Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. The gentleman just brought up an interesting point. It is true that in the Netherlands, when they reviewed their experience, they found that just legalizing physician-assisted suicide actually increases the amount of nonphysician-assisted suicide. It sends the wrong message. It absolutely sends the wrong message. I want to thank the good doctor from Ohio for introducing this bill because certainly the Nation's Capital is one where we should be very careful since the Constitution has entrusted us with approving or disapproving the laws in the Nation's Capital. It behooves Congress to take a good look at a law like this, the so-called Death with Dignity Act. Now, that is striking because most people don't associate suicide with dignity in any way, shape, or form, and for good reason. But I will get to that. There are a lot of myths associated with the bill. First of all, assisted suicide somehow offers patients more choices. It actually doesn't. What it does is it actually sends a very strong message that regardless of the many types of disease you might have and the many types of treatment that may be available, there is one final, common pathway that the State--in this case, the District--would now say is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is not only perfectly acceptable, it is legal to actually go to a physician and ask them to participate in your suicide. That doesn't lead to more choice; that ultimately leads to less choice. But the use of the word ``dignity'' is striking to me because the number one group of individuals, if we would collectively look at how we would describe those individuals to whom this applies, really, are individuals with some kind of disability, perhaps with a disease or disability that, according to the law, two physicians would just have to agree, knowing how imperfect the idea to predict lifespan is, that those could result in death in 6 months. Associating that kind of problem with the ultimate outcome of death by suicide I think removes dignity. It doesn't add dignity to anyone's life. Worse than that, what we have done now and what we have seen in terms of the functional reduction of choice is that, according to many of the new payment systems for health care in this country, you actually align the incentives of the patient's health care from top to bottom. What do I mean by that? Now over half the physicians in the country no longer work for themselves; they are employed by entities. Frequently, these entities share the same financial risk as the physicians in terms of their being driven to save money. That is it. There are numerous incentives to save money within the law. If you don't believe me, go back and read the Medicare rules and regulations. In fact, it should be noted that in the Netherlands, where assisted suicide has been legal for years, the average age for women is 65 who participate; for men it is 62. That means, Mr. Speaker, almost half the individuals are Medicare patients. There are powerful incentives built into Medicare to save money--powerful incentives--accountable care organizations, for instance, where the physician who is the patient's attending physician happens to work for the same healthcare system that shares in financial incentives if money is saved. Mr. Speaker, I would proffer--and I think any Member who is against this legislation and for the Death with Dignity Act should stipulate that, clearly, it saves money to give someone a $300 prescription for secobarbital rather than pay for expensive cancer therapy or expensive therapy that might cure a patient. That doesn't give a patient dignity. That doesn't add to their dignity. What that does is it now places the patient in the situation, if they truly understand the financial incentives in the system, to actually question whether their physician is doing the right thing for them. In fact, the consulting physician under the Death with Dignity Act doesn't have to belong to a different financial entity. A physician working for this healthcare entity who actually saves money through the act of suicide can send the patient right across the hall to a consulting physician to agree, that consulting physician being a part of the same accountable care organization. That is wrong. But that is the situation patients will find themselves in, questioning whether their physician has a financial incentive to write that lethal prescription. Now, the other straw man that is set up very frequently, and if you look at the Pew Research study that asks people their opinion, ``Do you think we should allow death with dignity?'' they frequently mention only one situation: a patient with terminal disease in extreme pain. But, Mr. Speaker, the data is that only 20 percent of patients who seek physician-assisted suicide have pain as their primary reason. Now, we are all compassionate people. Every human being has suffered pain, some human beings more than others, and it is not hard to understand how someone answering that poll question thinking of a patient with terminal illness in severe pain, knowing what pain is about, how difficult it is to treat pain unless it is done with the most modern methods, might say, yeah, maybe dying is better. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a straw man: 80 percent of patients say it is something else; 92 percent saying it is losing autonomy--losing autonomy. Our solution to losing autonomy in a patient or being less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, 90 percent of patients saying that, society's solution is to write a lethal prescription? I will tell you, I am most troubled--and I will close with this. As a physician, I went into medicine to actually help people, to help people get better. That is why people go into health care. That is why my daughters became nurses. They became nurses to help people get better. God knows that is what we want to do. That is true compassion. But now to say that if a physician, against their Hippocratic oath, shall prescribe a medication that knowingly kills a patient--and let's not mince words. That is what the Death with Dignity Act does. It says a licensed practitioner with a license to heal now has a license to kill--knowingly kill--a patient put under their care. That is a step, Mr. Speaker, I would offer that, as a society, we should take a long and hard look at before we ask our healers to, effectively, become killers.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, a disturbing trend has developed of leading universities in their promoting lawlessness by refusing to comply with Federal immigration law; so, today, I am introducing the Federal Immigration Law Compliance Act of 2016, with cosponsors from California to New York to Florida. This act requires any entity that receives Federal funds, including institutions of higher learning, to comply with all lawful requests made by Federal immigration enforcement authorities. Should the entity refuse to comply with Federal immigration enforcement requests, all Federal funding can be withheld. For instance, the University of Pennsylvania, which charges $51,000 tuition, despite its having an endowment of $10.7 billion, would stand to lose $700 million in Federal grants if they were to choose to continue their policy of not complying with Federal immigration law. Congress has the responsibility to protect the rule of law in our country and to provide for the safety of our citizens. The American people have spoken loudly in this past election that they want Federal immigration law enforced. Shame on those universities that take Federal money and then promote lawlessness.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman talked about the need for ethical medical research because one of our panel's accomplishments is to show how StemExpress undermined the very foundations of ethical American scientific research. First, Federal regulations require researchers to obtain informed consent from each person used as a subject. The basic element of informed consent includes a detailed explanation of the purposes of the research for which tissue is being obtained. StemExpress, as we found, simply did not follow that requirement. HHS regulations also require that in obtaining consent, researchers ``minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence.'' Well, StemExpress documents that we uncovered shows that its employees were already promising to deliver baby body parts even before the abortions were performed. That raises serious concerns that there may have been coercion or undue influence on women to donate parts of their aborted babies. Now, second, Federal regulations require that all research that involves human subjects needs approval from an institutional review board, or IRB. As a medical researcher, I had to file IRB applications and receive IRB approval from my university's IRB. Now, it turns out that StemExpress received their IRB approval from a company called BioMed IRB, a California firm that is basically an online, mail order IRB that the Federal Government actually barred for 2 years because they violated FDA rules in granting their IRB approval. The FDA gave the panel its file on BioMed IRB. Madam Speaker, that file literally was more than a foot high. HHS regulations require IRBs to ``prepare and maintain adequate documentation'' of their activities, including: copies of all research proposals reviewed, records of continuing review activities, and copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators, in this case, StemExpress' founder and CEO, Cate Dyer. Now, the panel subpoenaed BioMed IRB for all documents related to its approval of StemExpress' research protocol. BioMed IRB's executive director informed the panel that, in regards to those records, ``there are none.'' In other words, BioMed clearly violated Federal regulations on IRBs. The head of BioMed went further. He told the panel to just bring on a contempt proceeding. That is the IRB StemExpress used. That says a lot about StemExpress' motives and it says a lot about the accomplishments of the select panel. None of these shameful practices would have been discovered if not for the panel's investigative work this year. As a physician and researcher, I know that if I had used the same shady tactics as StemExpress and BioMed IRB, at best, my research reputation would be at risk and, at worst, I would be facing prison.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, both of my parents fled Soviet-bloc Communism for the promise of a better and freer life here in America. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Ronald Reagan once said, ``Communism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they already have it.'' The Hungarian people, as much as anybody, know this to be true. The movement began on October 23rd, 1956 as a student demonstration against Soviet-imposed communist policies. The demonstration quickly spread, attracting thousands. When a group of student protestors were fired on by the State Security Police, and one of the demonstrators killed, the revolution began. Thousands organized into militias, battling the police and Soviet troops in Budapest and across the country. The communist government quickly collapsed and impromptu ``workers' councils'' assumed governance of the country. Though Soviet forces eventually re-took control of the country, the Hungarian Revolution was the first major threat to Soviet control since the fall of the