Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, tonight we will hear about the State of the Union. I hope we hear the sometimes painful truth about the State of the Union: more jobs lost in the last couple of years and we need to do something about that.

But the answer is not more spending that leads us to a greater deficit and more borrowing from China. The answer is not to continue to have higher gas prices because we are buying our oil from OPEC, which they use to build their lavish palaces and drive their Rolls Royces while our communities are trying to find ways to afford the patching compound to patch up our potholes. What we need to be doing is taking action that uses our resources to create American jobs.

A bill that I am going to be reintroducing from last year is one that says, Let's stop this moratorium that prevents us from using our oil, from drilling our resources. We can actually create jobs and have about $3 trillion-plus in Federal revenue without raising taxes, without raising our trade deficit, and without sending more money to OPEC.

I hope this is something this Congress considers and this President has an open mind to dealing with so that we can create jobs without creating more deficit.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree, and we want families to keep their kids on their plans if they wish. And last Congress that's why we offered proposals that would have allowed dependent children to stay on their parents' plans. But once again, the other side is trying to hide 3,000 pages of a law by discussing only 10 pages. We all want to work on this, and we will achieve this in the replacement bill.

But the other side also fails to mention the other part of this 2,900 pages that will ignore what's going to cause health insurance premiums to go up 17 percent because of this care plan. What good is coverage on a policy if a family can't afford it?

On another issue, chronic illness consumes 70 percent of health care costs and 90 percent of Medicare. The health care bill, however, cuts $500 billion from Medicare, and much of that by eliminating chronic care management that otherwise could save lives and money. So for 7.4 million seniors on Medicare Advantage, if you like your plan, you can't keep it.

So what does chronic disease management do? UPMC in Pittsburgh reduced hospitalization rates for diabetics by 75 percent. Washington Hospital in Pennsylvania cut readmission rates 50 percent for heart disease. And Gateway Health Plan reduced asthma readmissions by 28 percent. It's better care at lower cost; but the health care bill says if you're sick, you're on your own.

Tragically, it pays to amputate the feet of a diabetic, but won't pay a nurse $5 to make sure you are following up on prescriptions, therapies, diets, and treatments. The new law does have a pilot and grant program to be sure, but you will find no reimbursement code for disease management. That's why we must repeal and replace this bill for the sake of our seniors and for the sake of our children.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. I appreciate that.

Let me talk about a couple of important aspects of this bill and understand that if you have a car and it has a flat tire, you don't get rid of the car; you change the tire. But if you have a car with a great tire and the car is not running and it's broken down, you get a new car.

What we have here is a health care bill that indeed does have a few pages and some parts that we all agree on and we want to work on those together. However, there are also thousands of pages of other problems and tens of thousands of pages, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages yet to be written by boards, panels and commissions yet to be appointed on issues we have yet to know what is going to be included in this. And that is part of the reason why employers are frightened about what may be in this bill.

Members of Congress shake their heads and say how could something so massive--and it's going to cost over a trillion dollars a year to administer this plan--how could this happen without Congress really having oversight? Let me mention two areas of this which I am deeply concerned about.

We know that one of the ways we can provide better care and ultimately save a lot of money has to do with disease management, or care management.

This is when perhaps nurses or other specialists within the doctor's office or working with the hospital, work to stay in touch with the patient, patients who have asthma or diabetes or heart disease or other chronic illness, because they know if they can get that patient to follow up with their medications, their treatments, their therapies, they can prevent problems from worsening. They can help make that patient better. They can keep that patient out of the hospital.

In the area of mental health, chronic illness has twice the incidence of depression when it's not picked up, and when depression is present and not treated, costs double.

Now, unfortunately, this bill not only doesn't pay for this, but if you want something, the important area that did pay for it in Medicare Advantage, this bill in order to try and pay for it cut $500 billion worth of Medicare, and a significant portion of that was in something called Medicare Advantage which covers millions of people, 7.4 million seniors around the country.

One of the clear, distinct advantages of Medicare Advantage is it provided this disease management. Here are a couple of examples: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found they could reduce rehospitalization rates for diabetics by 75 percent. Another hospital in my district, Washington Hospital, reduced readmission rates for heart disease by 50 percent. Another plan reduced asthma rate readmissions by 28 percent, all by doing this important care management.

Well, unfortunately, if you like the plan you have, you can't keep it because this bill guts that and eliminates that portion of it.

