Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4302) to amend the Social Security Act to extend Medicare payments to physicians and other provisions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and for other purposes.

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

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

I sorely wish I were here getting ready to vote on a bill that would permanently repeal and replace the sustainable growth rate. In this Chamber, we passed a bill that would do that and that would have fully offset the cost of the repeal by delaying a provision of the Affordable Care Act that the administration just keeps delaying itself. In fact, it was partially delayed again just yesterday. Unfortunately, we have reached another doc fix deadline. I believe that we must act to protect America's seniors and ensure that they can continue to see the doctors whom they know and trust.

That is why I have introduced legislation that represents a bipartisan-bicameral agreement that will give us additional time to work out our differences and pass permanent repeal. We are closer than ever to reaching that goal. We have an agreement on policy. We need to overcome our differences about the responsible way to pay for those new policies. I hope that we can act before we reach the new deadline of March 31, 2015. In fact, we should try to reach a bicameral agreement before the end of this Congress.

I am glad that Speaker Boehner has offered his continuing support to this effort. With the House's having acted, we hope that the Senate can also pass an SGR repeal that has real pay-fors. Then we can begin the process of working through our differences in a conference committee. I am sponsoring this bill today because it is my earnest hope that this is the last patch we will have to pass, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), an important member of the Health Subcommittee.

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

We have groups who have expressed support for this bill: the American Clinical Laboratory Association; the American College of Radiology; Easter Seals; the Family Research Council; the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance, MITA; the National Abstinence Education Association; the Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children; the Pew Charitable Trusts; the ZERO to THREE: National Center on Infants, Toddlers, and Families; AdvaMed, among others.

I would urge Members to seriously consider this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the minority how many speakers they have left?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the minority how many speakers they have left?

We are prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to read out the title of a blast that I just received from The Heritage Foundation. Some of our Members might be interested in this. ``A temporary SGR patch is better than permanent deficits in support of the bill.''

My colleagues, this morning, seniors are watching. This is not a game. We are thinking of seniors and certainty for them. A vote ``no'' today is a vote against seniors. We are not voting for the AMA today. We are voting for or against seniors today.

We will continue to work with all of our might for a permanent repeal of SGR. We have worked on this for 3 years. We must get there as soon as possible, but we are at a deadline, and this is the last vote we will have.

If you vote ``no'' on this bill, you are voting for more uncertainty. You are voting for a cut to doctor reimbursement. You are voting against seniors.

Let us vote for seniors this morning. Vote for H.R. 4302.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentlelady for hosting this Special Order. This is so important because, tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties against Sebelius. I have the privilege, tomorrow, to sit in the Chamber and listen to the oral arguments.

At the heart of the argument is the question about whether you stop following your conscience when you go into business. For family businesses like Conestoga Wood Specialties, located in my Congressional district, faith and business are not separate.

Their business would not be the same if they did not apply the values that guide their life. I visited this business. I have talked to their employees. I know the Hahn family. They are sincere Mennonites and wonderful people of faith and good business people.

It is those values that prompted Conestoga Wood to provide quality health insurance to their employees in the first place. They provided health insurance long before this regulation or mandate came along under ObamaCare.

No government mandate had to tell them that it was the right thing to do. Now, the government wants to use force and fines to stipulate the details of what that plan covers. Conestoga Wood and many other businessowners of faith now find themselves in a catch-22 of conscience.

The First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were meant to guard against using the heavy hand of government to infringe on our religious rights. We should not have to leave our faith at the church door.

Under the First Amendment, we are guaranteed freedom of religion, and I might remind you, it is the First Amendment. It is not the Second Amendment. It is not the Sixth or the 16th or the 26th. It is the First Amendment. It is the first thing mentioned in the First Amendment-- freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Pennsylvania has a long history of people of differing faiths engaging in commerce. 100 years before there was a First Amendment, William Penn established his colony as a place where religious dissenters could find freedom and safety.

The Forefathers of the Hahn family--Mennonites and others--came to Pennsylvania because it was advertised as a place where you could live and work freely according to your religious beliefs.

