6007 will restore the adequate and steady stream of water to over 1.6 million Texans without the use of taxpayer dollars while complying with the Lacey Act's intended goal of preventing the spread of invasive species.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate For the Love of the Lake, a community organization, on its 200th consecutive Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce Up that will be held at White Rock Lake on November 10, 2012.

For the Love of the Lake is committed to the preservation of White Rock Lake Park and sponsors the Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up initiative along with many other noteworthy programs. Since April 1996, volunteers of the Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up have gathered on the second Saturday of each month to pick up trash and scattered debris around the shores of White Rock Lake. They also work closely with the City of Dallas' Parks and Recreation Department to protect the local wildlife. Over the years, this organization has devoted countless hours to this endeavor, ensuring that White Rock Lake is kept clean and beautiful for all to enjoy. I have had the privilege of laboring alongside these dedicated volunteers and know firsthand the hard work it takes to clean up the shoreline.

For the Love of the Lake truly understands the importance of conservation, and continues to protect White Rock Lake Park so it may remain an urban oasis for the City of Dallas. I am thankful for these dedicated volunteers and For the Love of the Lake. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating For the Love of the Lake on its 200th consecutive Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up. This remarkable achievement speaks loudly to the organization's continued commitment to maintain the integrity of White Rock Lake Park.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the International Day of Radiology, and

draw attention to the important contribution that radiology, in particular diagnostic imaging, serves in the health care delivery system. International Day of Radiology is observed annually on November 8th, an important date in the history of radiology. On that day in 1895, Professor Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen discovered x-rays. Radiology will be celebrated by many groups including the American College of Radiology, the Radiological Society of North America, and the European Society of Radiology.

Radiologists (physicians with special training in the use of imaging including x-rays), Radiation Oncologists (physicians trained to treat cancers with radiation alone or in combination with surgery and/or chemotherapy), and the medical imaging community have made significant contributions to modern medicine, providing powerful tools for clinical diagnosis, decision making, and treatment of disease. Over the last 30 years, medical imaging tools have been among the most sophisticated and cutting-edge technologies developed for patient care. During that span we have seen consistent decreases in cancer mortality rates with corresponding increases in American life expectancy.

The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recognized the tremendous contribution of medical imaging exams when it ranked imaging among the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the twentieth century. Practicing physicians surveyed in a 2001 Health Affairs study ranked Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) number one among the top 30 recent medical innovations. Perhaps most telling, the New England Journal of Medicine named medical imaging one of the top 10 medical advances of the last 1,000 years.

A 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that individuals with greater access to imaging scans live longer. Diagnostic imaging services have enabled patients to avoid several types of expensive and invasive procedures. Imaging scans cost less than surgeries and reduce the number of unnecessary hospital admissions and length of hospital stays. As such, medical imaging serves an important role in containing the cost of health care in the United States.

With its impact on patients' health, I'm pleased to recognize the importance of diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology, and call attention to November 8th as the International Day of Radiology.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Reverend Dr. Robert E. Price, Sr., the pastor of New Mount Zion Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. Dr. Price passed away on Saturday, July 14, 2012.

Born in Smithville, Texas, Dr. Price grew up in a large family as the second youngest of eleven children. At an early age, he took a strong interest in ministry. He helped local pastors during his high school years and assisted chaplains during his tenure in the U.S. Army. After retiring from a successful career at a mortgage banking company, Dr. Price felt the call to ministry. He attended Bishop College for training in theology and later graduated from Saint Thomas Christian College with a Doctor of Divinity degree.

Dr. Price was a man with great vision who wholeheartedly dedicated himself to serving his community. Under his leadership, New Mount Zion Baptist Church grew from less than one hundred members to over 3,000 members. It also began to offer a variety of ministries, including educational, business, and technological ministries, to meet the needs of its congregation. His dreams of having a day care center and credit union for the church also came to fruition. To recognize Dr. Price and his dedicated service to our community, I sponsored legislation to have a local post office named in his honor. In March 2007, I had the privilege of attending the dedication ceremony, where I witnessed firsthand the countless elected officials, community leaders, and individuals that came out to show their support, love, and respect for Dr. Price. His legacy is one of faith, service, and charity.

