Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I, too, along with my colleague from Texas, and certainly the ranking member from Michigan, want to bring to the attention of this body just how dangerous the amendment is that says this, ``Any officer or employee of the intelligence community who, in the course of or in anticipation of a covered interrogation, knowingly commits, attempts to commit or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' And it goes on to talk about infringing on their religious beliefs by any notion whatsoever that isn't defined in the bill. Sleep--it talks about lack of sleep. As a matter of fact, the interrogators are probably getting a lot less sleep than actually the terrorists they are interrogating because they also process the information before and after the interrogations. You have created a whole new direction to go after the very people who are interrogating people trying to kill Americans, and you are saying we are going to put you in jail if you push your limits. And by the way, torture is already against the law. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is pushing torture. What we're saying is, you cannot make this so unreasonable that they won't do it. And if you don't think that this will have an impact on an agent making the determination, should I or shouldn't I, you know what? I was hoping to turn around and find 300 screaming, cheering Americans saying thank you for your patriotism and your service, not 25 Justice Department lawyers with subpoenas. You will absolutely freeze the intelligence community's ability to go out and get information that they need, and it is absolutely naive to believe that they're going to do it anyway. I'm sorry, that's not the way it works. These folks want to follow the law; they want to follow the Constitution. And guess what? At the end of the day, they're willing to risk their lives to protect their country and their fellow Americans, and this is the treatment that we give them. This one provision alone will disrupt I can't tell you how many operations worldwide and is worthy of our rejection of this direction in the intelligence community.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, Ms. Eshoo from California. You know, sometimes you can get ahead of a problem. We don't often do that in Congress. I think this is a great way to get ahead of a problem. Given the fact that these individuals who have, who are doing great things for their country, we're thankful for it, takes sometimes a piece of intellectual property that really belongs to the people of the United States, and some of it is very sensitive, very compartmentalized. It's information that is shared with very few. So it is an incredible responsibility. And for us not to have a policy on how we make sure that those people don't use that information for personal gain on the outside of that community, especially the intelligence community, I think is wrong. And I think this is a good measure that puts some really basic protections, not only for them, but for the intelligence community and the people of America. And I want to commend the gentlelady for her work and effort on this. And I wholeheartedly support this effort.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her courage to get up here and talk about her ailment. I, too, am a cancer survivor, and it is a difficult process. But my concern is greater than even our own personal experiences. It is what is the actual result of that health care reform bill that leads us to this resolution. We are scrambling around on the floor today to say that a government- appointed commission, this task force, has made a recommendation based on quality of year lives and cost, not good science, not that what saves lives, that women between 40 and 49 need not get mammograms. And you say, listen, that doesn't mean rationing. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have any weight of law. But guess what? The health care reform bill that passed this House makes those recommendations law. Let me read a couple of quick things, Mr. Speaker, if I may. By the way, you have to go to three different sections, two different complete books, to understand how this impacts real women in America, some 2,000 pages into it. One section: Limitation on individual health insurance coverage may only be offered on or after the first day of year one as an exchange- participating health care plan. Pretty fancy Washingtonspeak. Let me tell you what it means in another section of the bill about 1,000 pages later: A health plan is prohibited from offering coverage for benefits not included in the essential benefits package. And you say, Oh, no that's a floor. It's not a floor. The language in the bill goes on further. And do you know what it does? It says that the only difference between the levels of plans is the amount of cost sharing, not what it covers. Here is the scary part, of which I don't think you all realize that you did to about 47,000 women in America: All recommendations of the Preventive Services Task Force and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services as in existence on the day before the date or the enactment of this Act shall be considered to be recommendations. The bill goes on to say that they must use that in the calculation of benefits. Guess what? Forty-seven thousand women who are under the age of 50 today will be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer because of your bill. It's in your bill. It's in your language. Do you know what that means? Eighty percent of them will die because of their diagnosis. Do you realize that more women will die because of this bill than we lost men in the Korean War? And I know you think, Oh, scare tactics. No. It's the bill. But do you know what? You can't read it on page 1 or 2. You have to keep going back and forth in 2,000 pages to understand the full impact of what will happen to women who are 40 to 49 years old. You did it in your bill. I am going to plead with you. For the lives of 37,000 women who will die and 47,000 women, according to the recommendations of this task force which you make law----

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I am going to plead with you, please read the bill, not just 1 to 2,000. Go back to the other sections and understand its full impact. And you say, It won't happen in America. Guess what? This task force recommendation resulted on December 2 in California prohibiting low- income women under the age of 50 from receiving mammograms. It is happening today. This task force is doing it today. With your bill, it becomes law. They are prohibited. And it is illegal for them to get coverage other than what the government says they can get. And guess what? Mammograms don't qualify for women 40 to 49. Please think of those women and those families. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Towns, thank you very, very much for your work in a bipartisan way on this very important piece of legislation. Sometimes, with all of the big issues that we deal with, we do pause and pay attention to issues that impact lives like some circumstances like no other. And if you imagine the Federal law enforcement community--and I used to serve proudly as an FBI agent and was proud to count myself as one of them--that every single day somebody suits up quietly, with a search warrant or an arrest warrant to serve it somewhere in America. And we forget because they are exceptionally good at doing what they do without getting hurt or harmed, but it is incredibly dangerous work. They get drug dealers and they get child pornographers and they get bank executives committing bank fraud. They get Mafia dons, and they get terrorists of the hardest sort, and they bring them to justice as a part of defending the Constitution and the communities of the United States of America. And what this particular case exemplified is that there was a glitch in the law, because we ask these Federal law enforcement officers to move and uproot from their communities. They swear an oath to their country and their Constitution and to uphold the law of the United States. And then we ask them to leave their hometowns of, say, Baltimore or New York or small towns anywhere in America and take their families with them to these new places to fight crime wherever they find it. And this pointed out one very, very significant glitch is that if an officer, a Federal law enforcement officer was killed in the line of duty in the United States, their families had no means, the Federal Government could not assist them in moving back home, the very place that they stood up and said they would serve proudly with their loved one wherever that mission would take them. Many, the FBI, specifically, makes it very well known that you have no right to serve where you want. You will serve at the needs of the FBI. And other agencies serve in the same capacity, and their families suffer the same sacrifice when we ask them to move. This is a small token, just a small token of what we can do for those families who have sacrificed so much and lost their loved one while killed in the line of duty. And