Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. This amendment prevents funds from being used by the Department of Health and Human Services to implement rules regarding ObamaCare's essential benefits package.

As if ObamaCare's mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance wasn't enough, the law went one step further. The Federal Government will now tell every single American and business what their health plans must cover. To make matters worse, ObamaCare grants this unprecedented power to a single person. ObamaCare gives this power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine which benefits are essential for patients, affecting every man, woman and child in America--not to mention that, the more benefits that HHS determines to be essential, the higher the premiums will be for coverage, thus increasing the overall cost for small businesses and families across America.

Behind me is a chart of all the new powers granted to the Secretary under ObamaCare. It was meant to be printed on a 5-foot-by-10-foot chart. Even at this size it's difficult to read, but if you have a magnifying glass, you can actually read this.

ObamaCare has nearly 2,000 of the Secretary's shell statements. The new powers of the Secretary are symptomatic of the vast expansion of Federal control that in many cases usurps State authority and limits private sector autonomy, innovations and its ability to function.

This is bureaucracy at its finest, and it is most destructive. The ability to define minimum benefits is just one of many of the new powers, but it is one of the pivotal ones, and it is precisely why we have pointed out that this is a government takeover of the health industry. I believe patients are capable of deciding which health insurance plans best fit their needs, not a government bureaucrat.

For example, the Federal Government shouldn't tell Mormons in Utah that they need to buy coverage for alcohol counseling. Yet Secretary Sebelius is now in a position to do just that--and there are many other ridiculous examples like this.

Former HHS Secretary Leavitt's writing today in the Washington Post perfectly describes the outcome of ObamaCare. He wrote: It puts more power than is prudent into the hands of one person, and it is not an answer to our national health care crisis.

There is too much power in one office.

I urge the House to adopt my amendment and to stop the Federal takeover of personal health care decisions.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, we have seen in just the past couple of weeks incidents that remind us of the horrors associated with the abortion industry. We have seen in a women's health clinic in west Philadelphia women and children brutally killed in late-term abortions. We have seen a series of videos that have given us a behind-the-scenes look at the standard operating procedures at Planned Parenthood clinics across the countries. The videos depict investigative journalists receiving advice on how to run their prostitution business and how to obtain illegal abortions.

Some people have said, Character is who you are when no one is watching. Or to put it another way, It is what you do when you think no one is watching. Planned Parenthood, the number one abortion provider in the country, has revealed its true character in these videos. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood staff exposed their true colors, and they neglected to act with integrity when faced with a situation dealing with sex trafficking. It was more important to them to promote abortion than to help rescue underage girls enslaved in prostitution.

In this country, 95 percent of abortions occur in clinics, not hospitals. These clinics don't need Federal tax dollars to support their unethical practices. Planned Parenthood recently reported providing 332,278 abortions in the year 2009. That's the last reported year. Planned Parenthood, itself, has recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every Planned Parenthood affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next 2 years.

Despite being a billion-dollar-a-year corporation, Planned Parenthood receives $363.2 million, 33 percent of its income, from government grants and contracts, that is, from taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood actively ignores statutory rape reporting laws and campaigns against efforts to enforce or strengthen them, as illustrated in the recent videos.

Planned Parenthood in Kansas claims to be ``a trusted source of health care and education for thousands of women, men and children,'' yet was charged with 107 criminal counts, including failure to report sexual abuse and falsifying documents in order to perform illegal late- term abortions. Planned Parenthood in California has privately admitted to overcharging the State and Federal Governments by at least $180 million for birth control pills, despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. Planned Parenthood in Indiana has been accused of endangering the safety and well-being of minor girls by intentionally circumventing State parental involvement laws and breaking State law by refusing to report statutory rape.

There are many other sources of family planning money to other organizations and to State and local governments. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is exploiting women and children. They have shown themselves to be an extreme organization with unethical practices. Our daughters and granddaughters deserve better.

I urge support of the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Chinese government has targeted a human rights proponent for persecution, Dr. Fan Yafeng, head of the Christian Human Rights Lawyers of China.

Dr. Yafeng was granted an interview last October with National Public Radio regarding the absence of the Chinese delegation at the Lausanne Congress, which is an international gathering of evangelicals.

The government's response to the interview was systematic interrogation, search and seizure, and torture. He is currently under house arrest, guarded by police in Beijing and cut off from the outside world. Those attempting to contact him through family have also endured police brutality.

I call upon the State Department and our Embassy in Beijing to reach out to Dr. Yafeng to verify his condition and apply pressure on the Chinese government to ensure his release. The Chinese government's continued persecution of human rights advocates, harassment, brutality, and house arrest must not be tolerated. I hope that we will stand up for Dr. Yafeng and support his peaceful work to bring freedom and dignity to the Chinese people.

