Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I have an amendment in order that would prohibit the EPA from using ``social cost of carbon'' estimates for any energy-related rule that costs more than $1 billion unless and until a Federal law is enacted authorizing such use.

The administration slipped into a rule about microwave ovens a new prediction for the cost of carbon dioxide between now and the year 2300. Despite the profound implications to the economy and the families who make a living from coal, there was no public debate, no stakeholder comment, no vote in Congress on this new estimate.

In southwestern Pennsylvania, coal is our heritage. It fires the steel mills that built the Empire State Building, the St. Louis Arch, and the Golden Gate Bridge. But that heritage and prosperity is threatened by this new regulation. We've already seen what the social cost of the war on coal is today--the cost is jobs.

Three weeks ago, more than 380 workers at the Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell power plants in Pennsylvania were told they are losing their jobs. The plants had to shut down under EPA regulations after they had spent hundreds of millions of dollars in new environmental modernizations.

More than 15 organizations representing workers and stakeholders endorse my amendment because these groups share my concern that this bypassed congressional oversight and will put hundreds of thousands of miners, boilermakers, factory workers, laborers, railroaders, electricians, operating engineers, steamfitters and machinists out of work.

My amendment says Congress, not the EPA, decides regulations by considering what this means to the families and workers. The EPA's policies have real-world consequences. Annual coal production in central Appalachia is dropping sharply--by more than half in just 5 years' time. There are towns where mines are shutting down, where a staggering 41 percent of the residents fall below the poverty line.

The social cost of carbon and the wider war on coal is a war on the American worker and their family.

Let me show you the real cost of the EPA's rules. Those who oppose this amendment ignore the health effects on those living in poverty, who are twice as likely to have a risk of depression, asthma, obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, and other health effects. Poverty leads to devastated communities, early death, and lost dreams of a generation of Americans and their children.

Many of us can remember Bobby Kennedy's walk through those broken Appalachian coal towns back in the 1960s to illustrate the abject poverty where families and children were living. I worked and volunteered in those towns, trying to help families hang on to some sort of semblance of hope in a hard-scrabble life.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Too often their hope failed, and now history is about to repeat itself. First, jobs are lost by the tens of thousands and, after that, the hundreds of thousands. And when people lose their jobs, we give them unemployment compensation. They go hungry; we give them food stamps. They lose unemployment; we give them welfare. They lose their homes; we give them public housing. They lose their dignity and pride, and the government has nothing left to give--nothing--when all these folks ever really wanted was a job--a job and a chance for the American dream not shattered by the EPA.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.

Capito), the number two coal-producing State in America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Chairman, this isn't about denying science; this is about denying jobs and denying opportunity.

The underlying amendment here is supported by the boilermakers, the electrical workers, the operating engineers, the carpenters, and United Mine Workers, the American Energy Alliance, National Mining Association, National Taxpayers Union, and Chamber of Commerce because they want jobs and they don't want poverty.

And poverty, Mr. Chairman, is the number one threat to the environment. Poverty is the number one threat to public health. It's time Congress took charge of regulations and not unregulated divisions of the government.

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The National Journal today noted that borrowing accounts for 18 percent of how the average family pays for college. They also noted that majors vary considerably in terms of their cost, such as social science being about $28,000 and engineering around $25,000.

What's notable is the starting salaries for a number of majors is so low that students cannot pay back their loans.

What is also noteworthy is the cost of the actual tuition itself. Since the 1970s, when data first began to be gathered, college tuition costs have gone up 1,120 percent, while inflation itself has gone up a little over 200 percent.

As we're talking about the cost of college, it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we also call upon colleges themselves to be responsible for trimming costs and for guidance counselors and colleges to also look at how they are advising students to move forward in their careers. An important part of this argument is how students are saddled with a great deal of debt that they can't repay because they simply are not in a major in which they can earn money, and how colleges spend so much on a number of amenities that have little to do with education.

So I hope that universities, themselves, look at how they can trim their costs instead of continuing to raise tuition on the students, who then are faced with a lifelong burden.

Mr. Speaker, right before the Fourth of July, the administration admitted the Affordable Care Act wasn't ready, and as we just heard from the other side of the aisle, the bill is a burden. So they waived the mandate tax for employers, but not the American people.

The White House says remain calm, all is well, but there are many signs the law is not ready: the Small Business Health Insurance Exchange is delayed; in States that don't expand Medicaid, we're going to delay the mandates for some; for some insurance rates, they'll raise 90 percent to 400 percent; and if you want to qualify for subsidies, they tell us you don't have to tell the truth on your paperwork because no one's going to check.

Don't force Americans to be taxed on something they don't want and is not ready.

They told us we had to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it, and now they're telling the Americans you have to buy the policy to find out what's in it or else be taxed.

Be fair. Delay the mandate tax for employers and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in May, more than 130 employees at PBS Coals in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, were laid off. It was the third round of layoffs by the company in less than a year. The men and women of PBS Coals joined more than 5,000 coal miners who lost their jobs in 2012.

With his announcements of ``Cap-and-Trade: The Sequel,'' the President recently declared not just a war on coal but a war on jobs. It won't just be coal miners who lose their jobs or boilermakers who no longer are building and maintaining power plants, but also thousands of laborers, electricians, operating engineers, steamfitters, welders, plumbers, carpenters, machinists, and railroad workers will be out of work--real people, real faces, real families. They'll join the 130 at a Joy Mining factory in Millersburg, Kentucky, who were laid off in March; in Peoria, Illinois, the hundreds of boilermakers at a Komatsu equipment factory who were let go; and, in Erie, Pennsylvania, where GE is laying off 950 workers at its locomotive plants because less coal means less work for the railroads.

