Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. And reclaiming my time, this is the kind of energy and leadership that David Dreier expects from Members as he gives them not just tasks but opportunities, and the young chairman gave me that opportunity, and I took full advantage of that. As I recall, we were 10 out of 10. All of them voted for it. So I didn't just make up ``all of them.'' Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill we're doing today. This is worthy of our time, and I'm delighted that we're joined by our friends.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Reverend Dr. Ronald E. Hodges and his congregation on the grand opening of the Christian Faith World Ministries Church (CFWMC) in Addison, Texas on September 30, 2012. Through the prayer, hard work and leadership of Reverend Hodges, the vision of a new church facility is now a reality. Strategically located, CFWMC plans to reach out to the people of Addison as well as to the neighboring communities of Carrollton, Farmers Branch, and North Dallas. The church offers a variety of ministries, including counseling, fellowship groups, and education programs, designed to provide a wide range of opportunities for individuals to serve, connect, and establish community. Faith is of great importance and plays a vital role in our society. It strengthens families and relationships, instills values and principles, and encourages participation for the betterment of our communities. I am delighted to recognize Reverend Hodges and Christian Faith World Ministries Church as they celebrate this special occasion. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt congratulations on the grand opening of this new facility. May God bless Reverend Hodges and his congregation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend and colleague, the Honorable Sam Johnson. He is this year's recipient of the Maurice Acers Champion of Free Enterprise Lifetime Achievement Award from the Texas Association of Business. Congressman Johnson has been a long time champion for the free enterprise system in America. After twenty-nine years of dedicated service in the United States Air Force, Congressman Johnson started a home-building business in North Dallas. He knows firsthand the challenges of starting a business and of the pride in building and maintaining something entirely of your own making. He has continued to advocate for the free enterprise system because he understands its importance. This notion of allowing individuals to make their own economic decisions and grasp the opportunities available in this country is the essence of the American entrepreneurial spirit. It spurs innovation, nurtures creativity, and led to the economic growth and development of our great Nation. Congressman Johnson's continued support for the free enterprise system speaks loudly of his belief in the individual and the tremendous potential each and every American possesses. From a decorated military career to serving in the Texas House of Representatives and now proudly representing the 3rd Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Johnson has devoted his life to public service. His life story is one that exemplifies the American Dream--that dedication, hard work, and perseverance can lead to great success. He has given his life to serving our country because he believes in a better tomorrow for the next generation. It is my great honor and privilege to congratulate my friend, Congressman Johnson, on receiving this prestigious award. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Congressman Johnson on this great honor, and I would like to take this time to thank him for his service.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 779 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6213. This rule provides for the discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate. I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation ensures that all American taxpayers will never again be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of this administration's politically motivated risky bets. H.R. 6213 draws on the lessons learned from the failed Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program, which invested $535 million into a solar energy company named Solyndra. Unfortunately, Solyndra went bankrupt, leaving hardworking Americans with a check for over half a billion dollars. Solyndra has become synonymous with the Obama administration's reckless spending programs that have done nothing to create the jobs our country so desperately needs, nor those that had been promised by the President of the United States and the Democratic Party. Despite warnings that the company was unsustainable and would surely fail, the administration was blinded by their political agenda and committed over half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to a privately held company. In fact, during a 2011 restructuring of the loan, the administration placed private investors ahead of taxpayers when it came to reimbursement in the event of bankruptcy. Given these practices, it's no wonder that our current President has created budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion each year he has served as President. In addition to ensuring that the Federal Government does not throw taxpayer dollars after the investments, H.R. 6213 also highlights the need of the Federal Government to stop propping up failed companies which cannot support themselves in the open market. The Federal Government should not guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans to companies that do not have a business model that supports sufficient private investment. The administration should not pretend to be a venture capitalist with taxpayers' money. In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, Congressman Ed Whitfield, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, testified that the DOE loan guarantee programs spent $15 billion, but only created 1,175 jobs. That means that each job created cost taxpayers $12.8 million. These statistics demonstrate what House Republicans have been saying for years--this country cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity. Instead, we must encourage the free enterprise system by preventing over-regulation and promoting pro-growth policies, including tax policies that do not push jobs overseas, that create a better free enterprise system, that create not just jobs but also careers for Americans. And they should be designed to incentivize private investment, which is known, Mr. Speaker, as the free enterprise system. Ultimately, the No More Solyndras Act puts an end to an ineffective government program, protects taxpayers from financing the administration's wish list of projects, and establishes necessary oversight to hold executive branch officials accountable for their actions. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know that our Democrat friends think it's absolutely nothing to lose half a billion dollars that a government made a decision on. But what they really don't like is when we bring that up, when we say part of the job of being a Member of Congress as a policy body is to look at the mistakes that were made. We certainly have looked at mistakes that Republicans and Democrats, administrations and others, have made. But to ignore an issue would be a mistake. This is not just Solyndra. It was the process of a political agenda that did not, could not pass the smell test and even make it out in the real world. It was a political agenda that was so wanted by an administration that they gave lots of money, not just half a billion here, but to other companies. You know, today's legislation certainly highlights Solyndra as a failure in the DOE, Department of Energy's loan program, but it should be mentioned that there were other companies, not just Solyndra. It's really a political process that said, Let's go do this thing whether it makes sense or not, whether it makes money. The companies went bankrupt. Part of this comes from you've got a lot of people in the administration that wouldn't even recognize a business plan if they saw one. They do recognize taxpayer dollars, plenty of those that were made available by this excessive spending. But accountability is now what Democrats don't like when we're saying let's look at what happened, what materialized. So Solyndra is not just a one-time or one-company failure of an otherwise what would be called a successful program. It's not. This simply became the poster child, and we believe that we shouldn't repeat this failure. We believe we should effectively talk about it on the floor of the House of Representatives. We should take some bit of time. We're not here beating anybody up. You never even heard me mention names behind the administration or who made these decisions or who pushed it. We're not trying to do that. We're simply trying to say that we believe half a billion dollars, and a review of that, should become available in the light of day, to not just Members of Congress; but we should vote on it and say we drew a conclusion with some issues. So we believe any objective evaluation of the facts reveals some issues of Federal dollars of a plan that should be stopped, has stopped, but that we should at least tell what the results were. That's what we're doing here today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to go to the report. Let's see what the report out of the Energy and Commerce Committee said. I am quoting what would be on page 5: However, the Bush administration did not approve any loan guarantees under the program. This was due partly to the fact that the DOE office implementing the program was slow in being set up, and that program funding only became available in 2007. But even after the Bush DOE had the program up and running, it ran into difficulties finding applicants whose energy projects are meritorious. In other words, they could not find somebody who is asking for the loan who could present a good business plan of not just profit and loss, but where it would fit in the marketplace to even be considered successful. This is the reason why the Bush administration and Republicans did not do that because they could see failure in the marketplace written all over it even as early as 2007. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we're now well into the political extremism that we see many times that exhibits itself not just here on the floor of the House of Representatives but really all across this country--those people that want gasoline to rise substantially because they really don't like gasoline. They really don't like the underpinning of how this country uses the energy that we have. Whether it's natural gas, they attack natural gas. If it's nuclear--which is a non-emitting source of pollution--they attack that. This crowd that really doesn't like free enterprise and what I believe is the heartland of this country, manufacturing, which has really taken off as a result of effective use of natural resources in this country through natural gas and the availability of nuclear power and the availability of oil, which fuels our cars to where we can use the resources that were given us effectively. What they want to do is they want to tax these industries higher so that prices go up, so that consumers have to pay a lot more money. What they forget is that the cars that we fuel, the electricity that we need is the cleanest and the best here in America. The way these are produced are American jobs. The way they're consumed is about American jobs. The way that consumers pay for them and pay for these advantages is American jobs. And here we're looking at how half a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money was put into an effort that not only not ever got off the ground, it quickly went into bankruptcy because it did not meet the marketplace challenges. I'm not opposed to competition; I think we stand for competition. But don't push a narrow environmentalist policy, go to the White House, go to the Department of Energy and try and fund these on taxpayer dollars only to see that, whoops, we made a mistake, and then act like, whoops, we don't want anybody to know. All we're trying to suggest today is that Republicans do believe in American jobs. We do believe in American industry. We do believe in the energy industry. We believe in effective use of resources because we're trying to keep jobs here. Their narrow, political, environmentalist policy is what will diminish American jobs, it will diminish our ability to effectively use the resources that we have in this country, and it