Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week we celebrated Azerbaijan's Republic Day, which commemorates the 93rd anniversary of Azerbaijan's independence from the Russian Empire. Later this year, Azerbaijan will also celebrate the 20th anniversary of its freedom from the Soviet Union and the state of diplomatic relations with the United States.

The U.S.-Azerbaijan partnership is based on shared values and common goals. Over the last 20 years. Azerbaijan has become a key strategic ally of the United States and has helped the United States achieve important security and economic objectives in a complex part of the world.

Azerbaijan supports U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan, sending troops and civilian personnel to Afghanistan to serve alongside U.S. troops, as well as training civilian and security officers both in Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. Azerbaijan is also a key part of the Northern Distribution Network, which provides ground and naval transit for roughly 25 percent of the Coalition's supplies bound for Afghanistan.

Azerbaijan also plays an important role in strengthening U.S. and European energy independence and is currently expanding its commercial and economic ties with the United States. Azerbaijan, which provides roughly a quarter of Israel's oil, is a secular Muslin country that maintains close friendly ties with Israel.

Please join me in honoring Azerbaijan's 93rd Republic Day and celebrating a healthy U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership on this issue.

Section 5508 of PPACA authorizes the Secretary to award grants to teaching health centers to establish newly accredited or expanded primary care residency training programs. The new health care law, PPACA, provides a mandatory appropriation of $230 million for this purpose for the period from FY 2011 through FY 2015.

You may recall that in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget, he eliminated funding for training at children's hospitals. Because of this, I and the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) have introduced H.R. 1852, a bill to reauthorize the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education program for an additional 5 years at the current funding levels.

While the administration couldn't find money in its budget for training at children's hospitals, PPACA somehow was able to provide a direct mandatory appropriation of $230 million for other teaching health centers, with no further action, input, or approval required by Congress. And PPACA did this with a number of funds, mandatory appropriations.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1216, simply converts PPACA's mandatory appropriations to an authorization, subject to the annual appropriations process, just like the Children's Hospital GME program, making it discretionary. Passage of the bill will also save $215 million over 5 years.

I urge support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we only need to look at Massachusetts to see a preview of what is in store if we fail to repeal ObamaCare.

Just a few years ago, it was predicted that the Massachusetts health reform would reduce emergency room care by getting patients in to see primary care physicians. But a new survey shows that only half of primary care physicians are able to accept new patients right now. It now takes 48 days to see an internist for a routine checkup. Premiums in Massachusetts remain among the highest in the Nation. Low reimbursements in the Commonwealth Care health plan mean that only about half of doctors accept the State-managed insurance.

Far from solving Massachusetts' health care crisis, the health reform law has created problems of its own. The Massachusetts Medical Society finds that the environment for physicians continues to deteriorate, despite billions in government spending--just a sample of what awaits the Nation under ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. forces on Sunday brought reassurance to many around the world that justice had finally been served. A man responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people of all races and religions had been located and eliminated. However, not everyone saw it the same way.

Ismail Haniyeh, leader of Hamas in Gaza, called bin Laden a sheikh and said, ``We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior.'' This comes the same week that Palestinian political parties Hamas and Fatah have reconciled and formed a unity government.

How can the United States provide aid to a unity government if one of its most important leaders praises a mass murderer? How can Israel negotiate treaties with a government composed of a party that is actively seeking its destruction?

There cannot be true peace as long as Hamas holds up Osama bin Laden and other terrorists as heroes. The Palestinian people must recognize that hatred and terrorism will never bring them true peace and true independence.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today should be a no-brainer. Americans overwhelmingly reject the use of taxpayer funds for abortion. In several polls over the last few years, anywhere from 60 percent to 70 percent of the public oppose using taxpayer funds for abortion. H.R. 3 puts into statute the will of the American people.

Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been included in appropriations bills to ensure that Federal funds are not used to provide abortions. This policy provision has passed year in and year out with bipartisan support. H.R. 3 would just take that provision and put it into law. This may make sense to most Americans, but for some reason this idea receives great pushback in Washington.

