Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule.

The reason is that my colleagues and I from Georgia offered an amendment that was not accepted in the Rules Committee. The amendment would have prohibited funds in this act from being made available to be used to update the calculation of the critical yield of the Federal projects within the ACF and the ACT river basins before the development of updated water control plans for the Federal projects within these river basins.

The reason for the amendment was that language was included in the other body's version of this bill which requested that the critical yield updates be accomplished before the water control manuals themselves. The fact is that these control manuals need to be completed first by the Corps before the critical yield studies can be finished. This is an important study and therefore should be done properly.

Although the critical yield updates are a necessary part of the manual updates, they do not provide any understanding of how water is currently being allocated or how the Federal projects may best be managed. The Corps of Engineers must be allowed to determine the critical yield under appropriate conditions, and our amendment would have made sure that they were able to do that.

This language that is inserted in the bill by the other body is not mutual in regard to the ongoing water struggle between our States. It arbitrarily prioritizes this particular study and diverts resources away from the Corps of Engineers that are needed in order to complete the much-needed water control plans.

And for that reason, since the amendment was not allowed by the Rules Committee, I rise in objection to this rule before the body today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to comment about language that is in the report that is attached to this legislation. My good friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Boyd, has asked that a study be done. The study relates to the ongoing dispute about water between the States of Alabama, Florida and Georgia, and I have no real problem with the study being done.

I simply would hope that we could get assurances from the subcommittee chairman that with regard to the scope of that study that it would be broad enough to include all of the issues that are involved and that it would also allow all three States who have an interest in this to have equal participation.

There has been a perception I think that is a wrong perception that my State of Georgia doesn't have a water conservation program in place. In fact, we have had one in place since 2003, and we believe that all of these issues should be encompassed within the study that is set forth in the report to this particular bill.

And we would hope that we could get assurances, not only from the subcommittee chairman but also from Mr. Boyd, that in determining the scope of that study, that all three States would have equal opportunity to participate.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Nathan Deal

Bill Number: H.R. 2996

Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Gainesville, Georgia

Address of Requesting Entity: Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, 40 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30303

Description of Request: Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of [Bill 2996, the ``Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010.''] Any federal funding received would be used to help local governments meet water resource plan requirements and be used for various stages of design and construction for several water projects including watershed management, wastewater treatment and water conservation. District serves broad public purpose protecting water supplies and water quality. Rivers and streams don't follow political boundaries, (12 of 16 District counties lie within more than one watershed) regional solutions to problems are only way to achieve lasting results. District's projects are multi- jurisdictional in nature and beyond abilities of individual local governments. Consequently, federal assistance will allow members to work towards these critical regional solutions. District's plans outline variety of water related activities required by various state and federal requirements. Successful implementation of District's plans has national significance through protection of water resources of roughly half the Georgia population.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are many issues that need to be discussed. I rise in opposition to this legislation. One of the topics is that of jobs. We are told we are going to gain jobs. By most reasonable estimates, we are going to lose jobs. The best example of that is to look at what happened in Spain. Spain has traveled this path of renewables and green energy. Their estimate is that for every job they gained, they lost over two. I don't consider that to be a direction that our country needs to go, especially in these difficult economic times.

The second thing that needs to be said is that there is a disparity that is being created in the renewable portfolio requirements. For portions of the country such as Georgia and the Southeast, in general, we don't have the volume of alternatives that are allowed under this legislation, especially if we are not going to get credit for the nuclear plants that we are trying to bring on board in our State. Therefore, we will have to purchase those credits from some other part of the country, something that I think will have an undoubtable, definite negative effect on the power bills of the citizens of my State.

I rise in opposition to the legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 111.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it would be appropriate for us to review what the SCHIP program is designed and was originally designed to do and where it is in light of what this bill attempts to do.

First of all, it stands for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. States call it by a variety of different names at the State level. In my State, it is called PeachCare. You would imagine that we would do that in Georgia, but it was originally designed in 1997 as a 10-year program--it was a block grant program--designed to fill in the need of children who live in families that are above the Medicaid poverty level eligibility but are still below 200 percent of poverty, and that in that capacity was a worthwhile and useful program.

During its 10-year initial lifespan as it moved forward, there were times when States had shortfalls. In other words, the allocation under the Federal matching rate formula for the SCHIP program, coupled with the State's contribution, was not sufficient to meet the demand and the cost of eligible children to be enrolled, and Congress stepped up to the plate, appropriated additional funds, and allowed those States to continue with their legitimate enrollment programs.

