Keith Rothfus

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, from time to time in our history, people have stepped forward to call this Nation to something greater. Today as we continue to celebrate Black History Month, I want to recognize three inspirational women from my district in Pennsylvania: Dorothy James, Ruby Golding, and Mary Wilson. In the 1960s they traveled down South to fight racial injustice and to join the struggle for equal rights. Ruby Golding recalls what inspired her to join the Freedom Riders. She remembers segregated movie theaters and not being allowed to try on shoes at the local store in town. She remembers the March on Washington and hearing Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King talk about a dream he had, a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Ms. Golding said everyone was shocked by the size of the crowd that day and how peaceful it was. She said it was like being in one big family of all colors joining together to bring a better day to America. Today let's recognize the legacy of Ms. James, Ms. Golding, and Ms. Wilson, and all those who joined the civil rights movement, for we have a freer nation because they had the courage to take a stand.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago yesterday, American Armed Forces fought their way to the summit of Mount Suribachi and raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. Sergeant Michael Strank, from Franklin Borough, Pennsylvania, was one of six men in this iconic photo who helped to raise the flag. Sergeant Strank was part of the Greatest Generation, a generation that rolled back a dark totalitarian tide that broke upon the world in the first half of the 20th century. The battle for Iwo Jima was hard-fought and is of great significance for the United States Marine Corps. More than 6,800 servicemen died in the battle, including Sergeant Strank, who was killed just 5 days after the flag was raised. This unforgettable photo captured the unfailing heroism and determination of those who fought. It reminds us that freedom is not free, that it has been hard-won, and that some--like Michael Strank-- have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect it. I had the privilege to meet members of Sergeant Strank's family this weekend, including his sister Mrs. Mary Pero. Let us always thank our veterans who served and their families who gave us such heroes.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague from Georgia for organizing this very important discussion that we are having here today. Three weeks ago, this House passed a bill to fund the lawful operations of the Department of Homeland Security. Our bill provides nearly $40 billion for the protection of our Nation, with a $100 million increase for border security and $600 million more for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats in the Senate, however, now refuse to vote on funding these important programs because they are insisting on funding President Obama's unlawful amnesty order for 5 million illegal aliens. The dollars that hardworking taxpayers send to Washington should not be used to fund any unlawful order, including President Obama's amnesty order. And how do we know that the President's action is unlawful? Well, I remember what the President said repeatedly. For example, in 2011, the President said: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that is just not the case because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. For me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out in 16 days. The House acted 21 days ago. It is time for the Senate to act.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I have sat here today listening both to the rule debate and the debate we are having right now, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who ridicule our relief efforts and joke about the number of votes that we have taken to repeal ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle may think this is funny, but it is no joke to the folks I represent back in Pennsylvania. It is not a joke to the mother who walked into a pharmacy and found out a drug that cost $40 under her old plan, the one that the President promised she could keep, now costs $700 because of the skyrocketing deductibles that she has. It isn't funny to people who have received a cancelation notice in the mail and have been forced onto plans with ridiculous out- of-pocket costs. A woman I spoke to who can't go to a doctor she has seen for 20 years definitely isn't amused by ObamaCare. There wasn't one single Republican who voted to create the train wreck that is known as ObamaCare, and we made our opposition abundantly clear to voters before we went to the ballots last November. I urge my colleagues to give Americans what they asked for and support this legislation. Do it for every American who was lied to about the real cost of this law. Do it for the millions who have been hurt by this law, and let's find a better way forward.