Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I assume that the majority does not have any additional speakers. Therefore, I will close. I would simply urge my colleagues to support the bill before us. It does some short-term extensions of some very vital programs. I think that is appropriate.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time and urge the approval of the bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I reserve the balance of my time at this point.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. We're debating the reauthorization of a bill that has been in place for 10 years. It would seem to me that, in doing so, we should learn from the mistakes that were made in the initial legislation and attempt to correct them. I believe the legislation before us tonight overlooks that opportunity. We have seen the House version that passed here earlier, and we have now seen a Senate version; and the one before us tonight is very similar to the Senate version of this legislation. But it appears to me that we have some questions to ask about that. CBO says that there are 300,000 fewer uninsured low-income children who will be enrolled under the bill before us today than would have been enrolled under the original Senate bill, and yet the amount of money that is being spent is almost exactly the same, an additional $35 billion over the next 5 years. When you couple that $35 billion with the baseline budgeting and the amount of money that States will have to put into the program, we find that we're going to be spending about $60 billion over the next 5 years for a program that for the first 10 years was only a $40 billion program. And when you do include that State funding into the mix, it will be $200 billion over the next 10 years. Now, who are we going to insure by putting this substantial amount of new money into the program? Once again, the Congressional Budget Office attempts to answer that question. They say that there will be an additional 800,000 children, currently SCHIP eligible, being enrolled in the program by the year 2012. And if that is truly the focus, which it should be the focus of the program, then what are we getting by spending an additional $60 billion? If you divide $60 billion by the additional 800,000 children, that means that this bill is going to require that we spend $74,000 per child. Now, I know the government can throw money away, but I believe that is certainly an excessive amount of money. Now, who are these children that are going to be the new enrollees? Once again, CBO tells us that, of the additional children who are going to be potentially enrolled, that about half of them are children who already have private health insurance, a 50 percent crowd-out of the existing insurance market. Now, they also tell us that we ought to be concerned about the fact that if there are potentially going to be as many as 2 million children who will have been moved out of their private insurance into this government-subsidized program, we're also told that Medicaid and also SCHIP generally pay less than the private insurance market pays, that means that the health care providers, the doctors and the hospitals, are going to have to absorb another 2 million patients who are going to be reimbursing them at a lower rate. Another error in the original program, it was for children, and yet we know that four States currently have more adults than children in their program. Under this bill before us, CBO estimates that in the next 5 years there will still be 780,000 adults enrolled in the Children's Health Care Program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to, first of all, thank Chairman Dingell and Chairman Pallone for working in a bipartisan fashion on this very important piece of legislation. As we all know, the work of the FDA is vital to the health and safety of the citizens of this country, and especially legislation such as this that enhances their ability to deal with the questions of drug safety and the monitoring capabilities and the continuing programs that are so vital both to the drugs and to medical devices which require review and approval by the FDA. The user fee programs that are being reauthorized by this legislation are very important to fulfilling their role in meeting their personnel needs to achieve a timely review of drugs and medical devices, and I believe that Congress should not and cannot afford to delay further action on this package. Certainly to do so would require FDA to begin to scale back their personnel, and none of us want to see that happen. Moreover, patients demand and deserve to know that the medications they are taking are safe and effective, and that the FDA has adequate resources, both pre- and postmarket, in order to ensure that the safety of the Nation's drug supply is intact. This legislation makes sensible bipartisan strides in that direction and balances the need to bring new life-saving medications to market, and at the same time provide the necessary protections for patient safety. Like all compromises, there was a necessary give-and-take from all sides to bring this bill to the floor today. I think it is through the responsible work of the leadership of our committee of Energy and Commerce and through the processes that the committee has followed that we were able to accomplish that on this very significant piece of legislation. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill and hope that our colleagues across the rotunda would do likewise so that we can present a bill to the desk of the President for his signature which will keep this vital program and functions of FDA going forward and will not allow it to expire. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requested time and would be prepared to close whenever the gentleman from New Jersey is prepared.