will put us in a circumstance--for instance, with the Keystone pipeline--where we could use energy from a friendly neighbor to fuel American needs at a good price and avoid what may happen if we get into a circumstance overseas in the Middle East where we would be held hostage, held hostage by those that have the energy that we need, when we could be having it not only close to home, but in our own home, energy made in America. So, Republicans, look, all we're trying to say is a half a billion dollars that was wasted, somebody ought to recognize that we shouldn't be doing that. That's what Republicans are doing here today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very obvious that what Republicans are trying to do is to keep American jobs. We're trying to utilize the free enterprise system, the natural resources that we have in America--clean natural gas, the abundance of other power that we have, including coal, including nuclear--opportunities to keep America strong and keep jobs here, and that's why we're really opposed to the loan guarantees and the things which might take on additional debt and risk by the government. But, more importantly, if it can't be funded within the free enterprise system, then it can't stand on its own. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), one of my colleagues.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously, we can see that today's legislation answers the question. It ends the debate about Solyndra. Taxpayers know the committee did its work. It held a Rules Committee hearing. Half a billion dollars was lost by Solyndra. We're not down here jumping up and down. We haven't even raised our voices. We simply said that we think that a better process could have taken place, and they're arguing we never should have even had this on the floor--that we don't need any feedback, that everybody already knows. Here is what they know. We lost half a billion dollars by one company. At least two others had the same outcome where they did not produce anything. They went belly up--bankrupt. We just think that the administration--government-- is really not in the business and shouldn't be in the business--despite what we've heard--of pushing the envelope. Let's go out and invest whether it makes sense or not. Losing money is still a bad proposition. Republicans think it's a bad proposition. There have been lots of arguments today that the government did the right thing, that this administration did the right thing. I think that the facts of the case say that half a billion dollars in a process that didn't work--we need to hear the feedback, and we need to close the books on it. The rule is here to do exactly that--to place on the floor the opportunity for us to debate now the facts of the case, which is exactly what will happen. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts of the case that have been clearly enumerated by both sides are very important for this Congress to understand in that this is an agreement on both sides. Yet I think what has happened is that, due to the bipartisan leadership back on the committee between not just Mr. Holt and the chairman but also with the gentleman, Mr. Fleming, it has really come to the aid and assistance, not just in a bipartisan way but in a commonsense way. It is the opportunity for 1.6 million people who need this desperately to be able to get water at a time of drought, at a time of much consternation in Texas where we have fires and drought and heat and a lot of problems. This means that the people of North Texas know that Chairman Ralph Hall and this committee worked very carefully to make sure that they went through regular order, to make sure that they knew the facts of the case, to make sure that they studied this well. I really want to offer, not just my support for this, but my thanks to the committee and to the committee chairman for the hard work that has been done by this. I don't make apologies for coming to the floor to do things that are in the best interests of the people of Texas, but this has become necessary as a result of directives back in Texas and the inability of people to clearly resolve this. So I am very pleased to support not just this bill, H.R. 6007, but also the concept of Congress working together through using common sense. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss an issue which is vital to North Texas. H.R. 6007, the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act, provides an elegant solution to a growing problem. Currently, 1.6 million customers of the North Texas Municipal Water District, many of whom are my constituents, have restricted access to water as a result of the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Texoma. Additionally, water transfers have become complicated because of a surveying error resulting in the incorrect designation of the District's Lake Texoma intake station as being in Oklahoma rather than in Texas. This surveyor's error, made more than a decade ago by the Red River Boundary Compact, means that water transfers of zebra mussels now cross a state line. Such a transfer triggers the Lacey Act, which is designed to prevent the spread of invasive species across state lines. In response, the North Texas Municipal Water District has been forced to suspend all pumping from Lake Texoma for the past three years. This water source constitutes roughly 28 percent of the North Texas Municipal Water District's available supply of raw water. Such a reduction in available resources has put a tremendous stress on the District and its ability to assure its customers that there will be an adequate supply of water in the future. H.R. 6007 would allow North Texas Municipal Water District to resume water transfers from Lake Texoma through a completely closed conveyance system that delivers water directly into their water treatment facility. To achieve this, the North Texas Municipal Water District has committed approximately $300 million to build a 46-mile long pipeline. The District has approved the funding and obtained the necessary 4-0-4 permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction. Such a conveyance system would provide safe and dependable means for the District to access the water they have legal rights to while ensuring, with 100 percent reliability, that Zebra Mussels will not be transferred into Texas waters. Their treatment facility will employ chemical and mechanical means of filtration to eliminate any risk of propagation of invasive species. Such techniques have been proven successful in other areas of the country and have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ultimately, H.R. 6007 will restore the adequate and steady stream of water to over 1.6 million Texans without the use of taxpayer dollars while complying with the Lacey Act's intended goal of preventing the spread of invasive species.