Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information, and I appreciate the fact that he has put on there the sustainable growth rate in Medicare budget agreement, which hopefully we can get to, which will be bipartisan in nature and will be balanced and fair as well.

In addition, legislation pertaining to the farm program's farm bill is necessary. It has been in conference for some period of time. Hopefully, we can pass that as well.

I do note, however, with some degree of--actually, I said ``some degree''--with very great disappointment that unemployment insurance extension is not listed by the leader. As the leader knows, 1.3 million people are going to have their unemployment benefits expire, I believe, on December 28. Those people will have no support structure. Very frankly, my own view is they will then go on some other support structure, some sort of welfare payment--SNAP payment, Medicaid--which they may be on already. But, in any event, it will not be at no cost. CBO estimates that it will cost as much as 300,000 jobs if we do not extend unemployment insurance.

We just had a hearing, Mr. Leader, where we had very, very compelling testimony from three people, with respect to--one of whom just found a job on Monday; she was very pleased at that--not only the economic damage that going off unemployment will cost them--and they have been looking for jobs--but also the psychological devastation to them and their families that that would cause.

Does the gentleman have any belief--I understand, and I read somewhere, the gentleman may want to comment on it. Some commented that there was no appetite for extending unemployment insurance on your side of the aisle--but can the gentleman give me any idea of the possibilities for having unemployment insurance extension on the floor so that we cannot see those 1.3 million people dropped off the rolls as of December 28?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

We neither have the time nor do I have the inclination to go through each one of those bills to which the gentleman refers as ``jobs bills.'' Of course, we have an alternative; and Mr. Van Hollen will be talking about that in terms of jobs, investment, infrastructure, investment, education, and growing jobs for our people.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there are 1.3 million people who can't find a job. To say that they will be disincentivized because we continue to give them some support so that they can survive and their families can survive during the period of time that they are looking for a job, there are three people looking for every one job that is available, and most of those jobs that are available have skill sets that, unfortunately, the unemployed have not had.

We are for, on this side, skills training; we are for investing in education. We share the majority leader's view on that; but it is not going to be much solace for them, Mr. Speaker, and their families to say, well, we dropped you off the rolls, you won't be able to pay your mortgage, you won't be able to put food on your table because the Senate hasn't acted.

Whether the Senate should act on the bills in question I think is debatable. I opposed many of those pieces of legislation myself, as did others; but we have a crisis, and that crisis is we have 1.3 million. And that same CBO to which the majority leader referred said that not to pass this extended benefit will, in fact, undermine the economy and could cost as many as 300,000 jobs of people who are working now, but who will not be working because of the lack of resources of those 1.3 million consumers. Whether they are consuming food, housing, clothing, necessities of life, we are going to be undermining jobs in America and our economy. Almost every economist that I have talked to shares that view.

In any event, I want to make it clear to the majority leader that our side will be vigorously opposed and will oppose adjourning of the House as is scheduled on Friday the 13th of this month if, in fact, we have not passed unemployment insurance. We believe that is a critical thing to pass.

We also agree with the majority leader, however, that passing the sustainable growth rate is something that we ought to do before the end of the year. That will expire on December 31. The reimbursement of doctors to serve Medicare patients will be substantially reduced as a result of that. That is bad policy, not only for those on Medicare who are seeking medical services, but it is bad policy for the doctors and medical providers that will serve those people.

So I am pleased that he mentions SGR, the sustainable growth rate, the doc reimbursement, but not pleased that we do not have listed the unemployment insurance. We will be very adamant next week that that needs to be done. I understand that we may have a difference on that, but I want to let the majority leader know that that will be our position.

In addition, I do not see on there the defense authorization bill. I know that that is not the majority leader. We passed the defense authorization bill through here. I am hopeful that the Senate will move on that intelligence authorization.

The Senate has passed, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive immigration reform bill. They passed it with 68 votes. We are very disappointed on this side of the aisle that the Senate bill has not been put on the floor. Our bill, H.R. 15, which is a bipartisan bill on which there are Republican sponsors of that

bill, or one of the four bills that has been reported out of the committee which was supported by the Republican Party in the Judiciary Committee and reported out four bills, they have not been brought to the floor.

We believe that comprehensive immigration reform is a critically important action for this Congress to take this year now. We have options available. We would hope that any one of those three options would be brought to the table, or, if you count four bills, seven options be brought to the floor.

