Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1217) to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 219 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1217, which repeals the Prevention and Public Health Fund and rescinds any unobligated funds.

Republicans are on the floor today to fulfill part of our Pledge to America that we would cut spending and we would repeal the Democrats' health care bill passed a year ago. On January 19, this House passed H.R. 2 to repeal ObamaCare completely. The ruling liberal Democrats in the Senate, however, have so far refused to consider H.R. 2, but House Republicans remain undeterred. We will repeal ObamaCare piece by piece if that is what it takes.

Because the liberal elites knew their government takeover of health care was unpopular and would likely have consequences at the ballot box, they included $105 billion in mandatory taxpayer spending in the law itself to protect their favorite programs.

Let me take a moment to explain the difference between ``discretionary'' and ``mandatory'' government spending

First, it's important to remember that the Federal Government does not have any money of its own, as it has only what it takes in taxes from hardworking Americans or money that it borrows from foreign creditors and our future generations. We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that the Federal Government spends.

Discretionary spending is appropriated by Congress annually and therefore subject to congressional oversight and review. Discretionary spending allows Congress to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money by not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. However, what is called mandatory spending funds programs for people who meet certain criteria and occurs irrespective of congressional appropriations and must be spent whether we have the money or not.

The most recognized mandatory spending programs are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which operate on autopilot and have not been subject to congressional oversight from year-to-year as funds automatically stream from the Treasury to anyone who qualifies, that is, meets the criteria for a particular benefit.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1217, would repeal a portion of mandatory ObamaCare spending and eliminate a slush fund established for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. This slush fund, known as the Prevention and Public Health Fund, will automatically receive $1 billion when fiscal year 2012 begins in October of this year with automatic increases every year until it reaches $2 billion annually in fiscal year 2015.

However, there's a very important distinction between this funding and that for Medicare and Social Security in that this funding does not state eligibility criteria.

The liberal elites in Washington think they know how to spend the taxpayers' money better than individual taxpayers and gives Secretary Sebelius $2 billion a year until Congress acts to repeal her authority to spend without accountability.

Republicans are rejecting this slush fund by considering this bill which would repeal the fund and take back any money that has not already been spent this year. The slush fund is not subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore would not be subject to yearly congressional oversight.

The money will be made available to the Secretary regardless of how she chooses to spend it and whether or not the programs being funded are actually effective.

Again, this is not like Medicare and Social Security. There are no criteria for the spending of this money.

It's important to point out that this bill does not cut any specific program, because the slush fund is used by the Secretary to increase spending above congressionally appropriated levels for whatever program the Secretary chooses.

My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this money is being used to train primary care physicians, to prevent obesity, and to encourage healthy lifestyles. What they won't tell you is that they have absolutely no idea how the money is being used, because they abdicated the authority of Congress to an unelected bureaucrat.

The simple truth is that the money is just as likely to be spent on elective abortion as it is for any other purpose.

In the Democrats' dissenting views from the House Energy and Commerce Committee report, they say without mandatory spending for this slush fund, the programs will not be adequately funded. Well, Madam Speaker, that's what the whole process for appropriations is all about. If the programs need more money, it's up to them to come and justify that.

However, they sang a different tune when liberal House Democrats rammed through a government takeover of health care in November of 2009. They created this slush fund but made it subject to the regular appropriations process. That meant it was subject to yearly congressional oversight and direction for how the money would be spent.

But when the ruling liberal Democrats in the Senate sent over their version of the health care bill, which became law, the slush fund had been made mandatory. The liberal elites claim they put in a safeguard because part of the section creating this slush fund states that Congress has the authority to direct how this funding is spent. Well, as any high school junior civics student could tell you, Congress always has the authority to direct, redirect, repeal, or increase funding. Congress can always pass a new law to change the direction of any funding stream. That's our job as legislators. The need to state explicitly that we have the authority to direct spending in a slush fund is pointless.

The simple truth is that we have a spending crisis in this town in large part due to mandatory spending that operates on autopilot. Instead of working to address our unsustainable spending habits, the ruling Democrats refused even to offer a budget resolution last year or pass a single appropriations bill. The liberal elites failed to lead despite having unchecked control of all levers of power in Washington.

I brought a chart with me today to help illustrate the fact that mandatory spending is out of control in Washington. Madam Speaker, let me show you that because of mandatory spending being on autopilot, by the year 2050 the mandatory spending will absorb all revenue coming into the Federal Government, all tax revenue coming into the Federal Government. That simply is unsustainable. We cannot operate our country when we let three programs take up all of the money that comes into the Federal Government. Something has to be done. And yet the Democrats want to add another program to this, which would speed up this process. We don't need that.

As Washington liberals ignored the growing autopilot spending crisis, adding more unaccountable mandatory spending in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, House Republicans are now working hard to protect the future for our children and grandchildren by restoring congressional oversight of spending.

Now, I am sure many Americans are wondering how a slush fund with a clever title would be spent and why it must be put on autopilot. Let me give you an example. Pitt County, in my home State of North Carolina, received funding from this fund to fix prices at convenience stores so that healthy foods would be less expensive and, therefore, supposedly more attractive to the consumer. In addition, the Pitt County Health Department now plans to use some of this money to put up signs indicating the location of public parks, bike lanes, and alternate transportation.

Although I am certainly not opposed to parks or healthy eating habits, it seems quite clear that the Founders of this country did not intend the Federal Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC, to use taxpayer money to subsidize granola bars or purchase signs for bike lanes or parks.

The Federal Government has no business paying for local and community initiatives such as these, especially when we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends to pay for it. The new House Republican majority is ready to lead this country out of our debt crisis. And it starts with voting for this rule and the underlying bill, which will save taxpayers $16 billion.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to point out one small thing to my colleague from Florida. Yes, I do begin wondering every day wondering how I can make life better for other people. But I want to say that there is no accountability whatsoever in this provision of the bill, and we want accountability for every penny of money that we are spending on behalf of the American taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to save taxpayers money by cutting wasteful government spending. The program that we are cutting out we cannot be sure does anything for preventative health care. It has designated that, but there is no idea as to where the money is going to be spent. Republicans certainly want to see Americans do a better job of preventing disease and of making their

health care better, but what we fear is that this money may be used for elective abortions, so we are also here today to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

This slush fund directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to invest in prevention and primary care by funding programs and initiatives under the Public Health Services Act. Title X of the Public Health Services Act provides funding for the abortion industry, including organizations like Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the country.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle and the liberals in Washington have really outdone themselves to ensure their favorite constituencies are provided for in their new health care law. This slush fund is yet another Democrat trick to use taxpayer money to subsidize elective abortion. Despite what they may have you believe, supporters of taxpayer-funded elective abortion cannot honestly claim this money cannot be used for elective abortion under Title X. The liberal Democrat elites relinquished all authority over this slush fund to Secretary Sebelius. For far too long, abortion providers have used Title X money to subsidize their operating costs, thereby subsidizing elective abortion.

We've heard a lot of misinformation being circulated in Washington this week about Planned Parenthood, the largest elective abortion provider in the country. As I pointed out in the Rules Committee last night, one of my colleagues across the aisle said that Republicans were ``here to kill women'' and compared us to Nazis.

Liberal Democrats maintain that women will lose access to preventative care if the government stops funding for the abortion industry. What they are not telling you is that Planned Parenthood has almost $1 billion in net assets and reported $737 million in revenues for its most recent filing year. Any big abortion organization making $737 million a year should be able to function without taxpayer subsidies, Mr. Speaker. This is not about women's health or access to preventative care. Through Federal and State Medicaid programs, low- income women have access to family planning and preventative health services at hospitals, doctors' offices and community health centers nationwide.

Another claim Planned Parenthood makes is that 97 percent of the 3 million patients they served in fiscal 2008 received preventative care services and that only 3 percent received abortions. These supporters of taxpayer-funded abortion ought to check their math. According to their own facts sheet for March 2011, Planned Parenthood clinics performed 332,278 abortions in fiscal year 2008. If they saw 3 million patients and performed 332,278 abortions, that means at least 11 percent of the services provided were abortions.

If they cannot be trusted regarding this simple math, what else are they hiding from the American people, Mr. Speaker?

Another astounding statistic I would like to share is that 97.6 percent of pregnant women who received services at Planned Parenthood clinics received abortions. Only 2.4 percent of pregnant women received only prenatal or adoption referral services at Planned Parenthood.

Elective abortion is not health care, Mr. Speaker. This is not about preventative health care or about improving access to primary care. This is about subsidizing the big abortion industry. If this slush fund remains unchecked, the Secretary could fund whatever program she chooses to the tune of up to $2 billion a year. That kind of money can purchase a lot of elective abortions, which strikes at the consciences of so many tax-paying Americans.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I have to respond somewhat to my colleague from Florida on some of the points that he made.

He said that it is the law of the land that no Federal Government money

can be used to fund abortions. I know my colleague from Florida has been here a lot longer than I have been, and I know that he understands the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending, and I know that he knows that the Hyde amendment is only on appropriations bills. And as I explained earlier, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bills are what we call discretionary spending, and that what the Democrats did in the health care bill was to put this $2 billion in that bill and call it mandatory spending, which is not subject to the annual appropriations process and therefore does not have the restriction of the Hyde amendment to apply to it.

So I would like to ask my colleague from Florida if he can guarantee on his own word to the American people today that nothing from this $2 billion that is put in for mandatory spending--it's on automatic pilot--would ever be spent for abortions.

Would the gentleman answer that question?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Can the gentleman guarantee that?

I would like to reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

The gentleman has just made my point. He cannot guarantee that this money will not be used for abortions, and neither can anyone else. And that is the point that we are making, Mr. Speaker. There is no accountability for this $2 billion. It is a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And it is wrong, Mr. Speaker, for us to take the hard-earned money of American taxpayers and give it to the Secretary with no accountability and with the distinct possibility that the money could be used to fund abortions.

The liberals ruling Washington the past 4 years have failed to address out-of-control mandatory or discretionary spending. In fact, under their control, discretionary spending has increased 84 percent in just 2 years.

As I mentioned earlier, discretionary spending is the money Congress decides annually to spend on programs with inherent congressional oversight. Mandatory, or autopilot, spending is the money that is automatically pulled from the Treasury without regular congressional oversight. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, when that decision was made for Congress to abrogate its responsibility, but it's a weasel way out. We should be looking at every dollar every year, because that's our responsibility.

Our debt and the liberals' insatiable appetite for perpetual government spending increases are sending America into a tailspin. In response to the complete lack of leadership and fiscal responsibility, House Republicans have been very aggressive in reducing wasteful government overspending, which is the real source of breathtaking budget deficits and private sector unemployment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a chart that comes, I believe, from the Joint Committee on Economics, and it shows what happens when you increase government spending and when you decrease government spending when you're talking about private sector job creation. Every dollar the government takes from the private sector is one less dollar to be spent for private sector innovation and job growth. The government can create only government jobs.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the 13.5 million Americans counted in the official unemployment rate, more than 900,000 Americans have stopped looking for a job because they think no jobs exist for them. I want to point out here that, again, when we saw increased government spending, you see a decrease in private sector jobs. When you see decreased government spending, you see an increase in private sector jobs. That's what the Republicans want to do. Americans want jobs. They want to work. We need to cut government spending and allow the private sector to grow.

More than 45 percent of Americans seeking work have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. Real problems demand real solutions, Mr. Speaker. The track record in the House in 3 short months demonstrates that the new House Republican majority has heard the American people and is acting to provide the relief and solutions they deserve. Less government spending is crucial to encouraging private sector job creation and reducing unemployment. And where better to cut possible government spending than where money could be used for abortions?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out again that Republicans would like to see more preventive care. However, the example that my colleague from California used says nothing about this bill because there is nothing in here to guarantee that this money will go to preventive care, absolutely nothing. There is no accountability in this legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just like to say in response to my colleague from Florida that I think this rule and the underlying bill have a lot more to do with elective abortions than they do with government contracting.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why Secretary Sebelius does not need a slush fund set on autopilot. The American people expect their elected representatives to be wise guardians of their hard-earned dollars. They vehemently objected to the ruling Democrat agenda of Federal overreach into their daily lives and sent a clear message to Washington last November: Government must be responsible and accountable.

All across America, American families are tightening their belts, cutting their budgets and living within their means. It's time Washington did the same.

For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill so we can restore congressional spending oversight and save the taxpayers $16 billion over the next 10 years.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 219 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1354) to amend titles 10 and 41, United States Code, to allow

contracting officers to consider information regarding

domestic employment before awarding a Federal contract, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey and let me thank the chairman of the committee as well.

Madam Chairwoman, we just have a disagreement. I would venture to say that the bulk of sick people in America and others who every day struggle to maintain their health so they can provide for their families would vigorously disagree as well.

I think there are two points that I would like to make, and that is that what we lose when we repeal this Affordable Care Act and the funding of it is more than the glory that we get from going home and bragging that we have undermined America's health care system, or some would say that we have taken away ObamaCare. Preventative care is an unbelievable plus that this bill has generated.

I went to one of my emergency centers, a new one, that is crafted under the public health system. It is to take the load off the emergency centers, the emergency centers that ambulances go to. What an amazing sight, of people coming with broken toes and fingers and feet and bruises, maybe the beginning of heart disease and other problems. But it was a lower level emergency room, not particularly preventative care but the kind of intervention that can save millions of dollars.

I want to go even lower than that--and I don't use that terminology-- but I want people to be able to go and check on their cholesterol, check on their high blood pressure, understand whether they have sickle cell, understand what stage of diabetes they are in or understand what stage of heart disease they are in in a preventative care cycle. And everyone knows that economists document how many billions of dollar that will save. How can we vote against that?

And then secondarily, there are two elements that the Affordable Care Act provides that is being repealed; research and training for health professionals that we absolutely need--whether you're in the private care system or not--and then of course protecting our most precious resource, and that is our children. If you can raise a

child in a healthy manner in terms of nutrition, in terms of immunization, in terms of regular doctor visits, then you are able to save billions of dollars.

This is wrong, headed in a wrong direction. Many of us are fasting. I said on this floor, we must pray because this is the wrong direction to go.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1217, which would repeal the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (``Affordable Care Act'') that established the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a fund which serves as a great stride toward turning our ``sick-care'' system, where we focus on treating the injured and ill, into a true ``healthcare'' system that puts focus on keeping the population well.

It is because of all that the Prevention and Public Heath Fund accomplished in its first year, the overwhelming support the Fund has received from hundreds of organizations, and how essential prevention is to reducing the overall cost of healthcare for the American people, that I oppose the repeal of this Fund.

Despite my general opposition to this bill, yesterday in the Rules Committee meeting, I offered amendments to H.R. 1217, in order to remind this chamber and emphasize to the American people the importance and benefits of preventative care for the American public.

My amendments reaffirm to the American people that we as lawmakers understand the importance of preventative care by stating that it is the sense of Congress that prevention of disease and injury is overwhelmingly effective in improving our healthcare system and keeping that system affordable. Furthermore, preventative health care is an effective means for detecting and treating illnesses before they become serious and life threatening.

My amendments also make us as lawmakers accountable to the American people who have been and would be benefitting from the services and support provided through this fund. It gives notice to the public, through the Department of Health and Human Services' website, of the rescission of funds and the amount rescinded, increasing government's accountability.

I think most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree with me, as evidenced by the intense debate at the end of last week, when I say that we must address our nation's spending and growing deficit. However, it is of great concern to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to do so by cutting cost-saving programs that are also essential to the health and wellbeing of Americans. This attempt, through H.R. 1217, to defund this essential program which was created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is of particular concern.

Today's youth may be the first generation to live shorter and less healthy lives than that of their parents, and this is largely due to increased rates of diseases and conditions which are preventable with proper and consistent healthcare. 75% of our country's healthcare costs are attributed to treatment of chronic diseases, most of which are preventable. However, less than 5% of our healthcare

spending goes towards preventing these diseases. Loss of productivity in the workforce attributed to chronic disease is estimated to cost the United States over $1 trillion each year.

With that being said, the 111th Congress, with the intent of seeing these grim statistics changes, appropriated $16.5 billion to be used, over the next ten years to support preventative care and research. Since its establishment the Fund has already begun to strengthen the infrastructure of our healthcare system on the state and national level.

The Prevention and Public Health fund, though it has only been in existence for one year, has already been used for:

Programs to promote tobacco control and implement tobacco cessation services and campaigns;

Obesity prevention which directly decreases risk for Diabetes;

Improving nutrition and access to fresh fruits and vegetables;

Increasing opportunities for recreational and physical activity;

HIV prevention;

Support of clinical and community-based disease prevention; and

Bolstering the health workforce by increasing health care personnel.

Money towards finding health solutions, rather than treating health problems, comes back to society in terms of increasing productivity, creating jobs, and reducing Medicare, Medicaid, and overall healthcare costs. With just a $10 per person investment towards improving community based activity, nutrition, and other preventative measures would create a return of $56 per person within only 5 years. That translates to a savings of $5.60 for every $1 invested in preventative health care. Most importantly, cost benefits extend beyond government to both American businesses and families; providing savings and an improved quality of life.

As a result of the Prevention and Public Health Fund, Texas received $6 million last year that went towards creating committees, testing facilities, laboratories, and training centers which brought over $2 million to the health prevention capacity of Houston alone.

Congress must maintain that the prevention of illness, the saving of lives, and the securing of a healthy public are top priorities, and that prevention is an undeniably effective means to achieve these ends. My amendments will do just that.

The total loss of $16 billion of funding for prevention efforts, an effective total eradication of our country's prevention program, will be unfortunate, and thus I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of importance of the Prevention and Public Health Fund's accomplishments and goals. Including:

The improvement of state and local health departments, giving them the capacity to respond to infections, natural disasters, and terrorist threats;

Creating a strong and healthy workforce that will be competitive in the global market; and

Saving families, businesses, and the government money, opposed to simply cutting costs.

While I do not support what H.R. 1217 purports to do, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of these essential changes to H.R. 1217 to acknowledge the need for preventative care and hold ourselves accountable for what would most certainly be a great loss to the public.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I know sometimes in the rush of legislating, many Members are faced with any number of challenges in understanding legislation, but I do know that the majority has come with their own roadmap. And I do want to respect the different viewpoints, and I don't say this in any way to malign.

First of all, I'm grateful that this amendment was made in order, but I wish it wasn't because I understand that all legislation that passes needs to have in fact--or often has those who agree with it and those who do not. And that's fair enough.

And the process that we usually use to handle that is to amend, not repeal. There are some sections here that I have looked at and have concern with. And many have heard me on the floor of the House discussing a number of issues regarding my local hospitals. But I will say to you that the repeal of this bill is putting us on the road to ruin.

And my amendment is simple. It asks the HHS to place on its Web site the moneys rescinded so that the American people can see. For some it may be to see the great success of taking away money. For others, it may be to see what has happened to the resources that they need to take care of themselves.

Very quickly, this amendment requires for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 to list the amount of money that is being taken away from good health care. But, Madam Chair, it will also hopefully point people to what they're losing.

For example, look at this beautiful baby here. We will not have, under the repeal of this Affordable Care Act, the bounty of preventative care. For those with chronic diseases, Americans who are subject to chronic disease such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes, their only care will be the emergency room, high-priced emergency room when they're in a diabetic coma or they're in a stroke or they have a heart attack, rather than be able to go to their doctors.

But we start early on with this little baby being able to go to wellness clinics or to their community health clinics. That's what the money that is being rescinded is going to do to you.

In addition, you will find that chronic diseases resulted in $75.3 billion loss in productivity in the State of Texas alone. This is going to be across America.

The rescissions will also impact all of the States. I have a list of almost 50 States that have begun to receive dollars from the Affordable Care Act--from Alabama, to Alaska, to Pennsylvania, to Massachusetts, to Michigan, to Rhode Island, and South Carolina, and Tennessee, and Texas. All of the States that my good friends come from, they are receiving money right now.

In addition to this issue of taking away money, Prevention for Healthy America concluded that investing $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increased physical activity, for example, improved nutrition, and prevents smoking and other tobacco could save the country more than $16 billion annually within 5 years.

When you see how much money was taken away, just realize that you multiply that. If it's a total of $16 billion, you're going to lose $16 billion a year because there will not be any wellness program. Community and clinical prevention, which is about $2 million. And so you will take away money from HIV

prevention, and that is a very costly proposal.

You'll take away from public health infrastructure; you'll take away from primary care residential expansion programs training residents and doctors. You'll take away from other medical assistance programs, expansion of physician assistant training. You'll take away from public health departments where they link people to needed health care. You'll take away childhood and adult immunizations and protecting the water we drink and the food we eat.

Let me just say to you that my amendment is to shine the light on what will be happening to the health care of Americans. I want my colleagues to tell their constituents, not those that are already focused on negative aspects of what we're trying to do here, but those who are just simply hardworking mothers and fathers who are trying to make a living and who need this health care.

Madam Chair, I would first like to state my clear position that I am adamantly opposed to H.R. 1217 and its repeal of the important Prevention and Public Health Fund created under the Affordable Care Act. The Fund saves lives and saves money.

If H.R. 1217 to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund provided under section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is enacted into law:

What my amendment does is: Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to post public notice on its official website of the Unobligated Funds from section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act including the amount of the funds that will be rescinded.

This amendment will provide the public with important information about Preventive Health Care funding that will no longer be available for them to receive necessary preventive health care services.

This amendment also assists my Republican colleagues by permitting them to easily show the American public that they are cutting government spending, by how much they are cutting spending, and where they are cutting government spending. So I expect that my Republican colleagues will fully support this amendment.

Purpose of the Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002 of the

Affordable Care Act)

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the President signed it into law, the Department of Health of Human Services was given the power to administer the program to provide for expanded and sustained national health investment in prevention and public health programs to improve public health programs and help restrain the growth in private and public health costs. This was already a cost cutting measure.

Nearly 11.7 million cases of seven common chronic diseases--cancers, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported in Texas in 2003.

The cost of treating those with chronic disease in Texas totaled about $17.2 billion.

Chronic diseases resulted in $75.3 billion in lost productivity and economic costs to Texas.

A new focus on prevention will offer Texas and the rest of our nation the opportunity to not only improve the health of Americans, but also control health care spending. A report from Trust for America's Health entitled Prevention for a Healthier America concluded that investing $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within 5 years. This is a return of $5.60 for every $1 spent on preventive health care.

How the Fund Improves Wellness and Prevention for Texans

Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded approximately $17.63 million in grants to organizations in Texas through the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts, including:

Community and Clinical Prevention ($2,956,000): This funding supports prevention activities that have been shown to be effective in reducing health care costs and promoting health and wellness.

Primary and Behavioral Health Integration ($495,000). Assists communities with the integration of primary care services into community-based mental & behavioral health settings.

HIV Prevention ($2,359,000). Focuses on HIV prevention in high risk populations and communities by increasing HIV testing opportunities, linking HIV-infected persons with appropriate services, and filling critical gaps in data and understanding of the HIV epidemic.

Tobacco Cessation ($102,000). Strengthens Texas's ability to move towards implementing a plan to reduce tobacco use. It also enhances and expands the national network of tobacco cessation quitlines to significantly increase the number of tobacco users who quit each year.

Public Health Infrastructure ($2,084,000): These grants strengthen state and local capacity to prepare health departments to meet 21st century public health challenges and support the training of existing and next generation public health professionals.

Public Health Infrastructure ($800,000). Supports state, local, and tribal public health infrastructure to improve information technology, workforce training, and policy development.

Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity ($634,000). Builds state and local capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks.

Public Health Training Centers ($650,000). Improve the public health system by enhancing skills of the current and future public health workforce.

Primary Care Training ($12,586,000): These funds support the expansion of the primary care workforce.

Primary Care Residency Expansion Program ($7,680,000). Increases the number of residents trained in family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics.

Advanced Nursing Education Expansion Program ($1,426,000). Increases the number of primary care nurse practitioners and nurse midwives who graduate by expanding class sizes and accelerating graduation rates for part-time students.

Expansion of Physician Assistant Training ($1,980,000). Improves access to primary care by funding the training of primary care physician assistants and expanding the primary care workforce.

Nurse-Managed Health Clinics ($1,500,000). Provide primary care and wellness services to underserved and vulnerable populations through clinics that are managed by advanced practice nurses and provide valuable clinical training sites for primary care nurse practitioners.

If the Prevention and Public Health Fund is cut and its Unobligated Funds Rescinded our health care costs will soar and the results will be catastrophic. The Fund saves lives and saves money.

if the funds are rescinded

America's local health departments need the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help prevent diseases and protect health in ways that health insurance companies or medical care providers cannot.

Local health departments:

Link people who need healthcare with ways to get it.

Detect and stop outbreaks of disease.

Help people make healthier choices in diet, exercise, and tobacco use to prevent and reduce chronic disease.

Provide childhood and adult immunizations.

Protect the water we drink and the food we eat.

Help new parents give babies a healthy start at home.

Inspect schools and day care centers for health and safety.

Conduct screenings for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, childhood lead poisoning, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is critically needed to stabilize the ability of local health departments to protect their communities from health threats and help individuals and families lead productive and healthy lives. Please oppose this attempt by H.R. 1217 to eliminate funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. A healthy future depends on it.

If H.R. 1217 passes this Chamber and is enacted into law, it is important for the American People to have notice of the rescission of funds for the Prevention and Public Health Fund program. Since the Department of Health and Human Services administers the Fund, it is only appropriate that public notice be given on the official HHS website and include the amount of funds rescinded. In this way, the American public will know that the public funding they rely upon has been cancelled for preventive health care and the Transparency of Spending Cuts will be further promoted in a manner that my Republican Colleagues will also appreciate.

I would urge all Members of Congress to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Obviously, this measure amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and seeks to repeal those provisions that establish and appropriate funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It also rescinds any unobligated balance appropriated to the fund.

As I listened to my friend from North Carolina, two things jumped out at me immediately. One is her usage and the ruling Republican majority House Members' usage of the term for the Affordable Health Care Act as ObamaCare. I said earlier in the Rules Committee I guess I could call it HastingsCare, because I supported--as did many Members of this Congress who are still here and some who are not, on both sides of the aisle--health care provisions for America long before any of us knew Barack Obama's name.

When it's used the way that it is, it's in some manner attempting to be demeaning of the President. He does not bear the sole responsibility for the Affordable Health Care Act. I would assume some of that responsibility. And what I would say is he and many others in this body did not go far enough in that we did not establish universal health care for all Americans in this country.

The other thing that jumps out on this particular matter, calling it a slush fund and then allowing that it is going to be in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat. It puts us in a strange position in the House of Representatives when my colleagues with the ruling majority of the House of Representatives have sought and been successful in eliminating the opportunities for Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to seek to have appropriations earmarked for respective undertakings in their congressional districts. Rather, they would eliminate those earmarks and--guess what?--put it in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

So I find it inconsistent to make the argument on one hand, and then on the other hand say, Oh, it's okay for the unelected bureaucrats to have some opportunities to spend our money. Quite frankly, I take umbrage with that. I think I can do a better job defining a need for a treatment plant in Belle Glade than can an unelected bureaucrat.

The burden of chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke, present a significant public health challenge to all of our communities and our Nation as a whole. In my home State of Florida, over 10 million cases of seven chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions--were reported early on in this decade at the cost of about $17.6 billion in treatment, and resulting in $68.7 billion in lost productivity and economic cost.

Simply put, we have a sick care system, not a health care system. Tens of millions of Americans are suffering from health conditions that could possibly be preventible. This is further exacerbated by the continuing rise of health care costs. Despite the fact that chronic diseases are responsible for seven out of 10 deaths among Americans each year and that they account for 75 percent of our Nation's health care spending, less than 3 percent of our health care spending goes to preventive health care services and health promotion.

As you know, the Affordable Care Act, or the HastingsCare Act, or the Hastings and ObamaCare Act, or the Hastings and Obama and DemocratCare Act created the Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to assist State and community efforts in preventing illness and promoting health. The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents an unprecedented investment of $15 billion over 10 years to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe. It aims to transform the focus of our system of care from primarily treating illness to maintaining long-term wellness by leveraging the power of preventive medicine.

Through the Community Transformation Grants program, for example, the fund empowers State and local governments and partners to implement community prevention interventions that help reduce chronic disease and health care disparities.

In fact, the fund is already being used in all 50 of our States and the District of Columbia to prevent smoking, increase physical activity, reduce alcohol and drug abuse, increase immunizations, train the Nation's public health

workforce, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and help control the obesity epidemic in our country.

In addition, the Prevention and Public Health Fund provides funding for States to help develop a health insurance exchange by 2014. Footnote there: We should have had a public option, where consumers will have access to a new market of more affordable, quality health coverage, as well as funding for up to 400 school-based centers in order to provide a safety net and improved access to care for children.