These men and women are out of work because, at the country's 600 coal plants, more than 20 percent of all coal-fired units are being shut down in part due to EPA regulations. And that was before the President's speech on Tuesday announcing new global warming regulations. Now, more families will be out of work and struggling to get by. These are American families trying to pay off mortgages, car loans, put their children through school. Real Americans who sweated and toiled, all in hopes that the next generation of their children would climb higher towards the American Dream.

The President's new coal regulations will come at a cost of $184 billion and 180,000 fewer jobs each year in mining, transportation, manufacturing, and power generation. As coal energy is cut off, it means higher electric bills. Families will spend $400 more each year on their energy bill. That's on top of the $2,000 more each year they pay for gasoline. And higher energy bills means higher manufacturing costs, hurting our steel industry even more as it struggles to compete in world markets.

We should be modernizing, not shutting down these coal-powered plants. We can burn coal cleanly. Since 1970, coal has tripled in its use. Meanwhile, sulfur dioxide emissions are down 56 percent and nitrous oxide is down 38 percent. Mercury emissions in the U.S. dropped roughly 60 percent since the 1950s.

Let's bring back the campaign promise made by President Obama for clean coal and use the talent of our scientists and engineers and our tradesmen for better technology.

This week, families throughout America were startled when a top Obama science adviser was quoted in The New York Times saying, ``A war on coal is exactly what's needed.''

But this is not just a war on coal. It's a war on the American worker and their family. These families want high-paying jobs and lower energy bills. They want doors to open, not to have them slam in their faces. They do not want Washington to surrender American jobs to foreign manufacturers. These fathers, these mothers, and these children will not surrender. They are waking up and saying, Stop the war on our jobs. And they are not going to sit back quietly much longer.

Let me make this simple. We need 20 million barrels of oil each day. We need this for oil and natural gas to make plastics, fertilizer, for transportation, and other feedstock.

Almost 20 percent of our oil comes from OPEC. Our 10-year trade deficit with OPEC is over $1 trillion. We can buy their oil or we develop our own. Ours or theirs.

OPEC money funds the Taliban, al Qaeda, and terrorism, and thousands of servicemen have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded by them.

We have vast supplies, more than 86 billion barrels offshore. We can develop our own safely and responsibly, or we can rely on OPEC.

So the real question is this: Where do you want our men and women to work?

Do you want them to wear helmets or hard hats?

Do we want them carrying rifles or wrenches, driving tanks or trucks?

Do you want them to be protecting foreign wells and fighting terrorists paid off with OPEC oil money?

Or do we want our men and women working here in America for American energy?

In my work in the Navy, I have seen too many of our American servicemen and -women wounded. And so now the choice is simple. What do you choose?

I choose American energy.

Mr. Speaker, the health care bill, indeed, has some good things in it: no lifetime cap, kids on their parents policy, people can't be denied, and some prevention. But good intentions do not guarantee good results.

Because of the guarantee of this bill, we were told it would lower costs; and we are now in a position where it may cost families more, and they won't be able to cover it.

On top of $835 billion in taxes, our Energy and Commerce Committee did a study. Getting responses from 17 insurance companies, they reported there will be a 96 percent increase in cost for those getting a new policy, 73 percent for those keeping, and some will be as high as 413 percent. Some will see lower costs, but most Americans will see some increase in the health care costs.

That is a reason why we need to repeal this and get back to really reforming health care, keeping the good parts. But Americans cannot afford this. And when it is not affordable, it is not accessible care.

Mr. Speaker, we're here tonight to talk about health care, something that is important to all of us, something that we have been discussing in this Chamber for the last few years, trying to make health care affordable and accessible to many American families.

A couple of years ago, out of this Chamber, a bill was passed, one that many didn't even get a chance to read. But we were told, in preparation for that, the American people were told there would be tremendous benefits to passing the President's health care law. The President of the United States himself said it would cut health care costs by $2,500 per family per year.

We were also told there are a number of benefits, such as no lifetime caps, a number of prevention benefits, certainly ones that many of us agree with. But to get the benefits of the health care bill, we were also told by then-Speaker Pelosi that we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. We have, since then, found out many of the things that are in it, and many of those we are still discovering as time goes on.

Tonight we'll discuss what is the Affordable Care Act and many aspects of it that concern us deeply, and why it must be repealed, because just the good intentions of the bill are not enough. Good intentions do not guarantee good results.

What we will discuss tonight is a study that has told us some shocking information: how premiums will go up, on average, 96 percent, even more so for young men and for women before retirement.

We will discuss new findings that show massive premiums increases for families, for individuals, for small businesses across the country. To many of these Americans, they will wake up, when they get their health care bills, and find the Affordable Care Act is not affordable.

But first, let us review again some of the promises and the reality of that Affordable Care Act. To seniors, the President's promised that these reforms will not cut your guaranteed benefits. What we've discovered is that there were more than $500 billion in cuts to Medicare that the administration's own actuary predicts will lead to providers no longer accepting Medicare, meaning that doctors that seniors have been seeing for a while will simply say, we can no longer afford to provide this.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that, for Medicare Advantage, these cuts ``could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.''

It's important to understand that Medicare Advantage is the program that provides a wide range of preventative services and disease management

for seniors. The very things that people talked about what we should be doing for health care will be omitted. Translation means that Medicare savings come from cutting payments to doctors and hospitals.

We've also known that this Independent Payment Advisory Board is a problem, also known as IPAB. This 15-member appointed board of which, by law, a majority of them may not be in the health care field, will make additional cuts to Medicare without any Congressional approval or appeal, unless the House and the Senate pass legislation and the President signs it into law. So literally, it would take an act of Congress to change some of these aspects that this independent board will make decisions on with regard to payments and coverage.

The President also promised, ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.''

But here are some of the facts we've discovered since the bill has passed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted 3 million to 9 million individuals would lose their employer-sponsored coverage. McKenzie Consulting actually has come up with much higher numbers, saying workers losing their employer coverage could be as high as 80 to 100 million.

Over 1,400 waivers had to be granted to employers so they could opt out of this legislation. The Health and Human Services Department had to grant pardons to large businesses like McDonald's, Universal Studios, and labor unions. It is estimated that these waivers cover 3.2 million people.

And Speaker Pelosi said the bill would create 400,000 jobs almost immediately. Let's look again at the results now that the bill is law. The Congressional Budget Office predicted the law will result in 700,000 additional Americans unemployed, 700,000 additional Americans unemployed.

The National Federation of Independent Business predicted the bill will cause a loss of over 1.4 million jobs.

A new insurance tax will also impact a number of private sector jobs, estimated to be between 146,000 to 262,000 jobs, by 2022. And 59 percent of these job losses come from small businesses, the backbone of our Nation's growth, where so many moms and dads and young men and women have their jobs and get their start.

Those small companies, those neighborhood companies, those ones that have the big impact, that sponsor everything from the Little League games to church events as well, many of these businesses are going to say, We just cannot grow and create new jobs. Many worry how they're going to keep workers employed. Many worry how they're going to afford health care coverage for their workers, and many of those workers are wondering if they can keep their job.

The President also said:

I can make a firm pledge that under my plan no family

making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax

increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your

capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Let's now talk about the facts.

There are over $835 billion in taxes that will be passed on to families in the form of higher premiums and higher costs. Let's look at some of those taxes. There will be an increase in the Medicare payroll taxes and an increase in other unearned taxes. These Medicare taxes will be a total amount of $317 billion in taxes that people will see coming off of their paychecks. Indeed, they will see them on their paychecks.

There's a medical device tax. All those medical devices that doctors and dentists use to care for you, that will be a new tax. And even though they say this tax will be paid by the manufacturers, those taxes, indeed, will be passed on in terms of higher costs. Those medical devices so critical for the doctors and nurses to provide good health care for you, that will increase their costs.

There will be a health insurance tax, a health insurance tax on the health insurance companies themselves and on the policies. That will be $101 billion.

There will also be the individual mandate tax, saying that if you do not have coverage, you will pay an additional tax. That's $55 billion.

And, of course, if your employer decides to give you a high-level health care plan that covers so many of the things that people want in terms of their doctors' fees, their hospital stay, dental, other medical, eyeglasses, prescription drugs, those may be now labeled as a Cadillac plan, and those will be taxed with a 40 percent excise tax that each family will have to pay in their health insurance, total being about $111 billion on that alone.

These taxes will indeed cost health care more. There will be higher taxes for families who will be paying out of their paycheck. There's no escaping this part that even though people were told they will not pay higher taxes, indeed they will.

But now the Energy and Commerce Committee has also done a study, and we're going to talk about what's going to happen with premiums in this, because the President said that his plan:

not only guarantees coverage for every American, but brings

down the cost of health care and reduces every family's

premium by as much as $2,500.

Even after the bill passed, more promises were made about the benefits of the law. In July 2012, President Obama promised that once the Affordable Care Act has been ``fully implemented, your premiums will go down.'' They have not. In fact, since the Affordable Care Act has passed, people have seen their premiums go up by thousands of dollars. We now have the data showing premiums, in fact, will go up even more, and quite dramatically for millions and millions and millions of individuals, families and small businesses across the country, and large businesses as well.

Let me describe the study that the Energy and Commerce Committee performed, submitting letters on March 14 of this year from the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

We sent 17 health care insurance companies requests on information about the Affordable Care Act. We asked them, How would it affect premiums? We asked them to tell us the information that they already have. What numbers did they come up with? What are their analysts telling them already it's going to cost in terms of new premiums?

We didn't request the companies create new information, and we didn't ask them to make anything up. We said very specifically, Tell us what you see is going to happen. And we said, Submit your existing analysis to us so we can capture the purest representation of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Simply said, what is it going to cost families?

As insurers are currently filing their applications to participate in the exchanges, that prediction phase is over, and now we can find out what was in the health care bill and what it will cost families. We went straight to the source to find out what it will be for America's families, and here is what we found out.

First of all, we noted that health care is going to cost, on average, 96 percent more for people who are going to get a new health insurance plan, 73 percent more for those keeping their insurance, and as much as 413 percent more based on age and the plan mandates.

Now, this is important because what this means, basically, is that young men will see a large increase in their health insurance rates. Women who are nearing retirement age will also see a large increase in their insurance rates. Let's go through what some of the reasons for this are.

What was provided to us, for example, by one actual insurance company analysis said that, as you start to look through these cost increases, what may be a new business or an existing one for your employer, there are several essential benefits. Now, up to this point, people have been able to choose a plan based upon its affordability; but instead, what it's going to be is all plans have to look the same. Now, in that sense they say that that increase can be about 15 percent more.