These people of faith supported themselves with businesses, and the colonial authorities in Pennsylvania let them apply their principles freely. These principles of religious freedom would later inform the founding of our Republic, and something that had at first been uniquely Pennsylvanian would become part of our national culture.

Family-owned and -operated businesses provide millions of good jobs in America. The Hahn family is facing a difficult choice that no American should have to face.

We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold a basic Pennsylvania value and a basic American value and the First Amendment right to religious freedom.

Every American, including family businessowners, should be free to live and work according to their beliefs without the fear of punishment or coercion by the government.

Americans don't give up their freedom when they open a family business. Let's hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold all of our rights to religious freedom here in this great country we call America.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 515, I call up the bill (H.R. 4015) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate and improve Medicare payments for physicians and other professionals, and for other purposes to amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4015.

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

Mr. Speaker, the sustainable growth rate, or SGR, is the formula through which Medicare reimburses physicians. Since 2003, Congress has voted 17 times for temporary patches, or ``doc fixes,'' to avert ever larger cuts to providers.

The uncertainty of the SGR threatens doctors' ability to continue practicing medicine and accepting Medicare patients and endangers seniors' access to care.

Absent congressional action, providers face a 24 percent cut on April 1, 2014. To stave off this cut, we can either pass another ``patch'' and kick the can down the road again, or we can repeal this flawed formula for good.

Today's bill, H.R. 4015, firmly repeals the SGR and replaces it with payment reform policy that has been agreed upon by the bipartisan leaders of the Energy and Commerce, the Ways and Means, and Senate Finance Committees.

As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, I have been working for the past 3 years on legislation to permanently repeal the SGR, and I am very pleased that on February 6, 2014, we reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, embodied in today's legislation.

Unfortunately, since then, Senate Majority Leader Reid has refused to negotiate with us on how to pay for this package. So we have brought forward H.R. 4015, which is fully paid for by delaying implementation of the individual mandate--a policy supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

The bill enjoys more than 100 cosponsors and the support of over 700 national and State provider and stakeholder groups. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4015 to ensure that our seniors have access to the doctors they know and trust.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the cochairs of the Doctors Caucus, who has contributed a great deal to accomplish this bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a valuable member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), another member of the Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the chief architects of this bill.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Texas Medical Association in support of this legislation.

Texas Medical Association,

Austin, TX, March 13, 2014.

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, MD,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Burgess: On behalf of the 47,000-plus

physician and medical student members of the Texas Medical

Association, I am writing to reiterate our strong support for

the work you have done to effectuate the repeal of Medicare's

Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. In conjunction with

your Texas colleague, Kevin Brady, you have gotten closer to

solving this challenging issue than ever before. And you have

done so with the support of every member of the Texas

delegation, both Democratic and Republican, on the Energy &

Commerce and Ways & Means Committees.

Perhaps more than anyone in Congress, you understand the

frustration and anxiety that the ongoing SGR uncertainty

creates for practicing physicians. You have worked tirelessly

to craft a piece of legislation that not only repeals the SGR

immediately, but also guarantees positive updates for

physicians for five years, removes potential causes of

liability against physicians, and eliminates some unnecessary

bureaucratic red tape that prevents physicians from

concentrating on patient care.

We especially appreciate your ongoing consultation and

dialogue with TMA and Texas physicians throughout this

process.

As you know well, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider

Payment Modernization Act of 2014 has made it this far

because of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the need to

replace the SGR. We are committed to helping you finish the

task.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Brotherton, MD,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), another member of the Doctors Caucus.

May I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), another cochair of the Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), who is another important member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the minority how many speakers they have left?

We have one more speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time then, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, the prime sponsor of this legislation, who has worked tirelessly to achieve this day.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would just like to acknowledge all the good work on both sides of the aisle in reaching the bipartisan policy agreement in the SGR, and especially want to thank our staff, Clay Alspach and Robert Horne and Chris Pope, and everyone on both sides of the aisle and their staff, for all the good work.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us presents each and every Member of this body a simple choice: Do we patch Medicare, or do we fix it?

Do we choose to fight for the Medicare promise that this country has made to every American, or do we vote against it?

My friends, I am voting today to keep the Medicare promise to Americans. We must not let another opportunity to save Medicare for our seniors fall by the wayside.

If Washington is broken, today is an opportunity to fix it. The bill before us is bipartisan, and the pay-for is one President Obama has used himself many times in the past.

My colleagues, did you scream hypocrisy when President Obama delayed the mandate for special interests here in D.C.? Then why would you scream hypocrisy now?

The time for political games is over. It is time for Members of this body to choose. Are you on the side of seniors in your district that depend on Medicare, or are you against them? Are you on the side of younger Americans who keep telling us they are struggling under an ObamaCare plan that forces them to choose between groceries and health care? Are you for saving Medicare, or will you vote to let it go bankrupt?

What kind of country are we living in when our own government has reduced the American Dream to a choice between health care and groceries?

This motion to recommit embraces the tired gimmicks of yesterday that the public has grown to distrust. You have a clear choice. You either vote ``no'' and stand up for what is right, to give our seniors the peace of mind they deserve, or you can vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit and demonstrate to the American public that political games are more important to you than their health and welfare.

I, for one, will be voting with seniors this morning, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, the White House has declared this week National Latino Enrollment Week, just five weeks short of the delayed deadline for purchasing insurance.

Healthcare.gov was a mess at its rollout, but the Hispanic website was even less functional.

Once it finally opened for business, the text was riddled with basic grammar errors, as if

the designers were using Google translate to build the site.

Now, Spanish-speaking Americans have the pleasure of finding out just how costly coverage in the Obamacare exchanges is.

In Pennsylvania, premiums in the individual market will run about 39 percent more than what they were previously.

Since Hispanic Americans are on average younger than the general population, they will face an even greater premium hike.

There are plenty of ways to expand access to insurance without forcing people into an expensive, government-dictated marketplace.

Obamacare is hurting many Americans, but its poor treatment of Hispanic Americans is notable.

We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3362.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 455, I call up the bill (H.R. 3362) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to require transparency in the operation of American Health Benefit Exchanges, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. This bill is fundamentally about transparency. Since healthcare.gov's disastrous launch, the public has received confusing and conflicting information about the site's functionality and the number of individuals actually able to purchase insurance through the Web site.

States trying to enroll individuals in Medicaid and insurance companies trying to sign people up for private insurance have received incomplete and inaccurate applications from the Web site.

H.R. 3362 would require the Secretary of HHS to provide a State-by- State breakdown of the number of unique Web site visits, the number of individuals who create an account, the number of individuals who select a qualified health plan, and the number of individuals who enrolled in a qualified health plan or Medicaid. The report must also describe the problems Americans are encountering with the Web site and how HHS is addressing them.

The American people have a right to firm data and an accurate picture of the exchanges. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the prime sponsor of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, we hear the words ``sign up,'' ``signed up,'' ``equal to enrollment.'' We may know how many people have signed up. We do not know how many have actually enrolled and have paid their first month's premiums. Secondly, we are stewards of the taxpayers--we are not shareholders--and the lack of data is precisely what led the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to declare this law as a train wreck in that there are no metrics, no data, to determine whether this law is working and on track.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of the Exchange Information Disclosure Act have argued that requiring weekly reports on the health care law to the American people is too burdensome, too costly for the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet, somehow, HHS managed to find money in its budget for taxpayer-funded grants spent on such things as bike lane signs, dog neutering campaigns, promoting a sport called ``pickleball,'' and lobbying campaigns for soda taxes. Clearly, HHS does not suffer from a lack of resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes

to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, a very active member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary Sebelius acknowledged at an Energy and Commerce hearing in December, enrollment in an exchange plan is not complete until the first month's premium has been paid.

The administration, so far, has refused to tell the American people how many people are actually enrolled by paying their first month's premium in the health care law's exchanges.

Asking the Department to provide the American people regular updates is simply a matter of transparency. Given that HHS officials were so blatantly wrong about the readiness of the health care law's exchanges, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Regular disclosure is necessary to assess the status of the law, and that is all this bill requires. Let's make the administration, who has continually held back facts regarding implementation of the health care law, meet their pledge to be the most transparent in history.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of the Exchange Information Disclosure Act argue that HHS is already reporting data. Yet more than 3 months after the disastrous launch of the exchanges, we simply do not know how many Americans have actually completed enrollment by paying their first month's premium. As Secretary Sebelius acknowledged at an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in December, enrollment in an exchange is not complete until the first month's premium has been paid.