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. Madam Speaker, we know from science that everyone's life begins at conception. The right to life is God-given and is described in our Declaration of Independence as ``unalienable,'' which means something that cannot be taken away. I defend, Madam Speaker, the right to life of everyone in this country and of everyone in this Chamber, even of those opposed to this legislation. This bill helps promote a culture of life. It reflects the overwhelming opinion held by Americans that taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortion. It also holds President Obama accountable for another one of his broken promises, when he assured us that his health care law would not allow taxpayer funds to be used for abortion. We know, Madam Speaker, from a September 15, 2014, GAO report on health insurance exchanges that tax dollars are paying for more than 1,000 ObamaCare plans that cover elective abortions. This bill stops that. I insert the GAO report into the Congressional Record. [From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sept. 15, 2014] Congressional Requesters--Health Insurance Exchanges: Coverage of Non- excepted Abortion Services by Qualified Health Plans The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires the establishment in all states of health insurance exchanges--marketplaces where eligible individuals may compare and select among insurance plans offered by participating private issuers of health coverage. PPACA requires the insurance plans offered under an exchange, known as qualified health plans (QHP), to provide a package of essential health benefits--including coverage for specific service categories, such as ambulatory care, prescription drugs, and hospitalization. In addition to these categories states may require or restrict coverage of other benefits by QHPs. Consistent with federal and state law, QHPs may cover other benefits, such as abortion services. PPACA prohibits the use of federal funds made available to offset the cost of QHP coverage--that is, income-based tax credits and subsidies--to pay for ``non-excepted abortion services,'' which, based on the law applicable to the 2014 benefit year, are abortion services performed except where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an abortion is performed. While QHPs may cover non-excepted abortion services, PPACA places requirements on the provision of such coverage. These include the requirement to estimate the cost of coverage of such services, at an amount of no less than $1 per enrollee, per month, and to collect from each enrollee an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage--segregated from any other premium amounts collected by the QHP--to be used to pay for the costs associated with providing non-excepted abortion services. In addition, PPACA directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with issuers to offer at least two multi-state QHPs in each state, at least one of which does not cover non-excepted abortion services. There are 23 states with laws restricting the circumstances under which QHPs may provide non-excepted abortion services as a covered benefit in 2014, and 28 states with no such laws. Among the 23 states with restrictions, 17 have laws that do not permit the coverage of non-excepted abortion services by QHPs, and 6 states permit the coverage of non- excepted abortion services only in limited circumstances, such as to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a pregnant woman's major bodily function. You asked that we provide a list of QHPs that do and that do not cover abortion services and for additional information on issues related to that coverage. This report describes whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage for the 2014 benefit year, and provides additional information--such as the scope and the cost of non-excepted abortion services coverage--for selected QHPs that cover such services. To obtain the information we present here, we contacted every state to determine whether states had laws restricting the circumstances under which abortion services may be provided as a covered benefit by QHPs in 2014. Based on our review of those laws and relevant federal laws and regulations, we determined that 23 states have laws restricting the circumstances under which non-excepted abortion services may be provided as a covered benefit by QHPs for the 2014 benefit year. In order to report on whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage in 2014, we obtained data on QHPs' coverage of non-excepted abortion services from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency responsible for overseeing the establishment of health insurance exchanges; private issuers of QHPs; state departments of insurance and state exchange organizations; and from officials at OPM. While these data sources have different characteristics and limitations, we have determined that, when taken together, they are reliable for the purpose of indentifying which QHPs do and which do not provide non- excepted abortion services coverage in 2014 within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage. To provide additional information regarding non-excepted abortion services for selected QHPs that cover such services, we interviewed and collected documentation from a non- probability sample of 18 issuers about the QHPs they offer in 10 states. Our criteria for selecting these issuers included states with no laws restricting non-excepted abortion services coverage organized by CMS region, state uninsured population, and number of issuers covering non- excepted abortion services. These 18 issuers accounted for nearly one-quarter of QHPs that covered non-excepted abortion services and were offered within the 28 states. We conducted our work from February 2014 to September 2014 in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. Results 1. Which QHPs participating in health insurance exchanges provide non-excepted abortion services as a covered benefit, and which do not? Within the 28 states with no laws restricting the circumstances under which QHPs may provide non-excepted abortion services as a covered benefit in 2014: --in 5 states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont), all QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services; --in 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington), some QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services; and --in 8 states (Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming), no QHPs cover non-excepted abortion services. Nationally, 1,036 QHPs in these 28 states cover non- excepted abortion services and 1,062 QHPs do not. 2. For selected QHPs, what is the scope of the non-excepted abortion services benefits that are provided? Of the 18 issuers offering QHPs that cover non-excepted abortion services from which we obtained information, all but three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions. One issuer told us that it only covers services for a ``therapeutic abortion,'' which a health care provider determines to be medically necessary. Two issuers that offered QHPs in New York indicated that, consistent with requirements set by the state-based exchange, they impose a limit of one non-excepted abortion treatment per year. However, one of these two issuers indicated they also offer QHPs that were not subject to this restriction. All 18 issuers also indicated that their abortion services benefit is subject to the same requirements as other benefits, such as enrollee out-of-pocket costs-- including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance--and prior authorization, all of which can vary depending on the location where the service is provided. For example, issuers indicated that if this service is provided in an outpatient setting--which one issuer noted is the typical location-- enrollees are not required to request prior authorization, similar to any other service performed in an outpatient setting. Additionally, if performed in an inpatient setting, the service would require prior authorization, similar to any other service performed in such a setting. Issuers indicated that this benefit is described in member materials where other covered benefits are listed. 3. For selected QHPs, how do issuers estimate the cost of non-excepted abortion services coverage, what is this cost, and how are enrollees billed for this coverage? To estimate the cost of covering non-excepted abortion services, issuers we contacted indicated that they generally reviewed historical costs for these procedures, similar to the approach used to estimate the actuarial value of the premium attributable to the cost of other covered benefits. All but one of the issuers from which we obtained information estimated the cost of the coverage of non-excepted abortion services to be less than $1 per enrollee, per month. For example, officials from one issuer told us that their actuaries estimated that the cost for non-excepted abortion services ranged between 10 cents and 20 cents per enrollee, per month, calculated across multiple states, while officials with another issuer said that the cost for these services ranged from 10 cents to 70 cents per enrollee, per month. All but two of the issuers that estimated the cost to be less than $1 indicated they rounded the amount up to comply with PPACA's requirement that the cost of such coverage be estimated at no less than $1 per enrollee, per month. The other two issuers noted that they did not round up the amount to the statutory minimum of $1 and, therefore, were not using this statutory minimum as a basis for determining premium amounts to collect from enrollees for non-excepted abortion services. The highest cost estimated by the issuers we interviewed was $1.10 per enrollee, per month. For several of the issuers we contacted, the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion services coverage was reported to also be $1; however, for other issuers the premium amount varied from the cost issuers estimated for this coverage. For example, the issuer that estimated the cost of coverage of non-excepted abortion services at $1.10 per enrollee, per month, indicated that when adjusted to a paid cost based upon plan design and administrative expenses, the premium amount collected from enrollees ranged from 51 cents to $1.46, depending on the specific QHP. Fifteen issuers and the Washington Health Benefit Exchange--which bills enrollees on behalf of issuers offering QHPs in the state-based exchange, including for 2 of the 18 issuers from which we obtained information--did not itemize the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion services coverage on enrollees' bills nor indicate that they send a separate bill for that premium amount. Officials from the remaining issuer from which we obtained information told us that their bills indicate that there is a $1 charge ``for coverage of services for which member subsidies may not be used.'' 4. For selected QHPs, how are consumers shopping for QHPs able to determine whether non-excepted abortion services are covered? PPACA does not establish any requirements on whether or how information about non-excepted abortion services should be made available to consumers before they enroll in QHPs, though six of the issuers we contacted indicated that they made available such information about coverage for abortion services--which they stated includes both excepted and non- excepted abortion services--to consumers shopping for QHPs. These issuers indicated that there are various ways consumers may determine if their QHPs provide coverage for abortion services before they enroll. For example, issuers said that QHP materials--such as their summary of benefits and coverage or member policies, such as the Evidence of Coverage document--indicate that abortion services are covered, and these materials are available to consumers shopping for QHPs through the issuer's website or through the exchange's website. Specifically, officials with one issuer informed us that their Evidence of Coverage document, which provides details about the features of their QHPs, was available through the state-based exchange and the benefit--``voluntary termination of pregnancy''--is identified in that document under ``Family Planning Services.'' Eleven issuers indicated that consumers shopping for QHPs do not have access to such information; some of these issuers indicated that consumers would need to call the issuer directly before enrolling to determine whether a QHP provides coverage for abortion services. PPACA requires that QHP issuers providing non-excepted abortion services coverage notify enrollees at the time of enrollment that those services are covered. While most issuers from which we collected information indicated they were notifying enrollees that abortion services were provided as a covered benefit, four issuers indicated they were not disclosing this information to enrollees. Officials with two of these four issuers told us they had only recently become aware of this requirement, and were in the process of updating their enrollee materials to come into compliance with the notification requirement. Officials with the other two issuers, both of which offered QHPs in the same state, told us that they are not providing enrollees with notification of the coverage of non-excepted abortion services at the time of enrollment. These officials said that they use model plan materials developed by the state that do not specifically indicate that non-excepted abortion services are a covered benefit, and that such information would only be provided upon enrollee request.

Mr. ROTHFUS. As hundreds of thousands march today on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I urge my colleagues to join me in committing to defend the sanctity of life and vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. What a privilege it is to be here with the gentleman from New Jersey, who has been fighting this fight for a very long time. I remember back to my college days in the 1980s seeing you standing for life. I rise today to commemorate the 2015 March for Life, appropriately themed ``Every Life is a Gift.'' Life begins at conception and must be defended at every stage. Whether for the unborn, the disabled, the elderly, we must promote a culture of life. This can and must be done through our public policy that is made here in Washington, D.C., just as it is being done throughout the country in our communities. Across the country there are many places, thousands of pro-life pregnancy centers, places like Choices Pregnancy Services in western Pennsylvania, which does important work helping families say ``yes'' to life by offering free medical and counseling services and helping women in need. As we prepare to march tomorrow on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a decision that the late Justice Byron White described as an exercise in raw judicial power, I urge my colleagues to join me in committing to defend the sanctity of life. I also ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration released 300 new rules and regulations in the first 7 days of 2015. This is on top of over 3,500 new rules and regulations the administration created last year. We have got a problem in our country. Unelected regulators in Washington, D.C., are out of control. From your mortgage to your health care plan to your child's lunchroom, and even your own backyard, the regulatory arms of this Capital are encroaching every facet of American life. Agencies are churning out hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, many of which have a substantial effect on particular communities and industries across western Pennsylvania. Washington's central planners are regulating solid, good-paying jobs right out of existence. The legislation under consideration includes a provision I offered in the last Congress with my friend Mr. Barr of Kentucky. Our provision simply says that if a regulation decreases employment or wages by 1 percent or more in an industry, it will be subjected to heightened review and transparency requirements. The principle is simple: if bureaucrats implement rules that harm Americans' wages or jobs, they must take responsibility for it. I am proud to support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 185 and in holding Federal agencies accountable.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chair, this important legislation fulfills our promise to the American people to responsibly fund our Homeland Security Department while also stopping President Obama's unconstitutional actions. This is the clear will of the American people, which was expressed this past November. Sadly, the President is ignoring the results of that election, with administration officials saying he will veto any bill we pass out of Congress that would end his illegal amnesty order and hold him accountable. Consider that threat: a President would shut down the Department of Homeland Security, whose mission is to protect the American people, just to continue implementing a policy that he admitted on more than 20 occasions he did not have the legal authority to do. I seriously hope he will not. Continuing to defend his unauthorized and unconstitutional order by vetoing this bill would be more than reckless. It would confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama believes he is above the law. I hope the Senate will join this House and not abdicate on the shared responsibility we have to preserve Congress' prerogatives to defend the Constitution and to stop the abuse of power happening under this President. Let's get this amended bill to the President's desk immediately and see whether he is capable of putting the will of the American people and the Constitution ahead of his own self-serving agenda.