Dr. Price is survived by his loving wife, Deloris Brashear Price; his son, Robert E. Price, Jr.; his daughters, Patricia Hicks and Lisa Rausaw; and his grandsons, Donald Hicks, Kelvin Rausaw, Jr. and Kortland Rausaw. I am honored to have known Dr. Price and know that he will be greatly missed. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first, I'd like to recognize both of the gentlemen that are here on behalf of the committee today, the gentleman, Mr. Dicks, and the gentleman, Mr. Young, for their outstanding service not only to our country, but to this Congress, on behalf of making sure that we have freedom and that the men and women who protect this country are properly taken care of. I express my gratitude to both of them.

Also, I want to thank Hal Rogers, and certainly the gentleman from New Jersey who is sitting in for the committee today. I want to thank him also.

Mr. Chairman, today, I stand up in support of the dedication and hard work this Congress has done for work on something on known as TBI, traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This Congress, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, has continued increasing funding for TBI and PTSD overall, and by this bill by $125 million.

On May 18, 2012, during the National Defense Authorization Act debate, the House unanimously adopted my amendment to create a pilot program administered by the Department of Defense that would strengthen treatment for our troops coming home with TBI and PTSD. Today, Congress has the opportunity to appropriate funds for this program.

My amendment, offered with my dear friend from California, the gentleman, Mike Thompson, specifically moves $10 million from more than $31 billion in the Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide budget to increase the Defense Health Program by $10 million. This money will directly assist these soldiers who have TBI-related injuries by allowing them to be reimbursed for attending private sector facilities that perform cutting-edge treatments.

One in four recent combat veterans treated by the Veterans Health Administration from 2004 to 2009 had a diagnosis of PTSD, and about 7 percent have been diagnosed with TBI. According to the U.S. Army, the number of soldiers leaving Active Duty service has increased by 64 percent from 2005 to 2009 due to brain health, whether it was TBI, PTSD, or a mental illness. These soldiers leave at a rapid rate.

A 2009 RAND study estimates that costs related to depression, PTSD, and TBI in our soldiers ranges from $4 billion to $6.2 billion over a 2-year period of time.

Today, health care providers all over the country are working to provide treatment to brain injury patients with new and innovative treatments, with remarkable results. One such treatment utilizes hyperbaric oxygen to reduce or eliminate chronic symptoms of TBI, such as headaches, memory loss, and mood swings.

While the Department of Defense has made many, many strides in research under the direction of Colonel Scott Miller, many innovative treatments, unfortunately, are not available within the military facilities. So, this amendment that I offer today would allow these men and women who seek treatment to be able to do so at our leading-edge facilities that are private around the United States of America. My amendment will provide for treatment and recovery that is desperately needed.

I urge my amendment to be approved, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 27: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, for the last one hundred years Rice University has made unique and important contributions to our Nation and the world. Despite its small size, Rice has stood as one of the most forward-thinking institutions, contributing monumental advances in science and technology, as well as to the liberal arts. It was Rice University that opened the Nation's first department of space physics and produced American business magnates like Howard Hughes. It was Rice University that was the decades-long teaching home to Nobel Prize winners Richard Smalley and Robert Curland, and it is Rice University that continues to educate some of the brightest minds in the world. At this moment, Rice students are developing coated sand that can purify water in countries without access to clean drinking water and lithium- ion batteries that can be painted onto any surface.

In 2008, Rice University was ranked the number one institution for ``industry impact.'' Education is the key to our Nation's future, and it is institutions like Rice University that will ensure that America's greatest days are not in the past. Please join me today in celebrating the many accomplishments that Rice has achieved over the last one hundred years, and many more surely to come.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York, and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 724 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6079.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act of 2012, was introduced by the Republican majority leader, Eric Cantor, the gentleman from Virginia. The bill text has been online since last Thursday, giving Members more than the mandatory 3 days to read and to understand the language.

Madam Speaker, on June 28, just 12 days ago, the United States Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate provisions contained in ObamaCare, thereby forcing every American to purchase health insurance. While I may disagree with how they ruled, I respect their decision and there is nothing we can do to change that. ObamaCare is now the official law of the land.