Nazis, and signaled the beginning of the end of the reign of Communism in Europe. That is why I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to commend the Hungarian people for their fight, and ultimate victory, against Communism, and commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the establishment of the Farm Credit System. I was pleased to cosponsor House Resolution 591, commending the cooperative owners and employees of the Farm Credit System for 100 years of service. The Farm Credit System was established by Congress through the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916, signed into law on July 17, 1916, by President Woodrow Wilson, making 2016 the centennial anniversary of the founding of the cooperatively owned and operated Farm Credit System. Congress intended the Farm Credit System be designed as a permanent means to support the well-being and prosperity of the Nation's rural communities and agricultural producers of all types and sizes. It was designed as a network of cooperatives, independently owned and controlled by its borrowers, and meant to be responsive to individual needs for credit and financial services. Since its inception the Farm Credit system has, and continues to, continually adapt in order to meet the changing needs of rural communities and agriculture. Today, the Farm Credit System plays a vital role in the success of the United States agricultural sector and the economic vibrancy of rural communities throughout all 50 States and Puerto Rico. The system provides more than $237 billion in loans to more than 500,000 customers across the nation. In Maryland, Farm Credit serves nearly 5000 borrower-owners representing over $1.3 billion in loan volume. In my district alone, MidAtlantic Farm Credit serves over 2000 borrower-owners, representing over $633 million in loan volume. The Farm Credit System actively supports the next generation of agricultural producers by annually providing billions of dollars in loans to young and beginning farmers and ranchers and through its ongoing financial support for organizations like 4-H and Future Farmers of America. In Maryland, Farm Credit serves over 3200 young/beginning/ small farmers representing over $648 million in loan volume. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in celebration of the 100th anniversary or the establishment of the modern American Farm Credit System.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman from Texas. We should be thankful for the scientists we have, whether it is at the CDC, whether it is at the NIH, those public health officials who are going to make sure that the mosquito control occurs that is necessary, to those who are at BARDA and other agencies where we develop the vaccines that are necessary, and do the necessary research. This House bill, in distinction to the President's request, is targeted and well thought out. This bill deals just with Zika. The President's request didn't. It dealt with whatever other infectious disease comes down the road. Yet, Zika is what is in front of us now. Mr. Speaker, it is going to take 2 to 3 years to complete the necessary research and to complete the vaccine development and bring it to market. This bill deals with the needs over the next 6 months. The administration requested a total of about $1.6 billion in research, because there is about $300 million that has nothing to do, really, with researching and curing Zika. So it is $1.6 billion over 3 years. The House took the position we actually need to front-load that. We need to deal with this fiscal year, so we put together a package of $1.2 billion to be spent over the next 6 months to make sure that we start the necessary research, we start the vaccine development, and deal with those outyears through the normal appropriations process which is going to take place over the next 2 years. So our approach is actually a much more valid approach, targeted, well thought out, will provide all the necessary funds to the CDC, NIH, for the vaccine development and the mosquito control over the next 6 months, when we need it most, and then add additional funds as necessary, as science learns more about what we need. We can't possibly know what we need now. The administration put a request without possibly knowing what we need 2 or 3 years in the future. We will find out what we need and we will add those. Mr. Speaker, this is the right approach. This is actually more money up front than the administration has asked for, which is exactly the correct approach to deal with this imminent threat to the health of U.S. citizens here and in Puerto Rico.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, when the House sends the budget reconciliation bill to the President this evening, he has a chance to help hardworking American taxpayers by signing it and saving taxpayers over $500 billion over the next 10 years. It does that in two ways. First, it repeals most of the unaffordable ObamaCare program, which has raised the cost of health insurance and health care for millions and millions of hardworking Americans. It also removes all Federal taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, which receives over half a billion taxpayer dollars a year and does 330,000 abortions a year. In fact, it is the largest abortion provider in America. Instead of funding the largest abortion provider in America, we direct those funds to over 10,000 community health centers. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President agrees and saves hardworking American taxpayers billions of dollars.