Now out of this 2,900-roughly-page bill, to have a couple sections that people are talking about, the benefits of why we should keep this bill, these are areas we agree on: maintain preexisting coverage, don't cut people because they're sick, let kids stay on their parents' policy for a little bit longer, all important parts and things

we will continue to work on as a conference because we understand health care.

And in particular this caucus made up of health care providers, we work with patients for many, many decades all together, hundreds of years, and we understand the bottom line is we must work on health care reform, and this bill just doesn't quite reform that.

Another couple of brief points I would like to bring up, because out of a sense of compassion, we want to continue to practice health care and we want patients to be able to afford it. But let me point out a couple of ways this bill is trying to fund the expanded government-run health care that actually increases cost.

One is that the very thing that we should be working on to reduce costs such as medical supplies and other practices will be taxed. Pacemakers will be taxed. Heart monitors will be taxed. Artificial joints will be taxed. The knees and hips that people will have replaced will be taxed. Stents, diabetes supplies, and prescription drugs are going to be taxed. That tax is an increase in the cost of health care and something that has to be paid for, which gets paid for by increasing the cost of insurance.

Employers also have to pay increasing taxes: if they don't have enough insurance or if they have no insurance for their employees. And if they have too much insurance for their employees, instead of rewarding them and saying this is good that you are providing comprehensive insurance for employees, that gets taxed as well. And employees themselves, if they are not covered, they have to pay taxes or, because the way this bill works because there is no time frame, they can get it when they are in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

Another point. Part of the funding for this is to take $70 billion from a long-term health insurance plan called the Community Living Assistance Services, which is the CLASS Act. Before it even starts, they will take $70 billion out of this over 10 years; but what happens is the premiums will need to be paid in actual claims. Actually, it is far less than will be needed.

Now, if any of us tried to start an insurance plan and took all of the money out before it even got started, well, you wouldn't be able to get a license to provide that insurance. It is one of the many flaws in this program that does not have the money to pay for it. It is another reason why the bill had to be repealed before it is replaced.

Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again. Gasoline: $3, $4, and soon $5 a gallon. Oil at $100 a barrel. Yet America's offshore resources total more than 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough oil to replace imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for the next 80 years. But the administration's moratorium says ``no'' to American oil and ``yes'' to

Section 4: ``Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 652 H. Con. Res. 336, Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 653, H.J. Res. 1776, Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 654, on motion to suspend the Rules and concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2142, GPRA Modernization Act of 2010; had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

I thank my colleague.

I rise to speak about S. 30, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, addressing the serious problem of caller ID fraud that allows a caller to hide his true identity. They do this through Web sites that will let you choose any number to show up on the caller ID. The Web sites even offer options to disguise your voice, such as making a man or woman's voice appear as the opposite gender.

I am glad to see the Senate is finally acting on this issue that I first raised in 2006 when I introduced H.R. 5304, known as the PHONE Act, or the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement Act.

My bill passed the full House on December 9, 2006, and while it didn't make it through the Senate, several Members of the House pressed on. Congressman Bobby Scott and I reintroduced this legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses. The House passed the bill in March of 2007 by a vote of 413-1. And I would like to thank my colleagues in this session of Congress for overwhelmingly voting in favor of the Murphy- Scott Phone Act a year ago tomorrow by a vote of 418-1.

Caller ID can have legitimate uses to protect victims or when law enforcement are trying to track down criminals. However, here we are concerned about illegitimate uses.

When I first introduced the PHONE Act, several problems were already beginning to emerge. On one level friends were using it to prank others, and just to annoy them. On another level, there were famous or infamous cases where the harassment involved well-known personalities, * * *.

But caller ID is also employed for more sinister reasons. My own office experienced this when an organization used a phony caller ID system to make it appear as though my congressional office was calling constituents. Constituents were understandably puzzled and annoyed when bombarded by these calls. Unfortunately, we were not able to track down the perpetrators. In total, at least 42 House Republicans from 14 States were targeted in their home districts by similar harassing phone calls using call spoofing. Although I believe that action alone constitutes a fraud in posing as a Federal elected official's office, that is not the worst case.

In several cases, police and FBI have been subjected to so-called ``swatting'' calls when a caller uses another person's caller ID to phone the authorities, report a fake crime in progress, which draws a police and SWAT team response. Luckily, no one has been harmed in these cases, but you can imagine the potential tragedy when a team of police with guns drawn respond to the scene of what they believe is a dangerous ongoing crime. It is more than just a false alarm to a fire department. It can lead to serious injury for police and the community, and that is why we must pass this bill before someone gets hurt.

