Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare's long-term care insurance program has been abandoned and repealed. Its preexisting conditions insurance program has been shut down. Its small business exchanges have been delayed--and on and on with this train wreck.

Last week, the President chose to blatantly ignore his own law by putting off the employer mandate until 2015. There is no waiver procedure in the bill. I guess Senator Reid didn't think it important when he was crafting the bill behind closed doors.

Businesses across the country are confused about ObamaCare, and this does nothing to clear up that confusion. It just puts it off to a more politically convenient time--beyond the 2014 midterm elections. The mandate has already reduced working hours for many Americans and has discouraged the creation of full-time jobs. Businesses have already spent billions in getting ready to comply. ObamaCare is already a failure--harming businesses, workers, and American health care.

The President has chosen to break his own law by his actions. Let's stop the extralegal waivers. Give every American a waiver by repealing the law completely.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the medical research community has made great strides in treating cancer. However, not every form of cancer has shown the same progress. Some forms remain just as deadly as they were decades ago.

Among the deadliest is pancreatic cancer, with a survival rate of only 6 percent. By comparison, the survival rate of all forms of cancer is now 68 percent, up from 49 percent in 1975. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act, a bill to focus research on pancreatic cancer and other problematic types of the disease.

With new plans to attack the disease and new resources, we can make progress. I met recently with a constituent who is battling the disease and with another who has lost multiple family members to it, and they have hope despite the tough road ahead.

With newly focused work, we will hopefully see new therapies and new drugs attack pancreatic cancer in the coming years, greatly improving the rate of survival.

Mr. Speaker, last week, on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, we read that the implementation of ObamaCare exchanges is falling behind schedule.

According to the GAO, both State and Federal exchanges have major work to complete before the October 1 start of open season. The administration has predicted some ``glitches and bumps.''

Would failure to open the exchanges on time be a bump?

Is the fact that some small business exchanges have only a single participant a glitch?

Millions of Americans will be required by the Federal Government to purchase insurance on these exchanges, but they're shaping up to be a train wreck.

GAO tells us that the 17 States running small business exchanges were late on an average of 44 percent of activities that should have been complete in March.

The signals are flashing, the sirens are wailing, but we keep rolling on towards ObamaCare implementation. The only way we can prevent the disaster is by putting a stop to a law that is failing on nearly every count.

Madam Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment.

Madam Speaker, for those of us in support of my amendment, I will divide 5 minutes under the control of Congressman Danny Davis, 5 minutes on my side.

I rise in support of my amendment, one that would reform our government's sugar program. For too long, we've seen these subsidies and market protections drive up costs on taxpayers, consumers, and businesses. Let me highlight some of the costs now:

Consumers are paying an extra $3.5 billion a year to subsidize this policy.

Taxpayers are set to foot a bill of $239 million over the next several years, according to the CBO. The CBO estimated our amendment would save $73 million.

American workers are paying the price in job losses. Nearly 127,000 jobs were lost by sugar-using industries between 1997 and 2011. At risk are an additional 600,000 manufacturing jobs.

My amendment would help get the price of sugar closer to the world price. It does so by reforming the sugar program, not repealing it. American sugar is still going to have its support program much the same as it did before the 2008 farm bill. We're simply returning to those policies in order to get a more competitive price, one that will help consumers, manufacturers, and even growers.

Under the 2008 farm bill, refined sugar prices have averaged 68 percent more than under the 2002 farm bill. Our detractors are quick to point out that sugar prices are falling, but then they neglected to tell the taxpayer that they are set to bail out the sugar industry, possibly by amounts of $100 million a year in the coming years. So at the same time this reckless policy sticks the costs of subsidies to consumers, we are set to start spending taxpayer money on supporting sugar farmers, even while the price of U.S. sugar was 64 percent higher than the world price last year.

All we are seeking to do is to return the sugar program to what it was under the 2002 farm bill policy. I'm not sure about you, but I don't remember having any trouble getting sugar into my coffee in 2008. But since the last farm bill, companies have been struggling to find affordable sugar, so much so that Canada has actively been advertising to our manufacturing base that they have access to cheaper sugar. Furthermore, the inflated price of sugar has incentivized Mexico to dump sugar into our market.

So, we're losing jobs to the north, and we're getting hit from foreign sugar from the south due to this reckless policy. So let's reform it. Let's get back into the free market, into the sugar market. Let's get American jobs to stay here. Let's save consumers and taxpayers money. Let's reform our sugar policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis.)

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished vice chair of the Ag Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Chairman, there is nothing in the amendment that will bring an additional ounce of sugar under our shores without explicit approval of the Secretary of Agriculture.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his outstanding leadership on this issue that we're discussing tonight, the right of conscience. And I come tonight to the floor with alarm over how this administration is trampling on our First Amendment rights.

Freedom of assembly means that Americans can come together to petition the government, but the IRS has targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, throwing up roadblocks to their organization.

Freedom of the press means that journalists can work on stories without government interference, but the Justice Department subpoenaed multiple telephone numbers for the Associated Press and investigated a FOX News journalist as a ``coconspirator.''

Freedom of religion means that the government does not get to tell you to violate your beliefs, but ObamaCare is forcing even explicitly religious employers to provide services they have moral objections to.

Our freedoms are clearly under assault by government bureaucrats who claim that they know what is best for all Americans. Over 60 organizations around the country, nonprofits and businesses, are suing the Federal Government to protect their rights.

One of those businesses is located in my district, in Lancaster County, Conestoga Wood Specialties of East Earl, Pennsylvania. For nearly 40 years, this family-owned business has made high-quality doors and wood components for kitchen cabinets. They provide over 950 quality jobs in my district. The owners have provided good health insurance that comports with their Mennonite beliefs for their employees, but now they are being coerced into providing government-approved health care, required to pay for products that include abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization.

Anthony Hahn, President and CEO of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, said this:

Being told that we must provide a health plan that includes

a provision that violates the Christian beliefs of our family

and the Christian values that our company was founded on is

deeply troubling. Forcing Americans to surrender

longstanding, deeply held principles in order to own and run

a business is not merely troubling but unnecessary and

unconstitutional.

And they've gone to court over this.

Americans should not have to sacrifice their religious rights when they enter the marketplace. ObamaCare would fine Conestoga Wood Specialties up to $36,500 per employee per year--$34 million a year for not providing government-approved insurance, but only about $2 million for not providing any insurance at all. This is madness. Clearly, this law is out of control.

Conestoga and many others are fighting for their rights in court, but here in Congress, we too have an obligation to defend the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers established a Bill of Rights because they knew that the government would always be tempted to abuse its power. Democratic elections do not protect the rights of unpopular minorities. In fact, all too often an unbound democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority.

The bureaucrats at the HHS may feel that they know what is best for all Americans, but being an American means the freedom to decide on your own, to let your convictions guide your life. What kind of Nation will we be when the IRS decides who gets to assemble, when the Department of Justice decides who reports the news, and when HHS decides what religious beliefs are worthy of First Amendment protection?

I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Mennonite. We don't share the same ideas about what is morally objectionable on everything, but I do not believe that my ideals should be forced on them. Under ObamaCare, we can't choose our

doctor; we can't choose our health insurance plan. Now we lose our First Amendment rights.

At one time Pennsylvania was perhaps the only place in the world where people could freely practice their religious beliefs without fear of persecution. In a world where people were killing each other over theology, William Penn established a safe harbor in our colony, and Penn's once radical idea became the foundation for our Nation's concept of religious freedom.

The actions of the HHS remind us that our rights are not guaranteed. We must stand up and protect them. We must continually demand that the government respect that which has been granted to us by God. And I'm proud to stand with my colleagues tonight in defense of religious freedom, to stand with my constituents at Conestoga Wood Specialties.

We should pass the Health Care Conscience Rights Act and make it clear that this House of Representatives will not stand by while minority religious beliefs are under attack. What a sad day for America when our fundamental rights like religious freedom and freedom of conscience are under attack by the heavy hand of government. We must pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the visit a couple of weeks ago of Burma's President, with the surrounding high-level honors, was a little disturbing. This leader's regime has engaged in well-documented horrific attacks against the various ethnic minority groups in his country--ethnic cleansing of minority groups.

When looking to the future of the country, President Thein Sein said last year that the ethnic youth should ``hold laptops'' and ``try to live a good life.'' Laptop computers are going to suddenly erase the effects of years of violence, racism, rape, and decimation by the ruthless military? I don't think so.