Health care reform also placed abortion funding at the center of its debate. In their haste to pass ObamaCare last Congress, the Democrat leadership in Washington neglected to include any adequate prohibition on abortion funding. The President did issue an executive order to support the intentions of Hyde. Unfortunately, the order merely reiterated the accounting gimmick in the health care bill.

The President's own chief of staff at that time would later comment on how he thought up the idea for this executive order so that they could ``allow the Stupak amendment not to exist by law but by executive order.''

When the President signed that bill into law, he allowed a massive expansion in Federal funding for abortion. In a time of great Federal debt, the last thing the American people want is to have their taxpayer dollars used on the morally objectionable practice of abortion.

According to a 2007 Guttmacher Institute report, if the Hyde amendment were removed from law, the number of abortions would likely increase by 25 percent. The study reveals what is common sense: an increase in funding for abortions will directly lead to an increase in the number of abortions.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed their desire to reduce abortions. If that is truly their desire and not just a talking point, then they should have no problem at all voting in favor of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

For the information of the Members, the Hyde amendment only applies to the Labor-H bill. It is offered every year as a rider. Similar language is offered to Indian Health, Federal Employee Health Benefits Act. We have done these amendments, or riders, to these bills every year for years. So when you speak about the Hyde amendment, we should speak about it accurately.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, where does our oil come from?

Much of it comes from offshore drilling rigs scattered around the globe. From the North Sea to the South China Sea, there are thousands of rigs pumping oil that eventually finds its way to the American market. Exploration for oil and natural gas is growing in Egypt, Brazil, and dozens of other countries.

But here in the United States, we are moving backwards. Leases and permits have been slow-walked and delayed--2011 was almost the first year since 1958 that the Federal Government did not hold an offshore lease sale.

This week we are going to pass legislation to kick-start leases and increase production of American energy. The only reliable way to decrease gasoline prices is to increase domestic supply. If we don't act to expand access to American natural resources, we will see production fall this year.

The American people want to get back to work, but high energy prices are holding back job growth. American jobs are on the line. That's why now is the time to boost American energy.

Madam Speaker, this week the House and Senate will consider a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year that reduces spending by $38.5 billion.

Considering that the position of Harry Reid at the beginning of the year was that we shouldn't cut a single dime, we have moved the conversation in the right direction.

Senator Schumer called Republican cuts ``extreme,'' but even the full $61 billion that the House pushed for would have only made a small dent in our huge deficit.

The real extreme position is to do nothing. If we do nothing, interest payments and entitlement spending will consume the entire budget. If we do nothing, we will lose the capability to defend our Nation. If we do nothing, our roads and rails will crumble.

This week Republicans will present an alternative to the do-nothing strategy. For that, we will certainly be labeled ``extreme.'' We have a great Nation; but as long as we are beholden to our creditors, foreign and domestic, we risk losing prosperity and freedom.

We shouldn't wait any longer to get our budget in order. We can begin this week, but we shouldn't stop until we have passed long-term solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1217 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, where do we get the gasoline to power our cars and jet fuel to power our airplanes? We all know that it comes from oil and that its price is dictated by supply and demand.

President Obama realizes this. In fact, his advisers have considered opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to stabilize supply. But if we are willing to open up this emergency supply, then why are we not taking advantage of the natural reserves that we have throughout our Nation?

Following BP's careless accident in the gulf, six deepwater drilling rigs left for foreign shores, some even moving to Egypt. Deepwater drilling will continue, but off foreign shores. America will continue to need oil, but it will increasingly come from foreign nations. Rather than reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, the actions of this administration are increasing them.

With instability in the Middle East, our gas prices naturally rise. Let's open our natural reserves off our shores and throughout our country. Let's create energy jobs here and stabilize the price of gasoline in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this week, 13 Coptic Christians in Egypt were killed in clashes with Muslims. Recently, a church in the town of Sol was burned to the ground, leading many Christians to flee the village in fear of their lives. This comes only 2 months after 24 Christians were killed in a church bombing.

For thousands of years, Coptic Christians have lived and worshiped in Egypt, but some extremists want to use the chaos in the country today to drive them out of their homes and places of worship.