Now, in addition, for the minimum coverage, about 8 to 10 percent more, there will be other guaranteed issues. Removal of any underwriting actions, that will be about another 65 percent to 10 percent. There will be insurer fees. There will be other things like risk adjustment transfer payments, reinsurance risk adjustment, and other effects small employers will have.

Those will also go up by as much as 35 percent.

There will also be an average start--look at the average starting member cost premium per member per month will be $158. And if you're just doing it on what's called the bronze level, the very low level, which would pay 60 percent premiums, that's about $182 more per month up to $200 per month. There are multiple other fees in this.

Basically, what this comes down to is, for those who are new businesses, newly in the plan, 96 percent higher costs; for those who have an established one, about 73 percent higher costs; and in some levels, as high as 413 percent higher.

On a broader sense, to look at how much this will cost you, in 45 States that were analyzed, 35 percent of the market will see a premium increase of greater than 30 percent. Now, what we see here, some States will be less than 10 percent, some States will be greater than 30 percent, some will see 20 to 30 percent, and some will be 10 to 20 percent.

Let's look at some of the individual States.

Now, in these States, I'm just going to pick out a few here to describe. For example, in the State of Georgia, potential premium increases range from 48 to 63 percent in the individual market and 25 percent in the small group market; meaning, if you're buying on your own, it's going to be much higher than if you're in a small group, but still it's pretty considerable.

Indiana, one insurance company said it would be 100 percent increase in the small group market. Illinois, potential premium increases from 27 to 61 percent in the individual market and 25 percent in the small group market.

Look at Nevada, potential premium increases 31 percent; Michigan, 25 to 88 percent for males, and the individual market with premiums to vary greatly throughout the State. In the small group market, an estimated 44 percent of plans will see some decrease in some cases and other areas seeing an increase.

In my State of Pennsylvania, there's an average increase of 30 percent in the individual market and 27 percent in the group market.

Tennessee, which has already had problems over the years with TennCare, will see a potential premium increase of 49 to 54 percent in the individual market and 35 percent in the small group market.

The lists go on and on. We bring this out so the American people can understand that when people say, if you thought health care costs were expensive, wait until you see what they're costing when they're free, quite frankly, there is no free ride on this.

Now, admittedly, some will have some subsidies on this. About 8 percent of those will have some level of subsidy, which will help to offset some of these costs, but many people will not have these subsidies at all.

At this point, I'd like to ask some of my colleagues up to talk about some of these things. On my left is Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia to talk about what this means in terms of the costs for some employees in her State.

I thank my friend from West Virginia, whose district borders mine in southwestern Pennsylvania down there.

But I note and amplify something you said because even when some say, well, you know, if you're a business of less than 50 employees it's not going to affect you, there are a couple things. Some businesses say, well, then, we'll stay under 50 employees. But also, those people are still going to have the taxes. They're going to have higher Medicare taxes, taxes on their paycheck, they're going to see health care costs going up anyway because of the tax on health insurance, tax on prescription drugs, and other taxes that go on. So people will still see higher costs in this.

I'd like to call now upon another one of my colleagues from Texas, Dr. Burgess, also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, who continues to work very hard for the sake of patients to make sure we come up with an affordable plan for American families.

Will the gentleman yield?

It certainly is a concern, because not only do you have the IRS with these new 16,000 agents, and we already know that it has come from multiple sources in multiple States, the issue with regard to not only going after conservative groups, but also pro-Israel Jewish groups, the issue of them going into the Gibson Guitar Company, multiple things where they tend to use the heavy hammer for political purposes on those who may not agree with some others.

At this point, there still certainly is a lot of information yet to be garnered from this, but it should give people pause and understanding--what happens if you don't cooperate with the health care plan, will these be the folks who will basically come in and try and enforce that as it goes through?

I thank the gentleman for the question.

Look at it this way: let's take a young man who is suddenly going to see his rates go through the roof. He's healthy. In the past, that gentleman in his 20s may have said, you know, I'm going to buy just a little bit of catastrophic insurance if I need it, if at all; or perhaps if it's one that is out-of-pocket, he may decide not to do it.

What does he face?

If the IRS catches him, he pays a $95 fine. Now, if you're looking at paying thousands of dollars a year for health insurance versus $95, even though the gentlelady from West Virginia said that they had hoped that people would just out of affection for the President buy it anyway, when someone is having a hard time paying for groceries--and look at the cost of gasoline and its having gone up a couple thousand dollars for the average family, and they're saying electricity has gone up--you can buy a lot of groceries for $3,000 a year. That's months and months worth of groceries for someone. They may say, I may just pay that $95 fine. Quite frankly, what also comes up is, if they don't have a plan, they could end up in an ambulance or in an emergency room and sign up when they're there just like they do with Medicaid. Now, what motivation will there be for someone to have that?

The important thing about this place is that it's based upon an assumption that a lot people when they're healthy will sign up so we'll have that money coming in. I have my doubts for families and individuals who are already struggling who will then make decisions and say, I think I'll take the risk. Even in 2016, when those fines go up to a maximum of $695--or 2.5 percent income, whatever is greater--I think many individuals may also say, Well, if my choices are paying $695 or $6,000 or $10,000 or $12,000 for the insurance, maybe I'll just not pay it and see what happens.

Let's face it. A lot of Americans make their health insurance decisions on what the affordability is, just like they make their car insurance decisions. They don't all get a comprehensive policy. They get what they can afford. It's the same thing with other decisions in their lives, whatever that is.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I thank the gentleman.

I would also like to call upon the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), who is also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is also deeply concerned about his constituents in Ohio and what they're going to be facing.

Certainly that was part of the promise that was given to so many Americans on why they supported this image.

Look, we as Republicans, we know there are a number of things we want to see happen. We want to make sure that we're preventing illnesses, and we want to make sure that we're caring for those who are chronically ill. Sadly, regarding the high-risk pool, the door was closed on that. Many people who are chronically ill will not be getting additional care.

We want to make sure that doctors can be paid for coordinating care of those chronically ill. Right now, getting people to make sure they take their medication, there's follow-up to get to their appointment, doctors can consult back and forth, a patient can call with other questions, nobody gets paid for that. They do get paid if they have more tests. So there's a fee-for-service plan. Quite frankly, it's tough for doctors to try to reduce costs under that plan. We would like to see those costs go down even more, and we support that.

We want to maintain coverage for the sick. We don't want to see people cut because they're ill. And we believe that if people have a preexisting condition, they ought to have an opportunity to maintain insurance. We agree with those.

What we don't agree with is this massive bureaucracy that Mr. Scalise showed us before that's going to require a lot of tax money to pay for it, increased taxes, 10 years worth of taxes to cover 6 years worth of plans; and already we see Health and Human Services running out of money and so they have to call up insurance companies and other groups and say, Can you give us more money to help convince people that this is a good idea? It's tough going with that.

So we do know that these costs are going to continue to climb for many people, even though people in the administration have told us they're not quite sure yet what is going to go on. We know these costs are going to continue.

Let me point out again something very important, Mr. Speaker. I worry about how the American families are going to afford this. Their electricity rates have gone up and will continue to go up. This administration has pushed to have coal-fired power plants to close down, has spent billions of dollars for energy subsidies for companies that have gone belly up. Gasoline prices have gone up thousands of dollars for families, unemployment has been above 7 percent for years, hundreds of thousands have been put out of work because of the aspects of this health care bill.

It's tough for families to say, How am I going to pay for this? How are they going to pay, as they say, 96 percent more for those who get a new plan, 73 percent more for those keeping their insurance, and up to 413 percent because of some of the age issues and other things going on with that?

These are tough concerns for American families and ones that they're asking us to then say, Please, repeal this bill and let us get to something that really works to take care of those issues, to help the uninsured, to help those who are ill, to help put doctors back in charge of people's health care plans. We're deeply concerned about those issues as they go on; and, quite frankly, these costs are going to be ones that people are not going to be able to afford.

I now want to recognize one of my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), who also wants to speak on this bill. He is another member of our committee who is deeply dedicated to making sure that he is dealing with the affordability of the health care bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

With that, then, Mr. Speaker, I'll wrap up here with a couple of comments.

First of all, I really want to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee staff for bringing out this important study. We only wish this was the kind of information we had a couple of years ago when Members were called upon to blindly support this bill and so many other organizations were called upon to support this bill.

These are going to be high costs, and people are going to have to make decisions now about what kind of health care they are going to have, can they afford it. Well, they'll also see the impact on top of their gasoline prices and utility prices and worries about their jobs. They're going to be making decisions about do I not have health care now and run the risk of having the IRS come after me and charge me $95. People will be making those kinds of decisions. That's not what we should be doing.

Out of care and concern for every mother and father and grandparent and child in America, to make sure that we work on an affordable health care plan, that makes sure that people who are ill, people who have preexisting conditions are not cut, and to make sure that the high-risk pool has money in it to help those who have high risks for health care, not use money for other purposes, and to make sure that we're working on prevention and caring for the ill. That is what we should be doing to help make health care affordable, not offering a 96 percent increase for those getting a new plan, up to 73 percent for those keeping their insurance, and up to 413 percent for others.

Look, we understand some people are going to see their health insurance rates go down. Many will see their rates go up. That is part of the frightening thing for America's family.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for speaking tonight. I thank the Energy and Commerce staff for also being part of this tonight. And I thank the American people for continuing to communicate with us and understand that we want to make health care affordable, but we think the Affordable Care Act is neither.

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

While the Senate argues about gun issues and talking about what is in the hands of those perpetrators who commit heinous crimes, I want to talk about America's shameful secret that people don't want to be talking about, and that is our willful ignoring of dealing with mental illness. We have to start talking about not what is in people's hands, but what is in their hearts and minds.

Approximately 5 percent of individuals with schizophrenia will die by suicide during their lifetime, a rate 50-fold greater than the general population. Keep in mind now suicide has overtaken all other areas of accidental deaths. It is now the leading cause of death by injury, about 38,000 per year.

We understand that mental disorders are brain disorders with specific systems that are rooted in abnormal patterns of brain activity. Many of those with psychosis show up between ages 14 and 25 when there are changes occurring in the branching and pruning of brain cells. Yet, there is a delay between the first episode of psychosis and the onset of treatment with an average of 110 weeks before someone gets care. There are 100,000 young Americans who will have a first episode of psychosis this year and will join over 2 million others with schizophrenia.

Look at this: one-sixth of murderers in prison are mentally ill. Here are some other quick facts. The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323. In 2011, more murders were committed with knives: 1,694; hands, fist and feet: 728; and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers: 496, according to FBI data.

A while ago I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS, seeking clarification of the laws of confidentiality known as HIPAA, specifically asking why we have not loaded 1.5 million more records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that these people cannot purchase guns. I hope the Secretary will respond soon.