We must stand firmly with the minority ethnic groups in protecting their rights and ensuring justice is done for all the violence perpetrated by the Burmese military before we rush in to extracting resources and applauding democracy gains with no record of results.

And to the minority ethnic groups of Burma, many of us still stand with you.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is important and necessary legislation to strengthen the prescription drug supply chain and to provide greater safety for our Nation's patients.

Safeguarding our prescription drug supply chain is important to protect against counterfeit drugs. It is necessary to help prevent increases in drug prices while also ensuring adequate supplies of much- needed prescription drugs. Equally important, H.R. 1919 includes reforms that will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of duplicative government red tape on American drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and pharmacies.

Sadly, counterfeit prescription drugs have proven to be a lucrative business, with many of these illegal counterfeit drugs finding their way to some of our sickest patients, including those with cancer.

Additionally, some States have taken draconian actions to safeguard their prescription drug supply chain, but many of these steps will force small and large businesses to implement costly and indefensible electronic systems for tracking such drugs at the unit level.

After hearings in the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I chair, we heard that a more feasible and practical solution to this serious problem is attainable, and those provisions are included in H.R. 1919.

Mr. Speaker, by approving this legislation, we will be saving our Nation's businesses millions of dollars, protecting our patients from counterfeit drugs, and securing our drug supply chain in a reasonable, commonsense way.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and vote for H.R. 1919.

I rise today in support of the reauthorization of two successful programs--the Animal Drug User Fee Act, ADUFA, and the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, AGDUFA.

The bill we have before us today originated in the Senate and was approved by unanimous consent on May 8, 2013; and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation as well.

In 2003, the first ADUFA was authorized to help the Food and Drug Administration's review of animal drugs. Similar to the Prescription Drug User Fee for human drugs, under ADUFA, FDA collected funds to help expedite the new animal drug approval process, to reduce application backlog, and to improve communications with drug sponsors. The program was authorized for 5 years, and Congress renewed the program for an additional 5 years in ADUFA II in 2008. In 2012, FDA completed 747 ADUFA reviews; and, according to FDA, the agency has exceeded all performance goals outlined in ADUFA I and ADUFA II. However, absent congressional action, FDA's ability to collect these user fees will expire on September 30, 2013.

AGDUFA I, ADUFA's generic cousin, was first authorized in 2008 for 5 years in order to improve the review of abbreviated new animal drug applications, eliminate application backlogs, and reduce review times.

To date, according to FDA, the agency has exceeded all performance goals but one from AGDUFA I. This program also expires September 30, 2013, unless it is reauthorized and FDA and industry have negotiated an agreement for AGDUFA II. These programs are extremely important not only for our animals and livestock on our farms and ranches, but for our pets' health and well-being as well.

I want to thank my colleagues, Representative John Shimkus and Representative Cory Gardner, for their outstanding work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, in two separate forums, I met with members of the Lancaster County and the Chester County Chambers of Commerce, representing dozens of businesses and municipalities across my district, about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Every single one of them had grave concerns with the law. They're confused and deeply concerned about how it will affect their ability to provide care and jobs.

We're only a few months away from implementation of the employer mandate, and there are many unanswered questions. Each employer I talked to had pressing questions, but time and again I had to tell them that I didn't have an answer because HHS, the IRS, or the Department of Labor hadn't issued rules or guidance yet.

This uncertainty is leaving them paralyzed, holding off on hiring and wondering whether they will be able to provide coverage for their employees.

It is not just businesses that are hurting. I heard from school districts operating on tight budgets who said they have no choice but to outsource loyal hourly employees like cafeteria workers and special ed aides, going to part-time work.

Workers are losing their jobs, losing work hours, losing benefits to this bureaucratic nightmare. Let's stop the damage, and let's repeal the train wreck before it occurs.

Thank you, Congressman Smith, for your leadership on this issue here in Congress, very, very wonderful, inspiring leadership to all of us who've been engaged in this, on this issue for years in State legislatures like Pennsylvania and across the other parts of the country.

But U.S. Route 30 runs through the heart of my district, in Lancaster County and Chester County, in Pennsylvania. You follow that road all the way into Philadelphia, you'll pass a nondescript, triangle-shaped brick building at 38th Street. And for years, Dr. Kermit Gosnell operated a factory of death in this location, just across the street from a church.

This week, Gosnell is on trial for multiple homicides that demonstrate just how thin the line between abortion and murder is in this country.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell spent years taking advantage of vulnerable women, offering illegal and dangerous abortions in exchange for cash. He also operated a pill mill, selling prescription drugs to anyone in the neighborhood with enough cash.

He sold death to the poor, and he lived handsomely for years. State authorities never darkened the door of what he called a ``clinic'' until a mother died of an overdose during one of Gosnell's procedures.

He used clinical terminology to pave over the fact that in many cases he was killing a child who had already been born. While he is charged with seven counts of murdering an infant and a single count of murdering a mother, we don't really know how many children died after they were born.

Just as he was careless with the lives of children, he was careless with the lives of mothers, and he treated them in terrible conditions, often sending them out of the clinic injured and still under the influence of anesthesia.

We should always remember that abortion is the most violent form of death known to humankind. And there are always two victims in every abortion. One is the child, the unborn child. The other is the mother. One is dead, one is wounded.

An abortion is violence against the unborn. It's also violence against women.

But the facts of this case raise the disturbing question of just how close legal abortion practices come to outright murder. Gosnell knew that there was little real medical difference between killing the child in-utero and killing them outside of the mother.

Like standard, legal abortion practice, he would use chemicals to first poison the unborn child. And if he had waited until death to remove their bodies, he would be within the law. Because he took the children out of the mothers while they were still alive, he is guilty of murder.

Gosnell only took a leap that certain intellectuals and so-called medical ethicists have been talking about for decades. Just last year, two researchers published a paper in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics entitled ``After Birth Abortion.'' Their assertion was that a fetus doesn't become a child until they are wanted.

Let us never say that these are unwanted children, not while there are tens of thousands of married couples waiting to adopt, couples who wait months or years to bring home a baby boy or a girl. Many Americans even travel far abroad in order to adopt. In many cases, they go all the way to China or Ethiopia.

Gosnell's victims, and the millions of other lives lost to abortion are, by no means, unwanted.

The case of Dr. Gosnell is gruesome. The place that he ran was a gruesome factory and disturbing, but only because it strips away the clinical nature of most abortions.

His carelessness exposed what the fetus actually was--a human that he cruelly murdered. And yet the press will ignore, will remain silent on what is happening in this very important trial in Philadelphia. We ignore the tiniest human life at great peril because, as Gosnell demonstrates, flippancy for life creeps from the infant to the adult. We must protect all life, no matter how small or at what stage.

And so I commend Congressman Smith and my other colleagues who have come to speak today about this important policy issue. It's about people, it's about children, it's about women.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Health Subcommittee investigated how the new health care law, ObamaCare, is impacting job growth and worker opportunities across the country. The results are not good. The recovery continues to be well below what we need to keep up with workers entering the marketplace. Youth unemployment remains very high, and ObamaCare is showering employers with new red tape.

In our hearing, restaurant group owner Tom Boucher from New Hampshire testified about his struggles. So far, he has spent more than 100 hours with human resources staff trying to prepare for the law. The anticipated economic burden has delayed his plans to open a new restaurant. These are good jobs that could have been created.

ObamaCare is perversely discouraging companies from hiring full-time workers. Many job seekers find that they can only find part-time work right now. We need a dynamic economy creating good private sector jobs. Instead, ObamaCare is forcing employers to spend more time worrying about taxes and accounting and hiring part-time employees. That's not the reform our ailing economy needs.

Mr. Speaker, today, Capitol Hill is hosting a great Chinese defender of human rights, blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng. A few moments ago, I had the honor of again meeting with Chen as he continues to advocate for the freedom of the Chinese people. His amazing story of escape from house arrest is a great encouragement for all in China suffering under political persecution. The authorities could not silence him as he sought justice for victims of forced abortions and environmental abuse.

The story of China's rise is not about the success of an autocratic government. It is instead the story of a people whose ingenuity and vigor have finally been unleashed after decades of repression. China has developed not because of smart planning, but because the people have used a relatively small amount of economic freedom to transform their nation. Given more freedom, I believe there's no limit to how China will grow and how her people will impact the world. We must support Chen and other human rights defenders as they seek justice for their people.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 307) to reauthorize certain programs under the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to public health security and all-hazards preparedness and response, 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.

H.R. 307, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013, introduced by my colleague Mike Rogers from Michigan, would reauthorize programs designed to foster the development of medical countermeasures and strengthen the Nation's preparedness infrastructure. These programs are essential to helping our Nation prepare for public health emergencies, including those caused by terrorist attacks.

H.R. 307 reauthorizes programs for 5 years at the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level and does not create a new program, nor increase the authorization for appropriations for an existing program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill does not increase spending.

Congress originally enacted the programs reauthorized in H.R. 307 through the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 and the Pandemic and All- Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006. Project Bioshield authorized funds for the purchase of medical countermeasures through the Special Reserve Fund and enabled the Secretary of Health and Human Services to authorize the emergency use of medical products.

The original PAHPA bill created the Biodefense Advanced Research and Development Authority within HHS to help with the development of medical countermeasures and increase communications between HHS and the developers of MCMs.

The House passed H.R. 307 back in January. The Senate made some minor changes to the bill and passed it by unanimous consent last week.

I would like to commend Chairman Upton, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Pallone for their work on the bill. I also would like to thank Senator Harkin, Senator Alexander, Senator Enzi, and Senator Burr for their leadership.

I would urge all Members to support this critical piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge all Members to support this critical legislation. It has strong bipartisan support. It is very important.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have just 3 days until the sequestration cuts take effect. Instead of being here in Washington working to reach an agreement, the President is off again on the campaign trail. Giving speeches in front of adoring crowds is not going to solve this problem.

In divided government, we don't reach compromise by talking past each other. We come to solutions when we sit down and talk to one another. Obviously, we can't do that when the President isn't even here.

We can find more sensible ways to save billions of dollars. In fact, tomorrow I'm chairing an Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing looking at innovative solutions to combat waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. GAO tells us these programs make $65 billion in improper payments. Outside groups tell us it can be a nearly $1 billion-a-year problem. We can also eliminate wasteful programs like the HHS Secretary's duplicative slush fund.

We must get our spending problem under control, but we'll never get a better plan than sequestration if we can't sit down and talk and work together.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to speak on behalf of my friend Mr. Smith's sensible legislation to help rebuild communities destroyed by Hurricane Sandy.

Federal assistance is intended to make communities whole; and if we leave behind ruined houses of worship, we're taking the soul out of those places. Churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship are an essential piece of any community. They provide shelter in storms, assistance to the needy, and support for families. And they provide essential services and support to people of all faiths.

In previous disasters, including Katrina, the Seattle earthquake and the Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal Government has extended assistance to places of worship. Areas affected by Sandy should be no different.

I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment, and I believe that this assistance is completely compatible with our Constitution. Assistance will be distributed without prejudice against any particular religion. Government cannot endorse religion, but that does not mean we should discriminate against those of faith during a time of disaster. Recovery cannot be considered successful if sacred places of our community are left empty.

Family Research Council,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2013.

U.S. Representative,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Family Research

Council (FRC) and the families we represent, I am writing

today in strong support of H.R. 592, the ``Federal Disaster

Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013'' by Reps. Chris

Smith (R-NJ) and Grace Meng (D-NY). H.R. 592 would ensure

that houses of worship would not be denied the same relief

offered to other entities following a major storm or

disaster.

Following every disaster, natural and man made that has hit

the United States, our houses of worship have been there to

help. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,

churches, relief organizations and Christian organizations

went into emergency response mode sending help in the form of

money, food, supplies and volunteers. When Katrina struck

Louisiana, it was religious entities that helped the victims

and refugees despite being affected by the storm as well.

This is just as true with the recent Hurricane Sandy that

struck our Eastern seaboard.

Houses of worship across the Northeast including many

faiths and denominations were among the private nonprofit

facilities that sustained damage. However, it was the

churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other houses of

worship throughout communities in New York, New Jersey,

Connecticut, and elsewhere that provided relief to many

individuals while the federal government seemingly did

little.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) own

policies allow for grants to nonprofit organizations where

citizens are known to gather and engage in a variety of

educational, enrichment, and social activities. However, it

is internal FEMA policy that does not believe houses of

worship are worthy of the same type of relief.

H.R. 592 is consistent with recent precedents of the

Supreme Court of the United States and legal opinions issued

by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.

We strongly urge your vote for this necessary legislation.

Sincerely,

Tom McClusky,

Senior Vice President.