In addition, the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way the ending of discrimination in employment. We talked about jobs; we talked about giving economic opportunity. We ought to do that in a nondiscriminatory way. The Senate has passed such a bill. That is not on the agenda for next week either.

I have an agenda which has a lot of bills on it: Make It In America. I notice we do have a suspension bill that has been specifically referenced. We will get into a debate on that next week, so I won't debate that bill today; but we have a suspension bill that we have been urging that is reported out of committee on voice vote, passed this Congress with, I think, over 350 votes--I know over 300 votes last Congress--that has not been brought to the floor, which simply says that we ought to have a plan and that plan ought to be a plan to expand manufacturing, grow jobs, grow profits, and grow salaries for individuals. And it is Mr. Lipinski's bill. I have been urging that that be put on the suspension calendar. I notice that that has not been put on either.

Trade adjustment assistance and tax extenders have been referenced. Hopefully, we can do all of those. Of course, we have a very short period of time left to do that.

Let me ask the majority leader, given that short time, does the majority leader have a high degree of confidence that, in fact, he will be seeking to follow the calendar that has been set out by the majority leader to end this first session of this Congress, indeed, on the scheduled date of December 13?

And I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the majority leader wants to talk about health care, because much of that legislation he has talked about then, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 times that the Republican Party has tried to repeal health care.

My view, I want to make it very clear, is that this bill is substantively a very positive bill for the American people. A bill to which the gentleman referred that Republicans offered in 2009 covered less than 3 million people of the 30 to 40 million people that had no insurance in America. So less than 10 percent were covered by the Republican bill.

Tens of millions of people, I predict, by the middle of next year, are going to be having coverage and having health care assurance because we passed this health care insurance bill.

He is right, the rollout was terrible. We are all disappointed with that, the President is disappointed with that, and it is being worked on. Now he doesn't recall, of course, perhaps, or he hasn't mentioned the rollout of the prescription drug bill, which wasn't too smooth, either. And, of course, the health care bill is broader even than that. He may not recall that Medicare had a tough rollout for a couple of years. But there is nobody on this floor who is saying, I am not saying that they don't believe it because I think there are people who believe we ought not to have Medicare. As a matter of fact, a former majority leader, not this majority leader, said we shouldn't have Medicare in a free society. That was a Republican majority leader, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is the health care bill is going to work, but it is interesting that when you ask a specific question about some critical issues that have passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion overwhelmingly, they are not mentioned. Just go to the health care bill. Why? Because that is the politics. That is the politics of the issue right now.

I am glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky spoke to us this morning. Now, Kentucky is not the center of Democratic politics in America, as Mitch McConnell would quickly observe. Thousands of people are signing up in Kentucky--thousands of people--successfully. Thousands of people are coming forward. About 70,000 people have already signed up in Kentucky. Thousands of people are coming forward in New York and California, all over this country, who are saying I want the assurance and coverage of health care.

What have they spent their time on? Trying to repeal health care. They have talked about repeal and replace. We haven't had much replace, but we have had a lot of repeal. And what does the majority leader refer to, Mr. Speaker? A 2009 bill. It is a bill from three Congresses ago that he is talking about, and all we have had on this is repeal. If they are concerned about health care, then there ought to be an alternative that the other side offers; but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, they have not done that.

I would be glad to move to another subject. I am sure we can go back to health care because the majority leader, notwithstanding his assertion that this is not about politics, I will tell him that the majority of the American people in poll after poll after poll says they don't want health care repeal. They want it fixed, and they want it to work right and the assurance that it is available to them, but they do not want it repealed.

Right now, even though they are upset, as we all are, as I am and as the President is, about the rollout and about the Web site not working as effectively as we would like, Americans right now, I will tell the majority leader, the majority in polls say they don't want it repealed. They want it fixed and they want to have it work. Very frankly, I think that is where they are. Not everybody. Not everybody, I understand that, and certainly not some factions of the Republican majority's party. They have made that very clear in statements on this floor. But my view is that we ought not to simply distract from some of the important things that need to be done.

I was interested in Senator Cornyn's response when he talked about the Iran deal, which 65 percent of the American public says was a worthwhile effort to make. We need to carefully review it, and we need to oversee it and make sure it works, and the majority leader and I have to work on that. But when Senator Cornyn said this was just a ruse--and I don't think he used the word ``ruse,'' but just an effort to distract from health care, I think that sort of indicates the extraordinary focus that this issue has energized the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 or 4 years.