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate For the Love of the Lake, a community organization, on its 200th consecutive Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce Up that will be held at White Rock Lake on November 10, 2012. For the Love of the Lake is committed to the preservation of White Rock Lake Park and sponsors the Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up initiative along with many other noteworthy programs. Since April 1996, volunteers of the Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up have gathered on the second Saturday of each month to pick up trash and scattered debris around the shores of White Rock Lake. They also work closely with the City of Dallas' Parks and Recreation Department to protect the local wildlife. Over the years, this organization has devoted countless hours to this endeavor, ensuring that White Rock Lake is kept clean and beautiful for all to enjoy. I have had the privilege of laboring alongside these dedicated volunteers and know firsthand the hard work it takes to clean up the shoreline. For the Love of the Lake truly understands the importance of conservation, and continues to protect White Rock Lake Park so it may remain an urban oasis for the City of Dallas. I am thankful for these dedicated volunteers and For the Love of the Lake. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating For the Love of the Lake on its 200th consecutive Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up. This remarkable achievement speaks loudly to the organization's continued commitment to maintain the integrity of White Rock Lake Park.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the International Day of Radiology, and draw attention to the important contribution that radiology, in particular diagnostic imaging, serves in the health care delivery system. International Day of Radiology is observed annually on November 8th, an important date in the history of radiology. On that day in 1895, Professor Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen discovered x-rays. Radiology will be celebrated by many groups including the American College of Radiology, the Radiological Society of North America, and the European Society of Radiology. Radiologists (physicians with special training in the use of imaging including x-rays), Radiation Oncologists (physicians trained to treat cancers with radiation alone or in combination with surgery and/or chemotherapy), and the medical imaging community have made significant contributions to modern medicine, providing powerful tools for clinical diagnosis, decision making, and treatment of disease. Over the last 30 years, medical imaging tools have been among the most sophisticated and cutting-edge technologies developed for patient care. During that span we have seen consistent decreases in cancer mortality rates with corresponding increases in American life expectancy. The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recognized the tremendous contribution of medical imaging exams when it ranked imaging among the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the twentieth century. Practicing physicians surveyed in a 2001 Health Affairs study ranked Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) number one among the top 30 recent medical innovations. Perhaps most telling, the New England Journal of Medicine named medical imaging one of the top 10 medical advances of the last 1,000 years. A 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that individuals with greater access to imaging scans live longer. Diagnostic imaging services have enabled patients to avoid several types of expensive and invasive procedures. Imaging scans cost less than surgeries and reduce the number of unnecessary hospital admissions and length of hospital stays. As such, medical imaging serves an important role in containing the cost of health care in the United States. With its impact on patients' health, I'm pleased to recognize the importance of diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology, and call attention to November 8th as the International Day of Radiology.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Reverend Dr. Robert E. Price, Sr., the pastor of New Mount Zion Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. Dr. Price passed away on Saturday, July 14, 2012. Born in Smithville, Texas, Dr. Price grew up in a large family as the second youngest of eleven children. At an early age, he took a strong interest in ministry. He helped local pastors during his high school years and assisted chaplains during his tenure in the U.S. Army. After retiring from a successful career at a mortgage banking company, Dr. Price felt the call to ministry. He attended Bishop College for training in theology and later graduated from Saint Thomas Christian College with a Doctor of Divinity degree. Dr. Price was a man with great vision who wholeheartedly dedicated himself to serving his community. Under his leadership, New Mount Zion Baptist Church grew from less than one hundred members to over 3,000 members. It also began to offer a variety of ministries, including educational, business, and technological ministries, to meet the needs of its congregation. His dreams of having a day care center and credit union for the church also came to fruition. To recognize Dr. Price and his dedicated service to our community, I sponsored legislation to have a local post office named in his honor. In March 2007, I had the privilege of attending the dedication ceremony, where I witnessed firsthand the countless elected officials, community leaders, and individuals that came out to show their support, love, and respect for Dr. Price. His legacy is one of faith, service, and charity. Dr. Price is survived by his loving wife, Deloris Brashear Price; his son, Robert E. Price, Jr.; his daughters, Patricia Hicks and Lisa Rausaw; and his grandsons, Donald Hicks, Kelvin Rausaw, Jr. and Kortland Rausaw. I am honored to have known Dr. Price and know that he will be greatly missed. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, first, I'd like to recognize both of the gentlemen that are here on behalf of the committee today, the gentleman, Mr. Dicks, and the gentleman, Mr. Young, for their outstanding service not only to our country, but to this Congress, on behalf of making sure that we have freedom and that the men and women who protect this country are properly taken care of. I express my gratitude to both of them. Also, I want to thank Hal Rogers, and certainly the gentleman from New Jersey who is sitting in for the committee today. I want to thank him also. Mr. Chairman, today, I stand up in support of the dedication and hard work this Congress has done for work on something on known as TBI, traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This Congress, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, has continued increasing funding for TBI and PTSD overall, and by this bill by $125 million. On May 18, 2012, during the National Defense Authorization Act debate, the House unanimously adopted my amendment to create a pilot program administered by the Department of Defense that would strengthen treatment for our troops coming home with TBI and PTSD. Today, Congress has the opportunity to appropriate funds for this program. My amendment, offered with my dear friend from California, the gentleman, Mike Thompson, specifically moves $10 million from more than $31 billion in the Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide budget to increase the Defense Health Program by $10 million. This money will directly assist these soldiers who have TBI-related injuries by allowing them to be reimbursed for attending private sector facilities that perform cutting-edge treatments. One in four recent combat veterans treated by the Veterans Health Administration from 2004 to 2009 had a diagnosis of PTSD, and about 7 percent have been diagnosed with TBI. According to the U.S. Army, the number of soldiers leaving Active Duty service has increased by 64 percent from 2005 to 2009 due to brain health, whether it was TBI, PTSD, or a mental illness. These soldiers leave at a rapid rate. A 2009 RAND study estimates that costs related to depression, PTSD, and TBI in our soldiers ranges from $4 billion to $6.2 billion over a 2-year period of time. Today, health care providers all over the country are working to provide treatment to brain injury patients with new and innovative treatments, with remarkable results. One such treatment utilizes hyperbaric oxygen to reduce or eliminate chronic symptoms of TBI, such as headaches, memory loss, and mood swings. While the Department of Defense has made many, many strides in research under the direction of Colonel Scott Miller, many innovative treatments, unfortunately, are not available within the military facilities. So, this amendment that I offer today would allow these men and women who seek treatment to be able to do so at our leading-edge facilities that are private around the United States of America. My amendment will provide for treatment and recovery that is desperately needed. I urge my amendment to be approved, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the last one hundred years Rice University has made unique and important contributions to our Nation and the world. Despite its small size, Rice has stood as one of the most forward-thinking institutions, contributing monumental advances in science and technology, as well as to the liberal arts. It was Rice University that opened the Nation's first department of space physics and produced American business magnates like Howard Hughes. It was Rice University that was the decades-long teaching home to Nobel Prize winners Richard Smalley and Robert Curland, and it is Rice University that continues to educate some of the brightest minds in the world. At this moment, Rice students are developing coated sand that can purify water in countries without access to clean drinking water and lithium- ion batteries that can be painted onto any surface. In 2008, Rice University was ranked the number one institution for ``industry impact.'' Education is the key to our Nation's future, and it is institutions like Rice University that will ensure that America's greatest days are not in the past. Please join me today in celebrating the many accomplishments that Rice has achieved over the last one hundred years, and many more surely to come.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 724 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6079. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act of 2012, was introduced by the Republican majority leader, Eric Cantor, the gentleman from Virginia. The bill text has been online since last Thursday, giving Members more than the mandatory 3 days to read and to understand the language. Madam Speaker, on June 28, just 12 days ago, the United States Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate provisions contained in ObamaCare, thereby forcing every American to purchase health insurance. While I may disagree with how they ruled, I respect their decision and there is nothing we can do to change that. ObamaCare is now the official law of the land. However, there is something this body can do to reverse the course and to prevent the job-destroying aspects of this bill from taking effect: a complete repeal of the bill that the President asked this Congress to pass under Speaker Pelosi--and they did. We need to repeal ObamaCare today. In 2010, Republicans were elected all across this country because Americans understood the need to stop the tax-and-spend policies of the other party. H.R. 6079 will do exactly that. Last night in the Rules Committee, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), urged us to ``dispassionately examine the facts.'' I agree with just that sentiment and would like to take a moment to do just that. Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, reported that health insurance premiums are expected to rise by over 44 percent over the next 9 years as a result of ObamaCare. And since ObamaCare was signed into law, there has been a steady decline in the number of Americans on private health insurance. A report from the McKinsey Group found that more than 50 percent of employers with a high awareness of the law say that they will stop offering health insurance, confirming what Republicans have been saying for 3 years, and that is, that ObamaCare is designed to force employers to drop coverage in an attempt to get Americans to enter the new health care exchanges. A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that health insurance premiums have increased by 9 percent, or $1,200, for the average American family following passage of the President's health care bill. According to the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report, as a direct result of ObamaCare, more than 90 percent of seniors will lose the retiree prescription drug coverage they have and will see nearly double-digit premium increases. Seniors will also see reduced access to doctors, as Medicare officials explained that physicians ``could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program, which possibly could jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries.'' According to the President's own budget, the cost of ObamaCare subsidies have jumped $111 billion in just 1 year. Earlier this year, during a Ways and Means Committee hearing on February 28, 2012, when asked why this happened, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said, ``I really don't know.'' Finally, earlier this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office adjusted their long-term outlook of the impact of ObamaCare on our national debt. The revised figures show ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $1.8 trillion--twice as much as the President promised in 2010 when the bill was passed. These are just a few of the facts that I believe should be considered dispassionately as we debate whether to repeal ObamaCare. If you think that the facts I just listed are what the country needs, vote to keep it. However, if you, like me, find these facts unacceptable for our future, then I urge you to join me in repealing ObamaCare so that we can focus on patient-centered health care solutions which do not increase dramatically insurance premiums, do not restrict access to physicians, and do not mount unsustainable debt onto our children and grandchildren, as well as harming employers who wish to employ more Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2011. Study Sees Cuts to Health Plans (By Janet Adamy) A report by McKinsey & Co. has found that 30% of employers are likely to stop offering workers health insurance after the bulk of the Obama administration's health overhaul takes effect in 2014. The findings come as a growing number of employers are seeking waivers from an early provision in the overhaul that requires them to enrich their benefits this year. At the end of April, the administration had granted 1,372 employers, unions and insurance companies one-year exemptions from the law's requirement that they not cap annual benefit payouts below $750,000 per person a year. But the law doesn't allow for such waivers starting in 2014, leaving all those entities--and other employers whose plans don't meet a slate of new requirements--to change their offerings or drop coverage. Previous research has suggested the number of employers who opt to drop coverage altogether in 2014 would be minimal. But the McKinsey study predicts a more dramatic shift from employer-sponsored health plans once the new marketplace takes effect. Starting in 2014, all but the smallest employers will be required to provide insurance or pay a fine, while most Americans will have to carry coverage or pay a different fine. Lower earners will get subsidies to help them pay for plans. In surveying 1,300 employers earlier this year, McKinsey found that 30% said they would ``definitely or probably'' stop offering employer coverage in the years after 2014. That figure increased to more than 50% among employers with a high awareness of the overhaul law. Behind the expected shift is the fact that the law will give Americans new insurance options outside the workplace, and carriers will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because they have been sick. McKinsey found that reduced the moral obligation employers may feel to provide coverage. The Obama administration says it is working to encourage employers to retain coverage. An administration official, Nick Papas, described the McKinsey report as an outlier amid other research suggesting that employers overwhelmingly would keep coverage. ``History has shown that reform motivates more businesses to offer insurance,'' he said. ``When Massachusetts enacted health reform, the number of individuals with employer- sponsored insurance increased.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a March 2010 report, found that by 2019, about six million to seven million people who otherwise would have had access to coverage through their job won't have it owing to the new law. That estimate represents about 4% of the roughly 160 million people projected to have employment-based coverage in 2019. However, the CBO estimated that the overall number of Americans with coverage will rise by 32 million because of new subsidies and other steps. The law contains a disincentive for employers to drop coverage. It requires all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-time worker or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, though it doesn't apply to the first 30 workers. Health-policy experts have questioned whether that is high enough to discourage companies from health coverage. McKinsey found at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees through other benefits or higher salaries. The study suggests the fallout would be minimal, with more than 85% of employees remaining in their jobs even if their employer stopped coverage. Nearly half the employers said they would consider alternatives to their current plan after 2014. Besides dropping coverage, those included weighing a switch to a defined-contribution model of insurance, in effect offering coverage only to certain employees.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York, and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave