Floor Statements

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 subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue to bring attention to an issue that is devastating the people of Pennsylvania--across the 10th District and other districts in Pennsylvania--and across this country. It is the implementation of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.

It has unintentionally burdened lower- and middle class homeowners and small businesses. Rates have increased astronomically. Biggert- Waters had the best of intentions. However, FEMA's methodology is severely flawed, and FEMA failed to warn Congress.

This afternoon, I am joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues from across the country; and while the details of a proposed solution may vary, I believe we are unified behind the goal of protecting the livelihoods and investments of hardworking Americans.

Our homes are often our most valuable assets in that they allow us to retire; they allow us to send our children to college; they allow us to leave something behind for our children and our grandchildren for a better life. These homes form the backbone of riverside and coastal working-class communities. The downfall of these residential real estate markets will be catastrophic. Homeowners will lose their total investments in their properties. Small businesses will lose their customers, not to mention their real estate. Small banks will go out of business because people are not able to pay the insurance that the mortgages call for. The communities left behind will no longer have an adequate tax base to fund basic services.

I believe the best solution right now is to repeal Biggert-Waters in its entirety and to start again from square one. Authors of the law on the House Financial Services Committee intended to stabilize the National Flood Insurance Program, but this law has disproportionately affected low- and middle class homeowners who cannot afford these premiums.

Although we here in Congress tend to think in abstract terms, I want to share some of the stories I have heard from my neighbors back home in the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.

Jeff and Erica Waldman purchased a house in Muncy, Pennsylvania. Their flood insurance premium was initially $900 per year. Now they are being told to pay by the end of last year--the 31st, a few days ago-- $9,000 a year for flood insurance--up front. Jeff and Erica are frustrated about the lack of information they were given and are days away from losing their home as we speak. We cannot solely place this burden on people like Jeff and Erica.

Laurie and Michael Portanova purchased three historic properties in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, last year, hoping that their new business would rejuvenate the Main Street feel for the borough. Their flood insurance premium per year was $2,800. They received a notice that they had to pay $40,000 by the end of the year for flood insurance, by the end of 2013. They are close to walking away from their investments and taking a huge loss. This would also have devastating consequences on other property owners in Jersey Shore, who will have an additional tax burden if homeowners in the area are not able to keep their homes because they are not able to pay the flood insurance.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Thompson.

Thank you, Congressman Thompson.

I would like to add a true story happening right now in my district due to these increases in rates. Nikki Burrows met her husband, bought their home in Muncy in 2006. Insurance premiums more than doubled from $862 to $1,750; but because the Burrows had suffered flood damage from Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, they are subject to an additional 20 percent on their premiums until they max out. Add an annual fee of $4,000 annually. So, in essence, they went from $862 a year to $4,000 a year because they were hit in one of the floods.

These Burrows are trapped. These townships and small towns along the rivers are trapped into a situation where the average mean income is about $37,000. That's before taxes. That's before mortgage payment. That's before food for the kids. That's before other insurances. Yet these people are to come up with $4,000, $6,000, $8,000 and $10,000 up front, per year, for flood insurance because of the unintended consequences of Biggert-Waters.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Keating, my colleague across the aisle and a former prosecutor.

Thank you, Congressman Keating.

I would like to reiterate the devastating effects that these premiums are having on the values of homes, affecting retirement plans, retirement plans for a lot of our seniors in the district. Tom Rishel, Tom is out of a pension. He does not have a retirement plan, so he invested in several properties in Muncy, Pennsylvania, hoping to one day resell the properties. His premium, on just one property, has jumped from $600 a year to over $9,500 a year. Tom, who is 70 years old, fears his properties are worthless and his dreams of retirement have been destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, Congressman Palazzo.

Thank you, Congressman Palazzo. Your map says it all.

After speaking with many constituents during the recess, including five town halls that I held, I believe that many homeowners who have seen their rates increase were not even aware that the National Flood Insurance Program rates were partially subsidized by the Federal Government.

As the Congressman just said, please do not think that this pertains to California coast and the Pacific alone, or New Jersey or New York coastal. This affects people all across the United States.

Just in the State of Pennsylvania alone, we are not on a coast, we are in by several hundred miles, there are several thousand miles of waterways, rivers, creeks, streams.

Just to give you an example, in one of the town meetings, I asked Jeff and his wife--Jeff is from Muncie. Jeff and his wife bought a house, paid it off early, paid their taxes, kept their insurance up. Again, their insurance is going up from about $600 a year to $11,000 a year.

I said to Jeff, when you were at your closing, and the realtor is sitting with you, and the lawyer is sitting with you, and the bank is sitting with you, they came out to you and said, okay, now we need a check for the flood insurance because you have a federally-backed loan and you are in a flood area. So he wrote out a check for 6 or 700 bucks.

But I said, at that point, did anyone say to you that two-thirds of the cost of the flood insurance is subsidized by the Federal Government? He said, never.

I said, did anyone say to you that that subsidy could go away some day? Never.

Did anyone tell you that the rates were going up because of that subsidy? Never.

So it is not fair to the American people who are not told ahead of time--this is before recent closings--and they have the rug pulled out from under them.

So we are saying, in essence--and again, this is an unintended consequence of Biggert-Waters--FEMA did not give us the right information. I believe they held information back.

We are saying to the American people who are on $35,000 a year or $40,000 a year annual income, who have to pay $10,000 up front, you know something? We had a subsidy for you yesterday, but guess what? It is not there today, and it is too bad that you may lose your house.

We cannot let that happen.

Now, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Grimm.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand here a report, a statement from the National Association of Realtors.

Now, a moment ago I quoted realtors being at a closing and lawyers being at a closing and banks being at a closing, small banks. These people are informing me they never were told about these increases. I want to read a small section here from their statement dated November 19, 2013.

There is a subtitle of, Home buyers were not warned. I quote:

Because FEMA delayed, then retroactively applied, the

purchase provisions in section 205, many home buyers,

specifically, those who bought between the enactment of

Biggert-Waters and March 12 of 2013, were not warned of rate

increases before purchasing their properties. Flood insurance

policies were not labeled as subsidies.

It is not their fault.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Congressman Cassidy.

Thank you, Congressman Cassidy.

Mr. Speaker, I represent 15 counties in the State of Pennsylvania; and I hold in my hand here a petition signed by over 1,000 people just from my county, Wyoming County, who are faced with this disaster. And most of these people have a combined income--before taxes--of less than $40,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to introduce the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Fitzpatrick.

Thank you, Congressman Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the honor of introducing the gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Congressman Scalise.

Thank you, Congressman Scalise.

Mr. Speaker, you heard the devastating stories tonight about what the American people are faced with. I have had over the past several weeks numerous conversations with people involved in this legislation, people involved in the agencies, people involved in committees. And to put it quite bluntly, FEMA's methodology is extremely, extremely flawed.

And I asked--I knew the answer to this, but I wanted to hear it from people with whom I spoke--So how many people is this affecting? Well, it is only affecting not quite 3 million people in the United States.

And I said, What do you mean, ``only?'' Well, we have indications that FEMA knew that there would be a small percentage, a small number of people who would get hit with extremely large bills. And I asked on the telephone when I was talking to several of these people, Are you one of the less than 3 million people? And there was dead silence. I said, Well, you have answered the question. You are not. So obviously this is just being taken for granted.

We have two places to go here. Do we want to create a myriad of ghost towns across this country or do we want to continue to improve cities and towns? I think the latter. I think we need to improve the quality of life for American people. We work, Congress works for the American people. I work for the people of the 10th Congressional District, and we have a responsibility here. We bail out the banks and we bail out the auto industry. And do you know something? My people in the 10th Congressional District--and I'm sure across this country--they do not want to be bailed out. They just want a level playing field.

So, in conclusion, I believe that we need to bring all the available options to the table for a bipartisan solution to the flood insurance rate increase. The colleagues that joined me this evening show how important it is to a wide range of districts throughout the country. We have to continue to be diligent in our work to assist these constituents, and I look forward to participating, along with my colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services, on crafting a solution.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is a nationwide problem. And I keep reiterating that many of the people in my district have a combined income of $40,000 a year before taxes. They simply cannot afford $10,000 and $15,000 bills of which they had no anticipation it was coming.

I promise, and as my colleagues, I'm speaking for them, we will do everything in our power to make this right and to make this fair and to put our constituents on a level playing field.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 630, I was unable to make the vote due to inclement weather, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 631 I was unable to make the vote due to inclement weather.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act.

Each day, all across the United States, small businesses and entrepreneurs are receiving abusive letters that insist the recipient has somehow violated a patent. He or she is left with the option of complying with the letter's demands, such as by sending a check for $50,000--and all will be forgotten--or taking it to court, which could cost millions of dollars and put these businesses out of business. In 2011, patent trolls cost the American economy $29 billion.

I want to skip the notes and go right to commonsense legislation. This is what it is:

A veteran from Afghanistan came in to see me. He saved his money that he had earned while protecting this country. He has got a little laptop that has communications with his printer, and a troll is suing him, saying he violated the patent. My computer at home talks to my printer, and my kids' computer at home talks to my printer, so we must be violating some patent of some sort.

This is abusive legislation. It is putting our small business entrepreneurs out of business. I urge my colleagues to support this.

Madam Chairwoman, I have been involved in working on patent reform since I was elected and took office here in 2011. This is not new. We have been working on this legislation if not for several months, at least several weeks where it has been up on the Internet for people to see and for our colleagues to read. I am tired of hearing here in Congress we need more time and more time to do something. If businesses operated the way Congress did, they would be out of business.

Finally, this is a quintessential example of us getting off our duff and doing something in a reasonable amount of time that is going to help small business owners. As we stand here and speak, more and more are being put out of business because of trolls.

Thank you, Mr. Polis.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Polis-Chaffetz-Marino-Connolly amendment.

Trolls assert a claim in a letter with little or no specificity, and often it isn't clear who owns the patent being asserted or how the patent was even infringed. It is time the entity sending out these mass mailers does their due diligence, just as we expect in just about every other area of the law.

This amendment requires the entity sending the letter to include the person who holds the rights to the patent in order to later raise a claim that the opposing party received an adequate letter putting them on notice of their infringement.

Patent trolls have been playing a shell game and hiding who is actually holding the rights to the patent and often who is supplying the money to the litigation.

I fully support this amendment. This amendment will shine some much- needed light on this dark practice.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have had a rash of people in my office over the last couple of months from all sides of this issue, and there is no one who supports the intent of my colleague's across the aisle concerning small business, and there is an unintended consequence here that, I think, may be overlooked.

It is the fact that, certainly, those doing business with gross revenues coming in of $25 million or less are protected, as they should be and as it stands in our legislation at this point. However, this amendment could cause a problem in which anyone making over $25 million in gross revenues would not be protected. So why complicate the matter?

This amendment that my distinguished colleague wants to put in is not required because it is already addressed in the legislation that we have been going over for months and months and months. Therefore, I do not support her amendment, and I support the chairman's bill.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this substitute, and I will explain why I support the Goodlatte bill, H.R. 3309.

This bill has been methodically drafted with abundant openness and clarity. Among other parts of this bill, and there are many, two are extremely important that I see. One is that it protects small business owners, entrepreneurs, young men and women who could lose their business or could lose their idea, young men and women that may even be visiting the Capitol today.

I want to explain what a troll does. A troll doesn't primarily go after larger companies. They go after upstarts, they go after young people who are starting to make a profit after years of work. They send them a letter and say, Pay me X amount of dollars, $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, and I won't sue you. If I do sue you, we will go to court and you will probably go bankrupt because it is going to cost you that much. They are suing people based on using a phone, a scanner, and a copier which they purchased. They have no interest in the software; yet they are being sued for that.

This is good law. We have to get over the fact that the trolls are really taking advantage here. It is really going to cut the cost of litigation and get owners to the court on time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 583, I was unable to make it to the floor in time for this vote due to the hearing in the subcommittee on Reform, Commercial & Antitrust Law running over. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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

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

Study after study proves that pipelines are the safest, most environmentally friendly, and most efficient method for transporting oil and natural gas. A company in my district tried to expand a current pipeline or build a new pipeline through a recreation area, but was unable to do so because of bureaucratic red tape and mess.

Instead of expanding a pipeline that was in the ground before the recreation area was created, the company had to loop the pipeline around the recreation area in order to provide natural gas to residents in New Jersey. This forced the company to add seven additional miles of pipeline, even though it would be more environmentally friendly to build a pipeline through the park. Yet the level of bureaucratic red tape in trying to construct oil and gas pipelines through Federal lands is nothing short of ludicrous.

My amendment wouldn't solve the problem we experienced in my district; however, this amendment takes a small step in addressing the difficulties in constructing pipelines by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to include a plan for addressing new demands for transmission lines and pipelines for distribution of oil and gas across Federal lands to ensure that energy produced can be distributed to areas of need.

Common sense tells us that without the necessary pipeline infrastructure to transport the energy, it will be much more difficult to meet America's future oil and gas demands.

I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the President continues to unilaterally implement these politically motivated, piece-by-piece, so-called ``fixes,'' but this law is broken, and it is hurting millions and millions of Americans.

Every day, I hear from more of my constituents who have had their coverage canceled and who have seen their premiums increase. I recently heard from a woman from my hometown of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, who is going to have a baby early next year. She will lose her health care coverage on January 1.

I received a copy of a document from a constituent of mine, Paul from Lackawanna County. It is a notice from the insurance company.

It reads:

It's important that you know that Federal health care

reform will require many changes to health insurance plans

beginning in 2014. As a result, as of December 31, 2013, the

Special Care health insurance plan you have will no longer be

offered.

We need to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with health care reform that actually lowers costs and increases access to quality health care.

The President has an obligation to keep his promise. Going back on one's word sets a very poor example for our children, and that is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Sergeant Paul Cavallaro of the Pennsylvania State Police.

Sergeant Cavallaro has been serving the citizens of Pennsylvania as a State Trooper since 1992. He has served in numerous patrol and crime units in stations throughout the Commonwealth. He has held numerous roles within the State Police such as: Alternate Identification Unit Officer, Alternate CIA officer, Patrol Unit Supervisor, Criminal Investigation Unit Supervisor, Patrol Section Supervisor, and his most recent title as Station Commander.

Sergeant Cavallaro has received letters of commendation in 2002 and 2008, and received a nomination for the International Association of Chiefs of Police Trooper of the Year Award in 2003. Additionally, he has also received letters of appreciation from the Pike County District Attorney's Office and the Monmouth & Ocean County Intelligence Bureau.

As a member of the Pennsylvania State Police, Sergeant Cavallaro has obtained training in wiretap, street gangs, domestic violence, hate crimes, advanced crime scene investigation, terrorism awareness, FBI post blast investigations, interview and interrogation, advanced hidden compartments and has received special deputation as a United States Marshall.

Along with his duties as Station Commander, Sergeant Cavallaro is a bugler for the Pennsylvania State Police Ceremonial Unit, negotiator with the Special Emergency Response Team and he sponsors the annual Troop R Cadet Golf Tournament. In his spare time he coaches youth baseball, hockey, football and soccer.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Cavallaro has devoted his life to serving his community and others; it is with great pride that I honor him today.

Madam Speaker, my colleague who just spoke failed to tell the American people that we're going home tomorrow after we get our morning work done to hug our children, see our spouses, and we're going to be back here Monday.

So with that said, several years ago, before ObamaCare was implemented, or right after it was, the media asked the other side of the House, What's in it? And the other side of the House responded, Well, we don't know. We have to pass it to see what's in it. To see what the language says, the people are going to have to read it.

So now we are reading it. Big business is reading it; they don't like it. Unions are reading it; they don't like it. Most Americans don't like it.

So what does that mean? When ObamaCare was passed, it was supposed to cost $900 billion and some change and cover 60 million people for 10 years. The latest numbers today, it may cover 24,000 people at a cost of just shy of $2 trillion. Every year, this country is spending $1 trillion more than we bring in. Who's going to pay for it? Where are we going to get the money? Borrow it from the Chinese? Or put it on the backs of the hardworking middle class taxpayers? It has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to be 3\1/2\ minutes at this point. I had some notes. But that's what I usually do when I get up with notes, go away and I try to speak from the heart.

I have been watching this, and it's very frustrating. And first let me say, there's no one who should go without health insurance. I have a daughter who has a disease for which there's no cure, none whatsoever. She will be lucky to live to her late twenties. So it's critically important that there be a method by which we can get some help to pay for treatment, not only for her, but for every child out there and every human being.

But aside from that, I go to the gym every morning at about 6:00, and I work out with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle. The camaraderie is extraordinary. We joke with each other. We help each other in the weight room. We spot each other. We talk about our families. We even talk about politics. But it's civil. And I would really like to have the whole floor, as well as the American people, see how we communicate with one another in that gym in the morning.

But I am asking that every person be civil. The Republicans have been called Nazis, terrorists, people that don't want to take care of children and seniors--and that's wrong. We can have ideals, we can have a belief, but we need to be civil about it. And we need to give an example and show an example to the American people that we're adults and that we can have different views. And that's what a democracy is about. We don't have to make it personal. We don't have to aggrandize it to get attention, to call names.

So I'm saying to my colleagues, I'm reaching across. I have not been uncivil. I will not do it. I will criticize my colleagues if they do it. But let's use this moment to show the American people that we can have a dialogue, we can have arguments, but to keep it civil; because when the dust is settled, America is going to be better for it, and the Congress is going to be much better for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John J. Donahue, the Superintendent of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Middle Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Superintendant Donahue contracted with the Pinchot Institute to develop an organization rooted in engaging leaders in both private and governmental areas. As a result, Mr. Donahue became the driving force behind the establishment of the grassroots organization known as Common Waters.