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the humanitarian crisis that continues to unfold in Eastern Ukraine. While the media, and the world, focuses on the Syrian migrant crisis, winter is fast approaching for the millions affected by the conflict in Ukraine. As we speak, there are over 1.5 million people internally displaced, 1.1 million externally displaced, and more than 5 million people in need of humanitarian aid. Thousands have died in the fighting, and thousands more lie injured. Homes and schools are being destroyed, and the movement of goods and people is severely restricted. As temperatures edge toward zero, we must remember why Ukrainians find themselves in need. They are in need because of their rejection of Russian authoritarianism and of Vladimir Putin's aggressive expansionism. They are in need because they are fighting to defend their freedom and their democracy. We, the United States, as a beacon of liberty and democratic government, must demonstrate our solidarity with our Ukrainian brethren and our unwavering belief in the ideals for which they fight. We must provide food, we must provide shelter, we must provide blankets. We, as Americans, must provide support to those willing to stand up to Russia in defense of freedom and democracy. I call on my colleagues to join me in urging President Obama to increase humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman from California's amendments. With this amendment, we need to start the rebirth of our Nation's shipping capabilities and begin to build U.S.-flagged seagoing vessels to move a domestic supply of sand and gravel across our Nation. This amendment allows access to aggregate that will be available to restore damaged beaches, enhance fisheries habitats in the estuaries and littoral regions of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean by providing clean sand and gravel for broad-scale beach replenishment projects that are so vital across the Nation. This amendment will also lead to establishment of a reliable U.S. source to meet domestic demand for major construction and public projects. Half of all uses for sand and gravel are used for public projects, building and replacing vital U.S. highways, bridges, and seawall infrastructures. Utilizing our marine transportation will save taxpayer dollars by reducing costs on public works projects because, simply put, moving containerized cargo on the water is cost-competitive, economical, and efficient. Passage of this amendment puts our country on the path to having the potential to create at least 20,000 more shipbuilding manufacturing jobs just by building at least 30 to 40 new seagoing bulk freighters and container carrier ships worth at least $3 billion that will result if we pass this amendment. This amendment is good for the country. It is good for our infrastructure, and it is good for creating American jobs across this country.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, this bill very simply allows States to be partners in the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is a partnership between the Federal Government and the States, except too often Washington tells the States exactly what they have to do. This is one of those examples because this is not theoretical. There are two States that have attempted to defund with their use of taxpayer dollars in their States--these are not Federal tax dollars. They don't want their State's taxpayers dollars to fund Planned Parenthood. Instead, they want to fund other women's health services. They should be allowed to do that. Why should the Secretary of Health and Human Services demand that one particular institution get funds? Let's talk about that institution. The gentleman from Florida says, oh, this is going to deny women health care. Let me tell you who is denying women health care in my district, in rural Lower Eastern Shore. We had a Planned Parenthood in Salisbury. They closed up in April. On their Web site, they said: The center in Easton will be open Monday through Friday. You can just get your care there, our Planned Parenthood Center, which is about 45 minutes up the road. Mr. Speaker, just go on your tablet device and see what the hours at the Easton Planned Parenthood are that are supposed to develop this wonderful comprehensive health care to women in my district. Now, if you want to go today, you are out of luck. They are closed. Now, if you went yesterday, they were open for 7 hours, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. That is nice. I guess they are bankers' hours. I guess we just assume that everybody is going to get their health care between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. So Monday they are open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday they are closed. Mr. Speaker, if one of the women in my Lower Shore want to go on Wednesday, they are out of luck. They are closed. If they want to go on Thursday, they are in luck. They are open for 7\1/2\ hours, from 11 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. But if they want to go on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, they are out of luck because Planned Parenthood is closed. They are not delivering comprehensive services those days. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as we know, Planned Parenthood doesn't deliver comprehensive women's health services. One of the most important services that you can deliver to a woman of child-bearing age is mammograms. Not a single Planned Parenthood facility in this entire country has a mammography machine. Now, how do you deliver a mammogram without a mammography machine? Mr. Speaker, it is an untruth. Planned Parenthood doesn't do comprehensive cancer screening. Because one of the most important screening techniques is mammography, and none of them can deliver it. Let's contrast what the woman who is seeking comprehensive women's health care on the Lower Eastern Shore in Maryland--what her alternative is, because the gentleman from Florida mentions that our Medicaid patients won't be able to be seen if we pass this bill. The alternative is our Federally qualified health center, our community health center, called Three Lower Counties. Now, if you go to Three Lower Counties today, you are actually in luck because they are open from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and they have a mammography machine as well as the entire range of comprehensive services, with one exception. They don't do abortions. But, then again, the other Planned Parenthoods on the Eastern Shore of Maryland don't do it either. So, in fact, if a woman who is on Medicaid really wants access to comprehensive health care in my district, they have got to go past Planned Parenthood unless--well, that is not true. I guess, if Monday and Thursday they want their health care, they can go to Planned Parenthood. Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, they can't. But they could go to one of those at my community health center. In fact, nationwide there are only a little over 500 Planned Parenthood facilities.

Mr. HARRIS. There are 13,000 community health centers, each of which has to have radiology facilities. That is how you get the Federal money. So, in fact, if we really want to let our States, by their choice--we are not forcing States. We are not saying that a State can't fund Planned Parenthood. Look, I come from the State of Maryland. We will probably choose to do it. But a State that chooses not to should be given the option to tell their women: If you really want it, really want comprehensive care, well, go to one of the community health centers. That is all this bill does. This doesn't limit care. This expands care because this tells women: You don't have to go to the Monday-and Thursday-only clinic that can't give you a mammogram. You can actually go get comprehensive care somewhere else, even if you are on Medicaid. My biggest objection--and the gentlewoman from North Carolina hit it on the head--is look at what else Planned Parenthood does. They actually--and, as a physician, I find this unbelievable. They will change the abortion technique in order to better harvest the fetal tissue that they can then sell. That should be so morally objectionable that we should allow States to limit that funding.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, look, this bill is very simple. This bill just says that States actually can be partners with the Federal Government and Medicaid. The Federal Government, the Secretary of HHS, doesn't get to tell a State which providers they think are inadequate-- yes, inadequate. Planned Parenthood is not a comprehensive health provider in my district. In the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, they closed the Planned Parenthood in April and said on the Web site: ``You can get services Monday through Friday at the center in Easton, 45 minutes up the road.'' Madam Speaker, if you go up the road today, they are closed. In fact, the center in Easton, funded with Federal dollars, is open 2 days a week. That clinic is empty the rest of the time. Federal dollars are paying for an empty clinic that doesn't deliver comprehensive care. Madam Speaker, you may have heard somewhere that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. Nonsense. Even Planned Parenthood executives say they don't have a mammogram machine in the entire system. They don't provide mammograms. The only method for breast cancer screening that actually results in decreased deaths from breast cancer, the only method--mammograms--they don't even provide at Planned Parenthood. They say: Oh, but you can be referred. Actually, Madam Speaker, the law is you don't need a referral for a mammogram screening. That is the law. You don't need a referral. Any woman can go get a mammogram screening as long as she is within the screening guidelines without a referral. So exactly what is this magic that Planned Parenthood provides? The gentlewoman from New York said it fills a gap that community health centers can't fill. Nonsense. Community health centers can provide mammograms. They can provide breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer screenings, contraceptives, birth control. The only thing they don't do is they don't provide abortions outside the limits of the Hyde amendment, and they don't sell baby body parts. Oh, that is right. I guess if selling baby body parts is what is important about women's health care, then you are right. You have got to go to a Planned Parenthood to get it. You can't get it at a community health center. Remember, there are 13,000 community health centers providing the broad range, the truly broad range, of health care, not health care that you have to leave, by the way. Maybe you approach some age, you are younger than some age, and you don't go to Planned Parenthood because it is not comprehensive care. Community health centers are. They were designed that way. The Affordable Care Act I am no particular fan of. But the fact of the matter is it set these up to be truly comprehensive primary care centers. And there are 20 times as many as there are Planned Parenthoods. And you know what? My community health center in my district, if you call today, they are actually open. If you call tomorrow, they are open. But Planned Parenthood isn't. If you call Thursday, Planned Parenthood is open for 7\1/2\ hours. My community health center is open 8\1/2\ hours. If you call Friday, you are out of luck with Planned Parenthood. Madam Speaker, we are paying Planned Parenthood to keep an empty office open that doesn't even provide comprehensive care in my clinic. Now, the gentlewoman from New York said that, in this bill, you could not provide an abortion. That is nonsense. Read the bill. It says, as long as you provide abortions consistent with the Hyde amendment--that is a rape or incest exclusion or the life of the mother. In fact, the gentlewoman was wrong. She said lives are threatened. No, Madam Speaker. If lives are threatened, specifically, this bill says the State can choose to fund that provider and can do that. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is Planned Parenthood--there is only one thing that it does that you don't get--again, I will reiterate-- that you don't get--in a community health center. You can get an abortion usually at any stage of pregnancy for any reason, and you can get your baby's body parts sold in the trafficking of body parts that we saw in those films. Are those films doctored? They are not doctored. Anyone can go look on the Web site. They are raw footage. People are talking about a Lamborghini from the profits of baby body parts. If that isn't repulsive to us, what is? All this bill does is it allows States to defund that.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, curing disease and suffering is something that even this Congress can agree on on both sides of the aisle. This is obvious from tonight's debate. Preventative measures are important, but there are still diseases that we don't understand how to prevent, much less treat. And the purpose of the cure and innovation fund is, in fact, to accelerate the discovery. Before I came here, I did research on diseases. Is there anyone in the country who doesn't believe that we will cure diseases like Alzheimer's or ALS? It is only a matter of time and the investments that we place in it. As the gentlewoman from Colorado stated, we have a lot of the pieces in place in order to create these tremendous new discoveries, and this bill gets us on the path. There is going to be a lot of talk about cost on the floor, but the cost of these diseases is not just measured in dollars. The cost is measured in families in ways that you can't measure in dollars. Any family who treated a member with Alzheimer's disease, for instance, understands exactly what I mean by that. Now, a lot of those costs are huge. Alzheimer's alone, for instance, is hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid expenses over the next 10 years. If we can cure it, we can save those. Mr. Chairman, it is time to invest in those cures. We simply can't afford not to.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding educator and faithful public servant, Chancellor William ``Brit'' Kirwan, for his years of faithful dedication to the University System of Maryland. After 46 years as an exemplary advocate of educational excellence, Mr. Kirwan retired last month. I would like to thank him for his passion, dedication, and commitment to the students of Maryland. From his 24 years as a faculty member, to his decade serving as President of the University of Maryland, College Park, and on to his 12 year tenure as Chancellor of the Maryland University System, Chancellor Kirwan has touched and contributed to the lives of countless Marylanders. In addition to his stewardship of Maryland's institutions of higher education, Chancellor Kirwan has also been a national thought leader on a wide range of topics including innovation, academic transformation and higher education's role in economic development. Among others, Chancellor Kirwan has received the Carnegie Corporation Leadership Award, the Tech Council of Maryland's Lifetime Achievement Award in Education, the Regional Visionary Award from the Greater Baltimore Committee, and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce's Public Service Award. His achievements speak for themselves. Chancellor Kirwan's services have been greatly appreciated and his efforts will be sorely missed. I congratulate Chancellor Kirwan on his many accomplishments and wish him all the best in his retirement. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Chancellor William ``Brit'' Kirwan for his years of leadership and excellence in the education of Maryland's students.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, let's review what we have. What we have is a situation where last year it wasn't the DEA that held up the seeds; it was getting an import license. And then subsequent to that, obviously the DEA had to test those seeds. The U.S. Congress has set out a very clear plan for how we are going to increase the use of industrial hemp in this country, and it involves, first, pilot programs in States where it is legal, like Kentucky, like Oregon, but subject to the oversight under the Controlled Substances Act of the DEA. The DEA has to be certain, since all seeds are now imported. Eventually, under this plan, they won't be. Obviously, at some point we will progress to a point where our industrial hemp seeds are grown here in the United States, but they are not now. Importing seeds and testing them is not a quick process, but it is a process that has to be done. The fact of the matter is hemp and marijuana are both cannabis. They are related. You can't tell the seeds apart. You have to test these seeds. Our drug problem is serious. I am glad I don't have to do the job the DEA does dealing with controlling drugs that destroy lives in this country. Sure, is it a process that sometimes might take time? Yes. But that time is well worth taking. Down the road, we are going to get to the proper industrial hemp production. It has got to be done under controlled processes. The DEA has these in place. The Department of Agriculture has these protocols in place. State departments of agriculture do. This amendment is just unnecessary. And worse than that, it obscures the fact that it could tie