The administration so far has refused to tell the American people how many people are actually enrolled in the health care law's exchanges. Either the administration is refusing to tell us how many people are actually enrolled or they simply do not know. Neither answer should instill confidence in a law that puts over 2 trillion taxpayer dollars on the line.

This underlying bill would require the administration to give us real and actual enrollment data. The American people deserve transparency, and this is what the Exchange Information Disclosure Act would deliver. I urge all Members to oppose this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the administration reported this week that they have fallen far short of their goal for signing young, healthy Americans up for new ObamaCare plans.

Ever since the failure of healthcare.gov to launch properly, the administration has downplayed the importance of enrolling their goal of 7 million Americans in exchange plans. All the recent talk has been about how much more important it is to have a mix of older, sicker Americans than younger, healthier Americans.

Now we come to find out that this younger cohort only makes up 24 percent of enrollees. That is 15 percentage points below their goal.

The definition of success keeps changing. That is exactly why we need Representative Terry's bill to require HHS to give Congress and the American people solid data. We cannot trust

officials who keep moving the goalpost and keep assuring us that everything is fine when in reality it keeps failing.

It is time we remove the rose-colored glasses and get to the facts.

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 50 years since President Johnson declared war on poverty. I don't doubt that President Johnson had good intentions, but intentions don't win wars, and poverty is a stubborn opponent. Fifteen percent of Americans still live below the poverty line, after trillions spent by the government.

In December, I brought together community leaders and national experts to discuss how we can reinvigorate the city of Reading and other cities in the 16th District of Pennsylvania. From this conference, we are moving forward to get institutions to work together strategically and think differently about attacking the problem.

Government at every level and communities leaders need to cooperate and make sure there are opportunities to start new businesses and attract more development.

Perhaps most importantly, we need smart strategies to help kids get a good education. This has to include building strong families, since statistics show that children raised by only one parent are far more susceptible to temptations of drugs and gangs and other problems.

It is time we rethought our strategy and rededicate ourselves to try helping needy Americans by removing barriers for wealth creation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3811.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 455, I call up the bill (H.R. 3811) to require notification of individuals of breaches of personally identifiable information through Exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the days leading up to Christmas, hackers stole millions of credit card numbers from the servers of retail giant Target. I imagine that at least a few here in this Chamber may have had their own credit cards replaced to prevent theft.

What if Target had not bothered to tell anyone?

What if they had waited until people noticed fraudulent charges popping up on their statements? The damage would certainly be worse.

It may shock some people to learn that there is no legal requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services notify an individual if his or her personal information is breached or improperly accessed through the Affordable Care Act's exchanges.

While HHS has said that it will notify individuals in such a case, the American people have a right to know that their government is required by law to contact them if their personal information is compromised.

H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, would simply ensure Americans receive notification from HHS when their personally identifiable information has been compromised through the exchanges. Specifically, the bill requires HHS to notify individuals no later than two business days after discovery of a breach of an exchange system.

Since the disastrous rollout of the healthcare.gov Web site, congressional oversight has uncovered that end-to-end security testing of healthcare.gov did not occur before the October 1 launch, and that high-ranking administration officials were told of the security risks before the Web site went live.

Teresa Fryer, the chief information security officer for the agency running the exchange system, even stated in a draft memo that the Federal exchange ``does not reasonably meet security requirements'' and ``there is also no confidence that personal identifiable information will be protected.''

A recent article in Information Week discussed a report released by Experian entitled ``2014 Data Breach Industry Forecast,'' which stated that ``the health care industry, by far, will be the most susceptible to publicly disclosed and widely scrutinized data breaches in 2014.''

According to Information Week, the author of the study said he is basing this prediction at least partly on reports of security risks posted by the healthcare.gov Web site and the health insurance exchanges established by various States. The Web infrastructure to support health insurance reform was ``put together too quickly and haphazardly.''

The most glaring problem for these sites has been their inability to keep up with consumer demand. The organizational infrastructure behind the implementation of ObamaCare is also complex, meaning that many parties have access to the personal data and could misuse or mishandle it.

So we have volume issues, security issues, multiple data

handling points, all generally not good things for protecting

protected health information and personal identity

information.

Given the lack of security testing and the risk associated with healthcare.gov, and the administration's repeated misrepresentation of the Web site's readiness and functionality, H.R. 3811 is a reasonable step to ensure Federal officials are required to notify individuals in case of a breach.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), who is an expert on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Kevin McCarthy, the distinguished whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Eric Cantor, our distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), the distinguished secretary of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, some have argued that requiring HHS to report a data breach that is known to have resulted in a loss of personal identifiable information within 2 days is too burdensome for the Department. In fact, the administration opposes this legislation for ``paperwork requirements.''

I am frankly shocked that any Member of this body would put workload concerns of HHS ahead of their constituents' right to know if their data has been breached when many of our constituents are essentially being forced to shop through these exchanges.

In addition, CMS has stated that States and other nonexchange entities are required to report data breaches to the Department within 1 hour to HHS. If HHS believes 1 hour is enough time to report, then they should certainly be able to tell our constituents within 2 days after knowing an individual's information was breached through an exchange.

Our constituents deserve to know if their personal information has been breached. That is all the underlying bill requires. Our constituents have a right to know. They should have peace of mind, and we should be protecting them, the victims, not the bureaucracy.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3527) to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the poison center national toll-free number, national media campaign, and grant program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3527, the Poison Center Network Act, introduced by Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska, reauthorizes important activities related to poison control centers. Specifically, the bill reauthorizes the National Poison Center toll-free number, the Poison Center's national media campaign, and the State grant program which funds 56 poison control centers around the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that in any given year, there will be between 3 million and 5 million poison exposures. Sixty percent of these exposures will involve children under the age of 6 who are exposed to toxins in their homes.

Poisoning is the second-most common form of unintentional death in the United States and accounts for 285,000 hospitalizations a year. According to a report from the Institute of Medicine, every $1 spent on Poison Control Center services saves $7 in medical spending.

I would urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the prime sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers.

I would urge all Members to support this bill, H.R. 3527, in order to save lives. It's a bipartisan, good bill that deserves every Member's support.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite U.S. officials continuing to celebrate the alleged ``opening'' of Burma and planning projects such as bringing electricity to the entire country, we need to stop and listen to the people of Burma. The ethnic groups have a different story to tell, one which does not support U.S. agencies' narrative. Ethnic minorities are not celebrating this alleged ``opening.'' Instead, they continue to be forced to defend themselves from offensive attacks by the Burma army and regime.

Some officials in Washington act as if democracy has suddenly infused all levels of government and all policies in Burma, including by welcoming and feting Shwe Mann, the 3rd ranking official in the ``former'' dictatorship who is now serving as the Speaker of the Combined House of Parliament. The people of Burma are still fighting for freedom of speech, conscience, belief, and association. Political prisoners still languish in prison, the Muslim minority has been brutally attacked by factions of the Buddhist majority with nary an outcry by Aung San Suu Kyi or other democratically elected leaders, and Kachin women and girls are still raped by soldiers bent on purifying minority bloodlines. How can a government that continues to implement policies that directly contradict democratic principles be so embraced by the international community, including by U.S. officials?

What is wrong with this picture? The Administration is supporting those in favor of removing a dictatorship in one country while embracing a brutal dictatorship in another country. How is it that in one area of the world, our government has provided training and weapons to groups working against a dictatorship--even as some members of the opposition may have direct links to Al Qaeda--while in Burma, we have turned our backs on a population that has longed for democracy, freedom, and the protection of basic rights?

These inconsistent policies are deeply disturbing. ``Former'' dictators who truly desired to establish a democracy would stop using forced labor in military projects; would end horrific attacks against the Kachin, Northern Shan and Taang communities; would cease rearming, rebuilding, and resupplying their bases in ethnic territories; and would discontinue using bait and switch tactics in negotiations.

In recent negotiations between the Burma Government and the ethnic groups, the Government acts as if the ethnic groups should prove that they are trustworthy in terms of any ceasefire agreement. I would strongly posit that it's the other way around: the Government of Burma must prove its trustworthiness to the ethnic groups by ending its aggression before any ceasefire occurs. The ethnic minorities have simply defended their people and states when under attacks initiated by the Burma government. It is time for those attacks to

stop, it is time for the Burma Army to withdraw from the ethnic areas, and it is time for the international community to stop indirectly facilitating the blatant racism in Burma by normalizing every relationship with the regime Burma and instead express exceptional disappointment with the failure to move forward towards honest political dialogue and true democracy.

I call on the Government of Burma to prove its commitment to democracy and peace by unconditionally and immediately ending the horrific attacks against ethnic minorities and fully withdrawing from their territories. Earn the trust of the people by showing, over the long term, that you truly have turned 180 degrees and will implement democratic principles instead of imposing a dictatorship on the population.

I call on the Obama Administration to embrace the reality in Burma. Listen to what the people who live inside Burma say they desire. They want to live in peace, but that will not happen until the Burma Government and Army stop their attacks against the ethnic groups and enact a nationwide ceasefire. The U.S. Administration needs to stop its direct and indirect support for the Burma Government and Army by discontinuing assistance until specific benchmarks are met, by delaying any Pentagon training until all attacks against minorities cease, and by ensuring the ethnic nationality groups are given a full and equal place at the table to help decide the future of their country.

To the ethnic nationalities of Burma--stand your ground. You deserve to have your rights and freedoms protected and you deserve an equal place at the table to decide the future of your country.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this administration is desperate to enroll young, healthy Americans in new exchange plans.

A recent ad campaign from Progress Now Colorado shows just how low some groups are willing to go to catch young people's attention. The ads depict young men drinking right out of kegs of beer and objectifying young women. They try to encourage people to sign up for health care by making light of unhealthy behaviors.

I recently received a letter from Dr. Julie Welch, which I'll submit for the Record, an emergency room physician in Indianapolis, specifically concerned about how the ads promoted risky sexual behavior. The ``Let's Get Physical'' ad depicts a young woman thanking Obamacare for the words ``for providing birth control pills.'' Dr. Welch writes ``As a taxpayer, I am puzzled at why advertising campaigns for health insurance appear to promote high-risk behaviors.''

Promoting health coverage by condoning binge drinking and promiscuity is not a step toward a healthier America. What good is it to enroll young people in plans if their actions make them unhealthy?

It's just another way that Obamacare just doesn't work.

McCordsville, Indiana, December 1, 2013.

Dear Mr. President: I am writing to bring to your attention

a recent advertising campaign for the new Obamacare

government health insurance marketplace through ProgressNow

Colorado. The ad campaign was launched by ProgressNow

Colorado and the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative for the

online marketplace called ``Connect for Health Colorado'' in

October 2013. The ads are housed on the website of Progress

Now Colorado (http://doyougotinsurance.com).

The campaign is titled ``Got Insurance'' and is a play on

the ``Got Milk'' phrase. But unlike the health benefits of

milk, the ``Got Insurance'' ads do not universally advertise

healthy choices; rather, many celebrate the unhealthy, high-

risk behaviors of young adults. The ads of concern are

referred to as ``Brosurance,'' ``Brosurance for the Ladies,''

or ``Hosurance,'' by the media and depict keg-stands, alcohol

consumption, and women picking up guys.

Many of the ads have gone viral on the Internet and social

media. Although I have heard numerous comments from the

public, I have not seen your administration take a stand one

way or another on the messages being presented in this ad

campaign. Silence can only be interpreted as complacence and

acceptance. I, however, am neither complacent nor acceptant

of the ads that overtly objectify women and promote high-risk

behaviors. And as an emergency medicine physician, medical

educator, woman, mother, and taxpayer I would like to express

my concerns.

Although the ad campaign has expanded to pertain to a

broader audience, I am concerned about the message conveyed

in several specific ads. One of the ads, titled ``Let's Get

Physical,'' depicts a woman holding birth control pills and

contemplating how she will get a guy to have sex with her.

Five of the ads depict or blatantly celebrate alcohol

consumption, titled ``Brosurance,'' ``Club Med,'' ``Friends

with Benefits,'' ``Keg ER,'' and ``Get Your Shots.'' What

message are these ads sending to our young people and our

children? As these ads go viral on social media, young people

may think that keg stands and one-night stands are okay.

Especially since they are being advertised in association

with healthcare, Obamacare specifically.

Being an emergency department physician, health insurance

ads should not glorify alcohol consumption, doing keg stands,

drinking shots, or promiscuous sex. In the emergency

department, cases of trauma, physical assault, sexual

assault, and motor vehicle crashes are commonly associated

with substance abuse, including alcohol consumption. In

addition, alcohol consumption, for some patients, becomes a

lifelong disease of alcohol addiction leading to serious

health effects including hepatitis, cirrhosis of the liver,

bone marrow dysfunction, esophageal varicosities, intestinal

bleeding, and death. And it typically begins with partying as

a young adult, a time when the message is ``it's cool to

drink'' and ``you have to drink to have fun.'' The message I

want my patients and medical students to understand is the

opposite message I see in these ads. In fact, many of these

ads could be used to educate patients (including our

teenagers) to the potential negative health consequences of

high-risk behaviors. For instance, if you go to a party and

do keg stands, then hook up with a girl because she is on

birth control pills, what are all of the negative outcomes

you can foresee? Having health insurance will be the least of

your worries the next morning.

The ad I am most concerned about is ``Let's Get Physical.''

(I have included a copy with this letter.) It depicts a young

woman hold a packet of birth control pills standing next to a

young man and reads: ``OMG, he's hot! Let's hope he's as easy

to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the

pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him

between the covers. I got insurance. Now you can too. Thanks

Obamacare!'' There is an *asterisk at the bottom of the ad

that reads in tiny print: ``The pill doesn't protect you from

STDs, condoms and common sense do that.'' The message from

this ad is alarming in several ways and sends the wrong

message to women, men, girls, and boys.

1. This ad objectifies women, making her the object of sex.

This alone is the most damaging consequence of advertising

such as this. This ad seriously harms the progress we have

made in women's rights and the way in which women are

depicted in the media. It is degrading and offensive.

2. Promiscuous sexual behavior has serious risks for a

woman including increased risk of cervical cancer,

transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STI),

unintended pregnancy, as well as psychological aftermath.

3. Birth control pills do not protect against HIV, herpes,

gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, or other sexually transmitted

diseases. And the small asterisk message at the bottom of the

ad does not outweigh the message put forth in the ad. In

fact, using a condom does not eliminate the risk of STD

transmission via other routes.

4. Birth control pills are not 100% effective in preventing

pregnancy.

5. Birth control pills and reproductive health rights do

not equal healthy sexual choices. This ad does not depict

responsible reproductive rights. In fact, this ad seems to

say that women with birth control pills are sexually

promiscuous and just take them to hook up with a guy. This ad

also seems to insinuate that now that she has birth control

pills, the barriers to a having a sexual relationship are

nearly gone. Just getting the guy into bed is all that's

left.

6. Finally, what message does this ad send to men? Or

teenage boys? That a female just wants to get ``him between

the covers''? I fear this ad could promote aggressive

behavior towards women, especially if combined with the

people in the ads doing keg stands and drinking alcohol.

In 2013, we are in an age when women make up 51% of the

workforce and 50% of medical students. Women cannot be silent

as advertising emerges that sends the wrong message about our

healthcare choices and us.

As a taxpayer, I am puzzled at why advertising campaigns

for health insurance appear to promote high-risk behaviors?

Do I as a taxpayer have to cover the consequences of these

high-risk behaviors? Does the government agree with this? In

an age when many insurance companies risk stratify your

premiums based on smoking, obesity, blood pressure and

cholesterol levels, where does the government stand on the

high-risk behaviors in these ads? Will Americans have to

share the costs?

The new health care plan is an opportunity to teach our

populations about health responsibility, avoidance of risky

behaviors, and promotion of good choices, because our country

is shouldering it. Health insurance advertising should

promote responsible behavior, no matter the source of the

advertising. Please take a stand.