Here are some other reports. A woman from Pennsylvania discovered her phone number was appearing on other people's caller ID, and it was being used as a vehicle to harass people.

In the wake of the Haitian earthquake, the Virginia State Police warned citizens to be vigilant against scam artists using phony caller ID numbers to obtain donations. Under such circumstances, perpetrators can pose as a legitimate charity to fool others into donating to an illegitimate account.

We have heard of cases where a county courthouse number appears as citizens are told they missed jury duty and are asked to give their credit card number to pay a fine.

Last December, another case in Pennsylvania occurred when a woman claimed to have shot her baby. It turned out to be a hoax. The police and detectives were forced to spend their Christmas Day wasting valuable resources investigating what was presented as a gruesome crime that was never committed.

These are just a few examples, and if we do not enact this legislation into law, I worry we will read about many more cases of call spoofing, including some that will inevitably end in tragedy.

Because of these, I am still a supporter of enhanced penalties when caller ID spoofing is used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, we should not stop with this legislation. The Truth in Caller ID Act provides for civil penalties under the Communications Act of 1934. My legislation, the PHONE Act, which has already passed the full House, provides for criminal penalties under the U.S. criminal code.

But I want to thank Congressman Engel and Congressman Barton for being leaders on this issue in the House of Representatives in introducing their version. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Truth in Caller ID Act, and let's hope in the future we can pass enhanced criminal penalties such as those in my PHONE Act bill. Together these pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive set of civil and criminal penalties to enable us to effectively combat caller ID spoofing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may redact a statement from my remarks in debate made earlier today that I believe might reflect a misapprehension of fact.

Mr. Speaker, our country continues fighting a deadly and determined terrorist enemy. Agencies such as Homeland Security and the TSA work hard to keep us safe and protect us. Still, American citizens are concerned with the newly implemented security measures that are both revealing and personal.

Concerned passengers and even TSA workers feel violated, confused, and uncomfortable. No one is sure what to expect. The American public rightfully wants answers from questions like what is the training, accountability, and selection process for the TSA? Two, what can we learn from other countries' security measures? Three, can we prevent body scan photos from public release? Four, how do we identify who is actually a risk? And isn't there another, more accurate way to do this, rather than treating everyone as a suspect?

People do not have confidence in the Federal Government's ability to protect their privacy, and TSA must explore other screening alternatives because national security and the liberty it aims to protect both matter.

Mr. Speaker, by 2030, America's energy needs will increase by 40 percent, and our nuclear power plants are, on average, 30 years old and are nearing the end of their life cycles.

We need more energy.

The Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act, which passed the House last night, accelerates the development of small, pre-made reactors that can be built in factories and shipped to sites at a fraction of the cost. Today, a typical nuclear power plant costs $10 billion, takes 5 years to build, and produces more than 1,100 megawatts. Small reactors cost $750 million, which can be quickly added to the grid and shipped into the place.

We need energy independence; but to rebuild our economy, we need products that can be developed here, built in our factories, and sold all over the world; or we can keep sending our dollars to OPEC. This year, the U.S. will buy $350 billion of foreign oil; and for roughly 1 day's worth of oil purchased from a foreign country, this bill invests in the technology that produces these new energy plants.

The stimulus bill gave us windmills made in China. Let's not repeat that mistake. If we don't do this in the USA, other countries can and will make them and ship them here. Let's support U.S. jobs for U.S. energy.

I urge the Senate to quickly adopt H.R. 5866.

Mr. Speaker, what does an Irish Pennsylvania boy have to do with Ike Skelton standing up here and talking? Actually, I have roots in Missouri. In Farmington, my ancestor, Sarah Barton Murphy, started the first Saturday school west of the Mississippi in Missouri. And that was a little story I told Ike. I don't know if he remembers it.

But it comes from times that Ike and I traveled together on congressional delegation trips. He had asked me to travel with him to Afghanistan and Iraq at Thanksgiving--we did that twice--giving up time with our families by traveling out there to be with the soldiers. Small codels as they were, but I think they meant a lot certainly to the soldiers that were sacrificing so much for our country. And I thought it pretty amazing that here was this gentleman, in the truest sense of the word, being willing to giving up his holidays with family to be over there, and I was certainly pleased and honored to go with him.

And we had some interesting times. A meeting with General Petraeus, a meeting with General McChrystal, seeing the ins and outs of what takes place in a war zone, talking to soldiers in the most candid ways about the stress that they face. And I know, for me, I learned a great deal from them, but I also learned a great deal from my friend, Congressman Skelton, about the ins and outs of what takes place in the military through his chairmanship and ranking membership of what he's learned from the House Armed Services Committee.

But there's also things you learn about a person under times of stress.

Ike and I have the dubious distinction of being the only two Members of Congress ever injured in Iraq, and it happened on a dark night. We were traveling, after having met, I believe, with General Casey, on a road back to the Baghdad Airport when this up-armored minibus we were traveling in--referred to affectionately as an ice cream truck-- suddenly hit something. We heard a boom. We're up in the air, bounced, rolled over the side, and both of us slid inside the interior. I was injured a bit. That doesn't matter. Ike had his own symptoms. And a lot of chaos occurred at that moment. And we learned what happens on a military site when there's an injury that occurs, that soldiers are swarming around securing the perimeter, ambulances arriving trying to take care of both Ike and me at that moment. An incredible dedication and skill of these soldiers. We had intended to visit a hospital but not in a horizontal position.

What occurred afterwards, taking us in an ambulance, and we're both in some pain--nothing compared to what our soldiers face. But an interesting little thing happened with one of the staffers at that point. Erin reached in and patted my toe and said, ``I'll pray for you.'' And the ambulance door closed. And Ike, always a man of good humor, said, What am I? Chopped liver? What's wrong here? No one's going to pray for me? He had issues, too.

We went to a hospital then in Baghdad. Some difficult moments. Hearing the cries of a young boy whose room was near ours who, we understand, his parents had just been killed, and he was hurt, too.

And then traveling over to Balad where our soldiers who were wounded pretty severely were all being prepped to take to Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, and to see what takes place as people with some pretty severe injuries were prepared, sometimes on basically a traveling intensive care unit with doctors and nurses around them.

And Ike and I are both on our helicopter trip over there. And having those moments when you're lying on this litter on this same helicopter that carries so many of our wounded soldiers, it gives you something to think about. And of course traveling over to Landstuhl on this big C-17 for several hours' flight.

But now and then I would hear this voice coming from either above me or below me, wherever we happened to be on that particular flight, there's the voice of Ike saying, Well, what do you think about this? Well, we're learning something here. Always just that little bit of humor and putting that little bit of perspective on an otherwise pretty stressful situation--not only of what was happening to us but being around all of these wounded and all of these doctors and nurses doing so much.

I'm sure Ike has lots of variations on the stories he tells, but what is important to hear is, after we came back, he had of course made sure that that one staffer who tapped my toe and said ``I'll pray for you'' understood that he wanted prayers, too. And it was some time after that, I believe, Ike, that what you received was a note that a mass was being said for you by the Pope. So you certainly outranked me on what was happening there.

But it's his humor, it's his knowledge, it's his incredible class. A lot of times Americans may hear criticisms of Members of Congress. And you may hear the bipartisan attacks on each other, which is hardly bipartisan. That makes the evening news. When people call each other names, when they insult each other, when they play political games, that's going to make the front page. What you don't hear about is the genuine friendships and respect we have for each other.

And let me tell you, Ike, I can't think of anybody in this House that I have more friendship and respect for than what you have taught me. The people of Missouri ought to be real proud that you served them for so long. I know they are. And I am mighty proud to have had the honor to serve with you, and a man that I can always call my friend. God bless you and thank you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank my colleague Tim Ryan, who is the Democrat lead in this, and I am the Republican lead on this. We know this is an important bill.

You know, the perfect is the enemy of the necessary. We are arguing about trade policies, what the WTO might think, what China might think, what negotiations might happen while the American people are out there saying, What are you doing about our jobs? China has been involved in a number of things, such as steel dumping and dumping products here, and setting these unfair currency practices which lead to up to a 40 percent discount. And while American companies see their factories close and American workers get their pink slips, they wonder if Washington gets it. Well, we do, and today is our chance to make good on that.

There was a time when ``Made in the USA'' was a standard for the world. It was a matter of fact that you owned the best. We earned that esteem. And now we are about to lose our position as a global leader when next year China overtakes us as the biggest manufacturer in the world. You know, the trouble is that China has never really accepted the basic rules of fair trade, and that's what we're standing for in this bill, fair trade.

Former Bush administration Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said that China's currency valuation does not yet adequately respond to market forces. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said similar things, believing that China is manipulating its currency. President Obama said the same thing and said, We need a two-way street. But unfortunately, when President Obama goes to talk to the Chinese, they push him back in a corner because we've got $800 billion in debt to them, and they continue to stall and stall.