DEA's hands from doing what it needs to do, which is controlling dangerous substances. I urge the body to reject the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, the job of the DEA is not simple. The job of the DEA is to stop drug use and drug abuse in the United States. Sometimes the job isn't easy. When it comes to hemp, the job is not easy because, Mr. Chairman, hemp and marijuana are both cannabis, and you can't tell the seeds from one another. And it may be difficult for the DEA to determine because they are supposed to determine that the seeds used for hemp are below a certain level of THC--less than 0.3-- and you can't tell by looking. You have to test and make certain that these seeds are in fact going to be used and qualify for the purposes of these pilot hemp programs. The fact of the matter is there really is no evidence that the DEA does not comply with Federal law. They are fully complying with Federal law. The author of the amendment himself admitted that the seeds were there in time for planting. The fact of the matter is that this is not an easy job. Under section 7606 of the 2014 farm bill, industrial hemp in pilot projects was authorized. Clearly, DEA licenses are not needed if they are granted through the State departments of agriculture or academic institutions. And the programs are proceeding. The fact of the matter is that this amendment obfuscates the distinction between marijuana and hemp. It partially ties the hands of DEA to do what they need to do, which is to function as controllers of drugs in this country. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. HARRIS. I object. I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36. Let's call this bill what it is--it is a late-term abortion ban. That is what it is, and a majority of Americans agree, Madam Speaker, that late-term abortions should be illegal in this country. Whether it is unconstitutional is not up for this body to determine. I believe the Supreme Court will rule that this is constitutional because there is a reason a majority of Americans believe that late- term abortions should be illegal--because that baby is developed at 20 weeks postfertilization, developed enough to perceive pain. That is how developed. It is developed enough to survive outside the womb. That is how developed. That is why a majority of Americans believe that that baby has rights as well. That is what we are here to do today. H.R. 36 preserves the rights of that baby to survive. I practiced OB anesthesia for over 20 years. I was always amazed that, in the labor and delivery suite, we would deliver 21-week postfertilization babies and that, down the corridor, they would abort them. This bill says that, if that baby being aborted is born alive, someone is going to actually resuscitate that baby. That is what we need, Madam Speaker. That is why I support H.R. 36.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran and a physician and someone who has treated veterans, I appreciate the sacrifice our men and women in uniform have made and our duty to give them the best possible care. That means care based on real science, not promise, not hope, not conjecture, not politics, not as part of an agenda, but real science. The chairman says we should wait for good science and we should wait to hear from the experts. We don't need to wait. We have heard. Dr. Nora Volkow, the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the NIH, says medical marijuana, in the current state of medical knowledge, is not a good idea. There just isn't very good science behind what it works for and what it doesn't; so I agree, when good science is in hand, let's give doctors carte blanche to discuss that. That science isn't available. Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, this bill does nothing to advance the knowledge of science on this issue because it doesn't say we are going to sign veterans up for research so they can help other veterans answer the question of whether or not it helps. It doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't make it easier for them to enlist in research protocols to address the scientific questions. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee asked, Well, we should hear from the FDA; we should hear from DEA. We hear from all of them. They say medical marijuana is not scientifically based at this time. I have offered this to the Members, but the author of the amendment and I have been to the NIH. He knows my interest in getting to the bottom of what works and what doesn't. At this point in time, we are not doing our veterans a service. We could. If we asked to engage in more scientific research, we could do them a service. If this amendment, in fact, encouraged in any way, shape, or form further research on what works and what doesn't, we could be doing them a service. Sadly enough, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't; and that is why I oppose this effort--not helping our veterans, but this specific effort.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House Republicans rolled out next year's budget and laid out a clear plan to balance the budget in less than 10 years, cut $5.5 trillion in deficit spending, and fully repeal ObamaCare. It will work to cut waste and create a lean and effective government that truly works for the people. Every day, hardworking taxpayers across our Nation are forced to balance their budgets. It is about time that the Federal Government does the same. Over the last several years, we have seen reckless spending that is saddling future generations with massive amounts of debt. I want our children and grandchildren to have a better opportunity to succeed than we did, and on the current trajectory, that is just not possible. