Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield now 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1424. Today we are attempting to enact legislation that achieves ``parity'' in the treatment of employer-sponsored coverage for mental and behavioral illnesses. However, although the House bill is well-intentioned, it does not accomplish the goal of providing parity. Instead, it creates new mandates so onerous that they could do far more harm than good, potentially squeezing employers out of the voluntary health care system altogether or eliminating the very mental health benefits we are trying to provide. First, this bill would give preferential treatment in our health care system to mental health benefits, affording mental illness a special status that is not given to other similarly severe medical illnesses. For example, under the House bill we are considering today, virtually every mental illness defined by the mental health profession would be required to be covered by private plans. This, despite the fact that most States currently do not mandate this type of coverage. Also, H.R. 1424 does not place a similar requirement on private health plans to cover other types of medical benefits, including hospital services, physician services, drug benefits, or any other category of benefits. What this bill really accomplishes is not ``parity'' between mental health coverage and the medical and surgical benefits that are offered by plans; it is quite simply preferential treatment for mental health benefits over and above all other categories of medical benefits. The changes that have been made to the floor version of H.R. 1424 fail to address these serious concerns. Second, we have heard the bill's supporters say that this is a balanced bill. Respectfully, it is not. The bill fails to adequately and explicitly protect the ability of private plans to apply commonsense medical management practices currently being used to help ensure the delivery of high-quality medical care and ensure that coverage for working men and women remains affordable. Under this bill, plans would likely have to pay a mental health provider's bill without question, which would make it very difficult to control costs. Third, this bill unnecessarily weakens the preemption requirements in the ERISA law. As a result, States would be free to enact standards greater than the Federal standard. Although the majority may argue that ERISA preemption is maintained, their language, at a minimum, raises serious questions about the ability of States to enact laws and remedies that preempt ERISA and impact group health plans that currently operate under Federal law. Litigation to determine the meaning of this provision will result and group health plans could be subjected to possibly 50 different State laws on mental health benefits, making it harder to provide one set of rules that apply to all plans. This violates a fundamental rule of ERISA, which creates efficiencies by preventing plans from having to comply with 50 or more different sets of laws. One set of rules, applied equally to all ERISA plans, makes high-quality coverage affordable and available to millions of Americans. If the majority were truly interested in preserving ERISA, they would have adopted the noncontroversial language contained in the competing Senate mental health parity bill. Fourth, the bill mandates out-of-network coverage if any other benefit is operated on an out-of-network basis. This mandate will prevent plans from coordinating medical care, which will reduce quality and increase the cost of coverage. Lastly, this bill will increase litigation against ERISA plans by permitting application of State remedies to federally mandated benefits. There will be absolutely no consistency in State court rulings, and litigation costs could skyrocket. Mr. Speaker, while the broad issue of mental health parity enjoys widespread support, this bill does not. It is not a negotiated compromise between all parties that have a stake in this debate and, therefore, it is not in the best interest of the country as a whole. However, a viable alternative to the House bill with broad mainstream support already exists and has passed the Senate. The Senate's bipartisan bill has extensive support from mental health advocates, health care providers and business groups representing virtually all sides of this debate. The Senate bill is the product of years of bipartisan negotiations which accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, provide parity for mental health benefits. It clearly reflects a more balanced and viable solution, and has a much better chance of becoming law if it were considered and passed by the House. Sadly, the majority has refused to consider that legislation, and instead offers the bill we are debating today, which gives preferential treatment to one particular class of medical benefits and has little or no chance of becoming law. Unfortunately, passage of the House bill will likely make it much more difficult to pass meaningful parity legislation this year. For the reasons stated, I must oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. May I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. McKEON. I'm going to be our last speaker.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I agree with much of what has been said here, because achieving parity between mental health and medical/surgical benefits is a goal that enjoys widespread support, and I support that. Had this bill been negotiated in an inclusive, cooperative fashion, I believe a parity law could quickly be enacted this year, ensuring access to coverage for those who need it. There was a road map that would have allowed us to forge a consensus bill. On the other side of the Capitol, stakeholders were brought together and given the opportunity to find agreement on these difficult issues. There was give and take by everyone involved, which is how the Senate was able to produce a bill that achieves parity without undue burden on our employer-based health care system. Unfortunately, we're not following that road map. Instead, we're considering a bill that overreaches and in the process puts at risk many fundamental elements of private health insurance plans. The majority argues that the latest variation of their proposal addresses key concerns. I wish that were true. Unfortunately, the bill we're considering today contains only modest changes that fail to fully resolve concerns about ERISA preemption, costly litigation, coverage mandates, and a host of other concerns. By giving preferential treatment to mental health benefits over other types of medical coverage, the bill creates a lopsided system that may actually be biased against mental health coverage because some employers may choose to drop their mental health coverage or, worse, all health coverage rather than comply with more burdensome mandates. Moreover, the list of conditions that would receive mandatory coverage under this bill would be laughable were it not posing such a serious risk to health care coverage for hardworking families. At a time when health care costs are rising, this bill threatens key management tools that have helped keep costs down. And by weakening ERISA preemption, the bill opens the door to increased litigation and a patchwork of confusing requirements and inefficiencies. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to provide parity for mental health benefits. The bill that passed the Senate provides a thoughtful, reasonable and a balanced approach that reflects the deliberations of all relevant stakeholders. Representatives Heather Wilson, John Kline and Dave Camp sought to offer that proposal today in the hopes that we would move quickly on a consensus proposal that could be signed into law. Their amendment also used a noncontroversial payment offset, unlike H.R. 1424. Unfortunately, as has become the hallmark of the 110th Congress, we were shut out of meaningful debate, and that amendment, along with a number of other improvements to the bill, will not be considered. I support a balanced approach to mental health parity and, therefore, I cannot support this bill in its current form. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill so that we can take up the consensus legislation that enjoys community and other key stakeholders' support, those who share our commitment to provide equitable benefits that support mental health without jeopardizing our health care system as a whole. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I'll reserve.

Mr. McKEON. I'm the last speaker.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5351, the latest in a string of flawed energy proposals that will drive up prices for consumers while rewarding special interests. As Senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, I oppose not only the bill's unprecedented energy tax hike, but also its inclusion of bureaucratic mandates that will drive up costs for taxpayers and stifle job creation. This bill furthers the majority's aggressive expansion of Davis-Bacon wage mandates, a Depression-era policy that saddles federal projects with complicated and highly inaccurate prevailing wage requirements. Davis-Bacon wages can inflate project costs by as much as 15 percent--costs that get passed on to taxpayers. They also force private companies to do hundreds of millions of dollars of excess administrative work each year, squandering resources that would be better spent creating jobs and spurring innovation. H.R. 5351 creates and expands bond authority for energy conservation and clean renewable energy. Unfortunately, these bond programs are prone to waste, fraud, and abuse because of a lack of clear oversight. Moreover, projects funded through these bonds would be subject to Davis-Bacon wage mandates. The notion of a one-size-fits-all federal wage mandate is bad enough, but the specifics of the Davis-Bacon rules are even worse. Because of flawed wage calculations, use of Davis-Bacon wages can drive up wages on one project, while shortchanging workers on another. The costly and time-consuming requirements of Davis-Bacon bias government contracting against small businesses that are often minority- or female-owned--businesses that simply do not have the resources to comply. As a result, large, unionized companies are more often awarded government contracts--even for small projects. We need energy independence and lower fuel costs. This bill imposes energy tax hikes that will drive up costs for consumers. We need to eliminate federal red tape to promote job creation. This bill expands the bureaucracy by layering costly Davis-Bacon wage mandates on bond programs already prone to waste, fraud, and abuse. For these and many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this energy tax increase, and I urge my colleagues to join me voting ``no.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. The thing that I like most about this amendment is it is done at the State level. There are some people that would like to have this done at the Federal level. I think the State level is the appropriate place. And I also like the fact that it's a pilot. It's limited. It gives us a chance to see how it works before making it a national program. So I commend the gentleman for his amendment and urge support of the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I wish to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Hinojosa for their support and for the hard work that they have put into this bill, and let them know how much I have appreciated working with them not just on this bill but over the years. And I hope that all of our colleagues will support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment changes the Bankruptcy Code in a way that will add uncertainty and additional risk to student lending. And I can't help but think that this will further restrict students' access to loans at a time when they're already finding it harder to obtain loans due to the current instability of the credit market. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member of Commercial and Administrative Law that has jurisdiction for the Bankruptcy Code, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the other side, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. For years, Republicans have fought on behalf of students and families to make college more affordable. Now our cause is bipartisan and our vision for reform is the centerpiece of comprehensive Higher Education Act reauthorization. For students and families grappling with rising college costs, this bill establishes college affordability comparison tools to help put cost increases into perspective. Students will be able to search, sort, and compare key cost indicators for every school in the country. We will identify institutions that are the most costly, the least costly, and those with the fastest rising costs. And for schools engaging in a pattern of extraordinary high cost increases, we demand greater disclosure and concrete steps to identify inefficiencies and fix them. This legislation reflects Republican principles for reform, including financial aid simplification, protection of student privacy, safeguards for taxpayer dollars, emphasis on competitiveness, and many more positive reforms. We would not have this bill before us today without the hard work of staff on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Amy Jones in particular for her tireless efforts to ensure this bill includes meaningful college cost reforms. I also want to recognize Brad Thomas and Susan Ross on my staff, along with outgoing staff director Vic Klatt and his successor, Sally Stroup, a higher education policy expert in her own right. I would also like to recognize Chairman Miller's staff, including Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel. Throughout the day, we will consider a number of amendments. Some would make the bill stronger, while others are unquestionably bad policy that would send us backward. However, it is the give-and-take of a bipartisan legislative process that has produced the strong bill before us, and I am hopeful that at the end of the day we will be able to secure strong, bipartisan passage of this bill, to make our higher education system more accessible and affordable. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, from the outset of this process, Chairman Miller has recognized that by working together we can make this bill stronger. Just as he worked with us on the underlying bill, he also invited our input and involvement in the development of this manager's package. I believe the amendment is stronger because of it, and I want to thank him for his bipartisanship. Anyone who has studied the college cost issue recognizes that there are no easy or obvious solutions. It has taken 5 years of refining to produce the proposal we are voting on here today. When this process began, we identified three key principles to guide our proposals. First, we saw the need for sunshine and transparency in college costs. Students and families do not have access to accurate, useful, and comparable information about college costs. Second, we recognized that colleges and universities were not being held accountable to consumers. There were no consequences for schools that engaged in massive unexplained tuition increases year after year. Third, in our effort to identify solutions, it became abundantly clear that Congress could not do it alone. We realized that all stakeholders must come together. That includes the Federal Government, State government and local communities, institutions of higher education, students, and parents. States have scaled back their investment in higher education, and the Federal Government has been expected to make up the difference. While some of the details have changed over time, the bill before us adheres to these same three principles. I want to thank Chairman Miller for allowing me to take the lead on these college cost provisions. After years of listening to stakeholders, seeking the advice of experts, and studying potential unintended consequences, I believe this proposal strikes the right balance on the cost issue. I also want to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to prevent this bill from limiting access for low-income, first-generation, and nontraditional students. An amendment offered during committee consideration of the bill changed the way cohort default rates are calculated. While the proposal did spur an important conversation about how to get a more accurate understanding of default rates in order to protect students and taxpayers, the consequences of the proposal would have done far more damage than was intended. I am pleased that, in this manager's amendment, we were able to forge a compromise that achieves our goal of a more accurate cohort default rate calculation without putting financial aid in jeopardy for the students who need it most. On these and other issues, Chairman Miller has worked closely with me to ensure the final bill reflects the priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank him for his willingness to cooperate, and I urge the majority to continue this spirit of cooperation to address other flaws that remain in the bill, so that when this legislation is signed into law, it is as strong as it can be. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today addressing the college cost crisis, a problem that has reached epic proportions in this country. There are many who believe, me among them, that we should never have allowed this challenge to reach a crisis point. I am pleased to be acting today, but this bill serves as a reminder that Congress often fails to recognize challenges in our higher education system and act quickly to solve them. I am afraid we may be making the same mistake by failing to recognize the brewing problems in our Federal student loan programs. Since 2006, Congress has cut nearly $30 billion from the Federal Family Education Loan Program. While many of these reforms were needed to improve program efficiency, I am afraid we may have gone too far, cutting not just the fat but straight through to the bone. The impact of these cuts has yet to be fully realized; but already borrower benefits have been curtailed, lenders have left the program, and workers have lost their jobs. The consequences of program cuts are being exacerbated by a crunch in our financial markets that has produced a loss of liquidity, an increase in financing costs, and uncertainty about the future viability of the Federal loan program. Just a few short months into this time of market turmoil, already 1,200 jobs have been lost and eight lenders have left the Federal student loan program or severely limited participation. This includes the departure of the seventh largest lender in the program. Major lenders have significantly scaled back or ended their borrower benefit programs. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid this is only the tip of the iceberg. I had hoped to offer an amendment today that would help ensure Congress does not ignore these challenges until they, too, reach a crisis point. My amendment was nothing more than a sense of Congress, but I believe it would have signaled our commitment to averting a student loan crisis before it happens. Unfortunately, I was blocked by the majority from offering this amendment. It seems we have not yet learned from past mistakes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Castle from Delaware.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes at this time to the ranking member on the subcommittee that has the jurisdiction over this higher education bill and commend him for all the work that he has done for college students across the country, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and I want to begin by thanking Chairman Miller along with Representatives Hinojosa and Keller, the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, for their efforts. Representative Castle has also been a close partner of mine in an effort to rein in college costs. In fact, it is our effort to address the college cost crisis that is the centerpiece of this legislation. We know how important higher education is both to individuals and to our Nation. A college degree can be a ticket to the middle class. It helps individuals prepare for good jobs, and it allows them to pursue new skills in the changing economy. Higher education also has important societal benefits. College-educated citizens are healthier, more civically minded, have lower unemployment rates, and use fewer government benefits. An educated citizenry is also vital to maintaining our competitive edge in a changing world. Because higher education is so important, we made it a priority to ensure all Americans have access to a quality and affordable college education. In addition to making close to $100 billion in financial aid available to students, the Federal Government also spends billions each year on aid to institutions: support for college access programs, investments in research and development, and many other avenues that support higher education. Despite the considerable Federal investment, or perhaps in part because of it, colleges and universities have increased tuition and fees year in and year out. The increases have come in good economic times and in bad with steady enrollments and surging enrollments. It seems the only thing consistent about college costs is that they're going up, and fast. With this bill, we hope to change that. Our principles for reform are based on the idea that by giving good information to consumers, we can empower them to exert influence on the marketplace. Through the power of sunshine and transparency, we are lifting the veil on college costs and holding institutions of higher learning accountable for their role in the cost equation. Those principles of sunshine and transparency are hallmarks of this bill and not just in the area of college costs. We are also letting the sunshine in on college operation and quality through enhanced institutional disclosure and a more transparent accreditation process. There are numerous positive reforms in this bill, too many even for me to name. There are also a number of problems with the bill that I hope we could resolve through the amendment process. Unfortunately, Republicans were blocked from being full participants in this debate. I urge the majority to work with us as we go to conference to resolve these issues so we can get the strongest possible bill to the President's desk. I'm particularly concerned that in its zeal to prevent conflicts of interest in student lending, this bill creates a patchwork of new requirements that conflict with existing truth-in-lending rules and disclosures. I'm a firm believer in disclosure, but I also recognize that if we overwhelm borrowers with too much paperwork filled with confusing and conflicting information, we may undermine the consumer protection we are actually trying to achieve. Right now, we know that many lenders, whether they are banks or State agencies, are providing sound disclosures to borrowers on their student loans. I'm hopeful that as we move into conference we can take that information and use it to develop meaningful disclosure that will ensure that borrowers receive the same type and quality of information from each lender. I'm also concerned about the number of new programs created in the bill. Rather than trying to micromanage from Washington, by creating a brand new program for every possible contingency, we should focus on less red tape and greater local flexibility. Later today, I plan to offer an amendment that moves us in the right direction by identifying duplicate, burdensome, or unnecessary regulations imposed on our higher education system from throughout the Federal Government. This amendment builds on an initiative I began in 2001 in partnership with the late Representative Patsy Mink, known as the Fed Up Project. Mr. Chairman, there is always room to improve a bill, and the College Opportunity and Affordability Act is no exception. However, on the whole, this bill is an achievement of persistence and commitment. It updates programs to meet the needs of students in the 21st century and to use the power of sunshine and transparency to transform all aspects of our higher education system. Above all else, this bill offers real solutions to the college cost crisis. I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their commitment to this cause. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. A decade ago, the last time we renewed the Higher Education Act, it was debated under an open rule that allowed every Member the opportunity for full participation. On an issue so important to our Nation's continued success, I would expect nothing less than a full and open debate. I am disappointed that the same opportunity was not provided today. Sadly, suppressed debate is all we have known under this majority. I am also disappointed that misuse of the budget reconciliation process last year has left us with a bill that includes many important reforms, but does not provide a full review of the largest financial aid programs. Because the budget reconciliation bill contained drastic and far- reaching changes to Federal student loans, the bill before us pays very little consideration to student lending. Unfortunately, circumstances surrounding the loan programs have changed in the last several months, and it looks like now is exactly the time when we should be looking at these programs. We are all painfully aware of the collapse in the subprime mortgage market. Those financial insecurities have spread the higher quality assets, including the asset-backed equities that are often used to finance Federal and non-Federal student loans. As we face these market insecurities, the full extent of the cuts enacted through last year's budget reconciliation bill are just beginning to be understood. Taken together, it appears our Federal loan program may be facing a perfect storm, yet here we are with a comprehensive higher education renewal that does not consider the student loan programs. I had hoped to offer an amendment today that would acknowledge the challenges facing the loan program. Although my amendment did not call for any immediate changes within the credit markets or the loan program structure, a sense of Congress urged the Secretary of Education to closely monitor the student loan marketplace so that if in the near future these market insecurities translate into a loss of loan availability, we could act quickly to protect the interests of students. Mr. Speaker, I won't be offering that amendment today; it was not ruled in order. Somehow, a sense of the Congress acknowledging the very real challenges facing our Nation's largest financial aid program was deemed unfit for consideration. We also won't be considering an amendment to protect students' free speech rights on campus, or either of two amendments to ensure taxpayers aren't forced to provide assistance under this bill to illegal immigrants. Nor will we take up any of the other Republican amendments that were stifled by a heavy-handed majority. Mr. Speaker, we're here to consider a bipartisan bill that I strongly support. In fact, the bill was voted out of committee with a vote of 45-0. Yet even on a bipartisan college access bill, the majority could not bring itself to allow a fair and open debate. Just four of the 27 amendments we'll consider today were offered by Republicans, about 15 percent. For every 6 minutes we spend debating Democrat proposals today, the Republican ideas will be given 60 seconds. Democrats will claim that's how we ran things when Republicans were in charge. But during this same debate in 2006, when we considered comprehensive higher education reform, more than one-third of the amendments considered on the floor were offered by Democrats. This is not just a problem of amendments being made in order. Republicans were blocked from even submitting amendments just 3 minutes after the deadline Tuesday morning. Key Republican proposals were rejected from consideration some 30 hours and 57 minutes before the Rules Committee met. Is this a majority that strictly adheres to deadlines no matter what the circumstances? Evidently not, at least not when they stand to benefit from a little flexibility. The listing of amendments on the Rules Committee Web site was modified at 4:39 p.m. Wednesday, just 21 minutes before the committee met. Fully 20 of the Democrats' amendments were modified or withdrawn after the submission deadline. I cannot help but ask, Why are Republicans being shut out of a bipartisan bill? Why is the majority only permitting Republican amendments that align with their policy goals? Is this payback because Republicans plan to demand a vote today on earmark reform? Mr. Speaker, this is an unreasonable rule that taints the bipartisanship of the underlying bill, and I strongly oppose it.