Can I ask the majority leader about the budget conference, whether he has any idea--he has talked about, on the schedule, the budget conference coming forward. Does he have any idea whether a budget conference agreement has been reached, number one; and number two, if an agreement is reached, will it manifest itself in the form of a budget conference report?

I am informed, maybe correctly or incorrectly, that there will never be a budget conference report. Does the gentleman know whether that is the case or not, and whether or not some agreement might be manifested by a bill and not by a conference report?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will say that he and I, as he has articulated, do agree that the sequester is not good policy. As a matter of fact, Chairman Hal Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said it best when he said that the sequester cuts are ill-conceived and unrealistic and that he believes that the House action has indicated that that is the case. We have not done appropriation bills consistent with the sequester levels that as I understand were agreed at Williamsburg to be offered, but they haven't worked.

My own view, Mr. Speaker, of what is being discussed in the budget conference, some of the things that I have heard, strike me as being unbalanced, unfair, irresponsible, and unacceptable. Unless we have a balanced agreement, which in my view should replace the sequester because, as the majority leader indicates, it is not the rational way to go, as Mr. Rogers indicates, it is not the rational way to go, and as every chairman of the appropriations subcommittees on the Republican side have said, it is not the way to go and ought to be replaced.

I am hopeful that any agreement will, in fact, replace the sequester. I am hopeful, Mr. Majority Leader, as you well know, that we will get a big deal--not a little deal, not nibbling around the edges so that what occurs is we do this every 6 months and we never get to a stability that I know the majority leader and I believe would give confidence to our economy, to the business community, and to our people if we got a big deal. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be, at least at this point in time, in the discussion. I think that is unfortunate.

As I said, what I have heard so far seems to me to be unbalanced, unfair, irresponsible, and, from my perspective, unacceptable. So I am hopeful that the Budget Committee conference will revisit or at least come up with a product that is not yet being discussed, which will accomplish the objective of putting this country on a fiscally sustainable path for the long term, not just the short term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2019) to eliminate taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party conventions and reprogram savings to provide for a 10-year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund administered by the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act of 2013. H.R. 2019, authored by my colleague, Gregg Harper, is a bill that will help countless kids and families across the country.

The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act would prioritize funding for the research of pediatric diseases and disorders such as cancer, autism, and Fragile X. It would eliminate taxpayer financings of party conventions, political money, and use these funds instead to expand pediatric research at the NIH Common Fund through their common fund. This bill certainly does put kids first.

You know, Gabriella Miller was a little warrior in the battle against childhood cancer. At only 10 years of age, she had the courage miles beyond her years. A frying pan and a walnut is all you need to understand her brave outlook on life.

When she was diagnosed with brain cancer, she was told that the size of that tumor was about like a walnut; and from then on, Gabriella traveled with her trusty frying pan squashing countless walnuts along the way all over the world.

That is the kind of courage and outlook on life that she had. Advancing health research for millions of young patients who suffer from rare and genetic diseases has got to be a priority. While we have made great strides in the country in finding cures and treatments, we certainly have a great amount of work to do. Included in the work is pushing for research that is going to help uncover cures for pediatric diseases.

In order for clinical trials and other advancements to meet their full potential, adequate resources have got to be directed for pediatric research. The legislation is an example of how much can be accomplished by ending wasteful spending and redirecting those funds towards national priorities like pediatric research.

This effort is going to help families like the Kennedys in Mattawan, Michigan, my constituents. Eric and Sarah have two wonderful little girls, Brooke and Brielle, who have the rare disease called spinal muscular atrophy. Those two little angels, who are fighting SMA with the same vigor and sunny outlook exhibited by Gabriella, are decorated little generals in the effort to boost research for rare diseases and serve as inspiration for every one of us.

The sad reality is that it is often difficult to conduct research into rare diseases due to the small number of individuals with those diseases; but we are working to change that--yes, we are--and provide families with greater hope for a cure and in advances of treatment.

This bill has over 150 cosponsors and is supported by a long list of patient advocacy groups including Autism Speaks, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and FightSMA.

I wholeheartedly agree with the bill's Democrat sponsor, Peter Welch from Vermont, who recently said last night on CNN:

Can we just put the battle axes down for a while and take a

step forward?

He thinks we can. We need to.

With all of us today with so many diseases, we need to pass this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Angelman Syndrome Foundation,

Aurora, IL, July 5, 2013.