However, there is something this body can do to reverse the course and to prevent the job-destroying aspects of this bill from taking effect: a complete repeal of the bill that the President asked this Congress to pass under Speaker Pelosi--and they did. We need to repeal ObamaCare today. In 2010, Republicans were elected all across this country because Americans understood the need to stop the tax-and-spend policies of the other party. H.R. 6079 will do exactly that.

Last night in the Rules Committee, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), urged us to ``dispassionately examine the facts.'' I agree with just that sentiment and would like to take a moment to do just that.

Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, reported that health insurance premiums are expected to rise by over 44 percent over the next 9 years as a result of ObamaCare. And since ObamaCare was signed into law, there has been a steady decline in the number of Americans on private health insurance.

A report from the McKinsey Group found that more than 50 percent of employers with a high awareness of the law say that they will stop offering health insurance, confirming what Republicans have been saying for 3 years, and that is, that ObamaCare is designed to force employers to drop coverage in an attempt to get Americans to enter the new health care exchanges.

A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that health insurance premiums have increased by 9 percent, or $1,200, for the average American family following passage of the President's health care bill.

According to the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report, as a direct result of ObamaCare, more than 90 percent of seniors will lose the retiree prescription drug coverage they have and will see nearly double-digit premium increases. Seniors will also see reduced access to doctors, as Medicare officials explained that physicians ``could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program, which possibly could jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.''

According to the President's own budget, the cost of ObamaCare subsidies have jumped $111 billion in just 1 year. Earlier this year, during a Ways and Means Committee hearing on February 28, 2012, when asked why this happened, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said, ``I really don't know.''

Finally, earlier this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office adjusted their long-term outlook of the impact of ObamaCare on our national debt. The revised figures show ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $1.8 trillion--twice as much as the President promised in 2010 when the bill was passed.

These are just a few of the facts that I believe should be considered dispassionately as we debate whether to repeal ObamaCare. If you think that the facts I just listed are what the country needs, vote to keep it. However, if you, like me, find these facts unacceptable for our future, then I urge you to join me in repealing ObamaCare so that we can focus on patient-centered health care solutions which do not increase dramatically insurance premiums, do not restrict access to physicians, and do not mount unsustainable debt onto our children and grandchildren, as well as harming employers who wish to employ more Americans.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2011.

Study Sees Cuts to Health Plans

(By Janet Adamy)

A report by McKinsey & Co. has found that 30% of employers

are likely to stop offering workers health insurance after

the bulk of the Obama administration's health overhaul takes

effect in 2014.

The findings come as a growing number of employers are

seeking waivers from an early provision in the overhaul that

requires them to enrich their benefits this year. At the end

of April, the administration had granted 1,372 employers,

unions and insurance companies one-year exemptions from the

law's requirement that they not cap annual benefit payouts

below $750,000 per person a year.

But the law doesn't allow for such waivers starting in

2014, leaving all those entities--and other employers whose

plans don't meet a slate of new requirements--to change their

offerings or drop coverage.

Previous research has suggested the number of employers who

opt to drop coverage altogether in 2014 would be minimal.

But the McKinsey study predicts a more dramatic shift from

employer-sponsored health plans once the new marketplace

takes effect. Starting in 2014, all but the smallest

employers will be required to provide insurance or pay a

fine, while most Americans will have to carry coverage or pay

a different fine. Lower earners will get subsidies to help

them pay for plans.

In surveying 1,300 employers earlier this year, McKinsey

found that 30% said they would ``definitely or probably''

stop offering employer coverage in the years after 2014. That

figure increased to more than 50% among employers with a high

awareness of the overhaul law.

Behind the expected shift is the fact that the law will

give Americans new insurance options outside the workplace,

and carriers will no longer be allowed to deny people

coverage because they have been sick. McKinsey found that

reduced the moral obligation employers may feel to provide

coverage.

The Obama administration says it is working to encourage

employers to retain coverage. An administration official,

Nick Papas, described the McKinsey report as an outlier amid

other research suggesting that employers overwhelmingly would

keep coverage.

``History has shown that reform motivates more businesses

to offer insurance,'' he said. ``When Massachusetts enacted

health reform, the number of individuals with employer-

sponsored insurance increased.''

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a March

2010 report, found that by 2019, about six million to seven

million people who otherwise would have had access to

coverage through their job won't have it owing to the new

law. That estimate represents about 4% of the roughly 160

million people projected to have employment-based coverage in

2019.

However, the CBO estimated that the overall number of

Americans with coverage will rise by 32 million because of

new subsidies and other steps.

The law contains a disincentive for employers to drop

coverage. It requires all employers with more than 50

employees to offer health benefits to every full-time worker

or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, though it doesn't

apply to the first 30 workers. Health-policy experts have

questioned whether that is high enough to discourage

companies from health coverage.

McKinsey found at least 30% of employers would gain

economically from dropping coverage even if they completely

compensated employees through other benefits or higher

salaries. The study suggests the fallout would be minimal,

with more than 85% of employees remaining in their jobs even

if their employer stopped coverage.

Nearly half the employers said they would consider

alternatives to their current plan after 2014. Besides

dropping coverage, those included weighing a switch to a

defined-contribution model of insurance, in effect offering

coverage only to certain employees.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Spring Hill, Florida (Mr. Nugent), the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

I appreciate the gentleman asking the question.

The gentleman also understands that the Congressional Budget Office has not, as a result of the Supreme Court, been able to render that decision.

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me. This really is of substance to the American people.

The cost of the bill is twice now--we found out a year after it was passed--twice as expensive as it was originally started.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Canseco), from the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Dunn, North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), a nurse, a health care professional prior to her service in the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Brigham City, Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Laurens, South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), from the Foreign Affairs Committee, one of the most influential committees we have here in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who, before he came to Congress, was on the front line of health care as an anesthesiologist on the eastern shore of Maryland, Congressman Harris.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Rules Committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans today have brought forth the ideas about why we are repealing the ObamaCare health care bill. The process that was gone through has been under wide debate, but the results are factually known and understood.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is in shambles. Our economy is in shambles because of uncertainty, uncertainty in the marketplace about the rules and regulations, not just of health care, but about the impact of Big Government, and this is the big daddy of all of them. The health care bill is the big daddy that invades every single piece, part of not just this country and our society, but because of the way it reaches into individuals and to families, it is very disruptive.

The IRS will be empowered to hire up to 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure that not only are taxes being paid, but to make sure that the government has its way with people who, even though they may or may not choose to get health care, will be required to by this government. We well understand what the results are of this bill; and as a result of that, that's why Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

At this time, I'd inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York not only for her indulgence of this issue the past few days but also for her professional nature today.

Mr. Speaker, we're on the floor because the health care bill that the President and House Democrats and Senate Democrats supported costs twice as much 1 year later as was guesstimated the year before.

The United States is suffering economically, people are suffering economically, and we are losing our competitiveness with the world. We are here because the biggest driver of what I would consider to be not just lack of jobs in this country but also continued uncertainty for the business community. Someone called them corporations. They're really employers. Employers across this country are saying to Members of Congress not just in sworn testimony but in media after media, newspaper after newspaper, that it is uncertainty related to the health care bill that is causing them not to move forward on their plans to grow their business.

We are here today because we need to make sure that we also understand the cost--the cost that is twice as much in 1 year as was guesstimated to be in the year before. This cost in doubling, this would mean that this body either needs to come up with a way to pay for it, which would mean, following the Democrats' proposal, instead of taking $500 billion out of Medicare, we would take $1 trillion out of Medicare. Instead of raising taxes $570 billion, we would have to raise taxes $1 trillion. Instead of all these things that the bill does that taxes people, instead of it being exactly the way they said it would be, including $70 billion for a plan for long-term care that now they cannot sustain, it would have to be $140 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the American people do understand that health care is important, and Republicans would insist upon us following, just as we have in the past, health care bills which would better the marketplace, and people would have the ability to purchase health care at an affordable amount and to make sure that we have physicians and patients that have a close relationship. Please make no mistake: tort reform would be at the top of our order.

Secondly, buying insurance across State lines would include a healthy marketplace. Third, 26-year-olds being on their parents' insurance, that's a bipartisan idea. High-risk pools to help spread out the cost would become available. We're for those, too. And certainly associated health care plans that are able to pool their resources so that they can have a bigger team size in which to purchase health care would be important. But more importantly, we need to make sure that every single American gets health care on a pretax basis.

We've made our case today, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud of what we're doing. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the case for congressional approval of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with Russia who is set to join the WTO later this summer. As a result of their accession into the WTO Russia will be required to open up its market and comply with the rules and regulations of the WTO. However, the U.S. will not receive any of these benefits until Congress grants Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). Any delay in granting Russia PNTR will cause U.S employers, workers, farmers, and ranchers to lose ground to their competitors in other countries.

Establishing PNTR will provide a much-needed boost to the U.S. economy, doubling exports to Russia in just five years and helping create jobs across every economic sector

especially in manufacturing, services, and agriculture. With the world's 9th largest economy, a population of 142 million, and a large and growing middle class, Russia holds outstanding potential for U.S. companies and workers to export more goods and services. My home state of Texas is the top exporter to Russia among U.S. states, with its exports to Russia growing faster than its exports to the rest of the world. Specifically, Texas exported $1.6 billion worth of goods to Russia in 2011, which directly supported an estimated 4,100 jobs.

With those key stats in mind, I'd like to draw attention to some success stories of Texas companies active in the Russian market. First, Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions, based in Garland, exported more than $4 million worth of heavy drilling equipment to customers in the Russia energy sector in 2010. Secondly, ExxonMobil Corporation has partnered with Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company, to develop oil resources in the Arctic, the Black Sea and Siberia. ExxonMobil also leads the development of the Sakhalin-1 oil and gas field project in Russia's Far East, where the company has employed its proprietary drilling technology to safely drill to record depths and optimize the project's output. Lastly, Irving based Fluor Corporation has provided engineering, procurement, and construction management for ExxonMobil's Sakhalin-1 operations.

Until Congress passes PNTR with Russia, our foreign competitors--but not the United States--will be able to use WTO mechanisms to enforce Russia's commitments for their companies and workers. PNTR is the only way for Congress to ensure that U.S. companies and workers get equal protection and can lock-in the benefits of Russia's WTO accession agreement. The bottom line is simple: Russian PNTR will lead to more U.S. exports and more American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend, Mr. James D. Lindsey, who is retiring as President and Chief Executive Officer of First State Bank.

Mr. Lindsey attended North Texas University and the Stonier Graduate School of Banking. He began his career with First State Bank--Mesquite in 1971, starting in the bookkeeping department. His successful career is the result of his hard work and dedication; he served in various areas of the bank and literally worked his way to the top. He is a well-known and highly respected leader in the banking profession and the broader Mesquite community. In 2002, he received the prestigious Chairman's Award from the Independent Bankers Association of Texas and in 2008, was elected to the Board of Directors of The Independent Bankers Bank. Mr. Lindsey also served as Director for the Mesquite Economic Development Foundation and was appointed to the Texas Banking Commissioner's Council. First State Bank and the banking profession have greatly benefitted from his work ethic, vision, and leadership. He is a man of great character who firmly abides by his principles. I am honored to call him my friend and know that Mr. Lindsey will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues join me in congratulating Mr. Lindsey on his retirement. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. May God continue to bless him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we're on the floor of the House of Representatives with our friends on the other side of the aisle arguing about how we tax the American people, how if we're going to take this tax out we've got to replace it with another tax. Good gosh, aren't energy prices high enough already? Why do we want to pass that on to consumers and make gasoline more expensive? It does not make sense, and that's why we are here today to repeal a tax.

Mr. Speaker, what is the tax we're talking about? It is a tax on business, on high tech. It is on medical devices that have allowed America to lead the world in solving problems, to give people medical devices, things that will make their lives even better.

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Walter J. Humann, president and CEO, OsteoMed. He came and met with me at my office and then sent me a letter. Here's what Mr. Humann said--and I believe he represents not just the industry, but thousands of people, patients also who rely on high-tech and medical devices that would be without. He said:

In addition to challenges with the FDA and reimbursement,

this 2.3 percent excise tax--which is on gross sales, whether

or not a business has any profits or not--will directly

impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and

development and effectively compete in a global marketplace.

Further, he says:

It should be noted that OsteoMed is also aggressively re-

directing its business focus to international markets that

provide a less cumbersome and lengthy regulatory pathway with

revenue streams that are not subject to the medical device

tax . . . immediately saving 2.3 percent in the process. In

the past month, OsteoMed initiated the search for sales

managers in China and the Middle East to supplement recent

managers hired in Korea and Italy.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a tax. It is not just making it more difficult for employers to hire people. But it will stop America's innovative-ness to compete in the future.

OsteoMed,

Addison, TX, June 5, 2012.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sessions: Thank you for taking time to

visit with me last week regarding OsteoMed and my concerns

about the significant ``headwinds'' we face, especially

related to the 2.3% medical device tax that is scheduled for

implementation in 2013. On behalf of OsteoMed's 400

employees, I thank you for your support of H.R. 436, which

would repeal this onerous provision that otherwise will

negatively impact innovation and job creation at a time when

we can least afford it.

As president & CEO of OsteoMed, a dynamic, 20 year old

surgical device manufacturing company based in your district,

I confront the challenges that America's innovators face

every day. In addition to challenges with the FDA and

reimbursement, this 2.3% excise tax--which is on gross sales,

whether or not a business has any profits--will directly

impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and

development and effectively compete in the global market.

OsteoMed formed a new subsidiary company a couple of years

ago to develop an innovative spine product that greatly

simplifies spine fusion surgery and improves patient

outcomes. OsteoMed launched this product last year which

quickly grew to almost $5MM in sales in 2011 and currently

employs a number of highly skilled, high paid individuals.

Due to the significant upfront investment and on-going

development costs, this new company is not projected to make

a profit in the near future but is nevertheless subject to

the device tax which will further delay this subsidiary's

success. As a result, OsteoMed has now delayed additional new

product developments and personnel in order to make ``ends

meet'' and achieve the returns initially envisioned when this

company was created.

OsteoMed's core business manufactures surgical implant

systems for use in craniofacial, neurosurgical and small bone

orthopedic (upper and lower extremities) surgeries. These

systems require extensive, specialized instruments that are

typically not sold, but are used to implant the devices that

drive OsteoMed's revenue stream. The device tax will not only

tax gross product revenues, but my understanding is it will

also tax the instruments OsteoMed must invest in and place

into hospitals at no charge thereby further reducing my

company's profit opportunities and forcing expense reductions

in other areas in order to achieve our profit goals.

OsteoMed's products are sold through a variety of sales

channels and will require a new level of administrative

burden in order to track the ``gross'' revenues defined by

this tax. This requirement, along with the recent challenges

imposed by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, force

additional levels of administration and non value added

expenses that make OsteoMed less competitive and viable.

The market in which OsteoMed competes is in turmoil and has

become increasingly competitive with many new offshore

competitors. As economics and recent government restrictions

have largely removed surgeons from the surgical device

purchase decision process, hospitals are now forcing

increasingly price concessions. Despite increased raw

material and labor costs, OsteoMed has been unable to raise

product prices over the past several years and is now equally

unlikely to simply pass along the device tax to our

customers.

Like any other responsible business, OsteoMed must

carefully manage expenses in order to make profit and

continue to grow and succeed. In order to cover the shortfall

the new device tax will create, OsteoMed has already started

to implement cut backs in its operations including the delay/

cancellation of new product development projects and the

hiring of additional personnel, including biomedical

engineering positions. It should be noted that OsteoMed is

also aggressively re-directing its business focus to

international markets that provide a less cumbersome and

lengthy regulatory pathway with revenue streams that are not

subject to the medical device tax. . . . immediately

``saving'' 2.3% in the process. In the past month, OsteoMed

initiated the search for sales managers in China and the

Middle East to supplement recent managers hired in Korea and

Italy. Unfortunately, OsteoMed has already started to

effectively trade U.S. jobs for overseas positions as a

direct result of the medical device tax and other

governmental involvement.

The medical device industry not only provides numerous

highly skilled and attractive jobs across the U.S., but it

also pays its workers on average 40% more than the typical

job. We are a vibrant sector of the economy and one of the

few remaining industries that produces a healthy export of

products. Tragically, this industry has now become the focus

of misguided and short-term government intervention and the

growth and continued prosperity of this proud American

industry now faces great hurdles.