Offered By: Mr. Pitts

Amendment No. 430: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I am mindful of events occurring in Egypt. And I want to extend my congratulations to the Lillian Trasher Orphanage of Asyut, Egypt, which is celebrating 100 years of service this month. As our ally Egypt stands on the cusp of a new future, one hopefully based on respect for democracy and human rights, we honor the people who have worked for decades to build an educated and productive civil society there.

The Lillian Trasher Orphanage, begun in 1911 by an American from Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the oldest and longest-serving charities in the world. It currently serves over 600 children, along with widows and staff. This pillar of the community has been home to thousands of children who needed food, shelter, and a family. Orphanage graduates serve around the world as bankers, doctors, pastors, teachers, and even in the U.S. Government.

Despite many challenges over the years, the wonderful staff, now led by George and Fathia Assad, has continued serving the children no matter what the circumstances. We applaud that cloud of witnesses over the past 100 years who have supported this organization through service, friendship, prayers, and donations. And we support and stand with this great institution and voice our ongoing support for this and other similar Egyptian grassroots organizations during this critical period in the nation's history.

The United States is in danger of losing its status as the world leader in medical device innovation. Multiple studies have shown that regulatory uncertainty and a delay and inefficiency at the Food and Drug Administration are damaging this critical industry.

Shorter, more predictable and more transparent approval processes in Europe have led many device companies to seek to market their products in Europe before submitting them to the FDA. This hurts American patients who, on average, have access to innovative medical devices 2 years later than patients in European countries, and, in some cases, never have access to these devices. And does a longer, more uncertain regulatory process by FDA result in making American patients any safer? The answer is no.

According to recent studies, medical devices marketed through the shorter and more transparent European regulatory processes are statistically as safe as FDA-cleared and -approved devices and have comparable patient outcomes. Regulatory uncertainty also hurts American competitiveness as innovative device companies are moving jobs overseas.

And these are good jobs. Nationally, jobs in medical technology pay almost 40 percent higher compared to the national earnings average. San Diego-based NuVasive, a medical device company, is a case study of what regulatory burdens and delays can do to a company. NuVasive reports that in the last 18 to 24 months, ``longer FDA approval times have directly resulted in significant revenue loss estimated at $70 million, increased operating expenses of over $2 million, hundreds of new jobs eliminated, and less investment in research and development.''

The company continues: ``It is becoming far more efficient and faster to innovate outside the U.S.A. in such places as Europe. Non-U.S.A. systems have more timely, predictable, and transparent process. We have seen U.S.A. delays of 3 to 70 months, which has forced NuVasive to rethink longer-term strategies around where to place research and development jobs and even whether or not to invest in innovation of new products.''

This is just one company, but this scenario is playing out nationwide. Unfortunately, this scenario also is playing out in prescription drugs space. The uncertainty and lack of transparency in the drug approval process is hurting American job creation and hurting American patients. We need to improve these problems at FDA so American patients have timely access to life-saving, life-improving drugs and devices and American workers have access to these good jobs.

Mr. Speaker, on an early morning last month, over 70 Christians in Iran were suddenly arrested and detained by the Iranian authorities. As these Iranian Christians were taken to a notorious Tehran prison, one married couple was forced to leave a 2-year-old child behind. Another mother was taken while breast-feeding her baby.

Eleven were released after hours of harsh interrogation. The fate of the others remains unknown. According to some reports they are suffering through sleep deprivation and blindfolded interrogations. They are likely to face charges of proselytizing, a death penalty offense in Iran.

The peaceful worship of these Christians poses no threat to the Iranian Government, and the government's persistence in accusing its own population of being enemies does nothing to strengthen the regime.

We stand with these oppressed Christians and other religious minorities in Iran that face constant harassment and potential prosecution. Most of all, we call on the Iranian Government to release those prisoners so they can raise their families and peacefully practice their faith.

Mr. Speaker, why would a government that claims to be so powerful be afraid or threatened by such a small, peaceful minority?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to remember and honor Corporal Eric M. Torbert, Jr., of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

On December 18, 2010, Eric was killed by an explosion while conducting combat operations in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

In 2007, Eric displayed his willingness and enthusiasm to serve and defend his country by enlisting in the United States Marine Corps at Parris Island, South Carolina. He was then assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California. He deployed to Afghanistan in October in 2010.

Eric understood what it means to live a life with purpose. He served a cause greater than himself. He served the cause of liberty. Eric gave his life to bring hope to all freedom-loving people as did many marines before him in the 1st Marine Division.

Activated aboard the battleship Texas on February 1, 1941, the 1st Marine Division is the oldest, largest, and most decorated division in the United States Marine Corps with nine Presidential Unit Citations. Eric has joined this storied tradition of service and excellence.

Before deploying to Afghanistan, Eric married Marcelle L. Sebastian on June 12, 2010. Marcelle supported Eric when he joined the Marine Corps in 2007 and throughout his entire career. Her steadfast care and sacrificial love for Eric and our Nation deserve our sincerest gratitude.

Eric was a leader. He was a caring husband, a friend, a son, a brother, and a devoted member of a local band. He leaves behind family and friends proud of his service and his distinguished career in the military.

Eric earned a number of awards during his service in the Marine Corps, which demonstrates his commitment to our Nation and his professionalism as a marine. His personal service awards include the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

May God grant to Eric's family the peace that surpasses all understanding. We grieve their loss. Our prayers and most heartfelt gratitude go out to them, and I offer them my deepest condolences. I am humbled by the dedicated service and sacrifice of their loved one.

Eric's valor and service cost him his life, but his sacrifice will live on forever among the many dedicated heroes this Nation has called to defend freedom. He joins the revered ranks of the many thousands of men and women throughout American history who have given their lives to secure the freedom of the people of the United States of America and the freedom-loving people around the world. He is an inspiration to us all. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. Speaker, most States, including my own State of Pennsylvania, are facing significant budget problems this fiscal year. The fiscal situation in some States eerily resembles Greece and Ireland.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government is adding fuel to the fire with new Medicaid mandates that could cost the States billions of dollars. ObamaCare burdens the States in two ways. First, it requires them to enroll millions more beneficiaries. While the Federal Government will at first pay for the benefits of these new enrollees, the States will gradually have to start picking up the tab. Second, the Federal Government will only help cover the cost of benefits, not the administrative costs associated with all these new enrollees. Since some States will be forced to nearly double their Medicaid rolls, this will certainly hit their budgets hard.

We cannot forget that 49 of 50 States are required to balance their budgets every year. They will face the grim choice of discontinuing their Medicaid program, raising taxes, or slashing other essential government services.

We have talked a lot about ObamaCare bankrupting the Federal Government, but we can't forget that it could drive States over the cliff at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I might just respond: ObamaCare spends over $1 trillion but leaves 23 million people uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been arguing that we can't afford to repeal ObamaCare. I would argue just the opposite. Our country cannot bear the true cost of ObamaCare, and it must be repealed.

Our repeal would mean that Americans with employer-provided health coverage will keep their current plan, yet the administration estimates that seven out of 10 individuals will lose their current coverage under ObamaCare.

Our repeal means that half of all employers--as many as 80 percent of small businesses--will be able to keep their current plan rather than lose it over the next 2 years. The administration's estimates reveal that their own onerous regulations will force most businesses to give up their current plans, subjecting them to costly new mandates that will increase premiums.

Our repeal means that 7.4 million more seniors will participate in Medicare Advantage plans, according to the Medicare actuary. Our repeal also means that the Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will not face an average increase of $873 per year in out-of-pocket costs between now and 2019.

Our repeal means that individual health insurance premiums will not increase by $2,100.

Our repeal means that taxpayers will not face $569 billion in tax increases scheduled to take effect over the coming years.

Our repeal means that the economy would keep an estimated 750,000 jobs that will be lost because the incentives included in ObamaCare actually discourage individuals from working, according to the CBO.

Our repeal means that national health spending will go down by $310 billion, according to the Medicare actuary.

Our repeal means that seniors' part D premiums won't increase by 4 percent in 2011 or rise up to 9 percent in 2019 as CBO estimates would happen under the current law.

Without repeal, employer retiree drug coverage will drop from 20 percent of retirees to 2 percent by 2016, according to the Medicare Trustees Report.

Finally, repeal means that States will avoid a massive forced expansion of their Medicaid programs, at a cost of $20 billion to the States, at a time when they cannot sustain Medicaid.

The costs of leaving this job-slashing health care law in effect are much too high. It must be repealed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the families and communities of the Egyptians who lost their lives in the recent New Year's bomb attack. The horror of this tragedy continues to reverberate across the world--a tragedy in which those peacefully practicing their faith were attacked and brutally murdered.

The Government of Egypt has a responsibility to protect all its citizens. Sadly, it has not done that. Over the last decade, there has been a disturbing pattern of the Government allowing, condoning, or responding with apathy to attacks against Christians in Egypt. There is simply no excuse for the lack of protection in this recent attack, last year's Christmas attack, and any other attacks against the Christian community or their places of worship and service.

When will the Egyptian Government wake up to its duty to protect its citizens?

Until Egypt is a free country where all Egyptians are able to peacefully practice their faith without fear or restriction, none of Egypt is truly free. Those in the government who would support the extremists who engage in these attacks are the ones who undermine democracy, freedom, and stability for the Egyptian people.

Again, governments do not need to take overt action for discrimination or persecution to occur. Denial of justice occurs by governments when the governments themselves, though not directly involved in persecution, indirectly encourage it by their statements, actions and subsequent policies. Instead, they look the other way when injustice happens. A prime example of this is the 1998 Al-Kosheh case in which the government exonerated individuals charged with persecuting, arresting, and torturing over 1,000 Coptic Christians, and even gave job promotions to the state security officials responsible for the persecution. That is not protection of citizens and that is not justice.

I call on the Egyptian Government to ensure that the perpetrators of this heinous crime against the Copts, and ultimately against the people of Egypt, are brought to justice.

To the Coptic community, please know that our hearts and prayers go out to you in this time of grief and loss. We stand with you.

``No Senator or Representative shall during the time for which he was elected be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his continuance in office.''

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

At the Energy and Commerce Committee, food safety has been a bipartisan priority. We have held numerous hearings during the last two Congresses, examining food safety problems involving peppers and peanut butter and what we can do to solve those problems. During those hearings, we have heard about how much work our Nation's farmers, manufacturers, and distributors do to put low-cost, high-quality food on the tables of more than 300 million people every day. We also have heard about how much our Nation's children and our Nation's farmers and small businesses can be hurt when one irresponsible actor sells adulterated, contaminated food.

Thanks to helpful testimony from hearing witnesses and hard work by our committee members, we were able to come up with some good ideas to help solve those food safety problems. Those ideas were found in the Food Safety Enhancement Act, which passed the House in July of 2009 and represented the bipartisan work of Chairman Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Stupak, Governor-Elect Deal, and Ranking Member Shimkus.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act passed more than 16 months ago. The Senate finally passed its food safety bill, the Food Safety Modernization Act, Senate 510, during the lame duck session. The provisions of Senate 510 are contained in the bill that we are considering today with no substantive changes from what passed the Senate 3 weeks ago.

I intend to vote against this bill because it represents such a gross departure from reasonable legislating. When the Senate passed its food safety bill 3 weeks ago, we asked our majority to take the bill to conference. Instead, we were forced to vote on the Senate bill with no substantive changes as part of the continuing resolution 2 weeks ago.

During the 111th Congress, we have learned a great deal about how not to do things, and this bill presents us with another example. Instead of just taking up the Senate bill, we should have held a conference. We've been told we couldn't do that because there wasn't enough time. Well, instead of naming post offices, we should have rolled up our sleeves and gotten to work on negotiating. And now, 3 weeks and many post offices later, the majority says we have to take it or leave it.

One provision that raises questions is the so-called Tester amendment that was added to the Senate food safety bill. This provision will provide exemptions from food safety requirements based on a facility's or a farm's size. While we do not want to overly burden small facilities and small farms, we've learned in our committee hearings that food-borne pathogens don't care if you're a big facility or a small facility, a big farm or a small farm. They affect everyone.

A food safety issue in one facility or one farm can cause hundreds of illnesses and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses for farmers and small businesses. By allowing facilities exemptions from food safety requirements, we're setting our Nation up for the potential of future outbreaks. Our system is only as strong as its weakest link, and the Tester amendment will set up a system full of weak links.

This is just one example of the potential problems with this bill. These are problems we could have addressed through a conference, but, instead, we wasted 3 weeks and are being told, take it or leave it.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation so we can do it the right way in the next Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on Agriculture, Representative Lucas from Oklahoma.

(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's over 1,900 pages long. It contains more than 6,000 earmarks. It costs over $1.1 trillion. It's the new Senate omnibus bill and it's a legislative travesty.

A lame duck Congress with Members who won't be here in just 3 weeks should not saddle the American people with hundreds of billions of dollars in new debt. This bill increases spending over last year, even though we ran up a $1.3 trillion debt this year, and will run up a similarly high deficit next year. We don't need to be growing the Federal Government; we need to be shrinking it.

This bill totally ignores what happened in this country on November 2, but seeing as some of the earmarks come from Senators who won't be back next year, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. The American people are tired of paying their taxes so that $165,000 can pay for maple syrup research and $1 million can go to AFL-CIO training programs.

Congress' approval rating this session is at a record low, 13 percent. With bills like this, we shouldn't be surprised.

Madam Speaker, earlier this week, a Federal judge in Virginia acted to defend the American people from an unconstitutional mandate to purchase health insurance. It really shouldn't be a surprise that a Federal judge recognized what many of us noted months ago: the Constitution does not give Congress and the President the right to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service.

Instead of finding ways to bring down the cost of insurance so that anybody can afford at least basic coverage, ObamaCare puts the Federal Government squarely in charge of the health care industry and then makes every American participate. The government defines what insurance is, what it does, what it covers and doesn't cover, and then forces you to buy it. Even with this unconstitutional mandate, health care costs will rise faster because of ObamaCare.

The next Congress will act to repeal this mandate and all the other bad ideas in ObamaCare because we, too, have a responsibility to protect the Constitution of the United States.