it's named after a very, very brave FBI agent who risked his life for his country serving a narcotics warrant in Pittsburgh. I mean, this is someone who had a strong history of public service. He was a teacher. He was a Baltimore police officer. His FBI agent colleagues described him as brave and courageous and the anchor. When they were going through their training at the FBI academy, they said this is the guy that you wanted to go in the door with. He's the guy that would anchor and teach them how to safely get in and safely get out of homes in very dangerous situations. And the agents and all that were interviewed were certainly, by press reports, tearing up and reliving the memories of what was a great American who was absolutely committed to the ideals of the FBI: fidelity and bravery and integrity. And in that pursuit, in his pursuit to live up to the standards of the FBI, he risked and ultimately gave his life for his community and his country. So what this bill does, with the help of Mr. Lynch and Mr. Towns and so many others, Mr. Cao--thank you--is it says that we will respect what you have given your country, and we will help those families move back to where they call home in that final, final rest and trip in remembrance of someone who did something so great for their country. His peers also described him, Mr. Speaker, as a humble and giving man, an outstanding FBI agent, somebody whose dream job was to wear and carry the badge of a special agent of the FBI. He is survived by his wife, Brooke, and his 3-year-old son, Noah. And for all that he has done, I think it's so fitting that the committee sought to name this bill after one agent. And in the Bureau, it's never anyone's particular case. He didn't own that case. He didn't own that incident, but he was part of a bigger team. And so, when you name this bill after an agent like this, it really sends great condolences to the family and respect to every officer that falls in the line of duty. His name may be on the bill, but it is a gift to every family who risks their lives every day in the service of this great Nation in the law enforcement community. And I would, again, urge all of us to support this with vigor. And I also want to thank the FBI Agents Association for their work and diligence on this. The Department of Justice has been very, very good to work with, and the FBI itself has given their time and commitment, once again proving their commitment to the family of the FBI and the work that they do. Again, I thank you all for the work that you have done. I think his family would be humbled. I think the FBI agents are humbled, and I think our Federal law enforcement community is humbled that we would pause in all of the debate and remember their service and sacrifice to the United States.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the SGR fix is incredibly important, but this approach is disingenuous at best. Let's go back quickly. In 2008 the Medicare Improvement for Patient and Providers Act, sponsored by my friends on the other side of the aisle, had a 21 percent cut to go into effect for doctors this year. Your bill, your issue, your 21 percent. And you come here today knowing full well this bill will go nowhere. Why this is disingenuous is because 2 weeks ago, you added about 16 million people to Medicaid that shorts doctors hundreds of millions of dollars in reimbursement every single year. And, oh, by the way, you tax doctors, and everything in their operation; their costs go up. And here's the thing: you cut a half trillion dollars out of Medicare, hospitals, home health services, nursing homes, hospice care. You cut Medicare a half trillion dollars. You know this bill will go nowhere. This is an easy fix. Let's work together. Let's find some offsets. Let's fix it for doctors. And, by the way, let's go back and take back that money that you have cut, a half trillion dollars, out of Medicare for the lives and betterment of seniors. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there are huge consequences to the 85 percent of Americans who have earned their health care in this bill. Not only will they get longer wait times and more expensive premiums, but at the end of that, with new debts, some $1.5 trillion in new spending, 18 million Americans won't have coverage. But more importantly, there will be another victim. There is nothing more sacred than the bond between a mother and a child, that trust, that love, that nurturing when that child is sick. And when a mother goes to the doctor under that 2,000-page bill, that relationship that they enjoy between their patient and their doctor and what that mother wants for that child is no longer sacred, because now, through the 118 different boards and commissions, their comparative effectiveness research allows the Federal Government, through forced government insurance, to ration and deny care. You have violated the most important trust, the most important thing that we have in the building block and the foundation of the values of this country. That mother, that doctor knows what's best for that child. You will find no compassion in a Federal bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the strong rejection and the protection of that bond between doctor and patient and mother and child.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 859, I was unable to vote as I was in Michigan attending to a recent death in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 812 I was not able to vote on the House floor on the amendment to H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act offered by Representative Kratovil due to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 813 I was not able to vote on the House floor on the passage of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act due to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for Special Agent Frederick E. Bragg--a dedicated public servant and an outstanding President of the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA). The FBIAA is over 20 years old and has grown from several hundred agents to a professional association of over 11,300 current and former agents from across the country. Mr. Bragg's long history of public service began in 1986 with the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department in Syracuse, New York where he worked as a patrol deputy and an investigator. Mr. Bragg joined the FBI in 1991 and has served as the President of the Tri-County Law Enforcement Association, spent a decade as an Assistant Team Leader of the Minneapolis SWAT Team, and has helped lead efforts to combat terrorism, public corruption, and health care fraud. Mr. Bragg's commitment to the mission of the FBIAA began in 1995 and in 2003 he was elected President of the FBIAA. Throughout the duration of his involvement with the FBIAA, Mr. Bragg has advanced the charitable and law enforcement goals of the FBIAA, and his efforts have benefited agents and their families worldwide. Mr. Bragg has been a leader when it comes to providing for the families of FBI Special Agents who give their lives in the service of our country. Mr. Bragg has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the FBIAA Memorial Scholarship Fund, which helps provide college scholarships to children of deceased FBI Agents. During Mr. Bragg's time as President, this scholarship fund grew to a level where 80% of a student's college costs are now covered--and because of his efforts it is likely this percentage will continue to increase. In addition to his charitable work, Mr. Bragg has also been an effective voice for FBI Agents on questions of policy. I have had the opportunity to work personally with Mr. Bragg and have witnessed firsthand his unwavering commitment to our nation's FBI Agents. His advocacy played a key role in many important policy issues, such as debates over whether a domestic intelligence agency should be created, the implementation of new ``pay for performance'' standards, and the importance of criminal investigations to our nation's security. As a former FBI Special Agent, I commend Mr. Bragg for his excellent service on behalf of our nation's premier law enforcement agents. His work has earned the thanks and appreciation of this body.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letters from the governors of Mississippi and Nebraska: August 6, 2009. Hon. Gregg Harper, Cannon HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Harper: As Congress debates healthcare reform, I want to raise a few issues of concern with the policies being considered in both House and Senate bills. Healthcare reform is truly a bipartisan issue; after all, Republicans and Democrats understand that our healthcare system faces significant challenges--from steadily increasing medical costs to confusing insurance provisions. As the national debate continues, it is important that everyone realizes the severe impact the proposed legislation would have on states like Mississippi. As Governor, I am particularly concerned about the direction the Senate and House are taking in regards to Medicaid expansion. Instead of discussing policies to reform a broken system, the debate in Congress has shifted to finding ways to fund an expanded Medicaid program at the state level. At the end of the day, both the Senate and House proposals are unfunded mandates, which, for states like Mississippi, would result in burdensome and costly changes to the system. For example, when we talk about sharing the cost of an expanded Medicaid program, Mississippi would pay another $333 million annually under a larger program covering up to 150 percent below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). A Medicaid program covering up to 133 percent FPL expansion would cost an extra $297 million. In many states, funding the current Medicaid programs robs other critical programs. The same is true for us. Each year we struggle to cover our Medicaid expenses while providing for essential services including public education and public safety. While there has been some discussion at the federal level to assist states in paying for this expansion, my staff learned last week that the Senate Finance Committee is proposing to cap the amount of federal money distributed to the states to pay for this expansion at $40 billion over 10 years. Estimates show the cost of expanding the Medicaid system to all states at the lowest level, or 133 percent FPL, is $30 billion per year. At 133 percent FPL, states would be saddled with Medicaid expansion costs in the second year of expansion. These projections are overwhelming as Mississippi, like all states, continues to grapple with budget realities. Our General Fund Revenue collections for July 2009 are 11.27 percent below our estimate. Compared to the prior year, collections for this July are 21.43 percent or $56.3 million below what was collected in July 2008. During Fiscal Year 2009, Mississippi's revenue was $390 million short of the revenue estimate, causing most of state government, except for education and Medicaid, to take approximately a 6 percent cut in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. Our Fiscal Year 2010 budget included $523 million in stimulus funds; otherwise, we would have faced even more significant cuts. It will take our state years to catch up, and that's without a $297 million or $333 million Medicaid state-share increase. Further, the proposed healthcare reform legislation also includes numerous tax increases to finance significant expansions of government-run healthcare. Different versions of the House legislation incorporate a payroll tax on small businesses. Although the recent House Energy and Commerce Committee agreement included an 8 percent payroll tax for small businesses with an annual payroll of $500,000, previous versions taxed small businesses with a payroll of $250,000. This tax will do nothing more than punish wage and job growth, especially when you consider that the tax rate increases as the size of payroll increases. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), such employer mandates could cost 1.6 million jobs with more than 1 million of those jobs lost in the small business sector. That means higher taxes for Mississippians, since 96.7 percent of our employers are small businesses. In addition, the Senate HELP Committee proposal requires employers to offer health coverage to their employees and contribute at least 60 percent of the premium cost or pay $750 for each employee that is not offered coverage. Language in the proposed legislation also would mandate an individual to purchase health insurance and, should he be unable to afford such coverage, he'll be slapped with a 2.5 percent additional income tax for the coverage. But the proposed legislation goes even further, taxing higher income individuals beginning at $280,000 and families at $350,000 on a sliding scale. This language generates a massive tax increase on high income filers, more than half of whom are small business owners already being taxed if they do not provide health insurance to their employees. A tax increase in the middle of a recession, with unemployment rising, is not the answer. Besides increasing taxes, the House bill cuts Medicare nearly $500 billion. These cuts include reductions to Medicare providers and hospitals, while gutting Medicare Advantage by $150 billion to $160 billion. Admittedly, I am baffled as to why Congress would propose slicing funding for a program that our seniors support and that provides for their health and well-being. As Congress heads home for the recess, I urge Members to review the proposed legislation with their state leadership. I am primarily concerned about the effect this legislation may have on Mississippi's financial stability, both now and in the future. These so-called ``reforms'' would severely impact Mississippi's budget and our ability to fund other important priorities, like education and public safety. Before Congress makes such sweeping reforms to our healthcare system, I implore you to first ensure that these changes are efficient and beneficial to our citizens, without burdening our states through unfunded mandates. Sincerely, Haley Barbour, Governor, Mississippi.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the record the following letters from the governors of Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota: September 15, 2009. Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Crapo: Idaho has a proud history of fiscal responsibility, ensuring that our State government serves its proper role for the people of Idaho while staying within their financial means. As the United States Congress attempts to address the healthcare challenges facing our nation, it is important that we remain diligent in assessing the implications of our decisions, always ensuring that we take seriously our duty to safeguard the financial resources of the American public, and allocating taxpayer money in an efficient and effective manner. As revised healthcare proposals continue appearing in Congress, the full consequences of these reforms remain unknown and we are uncertain of the possible negative impacts on local businesses, families and senior citizens. However, it is clear that these sweeping proposals would irresponsibly shift a substantial and unmanageable financial burden to the states. Like Idaho, many states already are functioning under severely limited and strained budgets. It is certain that the burden of these reforms would be placed upon the shoulders of hardworking Americans. The costs associated with these proposed reforms are astounding. Conservative estimates from the Idaho Division of Medicaid indicate that the bill's Medicaid eligibility proposal would increase our state share of Medicaid and the federal matching rate effective would drop in the middle of fiscal year 2011, leaving Idaho struggling to fill the void. Idaho's tax base could not support this large unfunded mandate without resorting to tax increases, including a possible increase in Idaho's already 6-percent sales tax--an irresponsible action which would do serious harm to Idaho taxpayers. The proposed reforms would impose an undue burden on citizens already struggling in this difficult economy. It has been estimated that combined federal-state Medicaid costs in Idaho could increase by $501 million. In addition, raising the Medicaid reimbursement rate to 110 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate would increase total federal- state costs $50 million more. This proposed change in the federal reimbursement rate likely would reduce the number of plans that are offered to persons on Medicare, resulting in increased premiums and reduced services and access to service providers. Seniors in rural Idaho already have trouble finding providers who accept Medicare patients. Should these changes be approved, that trend could continue statewide--severely limiting access to medical care for some of Idaho's most vulnerable residents. The people of Idaho have entrusted us with a responsibility to use our government resources wisely and efficiently. Imposing costly federal mandates that cannot be sustained in the long run is an irresponsible violation of this public trust. Quite simply, these proposals are financially irresponsible and would not adequately address the needs of senior citizens and other vulnerable groups. I encourage you to join me in opposing current health care reform proposals. By ending these nonsensical debates and stopping the proposed reforms, we can move forward in a more positive, measured and reasonable direction, using common sense to find a workable healthcare solution that benefits all Americans. As Always--Idaho ``Esto Perpetua'', C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Governor, Idaho.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letters from the governors of Alaska, Alabama and Arizona: September 8, 2009. Hon. Max Baucus, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley: States cannot afford to carry the huge costs of health care reform. States (and their businesses and residents) are struggling to recover financially. The National Conference of State Legislatures(NCSL) reports states had a $113 billion dollar budget shortfall in 2009 and the situation is getting worse. NCSL estimates state budget shortfalls will increase to $142 billion in 2010. I am also concerned with the proposed new federal mandates that would undercut stare authority over the Medicaid program. On fiscal impact, H.R. 3200 expands Medicaid coverage to all citizens under 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) while the Senate HELP committee legislation assumes an expansion to 150 percent of the FPL. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these proposed expansions would require spending hundreds of billions of dollars in new public funds. While the proposals would initially place responsibility on the federal government to pay for expanding Medicaid coverage, a shift would later occur to state treasuries and the impact would be significant. For Alaska, the National Governors Association estimates it would cost $140 million in state general funds to expand Medicaid for all Alaskans up to 133 percent of FPL in 2015. (Assuming there is full federal funding the first two years.) This amount would increase to $168 million by 2019, with new state expenditures amounting to billions over time. This fiscal hit to states would come on top of the Medicaid funding cliff created by Congress in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (ARRA). ARRA established a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate to help states deal with Medicaid costs. This higher FMAP rate is set to expire on December 31, 2010. If the higher FMAP rate is not extended, states will face an immediate and significant increase in costs to operate Medicaid programs. In Alaska, approximately $120 million more in state general funds will be needed to operate the Medicaid program for just one year. Further, proposals in Congress would give the federal government a stronger role in administering Medicaid and undercut state authority. Coverage would have to be expanded to childless adults who qualify and would replace the current state option to cover parents of low-income children with a federal mandate to provide coverage to qualifying adults. Maintenance of effort requirements would prevent states from adjusting eligibility to meet ever-changing fiscal conditions. Lower limits of practitioner reimbursement and coverage limits would be imposed. New services and the coverage of additional provider groups would be mandated and stale flexibility in the eligibility process would be constrained. All these mandates limit state control and flexibility to control the Medicaid program. While I am sympathetic to the dilemma of health care reform and I applaud your efforts to find a solution, I cannot support legislation from Congress that imposes costly unfunded federal mandates on Alaska and other states. Instead, the federal government should be looking for ways to give the states increased flexibility with federal funding to meet the unique needs of each state's population. This tact would lead to innovation and cost-containment as compared to the current rout pursued in existing health care legislation. Sincerely, Sean Parnell, Governor, Alaska.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letters from the governors of California and Florida: July 31, 2009. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John A. Boehner, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Madam Speaker and Mr. Boehner: I appreciate your commitment and hard work toward reforming the nation's health care system. I think we can all agree that the current system is not working as it should, and I have long supported a significant overhaul. Costs continue to explode, while tens of millions remain uninsured or underinsured. Many families are one illness away from financial ruin--even if they do have insurance. We have the greatest medical technology in the world at our fingertips, yet Americans' health status lags behind many countries that spend less than half what we do per capita. Any successful health care reform proposal must be comprehensive and built around the core principles of cost containment and affordability; prevention, wellness and health quality; and coverage for all. Cost Containment and Affordability Cost containment and affordability are essential not only for families, individuals and businesses, but also for state governments. Congress is proposing significant expansions of Medicaid to help reduce the number of uninsured and to increase provider reimbursement. Today, California administers one of the most efficient Medicaid programs in the country, and still the state cannot afford its Medicaid program as currently structured and governed by federal rules and regulations. The House originally proposed fully funding the expansion with federal dollars, but due to cost concerns, members decided to shift a portion of these expansion costs to states. I will be clear on this particular proposal: if Congress thinks the Medicaid expansion is too expensive for the federal government, it is absolutely unaffordable for states. Proposals in the Senate envision passing on more than $8 billion in new costs to California annually--crowding out other priority or constitutionally required state spending and presenting a false choice for all of us. I cannot and will not support federal health care reform proposals that impose billions of dollars in new costs on California each year. The inclusion of maintenance of effort restrictions on existing state Medicaid programs only compounds any cost shift to states. We simply cannot be locked into a cost structure that is unsustainable. Governors have three primary ways to control Medicaid costs: they can adjust eligibility, benefits and/or reimbursement rates. Maintenance of effort requirements linked to existing Medicaid eligibility standards and procedures will effectively force state legislatures into autopilot spending and lead to chronic budget shortfalls. The federal government must help states reduce their Medicaid financing burden, not increase it. A major factor contributing to Medicaid's fiscal instability, before any proposed expansion, is that the program effectively remains the sole source of financing for long-term care services. Therefore, I am encouraged by congressional proposals that create new financing models for long-term care services. Proposals that expand the availability and affordability of long-term care insurance are steps in the right direction, but they must be implemented in a fiscally sustainable way. More fundamentally, however, the federal government must take full responsibility for financing and coordinating the care of the dually eligible in order to appreciably reduce the cost trend for this group. This realignment of responsibilities is absolutely essential to controlling costs for this population, while ensuring that state governments will be better positioned to fill in any gaps that will undoubtedly arise from federal health care reform efforts. I also encourage Congress to incorporate other strategies to help stabilize Medicaid costs for states. Delaying the scheduled phase-out of Medicaid managed care provider taxes pending enactment of new Medicaid rates, reimbursement for Medicaid claims owed to states associated with the federal government's improper classification of certain permanent disability cases, and federal support for legal immigrant Medicaid costs are examples of federal efforts that could provide more stability to state Medicaid programs. Moreover, given the fiscal crisis that many states, including California, are experiencing, I strongly urge Congress to extend the temporary increase in the federal matching ratio to preserve the ability of state Medicaid programs to continue to provide essential services to low- income residents pending full implementation of national health reform. Prevention, Wellness and Health Quality Prevention Wellness and health promotion, along with chronic disease management, can help to lower the cost curve over the long run and improve health outcomes in the near term. This was one of the cornerstone pieces of my health care reform proposal in California, and I continue to believe it should be a key piece of the federal efforts. Prevention, wellness and chronic disease management programs should include both the individual and wider population levels. At the individual level, proposals to provide refunds or other incentives to Medicare, Medicaid and private plan enrollees who successfully complete behavior modification programs, such as smoking cessation or weight loss, are critical reforms. To ensure they are widely used, individual prevention and wellness benefits should not be subject to beneficiary cost sharing. Because individuals' behaviors are influenced by their environments, health reform must place a high priority on promoting healthy communities that make it easier for people to make healthy choices. California has demonstrated through its nationally recognized tobacco control efforts that population-based strategies can be effective and dramatically change the way the people think and act about unhealthy behaviors, such as tobacco use. A similar model, community transformation grants, has been advanced in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension legislation, and it should be included to support policy, environmental, programmatic and infrastructure changes that address chronic disease risk factors, promote healthy living and decrease health disparities. Quality improvement measures are also critical to health reform. The House proposal for a Center for Quality Improvement to improve patient safety, reduce healthcare- associated infections and improve patient outcomes and satisfaction is a positive step. Coordinated chronic disease management is necessary to improve outcomes for chronically ill people. Systematic use of health information technology and health information exchange, including access for public health agencies, is vital to providing the necessary tools to measure the success of quality improvement efforts. Finally, investments in core public health infrastructure can be facilitated through the creation of the proposed Prevention and Wellness Trust. Coverage for All Coverage for all is also an essential element of health care reform and I believe an enforceable and effective individual mandate, combined with guaranteed issuance of insurance, is the best way to accomplish this goal. The individual mandate must provide effective incentives to help prevent adverse selection that could occur if the mandate is too weak. Creating transparent and user-friendly health insurance exchanges to help consumers compare insurance options will also help facilitate participation. States should maintain a strong role in regulating the insurance market and have the ability to maintain and operate their own exchanges, with the understanding that some national standards will need to be established. California has a long history of protecting consumers through our two separate insurance regulators, one covering health maintenance organizations and the other monitoring all other insurance products. Maintaining a strong regulatory role at the state level is in the best interest of consumers, and I urge Congress to maintain this longstanding and effective relationship as you design these new market structures. I hope our experience in California working toward comprehensive health care reform has informed the debate in Washington. There will be many short-term triumphs and seemingly insurmountable roadblocks for Congress and the nation on the road to comprehensive health care reform. We must all remain focused on the goal of fixing our health care system and remember that we all have something to gain from the reforms, and we all have a shared responsibility to achieve them. I look forward to working with you as you move forward on this desperately needed legislation. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, California.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on State budgets over the next 10 years. In addition, these proposals would expand the Federal Government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff States' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the record the following letters from the governors of South Carolina and Texas: September 11, 2009. Hon. Lindsey O. Graham, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Lindsey: Thank you for the work you do on behalf of this country and our state. With this work in mind I write to respectfully layout some concerns our administration has with regard to proposed health care changes in Washington. I am not writing to second guess your work, or that of Congress, but just to give you the vantage point from the seat I hold--and the consequent implications for taxpayers of this state given the proposed changes' impact in Medicaid administered by our state. Like many governors across the nation, our administration is growing increasingly concerned about the financial strain rising health care costs are putting on South Carolina's annual budget. During the National Governors Association meeting in July, many governors joined together in a bipartisan effort to formally oppose the current Congressional health care proposals by issuing a policy opposing unfunded mandates. If these so-called reform proposals move forward, almost all states will have to raise taxes to manage this health care expansion. In South Carolina, Medicaid already receives up to $880 million annually--16 percent of our budget. The current House and Senate proposals would expand Medicaid and pass health care costs down to the states. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said that it would be impossible for the federal government to pick up all of the costs for new Medicaid recipients and that states would have to bear additional costs. To help put this matter into perspective, when the enhanced federal medical assistance percentage expires at the end of 2010, South Carolina will be spending $1.2 billion, or more than 20 percent of our state budget, on Medicaid annually. That total represents just one-third of the total Medicaid dollars spent in our state--not counting the costs associated with the proposed changes to our health care system. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates H.R. 3200 will cost in excess of $1 trillion over the next ten years. However, the fine print reveals that the true cost would be much higher. The legislation relies on a large tax increase, which is implemented four years before most of the program's spending is ramped up. This delay in implementation is nothing more than a budget trick masking the true cost of the proposal. Even under the CBO projection, H.R. 3200 would add more than $200 billion to the budget deficit in the next 10 years. This projection is predicated on $219 billion in spending changes that may be an illusion. A strong indicator that suggests that these savings will not materialize is found in a further analysis of the CBO study by Ways and Means Committee staff, which shows that the total price tag will reach $2 trillion by 2024, including roughly $600 billion in deficit spending. These are the significant costs you are contending with at the federal level in times of $2 trillion deficits. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), Medicaid expenses nationally will reach $523 billion by 2013--a 56 percent increase in just six years. The proposed changes to the program would increase Medicaid spending by $450 million in South Carolina--more than half of what we already spend on Medicaid. With that significant an increase, South Carolina would be forced to either raise taxes or cut critical services in education and public safety, the two other large spending items in our budget. Any state tax increase would be in addition to the proposed federal tax increases included in the House and Senate bills, like huge tax increases in the form of an additional 8 percent payroll tax or a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on small businesses. Even in prosperous times, we would not support the incredible burden of this unfunded mandate, but in the current global economy, that impact would be disastrous for our state. The proposal being discussed in the United States Senate has similar problems for South Carolina as, by 2015, this proposal would add more than 400,000 South Carolinians to the Medicaid program. The federal government would cover increased funding only until 2015. After 2015, South Carolina must start picking up the tab. By 2020, South Carolina would be forced to come up with an additional nearly $900 million annually for the increased number of Medicaid enrollees. Federal programs will grow at South Carolina's expense, and will increase Medicaid costs in our state by 50 percent. Lastly, if we are trying to make health care more affordable, why exclude tort reform and national insurance markets from the plan? Litigation, and its negative impact on the practice of medicine, significantly increases the cost of health care in this state. South Carolina passed comprehensive tort reform legislation in 2004, partially to stop lawsuit abuse in medical liability cases. Subsequently, medical liability insurance costs are down 42 percent, and doctors have received an average rebate of 20 percent of their annual paid premium. The number of lawsuits against South Carolina doctors fell almost 90 percent one year after tort reform went into effect. Doctors have stopped leaving the state and no longer limit their practices to avoid lawsuit abuse. Likewise, eliminating the interstate purchasing restrictions for insurance would create a bigger market for insurance, thereby giving consumers more options and driving down the price. A national market for health or life insurance means that South Carolinians can purchase whichever policy best fits their needs--whether the policy is from South Carolina, New York or California. With all the issues surrounding a government-run health care system, I wanted to bring to your attention the increased taxes that South Carolinians might shoulder on top of the federal tax increases in the proposed bills. Everybody agrees that there should be reforms to our health care system, but it should be done thoughtfully. I look forward to working with you on this and other issues. Sincerely, Mark Sanford, Governor, South Carolina.