When it came to the 10-year time frame expiring, we were faced with, well, what is the future of SCHIP going to be. After much debate, vetoes by the President, about a program that was going to take a huge step in the area of expanding government control of health care, we did an 18-month extension, and that 18 months will expire this next month.

And what it did was it said let's take the legitimate needs of the 200 percent of poverty and below, recognizing that some States had already far exceeded that limit, but nevertheless allowing them to be grandfathered in and provide enough money so that no State runs out of money to cover the eligible children.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today continues to take a step, in my opinion, in the wrong direction.

We talk about the millions of children that are supposedly going to be enrolled as new enrollees in the program, and yet when we look at those figures, we find that about 2.5 million of those so-called new enrollees will be children who are already enrolled in private health insurance plans, but because their family is now eligible for the government to pay for their health care, it is anticipated that their families will simply take them off of the private insurance and put them on the taxpayer-paid program of SCHIP. I don't think that's what most Americans in this country want this program to be.

Couple that with the fact that we have no provision in this bill that requires States--

There is no provision in this bill that requires States to go out and make the extra effort to enroll children who are eligible for either Medicaid or the current SCHIP program under its current authorization of up to 200 percent of poverty but are still unenrolled.

In fact, it is estimated that about a quarter of the children who are eligible are simply not enrolled in the current program. These are the children that are at the lowest levels of poverty but are not covered. They should be the part that are our first incentive. The Republican version of this incentivizes States to take that extra effort to enroll those children first before they started going up the poverty level and enrolling children in higher income families, many of whom already have private insurance.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me clear up a couple of things. First of all, the majority leader has said that this is an effort to provide universal coverage for citizens of this country to health care. It obviously is a major step in that direction of government control of health care.

The problem though is it may also include expanding and extending health care to citizens of other countries. In 2005, the Inspector General of HHS told us that some 46 States and the District of Columbia were using self-attestation of citizenship to enroll people in their Medicaid programs. Part of the reason was when they had asked for identification, they were accused of profiling or threatened with civil rights lawsuits. So most States backed off and said, Well, if you tell us you're a citizen, we'll take your word for it.

In the Deficit Reduction Act, we changed that. And we require that you now prove you're a citizen and prove who you are. This bill changes that. And we go back.

For those of us who think, Well, just tell us a name and a Social Security number--that means that if you believe that there are not people who are out there with fraudulent Social Security numbers, then I have some stories back home I'd like to tell you.

We take a huge step backwards--and it's not just in the SCHIP program. It applies to the Medicaid program as well. Now, that means then at a time when we are hearing people saying that we want you to secure our borders, we want you to protect us, we are saying we are going to open it up to anybody who just wants to tell you they are a citizen and, by the way, even if they tell you wrong, this bill has no sanctions for them telling you they are a citizen, when they are not, and this bill requires you to provide them with medical care during the time period when they have defrauded.

At a time when citizens are concerned about the economy of this country, we should not be taking a step in the direction of loosening up and encouraging fraud and abuse of this program.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Speaker, very few bills come to the floor of this House with so much rhetoric disassociated from facts as we have heard in this bill.

Now, let's talk about a few of the real facts.

First of all, the program was designed, at its outset, to insure children that were above the Medicaid level of poverty but below 200 percent of poverty. All of the stories that we have heard today--from both sides of the aisle, quite frankly--as to examples of children who are uninsured, in almost every one of those instances are children that should have been insured under the current law under either SCHIP or Medicaid but are unenrolled.

One of the amendments that I offered that was not allowed was an amendment that said before you can go up the poverty scale, you should have a 90-percent saturation of those children that are below 200 percent of poverty. Many States that are well above the 300 percent of poverty still have not covered a quarter of their children that are below the 200 percent of poverty level.

So ``poor children first'' is not in this bill.

Secondly, with regard to the issue of illegal immigration. Now, you can say that illegal immigrants will not be allowed, but you are removing the requirements of certification of eligibility. And by the way, pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status, are considered ``children'' under the SCHIP bill in everybody's version of the law.

Now, if you're not acknowledging that illegals are going to be enrolled in this program by virtue of the change you're making in this bill, then you ought to talk to CBO because CBO says in the next 10 years that the Federal Government will spend $5.1 billion and States will spend $3.85 billion on people who are illegally in this country.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, the Republican motion to recommit replaces what I consider to be a deeply flawed bill that has been offered and also has improvements to the SCHIP proposal that we are considering.