Now I don't care who is in the White House, Republican, Democrat, whoever. But I don't want another country saying to my President that we are not going to talk to you about these things and somehow make it sound like it is the United States' fault. This is an issue that Republicans and Democrats alike are backing, and action delayed is action denied. Only when our government starts pursuing policies that cultivate rather than stifle American manufacturing and holds China and other trading partners fully accountable for cheating on trade will we begin to revitalize that manufacturing sector which we have lost ground on.

If we unleash our factories and workers from the constraints of an overly burdensome taxation and regulatory requirements, giving them the tools they need to ensure that all countries play fair and by the rules, the American manufacturer will win in the global marketplace every time. With its dedicated workforce and demonstrated ingenuity, American manufacturing has a chance not just to repair our economy, not just lead us out of debt

and deficit, but to create hundreds of thousands of new, well-paying, high-quality jobs.

We in Congress must do everything we can to support American manufacturing in this goal and not stand in their way and not quietly wring our hands and worry. We can start by passing the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act tomorrow, because in matters of economic and job diplomacy, we can speak softly, but it sure is nice to carry a big stick.

Mr. Speaker, community health centers provide a neighborhood medical home that is both high quality and lower cost. They are more than just a doctor's office; they are a place where a child can see a pediatrician and an adult can see an internist. You can get dental care, mental health services, or prenatal care. You can go there when you are getting a cold instead of running up big costs at an emergency room.

The doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, and other medical professionals are under one roof; and they coordinate your care, working as a team for your family's health in a one-stop wellness center, and the costs per patient are far, far below the costs one would pay if you went to a hospital or private practice. That coordinated effort saves a lot of money through preventative care, keeping you up with immunizations and providing quality medical intervention when you need it at one of these 1,250 nonprofit community health centers.

In our Nation's $2.4 trillion health care system, the community health centers are credited with saving nearly $25 billion each year. Families save money and Medicaid saves money. On average, a person using a community health center saves $1,100 per year on health care costs, according to a recent study by George Washington University. That's the good news. The sad news is that there is a serious shortage of health care providers at these centers, and no matter now great the center, if there are long delays because of the shortage, then health care delayed is health care denied.

Health centers located in medically underserved urban or rural areas report a 27 percent shortage of dentists, a 26 percent shortage of OB/ GYNs that could be providing prenatal care, and a 13 percent shortage of family physicians. The centers simply do not have enough money to hire the additional staff required to cover the growing patient needs, but there is an answer.

Many health professionals, especially part-time workers or highly qualified, semi-retired medical providers are willing and able, but not allowed to do so. That's right. They want to volunteer their time, but they cannot. They cannot because the centers are not able to cover the costs of medical liability insurance for the doctors and nurses.

Medical liability insurance can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and, in some cases, well over $100,000 per year per doctor, and the clinics simply cannot cover that expense. Here's why: Practitioners employed by the community health centers are covered by the Federal Torts Claim Act, which extends Federal liability protection to those volunteer doctors. Oddly enough, the opposite applies at free clinics, where volunteers are covered by the FTCA, while those who are employed at free clinics are not covered.

The Congressional Budget Office said that medical liability insurance costs pose a ``significant barrier'' for many providers who otherwise would be eager to volunteer at health centers. This bill, H.R. 1745, fixes this disparity and opens the door for volunteer providers at clinics all over America. This bill, which I introduced with Representative Gene Green, will eliminate the barriers for millions of patients seeking care in these neighborhood health care homes and will allow thousands of practitioners to volunteer their expertise for high- quality, low-cost patient care.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of this bill could be as little as $5 million a year for 5 years, and, in return, the clinics receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free health care services for those living in underserved communities. And because this funding is part of the health centers program's annual appropriations, this funding is not a scored cost. The dedicated health center fund means that the slight additional cost to the FTCA program will require no new appropriations. I repeat: The slight additional cost will require no new annual appropriations.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues--Representative Gene Green, Frank Pallone, John Shimkus, Phil Gingrey, Ranking Member Joe Barton, and Chairman Henry Waxman--for working with me on this legislation, and also my staff--Brad Grantz and Susan Mosychuk.

Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have a chance to do something to expand care to millions of Americans with this act without raising the health care bills for families. This is an example of real bipartisan reform that helps people get the health care they need when they need it close to home at an affordable cost. Isn't that what we all want with health care?

So let's say ``yes'' to community health centers, ``yes'' to families, ``yes'' to doctors who want to volunteer their care, ``yes'' to affordable and accessible care to millions of families, and please say ``yes'' to H.R. 1745, the Family Health Care Accessibility Act.

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