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time. Mr. Speaker, I thank our staff and urge the adoption of this bill and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a program that started 10 years ago with a $40 billion Federal authorization of expenditures. The current bill before us would spend $128.7 billion over the next 10 years. When added with the State money, that is over $255 billion in taxpayer money over the next 10 years. That is over a quarter of a trillion dollars. And what do you get for it? CBO says you will cover 600,000 more eligible children, 600,000 children. You would be better off to give each one of them $80,000 in cash, and they would probably get better results. In 1996, we had an immigration bill that provided that if you wanted to bring somebody and sponsor somebody to come into this country legally, you would have to say they would not go on the public rolls of Medicaid and other programs for 5 years. This bill removes that. CBO says that alone will cost $2.2 billion, and we let sponsors off the hook and we put them on the public payroll. If we have a bill like the Senate was considering that would make 20 million illegals legal, that cost alone would be $140 billion a year. What it does, too, is it says, in the area of immigration, we are going to spend $400 billion paying for translators, not just to serve people but to enroll them in the program. That is $400 million. Now they can say this does not open it up to illegal immigrants just by saying that. CBO says it will cost $2 billion because they think that is the cost that it is. What they are saying is just sign an affidavit that says you are legally in this country. I have speeders who would just like to sign an affidavit saying they have a driver's license. I have taxpayers who would like on April 15 to sign an affidavit saying they didn't have any taxable income; just take my word for it. And if you believe just signing an affidavit is a deterrent to people illegally in the country, then you also believe we can just put a sign at the Mexican border saying, if you don't have permission, just don't come in. This is a ridiculous piece of legislation. It will undermine the purposes of the original bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of opinions today about the effects of this bill; and opinions are, of course, of different perspectives on the bill. But there is an agency that we all rely on, supposedly, to give us the facts, and that is the Congressional Budget Office. Now, there has been an argument about whether or not this bill, in its reforms, will go back to a system that would allow illegal immigrants to be covered. Now, we can say that it doesn't, but CBO says that, by changing that provision back to the way it used to be, that over the next 5 years it will cost $800 million and over the next 10 years it will cost $1.9 billion. Now, CBO is simply saying that if you make it easier for illegals to enter the program, that's the price tag. They wouldn't say that if they didn't have some basis for coming up with those numbers. They didn't just pull them out of the air. The other part deals with legal immigrants. We have had a policy in this country that if someone wants to bring a family member, a friend, or sponsor somebody to come in and we give that person coming in legal status, that they are not eligible to participate in our social programs, such as Medicaid, for the first 5 years. Their sponsor signs an affidavit that they will be personally responsible for that. This bill removes that waiting time. So when you bring someone in, they can immediately sign up for the Medicaid rolls. Now, CBO says that that will cost $900 million over the next 5 years and $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. Now, the truth of the matter is that this bill gives incentives to States to allow this to happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2900. I think this bill plays an important role in ensuring that patients have timely access to approved, safe, and effective medications and medical devices. This legislation creates an entirely new post- marketing drug safety program that will help address some of the troubling recent drug scares that we have all been aware of. The Subcommittee on Health in our Energy and Commerce Committee held numerous hearings on the programs authorized in this bill, and I am pleased that members of the committee were able to come together to work out a bipartisan compromise that continues many important programs of the FDA. For instance, the Prescription Drug and User Fee Amendments and the Medical Device User Fee Amendments allow the FDA to continue important programs which provide the agency with resources for the expeditious review of life-saving drugs and devices. One important addition in the prescription drug user fee amendments addresses direct-to-consumer advertisements. I share concern with many members on the committee about the drug advertisements being presented to patients, and I am glad the bill takes steps to provide for the FDA's review of these television ads while at the same time protecting freedom of speech. However, our main concern is the FDA's increasing reliance on the regulated industry to fund its drug review activities, and hope that future appropriations will take advantage of the amendment I offered at the full committee to help reduce FDA's dependence on user fees by replacing them with appropriations. This amendment stated there should be a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the new user fee for every new dollar appropriated for post-market safety. The amendment was a step in the right direction, but I believe more should be done to restore the balance between user fees and appropriations for drug review. The bill also continues important programs which encourage the study of medications in pediatric populations. Meeting the unique medical needs of children presents special challenges, and H.R. 2900 reauthorizes two programs which have effectively promoted the study of drugs in children. It also encourages the development of medical devices for use in pediatric populations. This legislation also improves FDA drug safety authorities. Recent incidents have undermined consumer confidence in the FDA's ability to ensure that the medications they take on a regular basis are safe. H.R. 2900 provides the agency with new tools to better monitor products that might present greater risk to patients. I believe these reforms will help maintain the FDA's position as the world leader in protecting patient safety and access to safe medications. In conclusion, I think this is a good compromise. Our committee worked hard on it. Both sides came together in an effort to try to present this House with a package that I hope will be approved today.