Again, I thank you for your service to our country and

specifically for your support of H.R. 436 to repeal this tax

and to help America's innovators continue to improve patient

care and drive job creation. I look forward to your ability

to visit OsteoMed when you are back in Dallas so you can see

firsthand our great employees and the innovative products

they produce to help people around the world. Please do not

hesitate to contact me to discuss this issue or any other

issues impacting the medical device industry.

Sincerely,

Walter J. Humann,

President & CEO,

OsteoMed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Albert ``Bert'' Caswell and the men, women, and families of our Nation's Armed Services.

Bert has worked as a United States Capitol tour guide for over twenty-five years. He is known throughout the Capitol for his extraordinary work and selfless attitude. After hours, Bert volunteers his time offering Capitol tours to wounded veterans and participants of the Make-A-Wish foundation. He also visits and writes poems for wounded soldiers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to lift their spirits and celebrate their heroic nature.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you a poem, on behalf of Albert, who penned this tribute in recognition of the extraordinary sacrifices and courage of the men, women, and families of our Nation's Armed Services.

They Make Us Who We Are

(By Albert Caswell)

They . . . .

They make us who we are!

For they are the greatest of all shining stars!

As they so make us who we are!

Our loved ones and families . . . .

The ones for whom we all so die and bleed!

Yes, they make us who we are!

As we go off to war, we carry them with us ever far!

The ones who so live with such heartache and pain . . . .

And such worry, wondering if they shall ever so see us all

again . . . .

Oh yes, they make us who we are!

Quiet Heroes, out across our heartland one and all!

The ones now on bended knee, so pray to Lord to watch over us

all so godspeed!

They make us who we are!

The ones who at our grave sides, with tears in eyes whose

hearts now so bleed!

Who have lost their greatest loves of all!

The ones who never had the chance to so say goodbye!

The ones for whom our Lord's love shall never die!

As they so make us who we are!

The ones who now at our bedsides who have so traveled so very

far . . . .

As we come home from war, half dead and so full of scars . .

. .

Carried, now upon us all!

Missing arms and legs in all places, as somehow they must

face this!

For all of them it is so very hard!

As they so help us to beat down death, and so face so all of

this!

As they bless, because they are all in it for the long haul!

Oh how they so make us who we are!

Providing us with the hope and courage, and not letting us so

get discouraged!

Where, would we and our nation all so be?

If it were but not for such all of these, who so make us who

we are?

Yes, all of our loved ones and families . . . . who all in us

do so believe!

And so make us who we are!

Shining ever so brightly, our nation's most courageous of all

stars!

All with such dignity and faith, as they shine from sea to

sea!

As one day up in heaven, they will all so be!

For these are the ones, who have so sent!

So sent, all of their most beloved daughters and sons off to

war!

Husbands and Wives, who live with such deep pain so deep down

inside!

And all our children who so lie awake at night, and so begin

to cry!

Who must live with such fear, day in and night after night!

And all of that death and destruction, that which war does so

make!

Unrelenting . . . . our loved ones helping us to rebuild what

war has so taken away!

To once again, To So Make Us What We Are!

Just look at those heroes standing there, with such honor and

such faith and tears who so care!

Wearing that uniform, with those most courageous hearts that

which beat so warm!

Who were so raised by those loved ones, who their souls have

so formed!

To make them who they are!

Just, look at all of those husbands and wives, and children

who now must now so cry . . . .

Who so sent their loved ones off to die . . . .

For they all so make this Nation, and our Country Tis of Thee

who we are!

America's Shining Stars!

They . . . . Make . . . . Us . . . . Who . . . . We . . . .

Are!

Mr. Chair, thousands of our brave servicemen and women are returning from combat with severe cases of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), resulting in an inability to hold a job, properly care for their families, or in some cases, to overcome suicidal tendencies. As a nation, we have the responsibility for their care and recovery.

Currently, private healthcare providers across the United States are helping brain injury patients with new and innovative treatments that are not currently available or approved by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Examples of these treatments include Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT), flash doses of approved drugs, and small device implants that operate like brain pacemakers. While the Department of Defense is currently conducting their own studies on these already proven treatment methods, it will take five or more years to formally approve these treatments and make them accessible to our injured troops and veterans. If a treatment is good enough for private medicine, why is it not good enough for military medicine?

In an effort to fix this delinquency I introduced the TBI Treatment Act (H.R. 396) in January 2011. Today I am proud to offer it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) with my friend and colleague from California, Congressman Mike Thompson. The TBI Treatment Act helps expedite these ground-breaking treatments to our nations' veterans and active duty soldiers suffering from TBI.

The TBI Treatment Act establishes a 5-year ``pay-for-performance'' pilot program, not to exceed $10 million per year. Under my amendment, healthcare providers will treat active duty soldiers and veterans at no cost to the patient. The healthcare provider gets reimbursed from the DoD/VA respectively, only if the treatment is proven successful (based on independent pre- and post-treatment neuropsychological testing, accepted survey instruments, neurological imaging, or clinical examinations). Currently, soldiers are paying out-of-pocket for such important care. Lastly, treatments must be FDA-approved and approved by an institutional review board operating in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I ask that you join me in support of the Sessions-Thompson amendment to NDAA and

help deliver proven treatments to our soldiers and veterans suffering from Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill A. Keffler, the City Manager for the City of Richardson, Texas. After thirty-five years of dedicated service, he is retiring on May 31, 2012.

Mr. Keffler began his public service with the City of Richardson in 1977. He has served the city in numerous capacities, including as Deputy City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Assistant to the City Manager, and as an Administrative Assistant. In 1995, he became the

City Manager, the position he has served in with distinction to this day.

As the Member of Congress who represents the City of Richardson, I have had the pleasure of working closely with Mr. Keffler and seen firsthand the impact of his devotion and commitment to the citizens of Richardson. He possesses a keen understanding of the city's needs and issues as well as the importance of actively engaging the community in developing policy solutions and strategic planning. Mr. Keffler undertook bold initiatives in economic development, fiscal responsibility, and community revitalization. As a result of Mr. Keffler's actions in positioning the City of Richardson for growth and stability, the city and the North Texas region stand stronger than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Keffler on thirty-five years of dedicated service to the city of Richardson. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. May God bless him and his family.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, tonight I offer an amendment which would strike provision 6 of section 505 of the legislation, which would impose a moratorium on contracting out activities currently performed by Federal employees.

These challenging economic times require Congress to not only reassess the size and scope of the Federal Government, but I think it's important to make better stewardship of taxpayer dollars and to give the government an opportunity to get the best dollar for and on behalf of the American taxpayer. Legislative provisions that prohibit or otherwise interfere with contracting out or in-sourcing are counterproductive to reducing spending, limiting the size of government, and creating private sector jobs. My amendment to strike this provision, which I am proud to offer with Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, does not affect inherently governmental activities. It allows only for increased private contracting.

Mr. Chairman, the Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a private- public cost comparison would generate, on average, a 30 percent cost savings, regardless of who wins that competition. Rather than preventing market competition that would improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging Agencies to find the best way to deliver services to citizens of this great Nation. This is exactly what this amendment does.

Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 8.1 percent. We must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage, and I think we get more results for our money. I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that would ensure cost-savings competition in the Federal Government. Congress should be looking to use all the tools it can to help save taxpayer dollars.

I yield to the gentleman.

I believe that is correct, sir.

No, sir, it is not.

I do not believe in any way that we would limit this committee at all; no, sir. It is simply to allow this to take place except where there are inherently governmental policies in place, inherently governmental activities.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the subcommittee chairman yielding, my very dear friend, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The way I read this, section 505 begins with ``none of the funds provided under this act'' and continues to say, ``contracts out or privatizes any function or activities presently performed by Federal employees,'' which is under section 505(6), and it is this (6) that contracts out or privatizes any function: ``No funds can be for contracts or privatization of any function or activities performed by Federal employees.''

Now, to me that's pretty straightforward. I'm simply saying that we would amend that and say we're going to strike that to where there is nothing in there that says none of these funds provided in this section shall be provided where you can contract out or privatize any function. That's all I'm simply trying to say. It would be equally a part of any funds in section 505 to say it could be contracted out.

I appreciate that, and if I could engage the gentleman, what is that line that you were suggesting?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment at this time.