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. ``. . . but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. ``The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to tell a story about lost opportunity. Pennsylvania is the country's fourth highest producer of medical devices. One company in my district, CardiacAssist, makes devices that treat heart failure and employs over 40 people. CardiacAssist's devices improve quality of life, and they significantly reduce the cost of care for cardiac patients. The company's mission is to develop products that are both easier to use and less expensive to make, but ObamaCare's onerous medical device tax is stifling growth at CardiacAssist. Since this $30 billion tax took effect, CardiacAssist has backed off from hiring five new employees to just one. It has also reduced its research and development efforts. When we tax the very innovation that is the solution to the cost crisis in this country, it directly affects how quickly CardiacAssist gets its affordable therapies out to the world. Sadly, it also costs jobs and, in this case, four jobs at a company trying to grow in western Pennsylvania. The Protect Medical Innovation Act repeals this tax and allows companies like CardiacAssist to get back to growing and creating jobs. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation and look forward to its passage.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, President Obama is expected to sign executive orders soon regarding illegal immigration. In July 2011, he said, ``I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own, but that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions.'' A year ago, President Obama said, ``If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we are also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition. And what I'm proposing,'' he said then, ``is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal.'' President Obama should reflect on his own words. He should follow the democratic process, as reflected in the recent election. A bedrock principle of our Nation is the rule of law. That principle promotes stability and fairness. Will the President's actions promote stability or even more chaos? Will it be fair to American workers and immigrants who have done things the legal way? Any immigration reform, Mr. Speaker, must be fair and must respect the rule of law.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the promise the President made while promoting his health care law: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' He broke his promise. We just learned that one of the law's chief architects, Professor Jon Gruber, has come clean and admitted the deceit used to get the law passed. But Professor Gruber also revealed a stunning contempt for the American people. He called us stupid. This reminds me of when Lucy was trying to get Charlie Brown to kick the football. Charlie says to Lucy, ``I don't mind your dishonesty half as much as I mind your opinion of me.'' In this case, Mr. Speaker, the American people mind both the administration's dishonesty and its opinion of them. The professor now regrets his comments. But does he regret that my constituents, Don and Karen of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and millions of other Americans have lost their health care plan because of ObamaCare? Does he regret that steelworkers in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, and countless others are seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, does the President regret it?

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the exemplary service of Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Joseph J. Sepp, Jr. Trooper Sepp gave his life while defending his community on November 10, 2002. Trooper Sepp was born on August 23, 1968 in Wilkinsburg and raised in Windber. He graduated from Windber Area High School in 1986 and the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown in 1991. He joined the Pennsylvania State Police on February 24, 1992, fulfilling his lifelong dream of serving as a State trooper. Trooper Sepp was shot while chasing a suspect at high speed in Ebensburg. He died thirty-eight hours later on November 10, 2002. More than 1,200 law enforcement officers from across the nation attended his funeral at St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Windber. Trooper Sepp is survived by his wife Jenny and their children Joey, Andy, and Amanda Jo. He is also survived by his sister Tina and parents Joseph and Lana Gay Sepp. Mr. Speaker, we name our buildings, bridges, and monuments after those who have served and sacrificed for our community in extraordinary ways. It is fitting that the bridge carrying 17th Street over State Route 56 will now be named the Joseph Sepp Memorial Bridge. I join all Western Pennsylvanians in honoring Joseph J. Sepp, Jr., a State trooper who gave his life to protect and serve his community.