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I realize it's late, and I'll be brief. We've talked about a lot of things today. I'd like to talk about horses and mules for a few minutes. Under the current law, when a horse or a mule is deemed no longer fit for service in agencies such as the Border Patrol or Customs, the law requires that they either be turned out to pasture on Federal lands, where they usually are subject to predators, or that they be destroyed. This amendment would simply say that they would be allowed to be adopted by their handlers. This is an animal equity amendment, Mr. Chairman. We do the same thing for dogs who have been in the service and are allowed to be adopted by their handlers. This would simply allow the handlers of horses and mules to do exactly the same thing. And I would urge the adoption.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Speaker, as we approach this topic of dealing with the ever- increasing problem of illegal immigration in this country, it is certainly one with many facets. But the one that I would like to address briefly tonight is the issue that relates to birthright citizenship. Let me define it, first of all. It is the extension of citizenship to any child born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents of that child. The United States does just that. But we are in an ever-increasing minority in the world community. Currently, there are approximately 141 nations that do not grant birthright citizenship. And there are only about 35 countries that do, the United States being one of those. In fact, every country in Europe no longer grants birthright citizenship. Ireland was the last of those countries, and in 2004 by popular vote, they no longer grant birthright citizenship. Israel doesn't, Japan doesn't, virtually every country on the face of the earth with the exception of the United States have recognized that the right of citizenship is indeed one of the most precious rights, and it should not be extended to those who have broken our law and who are illegally in our country. Just as the overall immigration issue has many facets, so does the issue of birthright citizenship. First of all, there is the question of, how do you solve the problem? The real difficulty comes from the fact that the current interpretation is based on an interpretation of the language of the 14th amendment. Many legal scholars believe that the intention of the 14th amendment, which had as its primary purpose to settle the issue of citizenship for individuals who were formerly slaves, has been perverted to extend it to birthright citizenship for anyone born on American soil. There are certainly legitimate arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue. But the one that I think focuses most clearly on whether or not it was the intention of the writers of the 14th amendment to include this issue is demonstrated in the language that comes out of the debates that surrounded the adoption of that amendment. The reality is, though, that many of the court cases upon which people rely today to say that we automatically extend citizenship to anyone born on our soil regardless of the legal status of their parents, comes from a day and a time when the United States did not have immigration laws in place, did not have in place laws that distinguished between those who were legally in our country and those who were not. We, of course, now live in a day and a time when those laws are in place, albeit they are not very well enforced most of the time. But what is the cost of this issue of birthright citizenship? I think there is a legitimate argument that can be made to say that birthright citizenship is one of those magnets that contributes to illegal immigration in the first place. Consider the latest statistics from the Center for Immigration Studies in which they say that there are approximately 383,000 children born every year to illegal immigrants. That is, about 42 percent of the births to all immigrants in this country are to illegal immigrants to this country, and that births to illegal immigrants now account for one out of every ten births in the United States. One out of every ten children born in this country is being born to someone, a parent, who had no legal right to be here. What are the financial costs associated with it? We all know that illegal immigration in and of itself places huge financial strains on local governments in providing education, in providing health care, and on State governments in the same way, and also on the Federal Government. The Center for Immigration Studies found that the cost to United States taxpayers for the cost of illegal immigration is approximately $10.4 billion a year. And a large part of that cost is attributable to babies born to illegal immigrants. In my State of Georgia, for example, I am told that a non-Caesarian section child delivery with no complications costs approximately $2,720. Now you multiply that figure, and probably my State's cost is less than the national average, but you multiply that by the 383,000- plus births every year, and you can instantly see that just in that initial health care delivery cost, it is a very significant sum. But what does birthright citizenship then also do to our system? First of all, in 1996, when we passed the Immigration Reform Act, one of the things that many people have bragged about was a provision that said in general terms that if you are illegally in this country, you are not going to be entitled to any social benefits other than education at the elementary and secondary level and emergency medical care. Now, we make a mockery of that by virtue of birthright citizenship because even though we say we are not going to extend those social services, by giving a child of an illegal immigrant citizenship status, you immediately have TANF, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, whatever term you call it in your community, those kinds of welfare social benefits flow through the child. There are also food stamps and housing subsidy benefits, and who are you going to deliver them to, a new child? Of course not. Those social benefits in the form of cash and other indicia of benefits flow through the hands of the illegal parents. And are you going to deport the parents, an illegal immigrant who has given birth to a child who is a United States citizen? I say you probably are not, and the statistics