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letter from the governor of Utah: September 15, 2009. Dear Senator Bennett, as Governor of the State of Utah, I am aware of the critical importance of health system reform in our country. However, I believe the best place for innovation and policy change is in the individual states, as we have a greater understanding of the specific needs of our citizens. This effort is already underway in Utah, with great success. I am worried, however, that the direction of the current language of federal health system reform bills will preclude state-directed reform and place a detrimental burden on states' budgets. Therefore, I am contacting you in order to forge a partnership to enact reform that will benefit not only the citizens of Utah, but will benefit everyone throughout our great country. In Utah, we have a good system of public medical programs that provide for our neediest population. However, the weight of the current programs strains our state budget. So far, we have managed to fully fund the existing programs, although it becomes more challenging each year. The extension of Medicaid to additional populations, as discussed in proposed federal healthcare legislation, will amount to an unfunded mandate that would create financial havoc for our state. While I understand the idea that everyone must ``share in the pain,'' and appreciate the Administration's commitment to reforming healthcare without increasing the size of the federal deficit, to force Medicaid cost increases onto states will simply shift massive cost increases to the states. As I am sure you know, Utah, like most other states, is suffering from the negative impacts of a nationwide recession. As we prepare the state's fiscal year 2011 budget, we face continued cuts to agency budgets and reduced government services on top of painful reductions made last year. The unfunded mandate of a forced Medicaid expansion will only exacerbate an already dire situation. If required to increase our Medicaid program as envisioned in Washington, Utah, and most every other state, will be forced to find the money to do so through other means. This will require states to either raise taxes or continue to cut budgets in areas currently suffering from a lack of funding, such as public and higher education. We must work together to ensure that no new requirements for states to fund health care for additional populations pass. This does not mean, however, that the State is ignoring or has forgotten about middle-income uninsured families in Utah. Quite the contrary, the aggressive health system reform being pursued in Utah is designed to address the healthcare needs of those families in a manner that does not shift additional burden to the State. As mentioned above, Utah has made remarkable progress toward health system reform. One of the cornerstones of our State's efforts is the introduction of a defined contribution health benefit system and implementation of the Utah Health Exchange, which provides the technology to make that market work. This new market approach is proving to be very popular. In fact, in just nine days, following the official launch of the Utah Health Exchange, 136 of Utah's small businesses signed up to contribute to health care coverage for their employees, representing approximately 7,000 covered lives. It is essential that federal legislation not derail this promising effort to provide insurance in a new way to Utah's small business employees, who are the backbone of our economy. When fully implemented, the Exchange will help individuals and employees access the information they need to make informed choices about their health and health care, as well as their health insurance. This tool has a standardized application process and allows people to apply for a broad range of coverage electronically; which further increases access to affordable coverage. To me, the highlight of the Exchange is that it is almost entirely run by the private sector. The State brought together a technology company, a finance company, and many different insurers who have worked out the necessary details to provide a platform for this new marketplace. We were able to go from a signed bill to a functioning exchange in just five months. This is the very definition of forging unprecedented partnerships to find solutions that government alone cannot provide. The driving force behind any proposed exchange must continue to be private sector ingenuity, with government assisting in the appropriate ways. I look forward to working with you in a similar manner to ensure that federal and state healthcare reforms are compatible and will result in success for the citizens of our great State. I believe that together we can develop workable alternatives to the traditional Washington D.C. ``one-size- fits-all'' solution. We must continue to recognize that states are the laboratories of innovation and that the best solution to our nation's challenges is to empower states to serve their unique populations in the best ways possible. Please contact me if there is any way I can be of assistance with this very important issue. Best Regards, Gary R. Herbert, Governor, Utah.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits. Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letters from the governors of Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada and Rhode Island: September 16, 2009. Hon. Benjamin Nelson, U.S. Senator, Hart Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Mike Johanns, U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Nelson and Senator Johanns: I am writing to alert you that the analysis provided by the staff to the members of the NGA Health Care Reform Task Force indicates that the Chairman's Mark released by Senator Baucus this morning contains a new unfunded Medicaid mandate. Earlier this year I wrote both of you expressing my concern that this might occur as part of health care reform. I greatly appreciate the fact that both of you have repeatedly expressed concerns about the negative impact that health care reform could have on the Federal deficit and the State budget. As former Governors you understand the impact that Medicaid has on state spending. This new unfunded federal Medicaid mandate could result in higher taxes on Nebraskans or in cutting state aid to Nebraska's school districts as well as state appropriations to our universities, state colleges and community colleges. This proposal is not in Nebraska's best interests. As we develop more specific information, I will be providing you with our best estimates of the magnitude of the impact on Nebraska. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dave Heineman, Governor, Nebraska.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memoriam of Mike Fuoss, who was shot and killed on Friday, September 11, 2009. Mike was a small business owner, father, brother and friend to many in the greater Owosso community. Mike was born February 7, 1948, in Owosso. He graduated from Corunna High School in 1966. He went on to study Diesel Mechanics and Business at Ferris State University. In 1999, he married his wife, Barbara. Mike co-owned a number of small businesses throughout Owosso, including Fuoss Gravel Co. and Eddie O'Flynns. He was a member of the Owosso Home Builders Association, and the Shiawassee County Chamber of Commerce. Mike loved restoring old cars and hot rods, enjoyed riding his Harley, and was a fan of NASCAR. Fuoss was a good American who died tragically. The people whose lives he touched through his contributions to the community will miss him dearly.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of the students and staff of Michigan State University's WDBM ``Impact 89'' FM Radio Station on the occasion of the station being named the College Radio Station of the Year by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters and Broadcast Music Inc. MSU's Impact 89 FM has received this prestigious honor nine of the past 10 years, making the station a standout among all the college radio stations in the entire Great Lakes region. The 2009 Gold Record Award was presented at the Great Lakes Broadcasting Conference in March. Judging for the awards is by professional radio and television broadcasters in Michigan. In addition to winning the overall college station of the year award, Impact staffers also earned first place in four of seven individual categories, including Jon Erickson for air check; Wes Holing for talk show; Nate Gray for promotional announcement; and the team of Jeremy Whiting and Brock Elsesser for the station activities report. Other staffers receiving individual awards were Mike Weber, Doug Neal, Corrina Van Hamlin, John Simpkins, D'Destin Kaufmann, Lindsay Machak, Emily Fox, Brandon Jaksim, Autumn Maison, Dan Dugger, Jamal Spencer, Ed Glazer and Jesse McLean. The Impact 89 team is led by Gary Reid, Distinguished Senior Specialist with the MSU Department of Telecommunication, Impact 89 FM General Manager, and Associate Director of the Quello Center for Management and Law, named after long-time FCC Commissioner, James H. Quello. As someone who worked on the college radio station at my own alma mater, I have great respect for the professionalism and competitive spirit of the Impact 89 FM team and their manager and mentor, Gary Reid. In 2009, Impact 89 FM is celebrating its 20th anniversary and the thousands of students who have worked there and gone on to successful careers throughout the country. Impact 89FM has been a leader in creative, diverse programming and adoption of new technology. WDBM was the 132nd among nearly 14,000 radio stations in the country to be licensed by the FCC to make the transition to High Definition broadcasting in 2004. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the students and staff of WDBM ``Impact 89'' FM for their dedication to excellence. They are truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, The Department of Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Other Procurement--Aviation Support Equipment--Aviation Life Support Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries Address of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries, 2822 N. Martin Luther King Blvd., Lansing, MI 48906 Description of Request: Provide funding of $2,500,000 for a Multi Climate Protection System (MCPS) for U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircrews. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps requirement for MCPS is 21,500 units. $2,500,000 will fund approximately 1,250 sets of MCPS. MCPS is designed to replace outdated garments that are bulky, do not fit the aircrew population, have minimal water and wind resistance, limited moisture management and cannot decrease or increase thermal value by addition or removal of layers. The majority of aircrews do not have this system. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Operations and Maintenance--Operating Forces Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Peckham Industries Address of Requesting Entity: 2822 N. Martin Luther King Blvd., Lansing, MI 48906 Description of Request: Provide funding of $2,600,000 for a Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS) for U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Forces. The Marine Corps requirement for the Polartec components to CWLS is 202,000 units. $2,600,000 will fund approximately 13,000 sets of CWLS. The CWLS is designed to reduce the weight and volume that a Marine operating as dismounted infantry must carry to accomplish combat missions in mountainous and cold weather environments. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: MSU Campus, East Lansing, MI, 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $3,500,000 for advanced composite materials research Operating costs, salaries for researchers, purchase of research equipment, continued lease of the building housing CVRC. This broadly based ongoing program of basic research on composite materials and structures will support the U.S. army, navy, marines and air forces in the design, production, inspection, and repair of safe, durable, light-weight, energy-efficient tactical and strategic land, marine, and air vehicles that will function dependably in severe environments. Some specific service needs addressed include the repair or replacement of vehicles lost or damaged in the Middle East, the requirement for lightweight trailers and vehicles for the U.S. Marines, improvement of design and fabrication of aircraft and watercraft, the creation of deployable inspection techniques, and the furthering of development of heavy combat vehicles that can be easily transported on available cargo aircraft. The results will also contribute to improved exploitation of composites in light-weight personal armor for military and police personnel. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Combat Vehicle And Automotive Legal Name of Requesting Entity: NextEnergy Address of Requesting Entity: 461 Burroughs, Detroit, MI 48202 Description of Request: Provide funding of $4,100,000 for The NextEnergy Center to work with the National Automotive Center to develop and deploy Smart Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle (PHEV) technology in support of Defense Department (``DoD'') initiatives to reduce fuel consumption using vehicles with exportable high-quality electric power. Will fund associated operating expenses, construction and building maintenance, feasibility studies, equipment purchase, technician salaries, travel, and federal overhead. A smart PHEV will supplement electrical power generation via exportable electric power from the vehicle, and reduce emissions by the vehicle fleet. Funding will support continued development of new stationary and mobile charging and discharging infrastructure and technologies associated with smart Plug- In Hybrid Electric Vehicles with vehicle to grid (V2G) connectivity including power transfer and the associated communication to support integration of electric vehicles for military and commercial stationary power applications. NextEnergy will pursue technologies that have tactical and non-tactical utility.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3293, FY 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Burcham Hills Retirement Community Address of Requesting Entity: 2700 Burcham Drive, East Lansing, MI 48823 Description of Request: Provide funding of $200,000 to establish a nurse training and certification program in Alzheimer's and Dementia. This pilot program to help train nursing students and those already working in the field to better handle patients and family members going through this disease. Over 4 million people are afflicted with the disease in the U.S., taking more than 100,000 lives annually. This training program will ensure more health care professionals will have the resources to manage this deadly, growing disease. 50% of these funds will be used for classroom facilities and 50% will be used for instructor salaries. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ingham Regional Medical Center Address of Requesting Entity: 401 W. Greenlawn, Lansing, MI 48910 Description of Request: Provide funding of $100,000 to purchase and place into service a digital mammography machine. For women, breast cancer is the most common non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Digital mammography allows improvement in breast cancer diagnosis. It also improves image storage and transmission because images can be stored and sent electronically. Radiologists also can use software to help interpret digital mammograms. 100% of these funds will be used to purchase a digital mammography machine. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Sparrow Health System Address of Requesting Entity: 1215 East Michigan Avenue, P.O. Box 30480, Lansing, MI 48909-7980 Description of Request: Provide funding of $300,000 to support hardware and software startup costs for a fully integrated Electronic Medical Record at Sparrow Health System. This project will ultimately benefit patients, physicians and hospitals throughout the Lansing region. This investment into the local economy would protect current employment levels while creating more new, highly skilled IT jobs. In addition, this project would allow more than 850 physicians to deploy a fully integrated EMR in their practices at a fraction of the cost that they would normally incur, creating a truly interoperable health care knowledge network. 100% of these funds would be used to purchase computer hardware and software, as well as network electronics and cabling. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Employment & Training Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Closing the Digital Gap Address of Requesting Entity: 835 W. Genesee, Lansing, MI 48915 Description of Request: Provide funding of $250,000 to provide computer training to low-income Lansing residents. Approximately 600 low-income, unemployed/underemployed residents will be provided with computer based job training, Internet access and computers that will enhance their ability to obtain employment as well as to compete in a technology-based economy. 30% of the funds will be used for staff salaries, 40% for computer hardware, 20% for computer software and 10% for other related training materials. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Employment and Training Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lansing Community College Address of Requesting Entity: 8100A-Administration, PO Box 40010, Lansing, MI 48901-7210 Description of Request: Provide funding of $420,000 to expand employment retraining in the area of alternative automotive technologies. The related regional economic impact of the project is projected to be $50 million. The estimated numbers of jobs created and/ or workers retrained would be 2,000. 50% of these funds will be used to purchase equipment, 25% for professional development, and 25% for curriculum development to administer training. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI) Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Employment and Training Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lansing Community College Address of Requesting Entity: 8100A-Administration, PO Box 40010, Lansing, MI 48901-7210 Description of Request: Provide funding of $420,000 to expand employment retraining in the area of alternative automotive technologies. The related regional economic impact of the project is projected to be $50 million. The estimated numbers of jobs created and/ or workers retrained would be 2,000. 50% of these funds will be used to purchase equipment, 25% for professional development, and 25% for curriculum development to administer training.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Howell Address of Requesting Entity: Michigan Department of Transportation, 425 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan, USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to purchase the right of ways necessary to complete the construction of an interchange and overpass at the interchange of Interstate 96 and Laston Road. The purpose of this project is to provide the eastern and western sides of Livingston County access to the major interstate of I-96 and the remainder of Livingston County. 40 percent of this funding will be used to purchase the right of ways and 60 percent will be used for construction. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Buses & Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Capitol Area Transportation Authority Address of Requesting Entity: Capitol Area Transportation Authority, 4615 Tranter Street, Lansing, Michigan, USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for bus purchases, facility renovations, and planning studies. The purpose of this project is to continue to provide citizens of the greater Lansing area with jobs, a vital connection to employers, safe equipment for transportation, and planning studies that may lead to future advanced public transportation projects. 80 percent of the funds will be used to replace old, less-efficient busses with buses that offer greater fuel efficiency, lower cost of maintenance, and omit fewer emissions and 20 percent of the funds will be used to conduct a study to find more efficient, improved public transportation alternatives. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08)- Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cleary University--Livingston Campus Address of Requesting Entity: Cleary University, 3750 Cleary Drive, Howell, Michigan, USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $250,000 to renovate the Livingston Campus Community Center. This facility is used by the community service agencies, local school districts, and government agencies providing services to low and moderate income individuals. 80 percent of these funds will be used for necessary renovations and upgrades, and 20 percent will be used to enhance energy efficiency.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency in the Solar Energy account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan Biotechnology Institute Address of Requesting Entity: Michigan Biotechnology Institute, 3900 Collins Road, Lansing, Michigan, USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 to develop leading bioprocesses for the production of energy, fuels, chemicals and materials. The project will create a bio-industry in mid-Michigan which will build the economy with high paying technical jobs, helping to sustain Michigan manufacturing expertise and provide new products to market-leading, Michigan-based companies. 20% of the federal funds will be used for research, 80% will be used for engineering and developing bioprocesses. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency in the Building Technologies account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ingham Regional Medical Center Address of Requesting Entity: Ingham Regional Medical Center, 401 West Greenlawn Avenue, Lansing, Michigan, USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $250,000 to fund energy conservation upgrades on the Greenlawn and Pennsylvania Campuses of Ingham Regional Medical Center. The purpose of this project is to provide the citizens of Lansing and the State of Michigan with access to additional high quality health care and cost effective healthcare. 15% of the federal funds will be used for engineering studies, 30% for salaries, and 55% for construction costs and equipment. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers (MI-08) Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency in the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc., Georgia at P.O. Box 20634, St. Simons Island, Georgia, USA Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $3,000,000 for clean energy research for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research. This funding would be used for research at Michigan State University and commercialization for clean energy, national energy security, and a cleaner environment. The purpose of this project is to fund research and technology transfers that have applications to energy security and the reduction of greenhouse gases through developing technologies in renewable energy, biofuels, ``green'' chemicals, and industrial manufacturing processes. Approximately 8% of the federal funds will be used for peer reviewed competitions and 92% is for research projects.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2997, The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 302 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $384,000 for the detailed investigation of the most promising technologies to determine the value proposition that is needed to interest commercial partners in the further development of bio based production of fuels, chemicals, and materials. Approximately, $150,000 is for salaries; $150,000 is for materials and supplies; and $84,000 is for equipment purchases and travel costs. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $346,000 for fire blight research to be shared by Michigan State University in East Lansing Michigan and Cornell University in New York. Approximately, $184,000 is for the salaries of laboratory and $162,000 for field research personnel and for materials and supplies at Michigan State University. The remaining funds will be allocated to Cornell University in New York. Researchers at both universities will collaborate on findings. Michigan State University has obtained funding from the State of Michigan, Michigan Apple Committee and industry sources and will continue to fund the fire blight research at MSU at a level of $112,000 in FY10. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding for $104,000 for research of Armillaria Root Rot. Approximately, $70,000 is for the salaries of laboratory researchers; $13,000 is for operating costs; $1000 is for travel to field sites; and $20,000 is for equipment necessary. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $246,000 for research of Bovine Tuberculosis. Approximately, $174,000 is for Salaries and support for 3 graduate students; $60,000 is for Laboratory supplies; and $12,000 for research related travel. Michigan State University will provide $127,500 in-kind funding. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $147,000 to improve fruit practices for sugar beets and dry beans. Approximately, $100,000 is for salaries and expenses and $47,000 is for lab maintenance and equipment. In addition to the federal funds provided by this grant, this research is supported by personnel, equipment, and facilities funded by the Michigan agricultural Experiment Station and Michigan State University Extension. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $266,000 to enhance the environmental sustainability of food and agricultural systems under research at Michigan State University. Michigan State University expects to leverage at least $150,000 in state, local, and private funds to expand the impacts of the special grant. Approximately, $285,000 is for salaries of 11 researchers; $15,000 is for travel expenses; $10,000 is for farmer stipends; $25,000 is for materials and supplies; and $81,000 is for communication and outreach. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $4,545,000 for wood utilization research with Michigan's share being $728,545. The requested funds will be used for salaries of key personal and graduate students. Grant funds will also be used to purchase equipment, materials and supplies needed. Michigan State University provides in excess of $500,000 in support of this project annually through use of lab space, equipment, and personnel assigned to the project. Requesting Member: Congressman Mike Rogers Bill Number: H.R. 2997 Account: United States Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (USDA/CSREES) Special Grants Account Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Michigan State University Address of Requesting Entity: 484 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 Description of Request: Provide funding of $346,000 for Phytophthora Capsici Research to reduce the loss experienced by Michigan vegetable growers from this disease Approximately $100,000 will be to fund graduate and undergraduate students and technical staff. $246,000 will be for research, travel and equipment purchases.