Common Waters is a non-governmental group that coordinates efforts and policies of private partners like land trusts and county, state and federal planning organizations.

Delaware River provides clean drinking water for approximately 15 million people within the tri-state areas of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The preservation of forest land within these areas helps to ensure a healthy watershed, which is imperative to clean drinking water.

The group has targeted strategic grants to over 90 private forest owners who control over 38,000 acres of land, resulting in the best management practices and greater Delaware River watershed and ecosystem protection.

Additionally, Common Waters has become a voice for all of the member organizations on Landscape Scale Connectivity, resulting in easements being secured for over 1,000 acres of protection.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Donahue and Common Waters have shown that the government can have a dramatic benefit to the local area by providing opportunities to the private sector and I commend them for all of their work.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain committed to defunding, delaying, and dismantling the President's unworkable health care law; and our mission becomes more critical with each passing day.

We've already begun to see premiums go up for hardworking Americans all across the country. This is a bad law that will limit choices in health care and kill American jobs.

The House has passed legislation that would defund ObamaCare, rein in government spending, and prevent a government shutdown. That law is now in the hands of the Senate. The Senate must now give the American people what they deserve--an honest, transparent debate.

As this debate progresses, the American people will know who stands with them in opposition to this disastrous health care law. The House is leading the fight to control spending, stop ObamaCare, and protect hardworking Americans. It is time for the Senate to join us as well.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove as cosponsors Congressman Capuano and Congressman Pallone from my bill, H.R. 2641, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2013.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, today, independent pharmacists are facing an increasing number of challenges that threaten their very livelihoods. These are the independent mom-and-pop pharmacies that all Americans have come to know and to love. They are the neighborhood staples that you have come to rely on. They are where you can go for basic medical advice, and they are where new parents can have their children's prescriptions filled. On average, independent pharmacies fill over 200 prescriptions every day, provide immunization, durable medical equipment, diabetes training, and other vital services. Unfortunately, these independent pharmacies are more vulnerable than ever and are having to lay off workers at an alarming rate.

As more independent pharmacies are forced to close their doors, I am increasingly concerned about the impact that this will have on American families, especially on those in rural areas like my district in northeast Pennsylvania. Not only does their closure jeopardize the local drug supply, but it also has dangerous consequences for the surrounding areas' medical providers--that's right--dangerous consequences for the surrounding areas' medical providers.

One of the biggest dangers to local independent pharmacies is the pharmacy benefit managers industry, or PBMs. Over the past few years, the PBMs' power has become concentrated in the hands of a few, enabling them to dominate over their competition. Independent pharmacies are at a competitive disadvantage, which prevents them from providing their customers with vital prescriptions at a reasonable cost.

I have heard from a number of pharmacists that PBMs have an incredible market power over independent pharmacists. Even worse, the political power of only a handful of companies has enabled them to grow and to swallow their competition, which is only expected to intensify if ObamaCare is fully implemented.

This is why I, along with my colleague to my right and Judy Chu of California, introduced H.R. 1188, the Preserving Our Hometown Independent Pharmacies Act of 2013. This bipartisan, commonsense legislation provides a limited exemption for independent community pharmacists from antitrust laws. My bill would level the playing field by enabling the mom-and-pop pharmacies to work together in order to negotiate better contract terms from the large drug companies and pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. The unchecked practice of PBMs has gone on for too long, and it's time we passed H.R. 1188 in order to stop these harmful practices.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Daniel Lomax, a firefighter and police officer who laid down his life in the service and protection of his community. Officer Lomax's End of Watch was Saturday, June 22, 2013.

Daniel Lomax, known as ``JJ'' to his friends, always put the safety of others first. He demonstrated that when he stopped to help the victim of a car accident while he was off duty, sacrificing his own safety for the good of others.

He devoted his life to serving others as a member of the Mayfield, Forest City, and Great Bend Police Departments. He also served as the Deputy Fire Chief in the Factoryville Fire Department and volunteered for the Meredith Hose Company in Childs, Pennsylvania.

Those who knew him remember how he looked out for his neighbors and friends, always putting others first. His fellow officers knew him as a dependable and likable colleague--If the world had more people like Daniel, it would be a safer place for everyone.

Although his time with us was tragically cut short, our memories of Daniel ``JJ'' Lomax will live on in the hearts of everyone who knew him. His dedication to his family, friends, fellow policemen and firemen, and to the people he served, is what made Daniel a true hero.