Unlike H.R. 2, the Republican motion to recommit fully funds SCHIP program for the next 7 years, not 4\1/2\ years as the underlying bill would do, and thereby ensures that needy families and those with low incomes will be covered and eligible under SCHIP through fiscal year 2015. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the motion to recommit will not cause a single SCHIP enrolled child to lose his or her health care coverage.

Unlike the bill that is under consideration, H.R. 2, the motion to recommit puts poor children first by holding States accountable for not finding and enrolling their low-income, uninsured children. Each year, States would be required to report to the Secretary of HHS how they intend to ensure that at least 90 percent of their children with family incomes under $40,000 per year have quality health care coverage in either a public or private health care plan. States would also be required to demonstrate that they have met this 90 percent coverage target before they are able to shift their enrollment activities to higher income families.

Unlike H.R. 2, the motion to recommit maintains the requirement in current law that States verify the identity and citizenship status of Medicaid and SCHIP applicants and prevents illegal aliens and other unqualified individuals from fraudulently gaining access to these taxpayer-funded programs.

Unlike H.R. 2, the Republican motion to recommit preserves limited SCHIP dollars for low-income, uninsured children by preventing States from abusing the income-disregard loophole that is in the current law and would be continued under the underlying bill.

Unlike H.R. 2, the Republican motion to recommit Federal funds will be reserved for families with incomes under 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is currently $63,600 for a family of four.

This motion to recommit is compliant with the majority's PAYGO rules by asking corporations with assets in excess of $1 billion to shift some estimated tax payments due in fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2018.

The majority has repeatedly used this short-term shifting of funding to meet the 5-year PAYGO requirements, and we're using it today to comply with the majority's PAYGO requirements without raising taxes.

Fully paid for without increasing taxes on the American people is what this motion to recommit would provide. And unlike the underlying bill, H.R. 2, the Republican recommit motion will actually allow President-elect Obama to keep his promise to the American people of not increasing their taxes.

We believe that these fundamental changes from the underlying bill not only improve it, but extend the life of it for a full 7-year period and is altogether appropriate, and does not include increasing taxes on the American people.

We believe in the SCHIP program. We think that it should be properly applied in States and applied primarily to those who are low-income, poor families first rather than going up the economic scale of eligibility.

For these reasons, I would urge this body to adopt the motion to recommit and to pass a bill for a 7-year period that fully funds and assures States and families that their children will be covered.

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

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation and would like to yield such time as she may consume to one of the original sponsors of this legislation, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Madam Speaker, I think one of the better things that is contained in this legislation is that it does create an interagency coordinating committee to coordinate the activities on breast cancer research that are being conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Defense Department and other agencies that are actively engaged in cancer research. By removing the barriers which restrict cross-institutional information sharing, we will be able to bring America's best scientists together to collaborate and work together in pursuit of a cure.

The bill also increases the overall authorization of the NIH by $40 million to further aid their mission in this research.

I think it is a good step in the right direction, and I am glad to see the House taking the legislation up today.

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

Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation and want to commend the work of Mrs. Capps and also Mr. Kevin Brady.

I would, at this time, yield to Mr. Brady as much time as he might consume in support of this legislation, of which he was one of the original sponsors.

Madam Speaker, I had the honor of chairing that hearing that Mrs. Capps just referred to back in 2005 in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Health Subcommittee, in which we had the first hearing on pulmonary hypertension. The Honorable Tom Lantos' granddaughter, Charity, did testify. She was a compelling witness, and I think it is altogether fitting that this legislation be named in honor of her grandfather.

I want to thank Mrs. Capps and Mr. Brady and all the others who have worked so hard on this legislation. As Mr. Brady pointed out, this is an excellent example of citizen advocates who have taken this issue to heart and who have literally pushed this all the way. Without their support, we probably would not have been able to get this legislation to the floor. I commend all those who have had a hand in it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time she may consume to Representative McMorris Rodgers.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to one of the leaders on this subject matter here in the House, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this very first important step of dealing with the care and the quality of care for individuals who suffer from Down Syndrome and for their families. I urge the adoption of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation. Presently, there is no treatment for Tay-Sachs disease. But I would like to thank the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for their efforts to reduce the burden of neurological disease. They are part of the National Institutes of Health, and they conduct research on this particular disease in laboratories at NIH, and also support additional research through grants to major medical institutions across the country.

It is important for us to understand and to become more aware of this particular problem, and that's what this legislation seeks to do. I would urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I, too, rise in support of this legislation and would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) who was one of the active members of the Subcommittee on Health and Commerce from which this bill originally came.

Madam Speaker, I have a speaker who will appear shortly. He was here just a second ago.

In the meantime, I would use the time to simply thank Mr. Green as the lead sponsor of this legislation. He's done an excellent job. He did work across party lines, and I thought we had a good product that came out of our Health Subcommittee and our entire committee and came from the floor of this House. I think it's important that we do that on bills of this nature.

I would like to also thank, in addition to Mr. Murphy who's spoken on the Volunteer Doctors provision, Ms. DeGette who was interested in that as well. Unfortunately, that provision, along with a provision that Congressman Burgess and Congressman Stupak had for some alternative ways of providing additional care under the community health center model, which we had included in our bill on the House side, was not agreed to by our colleagues across the way.

However, the legislation before us today does require three GAO studies to look at all of the issues which we had originally addressed in the legislation that came from the House. Hopefully those GAO studies will confirm the wisdom of the House of including those provisions in the initial bill, and I look forward to seeing the results of those studies and perhaps our ability to revisit this issue of community health centers because I, too, believe that one of the ways we can accomplish greater access is to provide volunteer doctors with Federal tort claims protections so that they can use their services and their talents in community health centers which have a very difficult time attracting doctors in many of the rural areas, in particular.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1343, the ``Health Centers Renewal Act,'' a critical piece

of legislation which will reauthorize Community Health Centers and the National Health Service Corps. Community Health Centers provide a fundamental element of our healthcare delivery system in our nation, providing much needed care for uninsured or under-insured individuals seeking very low cost healthcare services. These centers have, and continue to, impact communities across our country and provide a critical safety net for care for thousands of Americans every year. With nearly 47 million Americans living without health insurance, traditional pay-for services have become prohibitively expensive for many. With no remaining option for even the most basic healthcare services, our emergency rooms are being overwhelmed. Community Health Centers step in to fill that gap, relieving the strain on hospital emergency rooms which cost exorbitantly more to operate and are pressed beyond capacity.

H.R. 1343 reauthorizes Community Health Centers for five years while seeking to improve the access to, and quality of, services available under this program throughout the nation. This legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct three studies, all of which will evaluate mechanisms through which the health center program can do more for our communities. First, GAO will evaluate the incorporation of integrated health systems as a model for improving the access to care for medically underserved populations. Second, GAO will also study the effects of implementing policies which would establish school-based health centers. Finally, this legislation will evaluate the potential benefits which could be achieved by extending federal liability protections to healthcare practitioners to encourage participation in Community Health Centers, both in their community as well as additional areas ravaged by hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, or other disaster situations. In light of the devastation in the Gulf Coast region just a few years ago, our healthcare delivery system was put to the ultimate test. Thousands upon thousands of victims were affected. While physicians and other healthcare professionals were ready and willing to answer the call to serve, concerns regarding medical liability turned them away from their call to service. This is an apparent problem an Congress must address this issue to avoid a repeat of this unfortunate situation in the future.

I believe this legislation represents a reasonable compromise, reflecting the priorities of the House, Senate, and healthcare industry, and provides much-needed reauthorization to this critical component of our nation's healthcare infrastructure. I would also like to express my appreciation to the National Association of Community Health Centers for working so well with House and Senate staff in order to craft this legislation before us today. Again, I am pleased to see this legislation on the floor today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this critical reauthorization of Community Health Centers.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, who is a member of this committee, who also has worked on this legislation, for such time as he may consume, Mr. Pickering.

I have no further speakers on the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Duncan for yielding the time to me. And I thank Mr. Towns for the very kind words that he has spoken on behalf of this outstanding young man.

And I do rise today to honor the memory of First Lieutenant Noah Harris by dedicating the United States Post Office located in Ellijay, Georgia, and naming it the ``First Lieutenant Noah Harris Ellijay Post Office.''

As Mr. Towns has indicated, Lieutenant Harris was killed at the age of 23, serving in Buritz, Iraq, and was returning from a successful mission when his Humvee was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades.

Many times we talk about individuals that we don't know. Tonight, I talk about a young man I did know. Noah Harris served as an intern in my office in the summer of 2002. He was a star athlete at Gilmer County High School, captain of his football team, captain of the wrestling team, State wrestling champion, and a star scholar.

When he graduated from high school, he went to the University of Georgia and he joined the football cheerleading squad. Now, at first you would think, as did his captain in Iraq, that if you're a cheerleader, you're not physically fit. Of course, if you watched college cheerleaders, you know when they lift somebody over their head and hold them, they are physically fit, as was Noah. And he became the captain of that cheerleading squad.

He was a student at the University of Georgia on September 11 of 2001. And when our country was attacked on that day, he made the decision that he wanted to join the ROTC unit and become an Army officer. The story goes that he went over to the ROTC Department and he said, I'd like to join the ROTC. And he was asked, well, what class level are you in? And he said, I'm a senior. And the response was, Well, you've just waited too late. You can't join the ROTC in your senior year. And he said, Is there no way that that can happen? And they said, Well, you would have to be an outstanding scholar and you would have to be an outstanding athlete in order to be able to put all the things together here in your senior year. It's told that Noah Harris sort of smiled and said, Well, I am a Presidential scholar, attending the University of Georgia on a Presidential scholar scholarship. And I am the captain of the football cheerleading squad. And needless to say, he met all of those requirements, he was commissioned, and he served our country in Iraq.

While he was serving in Iraq, he e-mailed me and he said this, ``Each day I patrol the street and stop and talk to the people. They are thankful that we're here and for what we are doing. Though the process is slow, each day, the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army are becoming better able to protect and defend the citizens of Iraq. Through the efforts and perseverance of both the United States and Iraq, peace will prevail. Please pass on my thanks to your staff and the rest of the individuals in Washington that support the cause of freedom for our Nation and the world.''

I attended Noah Harris' funeral, one of the saddest and yet at the same time one of the greatest celebrations that I have ever attended. His life is a reminder that it really doesn't matter how long you live, it's how you live. Noah Harris is a role model for young people who follow behind him. He is an inspiration for all of us who knew him and for those who will learn about him as the story of his life has now been compiled in a book put together by his parents, Lucy and Rick Harris, and contains the remembrances of people who knew Noah Harris. He will also have a continuing legacy of hope, dedication and courage. A scholarship has been founded at the University of Georgia in his memory, and it will continue his tradition.

Madam Speaker, First Lieutenant Noah Harris was indeed a true American hero. I am proud today to rise and pay attribute to him and to have the honor of joining with the constituents from the community in which he grew up in naming the local post office the First Lieutenant Noah Harris Ellijay Post Office.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of a letter from Mr. Jerry Farist, the chairman of the Gilmer County Board of Commissioners, supporting that this post office be named in honor of First Lieutenant Noah Harris.

I appreciate the time, and I think indeed these are the kind of moments that symbolize what makes our country great.

Gilmer County Board of

Commissioners,

September 12, 2008.

Re Request to name the Ellijay Post Office after 1st LT. Noah

Harris.

Ms. Gail Musselwhite,

Office of Congressman Nathan Deal,

P.O. Box 1015, Gainsville, GA.

To Whom It May Concern: As Chairman of the Gilmer County

Board of Commissioners I speak for my fellow commissioners

and the citizens of Gilmer County by saying that we take

great pride in our hometown boy, LT. Noah Harris. He paid the

ultimate price for his patriotism and we sincerely thank him

for his service.

Per the request to rename the Ellijay Post Office, ``1st

LT. Noah Harris United States Post Office'', the Gilmer

County Board of Commissioners would like to go on record as

having no objection to this action. If further information is

necessary please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jerry Farist, Chairman,

Gilmer County Commissioners.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House is set to pass legislation reauthorizing the Animal Drug User Fee Act, also known as ADUFA. This legislation represents a compromise between the parties, the administration, and the industry.

Development of animal drugs can take years and cost millions of dollars. A predictable review process is important to make sure that these products are approved in a timely way. Since the passage of ADUFA in 2003, the review times for new animal drugs went from 295 days in Fiscal Year 2004 to 180 days in Fiscal Year 2008.

We need to reauthorize this program before we leave for the August recess. If we fail to do so, the FDA may have to begin issuing reduction in force notices to its employees. The bill before us today will provide financial stability for the program and improve the health information infrastructure for drug review. It will also provide more user revenue for the program.

Along with ADUFA, for the first time, Congress is set to pass legislation which would create the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, or AGDUFA. AGDUFA will allow the FDA to collect user fees, thereby improving the times necessary for generic drug approval. This will not only bring generics to the market more quickly, but will also lower costs for consumers. If AGDUFA is authorized, approval times could be reduced from 700 days in Fiscal Year 2009, to around 270 days in Fiscal Year 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of both of these pieces of legislation in the bill that is before us today.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield at this time such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I would also compliment Mr. Buyer for his sincere efforts on the issue of counterfeiting and look forward to working with him to address that issue both for humans and for animals in future legislation.

But because of the importance of this particular legislation and the need to reauthorize it in the time frame that is before us, I would urge the adoption of this legislation.

I would yield back the balance of my time.