bear me out. So I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, if somebody is concerned about these issues, the next time they have to wait in line in the doctor's office or in the hospital or in the waiting room of the emergency clinic, or the next time that they are in the grocery checkout line and somebody is paying for food with food stamps and it is fairly apparent that they are not legally in this country and you want to know why, the why lies in birthright citizenship that is being granted to a child of that illegal immigrant. Now, as I say, we are in the distinct minority in the world community of continuing to allow this practice to occur. I, along with Mr. Bilbray and Mr. King and many others in our conference, are authors of legislation that would attempt to correct this serious problem that we have. Many who would dispute whether or not this is a part of the magnet that draws people into our country and to cross our borders illegally should take reference to a statement contained in one of the publications from the Department of Homeland Security. I would like to read from that publication. It says, ``An industry has developed around this practice,'' that is, crossing the border illegally specifically to give birth, ``with travel agents specializing in birth tours and clinics providing post-natal care, which includes transportation services. For those seeking entry into this country, it is a small price to pay for legal entry and social benefits that accrue with citizenship.'' So our own Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that it is indeed one of those magnets that causes us to have a problem with illegal immigration. In 2002, it was reported by the Los Angeles Times in a study that they did looking at South Korea, and what they found was that since South Korea allows dual citizenship, that is both South Korea and United States citizenship, for a child born in the United States, they found that South Korea was hosting these so-called birth tours which were intended to bring pregnant women to the United States so they could deliver their child here and that child would be a United States citizen. Now, they probably returned back to South Korea with that child. So what would be their motivation? Well, first of all, they would be entitled to the benefits of American citizenship, but another added advantage, since South Korea is a country that requires universal military service, it is a way of excluding that child from the requirements of South Korea that they be inducted into their military services. So it has consequences, not just to us, but to some of our allies such as South Korea. So I would simply thank Mr. Bilbray for the time you have allotted me tonight to speak on this issue. Hopefully, we will see some action on this issue of birthright citizenship. It can stand alone, or it can travel as a part of a more comprehensive immigration reform package; but I submit that unless we address this problem, it is only going to get worse. It is going to only magnify the ever-increasing problem of illegal immigration, and I would urge my colleagues to join with me and you and Mr. King and others in sponsoring the legislation that we have tailored to try to address this problem.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I too wish to express appreciation to the sponsor and all of those who have made it possible to bring this bill to the floor today. It is certainly altogether fitting and proper that we name this bill after the late Charlie Norwood. This bill does two very important things that Charlie really believed in. The first is he believed in organ transplant. As Mr. Inslee alluded, he was the recipient of a lung transplant that extended his life. He believed in organ transplants. The second thing that it does is something that he really believed in as well, and that is overcoming bureaucratic red tape that made no common sense. And that is what this bill does. Pairing of donations for kidneys makes all of the common sense in the world. It will save lives and money. Certainly in the tradition of Charlie Norwood, it will perpetuate the importance of organ donations and do so in the memory and in the honor of a great Member of this body.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 159) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and thank him for arranging for this resolution to be heard at this time today. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we lost a true champion in the House of Representatives on yesterday: Charles Norwood from Georgia. Charlie, as he was known by most of us here, was truly a friend across party lines and across State lines. He was a true patriot. He served in the dental services in the U.S. Army in the combat zone of Vietnam. He returned to a private dental practice in Georgia, and then in the election cycle of 1994 was elected to this House of Representatives. He came with a passion for many things. Health care was at the very top of his list. Education was very shortly thereafter. And he worked on both of those issues with all of his heart. He inspired many people in this House because he was indeed passionate about everything that he did. If he was your friend, you knew he was your friend. If you were on the opposite side of an issue from him, he let you know that as well, but he was still your friend. All of us watched as we observed what had been diagnosed in 1998 as an incurable disease. And following that diagnosis, he underwent lung transplant surgery. That was a process that most of us probably would have had great difficulty undergoing. But Charlie did it with courage. He rebounded with the same kind of determination and willingness to go forward in spite of the inconveniences that that brought to him. We saw him with his oxygen tank, and we saw him on his little scooter as he rode around the Capitol on his way over here and back and forth to votes. Throughout it all, he maintained his good humor, he maintained his zest for life. Charlie Norwood is someone who will truly be missed.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to our Georgia colleague (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another Georgia colleague (Mr. Linder).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the minority leader (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).