Recently, I also handed a note to the President of the United States and will continue to pursue questions with the Government Accountability Office, asking where are we spending our money and is it effective in going to help those with mental illness and severe mental illness. We simply don't know.

In the United States, an estimated 11.4 million Americans, or about 4.4 percent of all adults, suffer from serious mental illness. What happens is that States in many cases do not submit those records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There are many States that haven't submitted any at all, and this is a problem because people who should not be purchasing weapons are.

But underlying all of this, we had better take off our blinders and deal with the underlying root cause of mass violence: untreated mental illness. Look at yesterday in the news when a man went on a campus and attacked people with a knife. Look at the other shootings that have taken place by people with untreated or undertreated mental illness. Why aren't we talking about our action on those?

Our current system is especially falling short for those with a serious mental disorder who deny they're ill. Half of those persons with severe psychosis don't even understand they have mental illness. They refuse their medication or simply cannot function in a community setting. So what have we done historically in this country? We've burned them as witches, we imprison them as dangerous. We still have not dealt with the underlying needs.

There were 500,000 psychiatric beds in 1955. There are 40,000 now. We have a lack of long-term treatment options. There are gaps in the care for young adults. There are artificial limits and barriers to care under insurance. Four years ago plus we passed a mental health parity law, and we still do not have the regulations for that.

Parents who are not informed and cannot get their children help or treatment is another problem with HIPAA laws and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which creates barriers between parents knowing what is going on with their children in school when they have a severe mental illness. Of course, there is the stigma of acknowledging there is a problem or getting treatment.

Politicians refer to those committing these murders as evil, as monsters. Television shows where there's tragedy or comedy mock them. This is not the way to deal with the underlying problem. We have a shortage of psychologists and psychiatrists throughout this country and in the military as well, where suicides have overtaken combat as the number one cause of death.

I am asking for an audit from the Government Accountability Office of every single penny spent on mental illness diagnosis, research, and treatment throughout our government, through HHS, through the judiciary, through Labor, every branch. We need to know these answers. It is a shameful secret in this country that we still refuse to deal with mental illness. And if we do not, shame on us.

Yesterday, Dylan Quick, a 20-year-old student at Lone Star College in Texas, went on a rampage with a knife, hurting more than a dozen people. He told police he had fantasized since elementary school about stabbing people to death.

Tucson shooter Jared Loughner told his psychologists that he wished he had been taking his anti-psychotic medication. If he had been, Loughner, who has schizophrenia, says the Tucson shooting might not have happened.

A psychiatrist treating James Holmes told campus police a month before the Colorado theater attack that Holmes had homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public. Holmes also exhibited signs of schizophrenia.

Those with mental illness are generally more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence, but those with untreated mental illness are at increased risk of violent behavior. Ten percent of all homicides are committed by individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychotic illnesses.

When will we acknowledge that it is not just what is in the killer's hand that makes him dangerous, be it fist, knife or gun, but what is in his mind? We must take off the blinders and acknowledge the importance of the diagnosis of mental illness and severe mental illness. Let's fix our mental illness system.

Recently, the Pentagon proposed a new medal, the Distinguished Warfare Medal, to recognize those members of the armed services who operate the drones, which serve on vital missions over war areas. That's a good thing. However, they've also recommended that it take precedence over and be rated above the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.

It is of great concern to a number of us in the House that this has taken place because we believe that those who fight and have the wounds of battle should have their medals take precedence over them.

I ask all Members to be in support of H.R. 833 and to sign on as cosponsors so that we can correct this problem and work together to make sure that the Bronze Star and Purple Heart are kept in their rightful order of medals, because these things do matter to our military.

Today, we honor the memory of Private First Class Wayne Alderson of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, a World War II hero awarded the Combat Infantry Badge, Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart for his courageous actions during the Rhineland Campaign of 1945. PFC Alderson died on February 22, 2013.

At 86, Wayne was a member of our Greatest Generation and a great American. This son of southwestern Pennsylvania lived a life of purpose and sacrifice, and remains an inspiration to those who knew him.

Born on June 7, 1926, Wayne Alderson entered the United States Army as an 18-year-old on August 31, 1944. His service would help bring Nazism to its knees, and PFC Alderson would become the first American soldier to advance into Germany across the forbidding, tank-protected Siegfried line on March 15, 1945.

In the course of this assault, PFC Alderson, serving as a scout for B Company, 7th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, would single- handedly destroy two machine gun emplacements, attack pockets of German snipers, and fight house-to-house at night before capturing and taking three German prisoners. At considerable personal risk, he led the prisoners back to headquarters, where vital information was obtained by the Allies about the Siegfried line defenses.

Then, on March 18, in Rieschweiler, Germany, the 18-year-old private would lead a new assault against enemy forces. His company pierced the German line but was cut off by enemy soldiers. Fearing the Germans were about to launch a counterattack that would wipe out his men, PFC Alderson and two other soldiers volunteered to lead a surprise assault and disappeared down a long zigzag spider trench behind a dense warren of fortifications.

The assault would ultimately help melt German defenses along the Siegfried line and leave PFC Alderson's face permanently scarred, carrying the shrapnel of a bitter, closed-quarters firefight. The small and vulnerable patrol engaged the larger German force in combat at point-blank range. PFC Alderson, fully exposed and vastly outnumbered, charged with his men, inflicting 12 casualties on the advancing enemy.

With the Germans now in retreat, Wayne was seriously injured when a grenade exploded at his feet, blasting shrapnel and debris into his face. Wayne crashed face first into the mud from the blow. One of his fellow soldiers attempted to flip him over to prevent him from suffocating to death. A sniper took that soldier's life.