Egypt is in the process of developing a democratic government, one in which all the Egyptian people will have a say. These attacks undermine freedom and democracy. Democracy without protection of minority rights is mob rule and not true freedom.

I invite all my colleagues to join me on a letter to the commander in chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces calling on him to protect the Egyptian citizens during this critical period in his nation. We are glad to see the Egyptian people building a better government, and we must remind them that fundamental respect for human rights must be protected.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize pharmacy's contribution to the American health care system. This week, over 300 members of the pharmacy community--including practicing pharmacists, pharmacy school faculty and students, state pharmacy leaders and pharmacy company executives--are here on Capitol Hill for the Third Annual National Association of Chain Drug Stores RxIMPACT Day.

These important health care providers are here to urge Congress to recognize the value of pharmacists and promote access to these medication experts throughout our health care delivery system.

Nearly all Americans live within five miles of a community pharmacy, making pharmacists one of our most accessible health care provider groups. As my colleagues know, one of the most important functions of local pharmacies is to assist individuals in the communities where they operate with their health care needs. While the convenient, safe and efficient dispensing of prescription medicines is a core function of the modern neighborhood pharmacy--and one they take very seriously-- pharmacies do much more that positively impacts the lives of their customers and patients. Today's pharmacies offer a variety of preventive health care services including immunizations and vaccinations, health screening services, disease management services and routine advice on the best and most effective over-the-counter products for patients' specific needs. Americans trust their neighborhood pharmacies to provide these services, which is one reason pharmacists have ranked in the top three each of the past eight years in Gallup's annual survey of integrity across all professions.

As the face of neighborhood health care, pharmacies across the nation offer these and other cost-saving programs and services to help patients take medicines they need to achieve positive results from appropriate use of their medications.

Today, I celebrate the value of pharmacy and support efforts to protect access to neighborhood pharmacies and utilize pharmacies to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Federal deficit for the month of February was $223 billion, more than the total yearly deficit in 2007. Yet Republicans have been labeled as irresponsible for looking to cut a mere $61 billion from the rest of this year's budget. Our cuts only amount to 30 percent of the monthly deficit. Additionally, these cuts are only made in the discretionary portion of our budget.

Tomorrow, in the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, we're going to look at new ObamaCare programs that have been locked away in the mandatory budget. One of these programs allows the HHS Secretary to spend unlimited sums of money. We have given the Secretary a credit card with no limit even though our national debt threatens the economic health of our Nation.

It is time that we cut up the credit card and restore to Congress the power to set fiscal priorities. Slush funds and unlimited spending are just two more reasons why ObamaCare needs to be repealed.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming years the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will have to find $2 billion additional to pay for ObamaCare's mandated Medicaid increases. There is little flexibility in State budgets this year, and Pennsylvania, like many States, will have to make up a significant budget gap this year. The entire State budget is only $29 billion. Adding $2 billion more means significant cuts in services or significant tax increases.

Pennsylvania is not alone. According to a new report released yesterday, this expansion will cost States $118 billion additional. That is twice what was just recently estimated by CBO. We want to provide good health care, but we also want to educate our children, keep citizens safe, and maintain our rails and roads. Our State governments must be more than just health care providers. We must provide governors with the flexibility to determine the needs of their States.

Under ObamaCare, Medicaid is more rigid and more expensive, and an even greater burden on States struggling to balance their budgets.

Mr. Speaker, last year we were told that ObamaCare would create 400,000 jobs ``almost immediately.'' We were further told that in the coming years, ObamaCare would create 10 times that amount, 4 million jobs. A year later, we see that those promises are truly hollow.

In his testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO Director Elmendorf confirmed that the new health care law will reduce unemployment by 800,000 jobs by the end of the decade. ObamaCare will take away the current insurance plan for millions of Americans, especially those who buy in the individual market or who are in a Medicare Advantage plan. All of these people were promised, ``if you like it, you can keep it.''

On the campaign trail, the President said he would save every American family $2,500 a year. Now we know that some American families will be paying an additional $2,100 a year. How can the Congress stand for this? The only sensible option is to fully repeal ObamaCare and put forward better solutions that don't destroy jobs and health care--real reform for health insurance.