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The terrorist Islamic State, or IS, is a grave threat to our friends and allies in the Middle East and to our homeland. There is broad bipartisan agreement that this threat must be confronted and destroyed. It is important for the President to work with Congress to address this terrorist threat. The President should continue airstrikes and support Kurdish and Iraqi forces in their fight. The amendment under consideration will expand the President's authority to conduct military operations in the Middle East through the training and arming of allegedly moderate Syrian rebels. I have serious reservations about this amendment. There is simply not enough information about these rebels. Indeed, not even 2 weeks ago, the President admitted he did not even have a strategy to confront IS. I am looking to the administration to provide additional information about the rebels it is proposing to train and arm. Several administration officials have stated that the rebels may be fighting both the Assad regime and IS. But against whom will the rebels first turn their weapons we give them? IS or the Assad regime? I also have very serious reservations about including this expanded military authorization in the continuing resolution, a short-term funding bill. This authorization raises very serious issues. Make no mistake. It will ultimately involve United States servicemembers, men and women from our cities, towns, and countryside, who will leave their families behind at home. Such a measure deserves consideration in a completely separate resolution. The President should never have asked for such a serious matter to be added to a short-term spending bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment under consideration.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Beaver County Vietnam Veterans of America. I join Beaver County residents and all western Pennsylvanians in thanking them for their service to our Nation, as well as their efforts to bring The Wall that Heals, a traveling Vietnam Memorial, to Beaver County for the second time. The Wall that Heals is a half-scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. It travels across the country and provides greater access to the memorial for those who may not be able to visit it in our Nation's capital. At more than 600 members strong, the Beaver County Vietnam Veterans of America is the largest chapter in Pennsylvania and the third largest chapter in the Nation. Thanks to their efforts, The Wall that Heals will be in Quay Square in Darlington from September 24 through September 28. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the service of all Vietnam veterans and thanking the members of the Beaver County Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 862, for their hard work in once again bringing The Wall that Heals to Beaver County.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay special tribute to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, also known as the VFW, on the 100th anniversary of its organization in September 1914. The Ladies Auxiliary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars was also organized in 1914. Over the past century, members of the VFW have worked tirelessly to ensure that veterans receive the respect, honor, and support they deserve. The VFW was formed when the American Veterans of Foreign Service and the National Society of the Army of the Philippines merged during a conference at the former Schenley Hotel, which is now the William Pitt Union at the University of Pittsburgh. A Pennsylvania Historic Society marker that sits between the Soldiers and Sailors Hall and the William Pitt Union commemorating the occasion reads: The Veterans of Foreign Wars organized September 14-17, 1914, at the former Schenley Hotel near here. Veterans who had served in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and China were among its founders. Since its founding, the VFW has done tremendous work to serve veterans and family members. The organization played a central role in the creation of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the GI Bill. In addition, the VFW helped spearhead the creation of the Vietnam War, Korean War, World War II, and Women in Military Service Memorials. It continues this legacy of service by helping veterans and their family members secure VA benefits, including disability claims and pensions. The VFW continues to play an important role as Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return home and adjust to civilian life. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join us in recognizing and expressing sincere gratitude for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the important work they have done and continue to do to stand with those who have stood for us.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, this border crisis is one of the President's making. We are here on a Friday night in August because the President has not done his job. His failure to enforce the law and failure to secure the border have encouraged tens of thousands of children to make a dangerous journey to the United States. On the way, they are exposed to traffickers, health risks, and other dangers. That is not fair to these children. This is just the latest example of the President's lack of regard for the rule of law and how it has very real consequences. This legislation before the House addresses the crisis with solutions that prioritize resources to expedite the processing of cases, provide temporary housing and humanitarian assistance, return children to their countries of origin, and deploy the National Guard. Importantly, it will prevent future humanitarian crises by amending current law to allow children to be promptly returned to their native home. This legislation is not a blank check for the President. It is a carefully crafted response to the chaos that the President has allowed to develop on the border and in these children's lives. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this very informative Special Order tonight. You are right: I came here to make a difference. I came here to be part of a team that wants to relight America, relight the job market, relight opportunity, relight the American Dream, because people are hungry for it. They see this town that is out of control, they look at this town, and if they visit this town, they marvel at the growth that is happening in Washington, D.C. I challenge everybody who visits Washington to count the construction cranes they see and the explosive growth and the high-end shops that open here and the concentration of wealth and power in this town. It is a scandal to the rest of the country. I see these construction cranes here on Pennsylvania Avenue. I would like to see those construction cranes back in Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker. But this is a very important discussion we are having about the actions that this House is taking to relight the American economy and how it gets snuffed out in the Senate. As we have reviewed this evening, Mr. Speaker, the House has continued to pass legislation that would move our country ahead, grow our economy, add more jobs, and increase wages and prosperity. Then there is the brick wall across the other side of the Capitol. Nowhere is the Senate's inaction more evident than in the budgeting and appropriations process we have here in Washington, D.C. The Senate and House have together managed to pass all 12 appropriations bills and complete the appropriations process on time by September 30 only four times since 1977. It is shocking. This House, Mr. Speaker, has been working to correct this problem. I want to recognize the hard work of the House Appropriations Committee and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. This year, the Appropriations Committee has already passed 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee. Seven of those bills have already passed the House here, most of them with strong bipartisan majorities. How many bills, how many appropriations bills has the Senate passed? Zero. They have yet to pass a single one. The Senate's failure to do its work is disappointing, but it is not surprising. That is why I introduced the Congressional Pay for Performance Act earlier this year. The bill is simple. The House and Senate must each pass a budget and all annual appropriations bills by August 1 or have their pay withheld until the job is done. It applies that fundamental lesson that we learn in our first job: if you don't do your work, you don't get paid until you do. That is the lesson that millions of young Americans learned working their first job this summer. It is the lesson I learned on my first paper route. I didn't get paid if I didn't deliver the newspaper. It is past time for Members of Congress to live by that lesson. Beyond the Senate's failure to execute their constitutionally prescribed job of appropriations, the House has passed, as you noted, more than 350 bills, including many jobs bills, that Senator Reid allows to collect dust in the Senate. Over 98 percent of these bills have passed with bipartisan support, both Republicans and Democrats. As of this morning, Mr. Speaker, 195 of these bills passed without opposition. House Democrats introduced 60 of these bills that now gather dust in the Senate. Again and again, the Senate refuses to act.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Sixty of those bills, Mr. Speaker--you look at the stack of paper that the gentleman from Georgia has with him here today--Mr. Speaker, 60 of those bills were introduced by Democrats, and yet they gather dust in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, we passed dozens of energy-related bills designed to increase production, reduce prices, add family sustaining jobs, and promote American energy independence. Bills like the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, the Northern Route Approval Act, which is going to get the Keystone XL pipeline going, passed in May of 2013, 241-175. It has been sitting over in the Senate for 434 days. We have passed dozens of regulatory reform bills to promote job growth and keep an out-of-touch and out-of-control Washington, D.C., bureaucracy in check. Those like the REINS Act that the gentleman from Florida mentioned. A very simple bill. If a regulatory agency puts out a regulation on the economy that is going to cost more than $50 million to implement, suppressing job growth, bring it back here for an up-or- down vote. Let's restore the constitutional responsibility for both the Senate and the House, who have that responsibility for making the law. Let us take accountability for that. If there is a regulation that merits approval, we are going to vote for it. It is called being accountable. But you can't fire these bureaucrats who come up with these regulations that have a negative impact on our economy. We have also passed the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency Act, known as the ALERRT Act. It is an effort to improve thoughtful consideration of the consequences of regulation. I offered an amendment to the ALERRT Act. The amendment requires the capital bureaucrats to acknowledge whether their regulations will have a negative impact on jobs or wages in a particular industry. Any such regulation will be subject to additional review to ensure that the benefits justify the costs to families and communities. The principle is simple: if Washington bureaucrats are going to implement rules that take wages or jobs away from hardworking Americans, they should take responsibility for and justify their decisions. It is important that regulators think through the impacts, costs, and burdens that red tape imposes on families and communities, and it is time for the Senate to come to the support of those individuals and those communities and take up the ALERRT Act. We have passed several tax-related bills to help individuals keep more of their hard-earned money and to help small businesses add jobs and increase wages, like the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act and the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act. We have also heard stories of people whose hours have been cut because of the 30-hour work week in the President's health care law. But the House has acted. That is why we passed the Save American Workers Act to restore the traditional 40-hour work week and help those who want the opportunity to work more hours and see their wages go up. The Senate has to act. Time and again, Mr. Speaker, the House has acted but the Senate has not. I really thank the gentleman from Georgia for shining a light on what is going on at this Capitol, the production that is coming out of this side of the Capitol and then hits the wall on the other side. It is time for the Senate to act, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia notes that western Pennsylvania has a growing energy industry. We are seeing a tremendous number of jobs coming in, family sustaining jobs. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, when somebody gets a job in that field and they start to get that paycheck--and every American who gets a paycheck sees this--there is some stuff that is taken out. There is a FICA charge, a Medicare tax charge, and Federal taxes. Mr. Speaker, that is how we are paying for Social Security, that is how we are paying for Medicare. When people pay their income taxes, it is how we pay for the defense of our country. This is a dangerous world, Mr. Speaker. We need to have an economy that is generating the kind of jobs where people can get back to work and get those salaries and wages so that when they pay taxes, they are paying for Social Security, Medicare, and veterans benefits. We have got a boom like you have never seen before, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia has all these bills there that show the work that this House is doing, all to help this economy get growing again. If you want to be paying for Social Security, if you want to be paying for Medicare, if you want to be paying for veterans benefits, we have got to grow this economy at 4 percent, at 5 percent, yes, at 6 percent. So many people, Mr. Speaker, have said, that is not going to happen, we can't get there. It happened. It happened in the 1980s, it happened in the 1990s. We can do this. We are a blessed land, Mr. Speaker, and in western Pennsylvania we see that. We are having a big debate right now with respect to the President's greenhouse gas emissions, and there is testimony being taken across the country, including in Pittsburgh. We have to use our resources. Under his plan, in 2008, when the President was running for his seat, he promises, ``Electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.'' No single person should have the authority to impose a policy on a country that would cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket. That is why the REINS Act is so important. That is why Senator Reid has to move the REINS Act to the floor of the Senate, to have this Congress have a voice. Our Constitution has an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The legislative branch is where those policy decisions should be made.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is asking questions about what is happening on the Senate side. They are simply not acting. It was 241-175. I think the last time I counted, there are some 234 Republicans in this House. It was 241, so there are Democrats voting for this bill. There is almost universal support for Keystone XL. The President could allow it to go forward. Thousands of jobs are in the waiting-- thousands of jobs where people would be paying Social Security tax and Medicare tax and increasing the supply of North American energy being able to be refined in this country, which means American jobs refining that. So what is happening over there in the Senate? It is not coming up. We get phone calls all the time from our constituents, and it is important that constituents call their Members of Congress, who are their employees. We are the employees of the American people. The Senators are the employees of the American people because they pay our paychecks. Their hard-earned tax dollars are what fund the paychecks for Senators and the paychecks for the Members of this House. We are the employees of the American people. So we welcome phone calls from our bosses, our employers out there. They need to be calling their employees in the Senate and saying: Why aren't you approving the Keystone XL pipeline? We need those jobs. Why aren't you approving the REINS Act? We don't think one person should make the decision that would turn off the lights in this country, turn off the lights at power plants, turn off the lights in coal mines, turn off the lights in factories because the prices are going too high. When the President said that electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket, if you are opening up a plant and you are looking at that, that is a cost. If the income doesn't exceed the cost, that factory isn't going to get built. So there are folks across the country--entrepreneurs--who want to get things going. They want to hire people, but then they look at the cost, and they say: no, we are going to put our money elsewhere. We need people investing in this country because that is what is going to cause this country to boom again, and look at some of the tax bills we passed out of this House, which wait in the Senate--where is the Keystone XL pipeline? Where is the Northern Route Approval Act right now? I can't answer the question that the gentleman from Georgia asks, but I think maybe the Senators could answer that question if their bosses-- the people who pay their salaries--would call them.