The shooting over, PFC Alderson, suffering from a head wound, crawled back through the trenches to brief his company commander on the events that had just transpired. The company commander later surveyed the battle scene and determined the three men had killed at least 35 German soldiers.

Wayne was discharged from service on October 6, 1945, with the rank of private first class.

Wayne's leadership continued after the war. He helped resolve a conflict between labor and management at Pittron Steel, retold in the book ``Stronger than Steel,'' a dispute that threatened to shutter the company but instead saved jobs and changed Pittron's corporate culture.

Fittingly, after this episode, Wayne went on to found a consulting firm called Value of the Person, which he ran for the last 40 years. Value of the Person grew out of Wayne Alderson's unique theory of management, stressing the importance of respect and responsibility between management and its workers--commonsense ideas that too often can become lost in the hum of modern life. These ideas became the basis of a book co-written with his daughter, ``Theory R Management,'' in 1994.

On May 20, 2007, I had the privilege of presenting Wayne Alderson, the hero of the Rhineland campaign, with the Silver Star when he was inducted into the veterans memorial Hall of Valor.

PFC Alderson is survived by his wife, Nancy, of 60 years; sisters, Lillie Shannon and Jeanne Alderson of Canonsburg; daughter, Nancy McDonnell; and a grandson, Patrick Wayne McDonnell.

Wayne Alderson always put his country first. Now it is time for PFC Alderson's country to recognize his bravery and place him among the first rank of those Americans who helped liberate Europe and beat back the twin scourges of fascism and Nazism. It is in this spirit that we recognize Wayne Alderson today.

The way Wayne lived his life with continued selfless courage and determination gave Americans a true hero to mentor the next generation. Indeed, Wayne Alderson's influence will have a lasting impact on that next generation. And through that, he lives on.

On behalf of a grateful Nation, we thank Wayne Alderson for his service and his life for his country.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your service and your friendship to our country.

I've been watching the media, Mr. Speaker, and hearing a lot of distortion of what happened in the House Chamber yesterday.

Let's recall that on December 31 at midnight, taxes went up for every taxpayer massively, the fiscal cliff. By the end of the evening, the House came together, working with the Senate, and reduced taxes for 99 percent of American taxpayers. We kept taxes lower for dividend income, capital gains. We maintained a higher child tax credit. We helped keep the marriage penalty from hurting families. We did all this in a permanent way. This is a big win. We have a lot of work to do, but that was a big win.

The President also promised that he would work with us to have further cuts in spending. We should hold him to that promise on both sides of the aisle. We have several serious issues to come in this 113th Congress. We have to deal with the debt ceiling, spending cuts, implementation and regulations in the health care law, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

It's easy for people to look at any piece of legislation--I actually challenge people to find some piece of legislation here that was perfect. Any major bill has flaws. Even a rose has thorns, as they say. Let's understand that we will see success when we work together, not when we continue to snipe at each other's heels.

The challenges before us will only be dealt with by the courage we find within us to find the common ground between us and fight together for a better America.

While our Nation still grieves the loss of so many children and teachers and others in Connecticut, it is a time for Congress to begin a thoughtful dialogue on what we can do to deal with these mass-casualty incidences in our country. They have been going on for some time; but perhaps when we see the faces of children, principals, teachers and others, it will burn upon our hearts and motivate us to take further action. I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that Congress takes the appropriate action in a thoughtful, willful, determined way and that it doesn't jump to quick conclusions as if simple fixes will prevent this from happening.

First, to the parents of children across America who are asking questions, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to offer some of this advice, and also in my background as a psychologist, it's important for people to remember this:

Parents should be asking their children what they have heard about the incident. We should listen to their concerns and their emotions. We should answer their questions with age-appropriate information. We should support and comfort and reassure them of their safety at home and at school. We should observe and watch for symptoms of problems, such as changes in appetite, such as sleep issues, worries, aggression, anger, and sadness. We should protect our children from other media exposure and information that creates more fear and problems;

It is important for parents to call for professional help for their children if they are showing some concerns and symptoms of this beyond simple adjustment. For parents who have children who also have anger disorders, it is important for parents to review with school personnel locally how their schools are handling security and providing counseling assistance at school;

It is important for parents to pay attention to their own concerns and worries and to, over time, keep watch as concerns and symptoms may come later--even for those who are far distant from the location where this occurred.

For my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that we remove the stigma surrounding mental illness in our talk about it and that we, first and foremost, address this as a mental health issue. We must commit to expanding access for those who are unable to receive treatment. If parents are not sure what to do, we need to provide them with information and assistance to get their children help. We have to review a wide range of things, such as television violence and video games in relation to violent behavior. We have to make sure that we are reviewing research that is being done with the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, and our universities across the country. What we do not yet have is an answer to understanding how we can accurately predict those who will perform violent acts.

It is also important to understand that, for mentally ill persons, it is a diagnosable and treatable condition, that in the vast majority of cases there is no violence involved, and that, as a matter of fact, those with mental illness are 11 times more likely to be the victims of aggression rather than the sources of aggression. We can understand some of the risks: these often times are people between the ages of 15 and 25, and they generally tend to be males, intelligent; but we need to make sure we are identifying and providing resources for care for the families.

At the Federal Government level, I also recommend that Congress use a thoughtful approach in reviewing every single mental health program that we fund. In the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, we need a thorough and thoughtful review of what we spend and how it is spent even if it gets down to the level of family and community.