Hon. Eric Cantor,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,United States

Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Gregg Harper,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Cantor and Congressman Harper: On behalf of the

Angelman Syndrome Foundation, ASF, I write in strong support

for H.R. 2019, the Kids First Research Act. This important

legislation will

expand pediatric medical research activities at the National

Institutes of Health, NIH, by approximately $130 million.

Pediatric research should be a national priority, and ASF

applauds Congressman Harper for his leadership on this issue.

This legislation has the potential to develop treatments and

unlock the cure for thousands of impacted children, including

those with Angelman Syndrome.

Angelman syndrome is a single-gene neurodevelopmental

disorder that is related to autism. Continued research for

pediatric neurodevelopmental disorders, such as Angelman

syndrome, will lead to effective treatments that will help

combat the autism epidemic in the U.S. The Angelman Syndrome

Foundation's mission is to advance the awareness and

treatment of Angelman syndrome through education and

information, research, and support for individuals with

Angelman syndrome, their families and other concerned

parties. We exist to give all of them a reason to smile, with

the ultimate goal of finding a cure.

On behalf of ASF, thank you again for your leadership and

for supporting the Kids First Research Act.

Sincerely,

Eileen Braun,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my friends that this is bipartisan legislation. I congratulate Mr. Welch for being the lead Democratic sponsor.

I just want to say, too, in terms of looking at the money, the bill itself says:

All amounts in each account maintained for the national

committee of a major party or minor party under this section

shall be transferred to a fund in the Treasury to be known as

the ``10-Year Pediatric Research Initiative Fund,'' which

shall be available only for the purpose provided in section

402A(a)2 of the Public Health Service Act, and only to the

extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance in

appropriations Acts.

Tell me how to write it tougher. We did it.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, (Mr. McCarthy), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a cosponsor of the bill and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a cosponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the nice words that were directed to me by my friend, Mr. Hoyer, in support of the NIH. And I will remind those that don't know that I was the Republican lead a number of years ago with Mr. Waxman and Mr. McCain and Mr. Wellstone to double the money for the NIH, one of the most significant things that this Congress, I think, has ever done.

But I have got to say, I simply don't understand the opposition to this bill. Yes, I am absolutely supportive of the NIH bill, and will continue to do that, and more money. The Ryan-Murray budget agreement which we will be voting on tomorrow, I will be supporting it. It includes programs like the NIH, which I am told will be increased about $23 billion, or 2 percent over the current levels.

In today's ``The Hill,'' there is a full-page ad offered by First Focus Campaign for Children. It says, ``Thank you for making children your First Focus,'' and it lists maybe as many as 80 to 100 Members, including many of those who spoke today against the bill, but it says, ``Thank you for making children your First Focus.'' That is what this bill is about.

It is not just a simple authorization. Yes, we do pass those from time to time. This actually directs. The language of the bill says, ``shall be transferred.'' Shall. It doesn't use the word ``may,'' ``may be,'' whatever. ``Shall be transferred to a fund in the Treasury to be known as the `10-Year Pediatric Research Initiative Fund' which shall''--not may--``which shall be available only for the purpose provided in . . . the Public Health Service Act, and only to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.''

We made it pretty tight. The authors of this bill made it pretty tight. Tell me how we can make it tighter.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Well, to me, we use ``shall'' a number of different times.

Well, that is what we do. We take money.

The money comes from the political conventions. I mean, that is the direct offset that is used.

All of us cry for these families that lose these beautiful little kids. This bill, if it passes and gets enacted, will provide money to help families like Gabriella's, who lost a beautiful little girl, who really used the last year of her life to promote a fund like this and work with the NIH. That is what this should be all about, and I commend Mr. Cantor and others.

The rule that we hear is you have to find an offset when you increase spending. That is what this bill does. And it finds an offset that I think many of us could accept to actually fund the program and direct the dollars to a fund within the NIH to make sure that it works. That is what we want to have happen.

I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Yes, it is under suspension, no amendments. We need a two-thirds vote, so I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative debate. As announced previously, no votes are scheduled on Monday. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon for legislative business. First votes of the week will occur no earlier than 2 p.m. on Tuesday. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business Friday.

On those suspensions, I am pleased to announce that the House will consider H.R. 2019, the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act sponsored by Representatives Gregg Harper and Peter Welch, which has over 2,000 citizen cosponsors, and puts into practice what I hope we will all agree on, which is to place a priority on pediatric medical research over political party conventions.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of legislative items which may become available for consideration next week, including legislation pertaining to the sustainable growth rate in Medicare, a budget agreement, and legislation pertaining to farm programs, including potentially a full farm bill conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that the expiration of the benefits that he just referred to were benefits that were passed by this Congress 5 years ago as emergency spending, as emergency need, at a time in which we were facing near bottom in terms of our economy, the fallouts of the financial collapse; and those benefits, again, were brought about in those contexts.

I would say to the gentleman further, Mr. Speaker, that if he were to look at the jobs legislation that this House has passed, all of which is awaiting action in the Senate--the SKILLS Act, the Working Families Flexibility Act, the Keystone pipeline, the REINS Act, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Act, and the Veterans Economic Opportunity Act--all of these are measures which the House passed because, I think the gentleman would agree with me, the best way to address the chronically unemployed is to help them get back to work. These bills, especially the SKILLS Act, was one specifically designed to do that, to help those chronically unemployed to access the necessary skills that they need to enter the job market of today.

I would also further point out, Mr. Speaker, that this week, December 3, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report in response to a request for the extension of unemployment benefits in which it said that some unemployed workers who would be eligible for those benefits would reduce the intensity of their job search and remain unemployed longer, which would tend to decrease output and employment. This is the Congressional Budget Office speaking on the question that the gentleman raised.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that such policies, if we were to continue, would lead to greater Federal deficit, which would eventually reduce the Nation's output and income slightly below what would occur under current law. So I think that we should be focused on how we get folks back to work. That is where the House has been focused. Unfortunately, after 140-some bills we passed over to the Senate, they still await even consideration at all by that body.

I thank the gentleman for the recitation of his desired wish list for what he would like to see on the floor. I would also like to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, this House has passed well over 149, 150 bills, very much focused on job creation, very much focused on trying to make sure that we address the needs of those who are most vulnerable right now, trying to make sure that we can sustain the safety net while equipping those that are without the tools necessary to get up on that ladder of success.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has just refused to take up most of those bills. In fact, the House has passed and sent 189 bills to the U.S. Senate so far this Congress, and that is excluding what we've done this week. And of those 189 House bills, 41 have been signed into law by the President; 148 bills have stalled in the Senate.

The Senate has, so far this year, passed only 43 bills this Congress; and out of those 43, only 14 have been signed into law by the President.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have done our work. We have got a lot more work to do on behalf of the American people.

One of the things I did not hear the gentleman, the Democrat whip, mention was the issue of health care. And obviously health care has been very, very much on the minds of America right now as they have witnessed the utter disaster of a rollout of ObamaCare.

As the gentleman knows, his constituents, as well as mine, are faced with higher premiums, faced with the realization now that the President has broken a major promise when he had said to the American people that they could keep their health care plans if they liked it. We know now that wasn't true, and so people are having to go and figure out what kind of plans are actually there for them.

The administration has claimed this week the Web site is working just fine. Well, we know good and well that the back end of that Web site is not working just fine. I am glad that people are able maybe to get on and see what is there. We don't really know because of the lack of transparency as to how successful the signups and enrollments are.

We do know now, though, that most Americans in the individual plan arena are facing higher premiums. Those that have had to give up their plans are facing higher premiums and plans that they don't necessarily choose, that they are now forced to have because of the operation of this law. I would say to the gentleman we need to focus on that very issue. What are we going to do? What are the alternatives?

We Republicans have an alternative. We voted on that alternative back in 2009. It was a plan that was centered on patients first. It was a plan that the Congressional Budget Office said would reduce premium costs for taxpayers, for patients out there. We have not resolved this question of health care. There is a better way; and I would say to the gentlemen, we ought to be spending some time focused on how we are going to resolve that for the millions of Americans who are very, very unhappy right now, given their options for healthcare under ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I say, Mr. Speaker, no, it is not politics. Mr. Speaker, it is about what people right now are concerned about. They send us here to reflect their problems and to try to reach solutions for the problems that they are facing. Right now more people in America, I would venture to say, are concerned about the choice they have for health care right now and how they will seek coverage for their family. And it is not about the politics. There are some things that actually do transcend Washington partisan politics, and right now, that is about health care.

We care about health care. Republicans care about health care. Democrats care about health care. Right now there is a serious problem given this ObamaCare law. We need to address that for the people. We need to help people, and that is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the politics of it. I am talking about what is on the minds of millions of Americans right now as they are losing the coverage that they know and they have chosen and they can afford, facing the opposite. It is a disaster right now concerning ObamaCare. We have got to help the people of this

country when it comes to their health care. That is what it is about.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the discussions that I have had with Chairman Ryan would lead me to some optimism that the two sides actually can come to an agreement. The agreement has not been made, so I don't want to say that there is a deal; but I am optimistic that, in fact, this time of year when the differences between the two sides have certainly been on display all year long, that perhaps we could agree that we need to reduce the deficit. We need to do something about the wasteful spending. And once again, I don't think the gentleman, nor I, thinks that the sequester is the best method to cut spending. It is indiscriminate. It cuts bad programs the same way as good programs, to put it simply. There are better ways.

Our side has always said, Mr. Speaker, that we have got to do something about the mandatory programs, the autopilot spending of the Federal Government that is disproportionately causing our deficit. I am hopeful that next week we can show the people of this country that we can produce something that is smarter than the way we are going about things now.

Obviously, a big concern to me is the national security and the defense of this country, as I know it is for the gentleman. And so again, I am hopeful that will be the case.

Now, the form that that agreement may or may not take I think right now is undetermined. I think it would be premature to even guess at that, and I would say to the gentleman that I know that he joins me in hoping that there is an agreement where we can maintain the trajectory in reducing spending and do it in a smarter way so we can get about the business of prioritizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act. I also would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, for his courage in providing bipartisan support, along with some other colleagues in support of this bill, as well as the Republican cosponsors, Gregg Harper from Mississippi and Tom Cole, my colleague from Oklahoma who is here in this Chamber.

For those colleagues who are here in the Chamber, we are joined by Gabriella Miller's parents, Ellyn and Mark Miller, who are in the gallery. I want to thank them for their courage in being here and for their understanding of what goes on on this floor and to not take it in any other way other than we are trying to do what is right in terms of delivering on the legacy of their daughter.

Mr. Speaker, Gabriella Miller, a young girl from Virginia, was only 9 years old when she found out she had an inoperable brain tumor the size of a walnut and wasn't given long to live. Despite her diagnosis, Gabriella and her family chose to fight and share her dream with others of overcoming childhood disease.

Gabriella was so determined that she captivated people's hearts at rallies, through online videos, and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. She even wrote a book for other children about understanding cancer. She poured every remaining ounce of her life into raising awareness for pediatric research for other children, with the hope that they would not have to suffer the same fate. In her last few months, Gabriella left a mark on the world that will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Washington has a spending problem. The problem is not only that we spend too much, but that we are spending taxpayer dollars on the wrong priorities. Medical research for children should be a national priority.

The first NIH bill I scheduled as majority leader was a bipartisan bill authored by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Representative Lois Capps to strengthen pediatric research networks. The President signed the bill into law last month.

The bill before us today builds on that legislation by providing resources through the NIH Common Fund for high-risk, high-reward research that has the potential to transform pediatric research for children suffering from many different diseases and disorders. For the first time, Congress will establish a Pediatric Research Initiative Fund that will serve as an accountability mechanism to help ensure that dollars are reaching their intended target.

While all of us support the NIH, this bill is an opportunity to push the agency to make big discoveries that will improve and ultimately save so many lives. We don't have to accept the status quo as the best we can achieve. Yes, the NIH needs taxpayer resources, but it also matters how we invest and apply those dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the sequester cuts. I agree. The sequester cuts were, unfortunately, indiscriminate, and I and my colleagues have proposed alternatives to them, but let's not let Washington politics get in the way of any effort to help these kids. This is one step of many that we should take together.

How many times do we meet parents and families who share their stories and ask for help? I recently had the privilege of meeting Gabriella's parents, Ellyn and Mark, and they personally shared with me Gabriella's fighting spirit. In fact, in one of her last interviews-- and you can view this online--when asked what Gabriella would like to tell our political leaders, she said, ``Stop talking. Start doing. We need action.''

This, Mr. Speaker, is our opportunity to act.

Outside of this building, this legislation has tremendous support. The leading children's research hospitals, United for Medical Research, and over 100 patient advocacy groups support this bill. Currently, it leads all other bills on cosponsor.gov with over 2,500 citizen cosponsors. This kind of support is great, but what matters now are the Members of this House and how they vote. The question before the Members today is simple: What is more important--finding cures for our children or balloons for party conventions and catering for politicians?

The bottom line is that this bill is a choice between allocating moneys for political conventions or pediatric medical research. That is the choice. The bill isn't just about a government agency or taxpayer dollars. It is not about Democratic issues or Republican issues. It is about a cause, frankly, that should unite each and every one of us.

Yes, I would say to my colleague from California that this is a serious first step--it is not everything--but to not sit here and impugn anyone's motives, much less say something that is somehow a commentary that this isn't constructive towards the plight of the parents like the Millers who are around this country and who are searching for some indication that we can break the political gridlock on an issue like this. I align myself with the comments of my colleague from Vermont, who says, Can't we just put down the battle axes for something like this? Can't we all do that for somebody like Gabriella?

Now, Gabriella may no longer be with us, but her fight lives on. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all of us stand united today and join in this fight.

Again, I want to thank Congressman Gregg Harper, and I want to thank Congressman Peter Welch for introducing this bill as well as to thank Congressman Cole from Oklahoma. Earlier this year, they began the effort to join with so many who have come before in order to raise awareness of the need for medical research and, yes, this time, of the need for us to prioritize the funding for pediatric research.

I would like to thank Gabriella's parents, the Millers, who are so brave in their commitment to this effort and who realize this is just a first step--being here with us today and joining us in this fight.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by praising my friend Gregg Harper and my friend Peter Welch, who come to this floor with a very worthy purpose, and that is to redirect government funding toward something that is not particularly important toward something that is very important--medical research for children.

The question when you have a worthy goal is always: How do you pay for it? Where will you actually get the resources?

For many years, I have brought to this floor legislation that would eliminate public funding for political party

conventions and Presidential campaigns. I could go into debate ad infinitum. The President has never used any public funding--didn't feel the need for it--in either of his two campaigns. Neither did Mr. Romney. On the political conventions, both political parties this year actually did take the money.

I can tell you as a former chief of staff on the Republican National Committee who put on the convention in 2000, they do not need it. They absolutely do not need it. They can raise all the money they need from private sources, just as their nominees raised money from private sources.

That bill has actually passed this House on multiple occasions with a bipartisan vote. I was prepared to do that again and I got a call from Leader Cantor. He said: Tom, I know you have been working on this problem for a long time. I know you are concerned about it. What if we redirected that money towards something that is a better purpose, a better use of public dollars? And he mentioned Gregg's bill. I couldn't agree with him more.

So for those of you that are looking for something sinister or trying to link this to something it is not connected to, like the sequester, it is simply a modest step in the right direction. It takes money that we know is wasted and puts it to good use.

For those of you that say it can't pass the other body, the other body in the last Congress on amendment voted 95-5 to take away public funding of political conventions. We still have a disagreement on Presidential campaigns. But funding political conventions really is more important than directing this money to a more worthy purpose? We are not even trying to take it out of the Federal budget. I just think that kind of logic defies imagination.

This is a good-faith effort to do something that ought to bring us together instead of pull us apart. It is a modest step. I would be the first to admit that. But let's take the modest step in the right direction, take public dollars that we are now wasting on political conventions, give them to researchers, and let them do their work. That is just simply a better use of the public purse in a time of limited means.

So I urge support for my friends' bill, H.R. 2019, Mr. Harper and Mr. Welch. I want to thank Leader Cantor. This was his idea of bringing two ideas together. I think it is a good one. I hope this House embraces it in a bipartisan fashion.

I want to thank my friend, the chairman of Energy and Commerce, for his effort to bring this forward and advance it.

Everylife Foundation

for Rare Disease,

Novato, CA, June 10, 2013.

Hon. Gregg Harper,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Harper: The EveryLife Foundation for Rare

Diseases is dedicated to accelerating biotech innovation for

rare disease treatments through science-driven public policy.

We are writing to support the Kids First Research Act of

2013 (H.R. 2019). This bipartisan bill would eliminate

taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party

conventions and reprogram those savings to provide for a 10-

year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund

administered by the National Institutes of Health.

During these trying fiscal times, we are pleased to see

efforts that would increase funds for pediatric research.

Unfortunately, pediatric rare diseases and cancer is terribly

underfunded and largely overlooked by drug companies and

research institutions. Public funding is essential to help

spur the development of treatments for these children.

We are pleased to express our strong support for H.R. 2019,

and believe this legislation will help to bring increased

funding and awareness to pediatric medical research. We look

forward to working with you and your staff to ensure this

bill is enacted into law.

Sincerely,

Emil D. Kakkis, M.D., Ph.D.,

President.