Sincerely,

Julie Welch, MD,

Emergency Medicine Physician

and Educator.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this administration is desperate to enroll young, healthy Americans in the new exchange plans, and the recent ad campaign from ProgressNow Colorado shows just how low some groups are willing to go to catch young people's attention. The ads depict young men drinking right out of kegs of beer and objectifying young women. They try to encourage people to sign up for health care by making light of unhealthy behaviors.

I recently received a letter from Dr. Julie Welch, an emergency room physician in Indianapolis, specifically concerned about how the ads promoted risky sexual behavior. The Let's Get Physical ad depicts a young woman thanking ObamaCare, with the words:

Oh my God, he's hot. Let's hope he is as easy to get as

this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill,

which means all I have to worry about is getting him between

the covers. I got insurance. Now you can too. Thanks

ObamaCare.

Dr. Welch writes:

As a taxpayer, I am puzzled at why advertising campaigns

for health insurance appear to promote high-risk behaviors?

Promoting health coverage by condoning binge drinking and promiscuity is not a step towards a healthier America. It is just another way that ObamaCare just doesn't work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, every year for the last decade, doctors have faced an ever-increasing cut to their reimbursement under the sustainable growth rate, or SGR. And every year, Congress intervenes with a doc fix to stop the cut from going into effect--15 times since 2003.

The Pathway for SGR Reform Act will postpone the cut, providing a 0.5 percent update to physicians for the next 3 months. While this is a necessary and important bill, I am disappointed that legislation to permanently repeal the flawed SGR formula will not be considered before the end of the year. Doctors deserve to know that they will be fairly compensated, and this annual uncertainty about reimbursements could lead to access problems for Medicare beneficiaries.

The Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee worked for 2 years and produced a bipartisan bill that successfully moved through the full committee with unanimous support. I regret that this bill is not on the floor today. However, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 59 to prevent this devastating cut from going into effect on January 1.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlemen from Texas, Kevin Brady, subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, this is very important bipartisan legislation. It includes the 3-month bridge for the SGR, where we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner to come up with the final version of repeal for the sustainable growth rate. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of another bipartisan bill. S. 252, the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Reauthorization Act, or the PREEMIE Reauthorization Act, would take important steps to protect and improve children's health, particularly the health of the nearly 500,000 children born prematurely in the United States every year. Since its passage in 2006, the PREEMIE Act has sponsored important research that has led to improved prevention and care of children born too early.

This bill reauthorizes research and activities at the CDC related to the causes of preterm birth, improving data collection, and preventing preterm births. It also creates an Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private programs that address preterm birth and infant mortality. With one in every eight infants born in the United States prematurely, this is a pressing issue.

S. 252 also authorizes the creation of the National Pediatric Research Network, a proven way to support pediatric research by coordinating multicentered research activities, including those in rural areas.

I would like to commend Congressman Lance, Congresswoman Capps, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their leadership in this bipartisan effort, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

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

I stand in support of another bipartisan bill this evening. The HIV Organ Policy Equity Act, or the HOPE Act, would lift a ban dating back to the 1990s on acquiring HIV-positive organs so that the Department of Health and Human Services can conduct research on the safety and effectiveness of transplants between HIV-positive individuals.

As HIV treatments have advanced over the last 30 years, many HIV- positive individuals are living longer lives, but they are also more likely to experience conditions, such as kidney and liver failure, which necessitate a transplant.

This bill provides a potential path to a separate organ donation pool for HIV-positive organs, hopefully increasing the overall number of organs available for transplantation.

The HOPE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent in June and is supported by the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, among others.

I would encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill and would like to commend Dr. Harris, Dr. Burgess, Mrs. Capps, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their leadership on this bipartisan bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, the vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

I do, yes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, one of the leaders on this issue.

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 698, the House companion bill to S. 330.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2013.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing with respect to H.R. 698,

the ``HIV Organ Policy Equity Act,'' which the Committee on

Energy and Commerce reported favorably on July 17, 2013. As a

result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R.

698 that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee

on the Judiciary, I agree to discharge our Committee from

further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 698 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our

Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the

bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our

Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks

that you support any such request.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 698, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration of H.R. 698.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.