Understand, for example, in the Children's Mental Health Services program, it was funded at $117 million in fiscal year 2012. The President has proposed a cut of nearly $29 million of this; and with sequestration, it will be cut by a further $8 million. Should we make those cuts? Is that a program that is using this money effectively and efficiently? Let's talk about these in a candid and honest way with Members of Congress and the community.

Let's also understand that about 58 million Americans suffer from a mental disorder in a given year. About one in four people will have some diagnosable illness; and if one seeks treatment, one can get help. We also need to understand that, with psychotropic medication, over 70 percent of the time it is prescribed by a non-psychiatrist. With persons who have other problems with that--drug interactions--or who have other problems not quite dealt with, it is important to make sure that insurance plans funded by the Federal Government, State governments, and private insurers are appropriately allowing people to be treated for this.

We have many directions in which we need to go on this. Let's make sure we don't go in the wrong direction.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, may I add my accolades to your work for the people of Missouri, particularly my ancestors who founded Murphy's Settlement, now Farmington, in your district. You've done them well.

Four years ago, Lorraine Babich of Washington County, Pennsylvania, then age 73, suffered injuries so severe from a car accident that she will never fully recover. After the accident, Lorraine underwent a very difficult surgery. She was transferred to a rehabilitation facility, where she contracted Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, otherwise known as MRSA. Sadly, Lorraine's condition has worsened. She now suffers from dementia and must receive 24/7 care at a nursing home. The physical pain in Lorraine's life is multiplied by the emotional pain of recent years. A year after the accident, Lorraine lost her husband; then, last year, her only child passed away.

Lorraine's story is heartbreaking and tragic, and it's depressing to learn Medicare is working against Lorraine's interests. In the fall of 2010, Lorraine's family and the automobile insurer for the other driver in the accident reached a monetary settlement. The insurer agreed to pay Lorraine's medical bills, and Lorraine would also collect damages. First, Lorraine's health insurer--Medicare--had to be repaid, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services won't tell Lorraine or the auto insurer how much is owed to the Medicare trust fund. The insurance company wants to reimburse Medicare and provide Lorraine with a settlement, but CMS's complicated bureaucracy is standing in the way.

There are thousands of cases just like Lorraine's in congressional districts across the country. But we now have a chance to fix this problem and make sure Lorraine and her family receive what they are rightfully owed by passing H.R. 1845, which includes a bipartisan bill I introduced with Congressman Ron Kind.

Our bill, the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act, or the SMART Act, will recoup billions of dollars owed by insurance companies to the Medicare trust fund quickly and eliminate waste within CMS. The SMART Act, which has nearly 140 bipartisan cosponsors and the support of trial lawyers, patient advocates, defense attorneys, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, requires that Medicare provide settling parties with accurate information about the total costs of medical bills when the parties announce a settlement is near.

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at our bill and found it will save billions in Medicare. The current Medicare Secondary Payer bureaucracy is causing seniors to have their Social Security checks garnished and their Medicare coverage denied, through no fault of their own. Our bill fixes these issues and ensures bureaucracy does not stand in the way of a settlement.

Right now, insurers are walking away from settlements because of the flaws in the Medicare Secondary Payer statute. When those settlements break down, seniors get nothing and the taxpayers are not repaid. By enacting this legislation, Congress can help Lorraine and thousands of senior citizens who are needlessly suffering because Medicare isn't operating effectively and efficiently.

I want to thank Chairmen Upton and Camp, Ranking Members Waxman and

Levin, and Congressman Kind for their support on this legislation. I want to extend a special thanks to their respective staffs for their hard work, particularly Robert Horne and Brad Grantz. Without them, this legislation wouldn't be moving forward.

This is good government and saves taxpayers' money. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor Petty Officer First Class Nicholas Checque, a true hero who sacrificed his life in the most honorable of ways--to protect and save the life of another human being. His life was a testament to the core values of the United States Navy: honor, courage and commitment.

On December 9, 2012, Petty Officer Checque embarked on a daring Special Forces operation in eastern Afghanistan to rescue a kidnapped American doctor from the Taliban in the Sarobi district near Kabul. A veteran of the Iraq war and decorated Navy SEAL, Petty Officer Checque died following critical injuries sustained on the successful mission to save the life of Dr. Joseph. A grateful Nation grieves for him and his family.

Petty Officer Checque strived for excellence, Madam Speaker. As a Norwin High School student, peers described him as diligent and driven, always aware he would someday serve his country. He was a dedicated student and a wrestler. He consistently challenged himself to pursue excellence in everything he did. Such dedication to one's country was also carried on by Petty Officer Checque. That is truly remarkable, but it's also expected of a Navy SEAL.

Among many commendations, Petty Officer Checque was awarded the Bronze Star, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation and Achievement Medals for service during combat, and now, the Purple Heart.

The Bible reminds us that ``There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' Through his incredible sacrifice, Petty Officer Checque not only exhibited his great love of country, but unwavering affection for his brothers and sisters.

``The Navy Hymn,'' also known as ``Eternal Father,'' has a verse added. I don't know the author, but it is fitting to recall now. It goes on to say:

And when at length her course is run, her work for home and

country done, of all the souls that in her sailed, let not

one life in thee have failed; but hear from heaven our

sailor's cry, and grant eternal life on high.

To Petty Officer Checque, we all bid him fair winds and following seas for eternity. May he rest in peace, and may the Lord keep him and his family in his loving hands.