Since the enactment of the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare measure last year, the Department of Health and Human Services has awarded approximately $21.98 million in grants to organizations in Florida alone through the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help improve wellness and prevention efforts, including more than $9.3 million for community and clinical prevention, more than $3.1 million for public health infrastructure, and more than $9.4 million for primary care training.

If we are to reduce health care costs, we must improve the health of all Americans. Investing in proven preventive measures can significantly reduce the risk of developing these diseases, improving people's lives and saving money.

According to a report from Trust For America's Health entitled ``Prevention for a Healthier America,'' investing just $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs that increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save our Nation more than $16 billion annually within 5 years.

This is equivalent to and potentially greater than the amount as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office by which H.R. 1217 reduces direct spending over a 10-year period. Furthermore, a public opinion survey by Trust for America and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 71 percent of Americans favor an increased investment in disease prevention.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is supported also by nearly 600 national organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Families USA, and the AIDS Institute.

H.R. 1217, on the other hand, is nothing more than an attack on affordable health insurance, primary care and safety net care for children. This bill is yet another feeble attempt by the ruling majority Republicans to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately destroy the HastingsCare, ObamaCare, DemocraticCare, RepublicansDon'tCare bill one piece at a time, including those programs that have already been funded and are helping millions of middle class, elderly, and working poor Americans and their families as we speak.

The misinformation that pervades the health care debate in this country never ceases to amaze me at all.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, the ruling Republican majority, would have the American people believe that the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to spend money freely without congressional oversight. This is simply not true. A specific funding amount is allocated for prevention efforts through the fund each year during the fiscal year period: $500 million in 2010; $750 million in 2011; $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 and so on up to $2 billion beginning in 2015.

This gives the Secretary, whomever she or he may be, under Republicans or Democrats, the flexibility and health care providers the funding certainty that they need to implement prevention and public health interventions that help Americans make healthier decisions for themselves and their families. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the first and only Federal program with dedicated ongoing resources specifically designed to improve the public. It represents our commitment to preventing illness and investing in our Nation's long- term physical and fiscal health.

Let me say this, Madam Speaker: Every day that I awaken, I start my day by trying to figure what can I do to follow the scriptural mandate to help the least of us. I am curious whether my friends in the ruling majority have the same feeling.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that's just about the most convoluted, backward argument that I can imagine that I've heard in the 19 years that I've been here in the United States Congress.

There is not one dime in the Prevention and Public Health Fund that can or will be used for abortions. The law in this land, enunciated by a legend and an icon, among the other things that Henry Hyde was, is that Federal funds cannot be used for that purpose, and to carry us into that neverland that the previous speaker just spoke of is astoundingly wrong.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Of course I will. Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Please, let's have a clear understanding that no dollars from this fund are going to be used for abortions.

I don't have any opportunity to guarantee whether or not I'm going to be alive in the next 30 seconds, let alone tell you what may happen. But if you ask my belief, and yours was your belief that it may be used is what you said, my dear friend, all I'm saying is it is not going to be. And the law enunciated through Henry Hyde, and almost verbatim has been included in the Affordable Care Act, precludes the use of money for abortions.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee that we miss.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), my classmate and my good friend.

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, please inform both sides the remaining amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1354, the American Jobs Matter Act of 2011.

To address that, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that the gentleman from Connecticut spoke to in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, no prevention and public health funds are or can be used to pay for abortions, and this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. What it will stop, this bill as offered by the ruling Republican House, is immunization for kids and seniors, programs to stop childhood obesity and to prevent heart disease and diabetes. That's what they are stopping. Please don't be misled. No dollars from this fund will be used for abortion.

If we as legislators are to be about the business of helping Americans live healthy, productive lives, we must change our fundamental approach to health care by investing in illness prevention, not just treatment.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the key to a coordinated, comprehensive, sustainable and accountable approach to improving our Nation's health outcomes. I would also add that at a time when Americans are looking to Congress for leadership, the Republican ruling majority in the House are continuing their assault on comprehensive health care reform that expands coverage to 32 million people instead of focusing on job creation.

It's time to stop playing games with the health of the American people and get down to business. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can debate and pass a jobs bill without any further delay. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Section 4002 of PPACA establishes a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which my bill, H.R. 1217, would repeal. The section authorizes the appropriation of and appropriates to the fund from the Treasury the following amounts: $500 million for FY 2010; $750 million for FY 2011; $1 billion for FY 2012; $1.25 billion for FY 2013; $1.5 billion for FY 2014; and for FY 2015 and every fiscal year thereafter, $2 billion.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the full authority to use this account to fund any programs or activities that she chooses under the Public Health Service Act without having congressional input, approval or oversight. HHS has already made disbursements from the fund, spending

$500 million last year, and she has $750 million available for her to spend this year to fund prevention activities, the Nation's public health infrastructure, workforce expansion, increasing immunizations, and preventing a variety of diseases.

The goals of some of these disbursements are laudable, but we must remember that this funding is over and above the amount that Congress has already authorized and appropriated for these activities. There have also been questionable projects that have been financed with these funds, including ``placing signs directing people to bike paths.''

When Secretary Sebelius testified before my subcommittee, I asked her whether she needed further congressional approval to spend the money from the section 4002 fund, and she answered no.

I then asked her if she could fund activities above and beyond the level Congress appropriated, and she stated yes.

This should concern every Member that we have created a slush fund from which the Secretary can spend without any congressional oversight or approval. No one here can tell us how this funding will be used next year or 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years from now. We can't predict how the money will be spent--and worse, we can't even influence it.

I would suggest to my colleagues that, if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or to any other program, the health care law should have contained an explicit authorization, because you are not guaranteed that a dime of the money in this fund will go to your particular activity.

By eliminating this fund, we are not cutting any specific program or activity. I am not against prevention and wellness. This is not what this is about. This is about reclaiming our oversight role of how Federal tax dollars should be used.

I urge support for my bill, H.R. 1217.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who is on the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady kept saying it will, it will, it will. The simple fact is we don't know where the money is going to go.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who is a member of the subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I have the copy of the law the gentlelady referred to. She says the trust fund refers to spending for fresh food and vegetables and other things. There's none of that in the language. I would welcome her to point it out.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, it's time for a fiscal reality check. The Federal Government is now borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Washington is spending more than $1 of every $4 this country produces and we are facing a third straight year with a $1 trillion deficit. Yet, when the subcommittee voted on this straightforward bill to strip billions in unaccountable spending from the health care law based on the simple premise that Congress should fund prevention and wellness activities by prioritizing them in the regular annual spending process, the response from the other side of the aisle was to say, we're not broke. Madam Chair, I beg to differ.

Our debate today is not about the virtue of preventive health care and wellness programs. I support prevention. The real question is whether our Nation can afford to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to spend nearly $18 billion over and above what Congress appropriates over the next decade on programs of the administration's choosing.

H.R. 1217 does not cut a single program because this fund does not guarantee funding for any particular program. Every Member who supports this fund on the assumption that it provides additional money for a project they deem worthy should understand that no one knows where this money will be spent. Perhaps it could be used to combat obesity, or for cancer screenings, or perhaps it will be used to post signs about the location of bike paths. The point is, Congress abdicates our authority and responsibility for investing in prevention by handing a perpetual blank check to the Secretary.

Governing and solving our fiscal problems is difficult; it requires hard choices. It is easy to spend. The easy choice was to assign mandatory advanced appropriations to these initiatives rather than making them a budget priority. But it's only easy until the bill is due and the credit card is maxed out. Well, the bill is due and the credit card limit is approaching fast. Congress needs to reassert its role and set spending priorities rather than give the executive branch unfettered power to spend as it wishes.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Madam Chair, at this point I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I will just mention to the gentlelady all of the wonderful programs that she mentioned are not mentioned in this section of the law. There is no guarantee that this money will be spent for any of that.

H.R. 1217 repeals the Prevention and Public Health Fund and rescinds unobligated balances. The Jackson Lee amendment would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services

to post on the HHS public Web site a notice of the rescission of unobligated balances of the Prevention and Public Health Fund and the amount of the rescission.

I support transparency in government. I actually wish there was more transparency in how HHS has already spent the money from this fund. The lack of transparency and accountability regarding this fund is a primary reason I support H.R. 1217. And if the author feels this would increase transparency, then I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Castor amendment.

Madam Chair, the amendment before us directs the GAO to pontificate on the effectiveness of unspecified prevention, wellness, and public health activities financed by funds under section 4002 of

Madam Chair, the simple fact is everything the gentlelady just mentioned she doesn't know will be funded. There is no guarantee to fund any of those things.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Castor amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to make assumptions on the economic impacts of providing prevention, wellness, and public health activities under section 4002 of the PPACA. However, section 4002 gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend this slush fund with little limitation. The amendment asks the GAO to determine the economic impact of spending when no one except the Secretary knows how those dollars will be spent.

What will GAO base their assumptions on? Does placing signage for bike paths produce economic activity or does advocating higher soda taxes benefit the economy? These activities have been financed by programs eligible for funding under section 4002.

Members and the GAO cannot determine the economic impact of the fund because the Secretary controls how it is to be spent. Will GAO be charged with determining whether borrowing 42 cents of every dollar this fund spends has a positive economic impact?

This amendment underscores the major problems with section 4002. Rather than letting Congress weigh the relative value of programs through the annual appropriations process, my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided to throw dollars to a political appointee at HHS to spend billions on any program with no oversight.

The amendment also places an unrealistic timetable on the GAO to issue a report within 90 days of enactment. Like the previous amendment, we are not spending our resources wisely when we ask the GAO to conduct a study

with little time to complete what is clearly an impossible task.

I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again the gentlewoman made my point. She has no guarantee that in the year 2015 the Secretary will fund programs like cessation of smoking or obesity. She has not a clue. What if the Secretary decided to use the whole $2 billion for abstinence education in 2015? She has no clue what it will be used for.

I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation and rise in opposition to the motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yesterday, we heard the House minority leader say that ``elections shouldn't matter as much as they do.''

I strongly disagree. Members were brought here to get runaway spending under control; but rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis, House Democrats have brought forward an MTR that guts the underlying bill and continues the runaway spending that the American people have rejected.

As we have pointed out, section 4002 gives the Secretary of HHS complete discretion to spend the slush fund with little limitation. Any program within the Public Health Service Act, regardless of its merit or effectiveness, is eligible for funding under section 4002.

Will section 4002 help train doctors, or will the money be used to build jungle gyms? Will the Prevention and Public Health Fund be used to advocate for soda tax increases in States or build signs that direct people to bike paths? All of these activities can be funded through this slush fund.

This MTR underscores the major problem with section 4002. Rampant spending on the Federal credit card cannot continue. The Federal Government will be borrowing 42 cents of every Federal dollar spent from this fund. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit. The President's irresponsible budget will double the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion. This endless spending is fiscally irresponsible and morally bankrupt. Spending today is debt that our children and grandchildren will pay tomorrow.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on the underlying bill so we can help get our fiscal house back in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment requires a government accountability study within 90 days of enactment of the law to study the impact the Prevention and Public Health initiative has on preventing chronic diseases and promoting public health.

Madam Chair, prevention works. It's smart. It saves the taxpayers money. It saves families money. And it saves lives. The Prevention and Public Health initiative empowers communities all across this great Nation to focus on prevention and wellness and what works for them when it comes to reducing cancer cases, reducing heart disease, reducing strokes back in our own hometowns.

In Florida alone, there are over 10 million cases of the seven most common chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, mental disorders and pulmonary conditions. We all know our neighbors, friends, families, folks we go to church with, folks we see in the grocery store that suffer from these diseases. In a lot of these cases, if they had gotten early detection or if we had worked harder on prevention, they wouldn't have fallen into that trap of the disease and all that it brings for families and communities.

See, we have a better approach now. We are smarter in America. No longer should our health care system be focused only on taking care of folks in the hospital when they're sick or at the end stages. We're smarter. We can prevent a lot of this through education and being proactive and encouraging a healthier lifestyle.

And that's what the Prevention and Public Health Initiative does. State and local communities are able to decide what works best for them. This isn't Washington dictating what you should do. This is saying to our local hometowns and communities, What do you think works best for you?

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at the grants that are being made. How are your local communities making these investments work in your own districts to invest in the long term health of our neighbors and the economic prosperity of our communities?

For example, in my hometown in my district, the Pinellas County Health Department has brought together neighborhoods and all the nonprofits to determine--you know what's going to work best in Pinellas County is encouraging healthier lifestyles, because we have an obesity epidemic. So they want to build sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, better lighting to encourage people to exercise. They are going to make improvements to parks so children have the opportunity to get out and play after school instead of sitting in front of the television.

I also have a great public university, the University of South Florida, in my district. They are training the modern health care workforce in Florida. These are professionals fighting on the front lines of our communities, and yes, creating jobs. This is creating jobs to encourage the healthier lifestyles that work. USF is able to identify where the gaps in training might be, develop updated curricula to ensure the public health care workforce receives the most up-to-date research, and then they can spread the word throughout the churches, the grocery stores, and our neighborhoods.

The Florida Department of Health is also using these grants in checking on all of our strategies Statewide to determine what works. See, this is one of the important goals of the Affordable Care Act, to promote wellness and prevention, to ensure healthier outcomes for our families and neighbors. And the examples I have just shared with you are only a few of what's happening all across the country.

We are smarter, Madam Chair. Prevention works. It saves taxpayers money. It saves families money. It saves lives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much more time do I have?

Who has the right to close?

Madam Chair, what a waste of money it would be if we do not act on education and knowledge, because we know that prevention works in America. When you educate someone on healthier lifestyles, the likelihood is that they are going to live a healthier life. They can prevent disease. Maybe they get early detection of their cancer. And that would save them a lot of money. You know, it also would save the government a lot of money. So let's be smart about this. Prevention works.

It reminds me now of my friends across the aisle, their proposal to end Medicare as we know it, because that is not smart. Again, like prevention, Medicare works. It saves families money. And the plan to privatize Medicare and turn it into a voucher program is not going to save any money. Indeed, it will shift the costs to families. They will have to pay more. So let's do what's smart. Prevention works.

I urge adoption of my amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment requires a Government Accountability Office study within 90 days of enactment of this bill to examine the economic impact Prevention and Public Health grants have on States and local communities.

Now, I can tell you we don't really need a study to understand how important prevention is and how important it is to empower our hometowns, local governments, nonprofits, whoever can come together on a local level and make these decisions about encouraging healthier lifestyles.

The beauty of the Public Health and Prevention initiative is it's not Washington dictating all across the country a cookie-cutter approach, one size fits all. Instead, we empower our neighbors to make these decisions on what works best for them. I would say that what works best in my hometown back in Tampa probably would not work quite as well in Fargo or in Missouri.

Prevention of disease is smart. It saves families money, and it saves taxpayers money as well. Now, over time we have all gotten smarter about preventing chronic diseases. Much of this cost-saving and life- saving focus was brought to bear in the landmark Affordable Care Act and this Prevention and Public Health initiative, which is the most historic investment in public health of our communities in the history of our country.

Now, far from the extreme arguments against prevention from my colleagues across the aisle, the Prevention and Public Health initiative empowers States, hometowns, and local communities to determine what works best for them. The annual treatment cost of chronic diseases costs the United States over $270 billion. And our economy has lost over $1 trillion in lost productivity. In Florida alone, we have lost over $68 billion in lost productivity and economic costs due to chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

So not only does prevention help us reduce costs, it can be an economic boost to our communities. I can tell you back in Florida we need as many economic boosts as we can get. We still have a high unemployment rate. We have a large number of uninsured. So what could be smarter than targeting some of our communities and encouraging them on healthier lifestyles so they can get back to work?

We are creating jobs through doing this. For example, at the University of South Florida College of Public Health, they've received one of the Prevention and Public Health grants where they're hiring and training the modern public health workforce. These are the folks with the most updated knowledge that are able to go out through communities and encourage them and educate them on what it would mean if they didn't smoke, if they didn't drink. Oftentimes, these initiatives have a great impact. They can save us money, and they can save us lives.

In Pinellas County they are combating childhood obesity, and they are already making a big economic impact in the community. Richard Curtin is the program manager for the Communities Putting Prevention to Work-- Pinellas. He informed me they have created already 18 jobs as a direct result of this lifesaving work.

So I would encourage all of you to ask your folks back home what works best for them. Apply for these grants. We can make a difference all across America, save taxpayers money, save our families money, and save lives while we are at it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we are spending our dollars wisely when we are investing in prevention and wellness because prevention works. Prevention saves money, it saves the taxpayers money, it saves families money and it saves lives.

Now, there has been a great debate all across America about health care over the past few years. I think we can all agree on that. Part of the importance of the health care debate was that our health care system for too long has focused and spent money at the end game on sickness, when people have cancer, and that's fine, but we can be smarter about it. We have a lot more knowledge and a lot of experts that have advised us all that if you invest in prevention to encourage folks not to smoke, not to drink, those easy things, very easy in lifestyle, but oftentimes they need a little extra help. Parents should turn off the TV and the kids should go out and play. They should exercise.

But sometimes it's that little extra push. And if we can make a dent in childhood obesity, diabetes, cancer, a stroke, because we have encouraged healthier lifestyles with this very modest investment, that will be a great accomplishment. And that's part of what the health care debate was about, taking this modest investment in public health and empowering our communities to make those decisions on what works for them. Prevention works. It's smart.

I urge the adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.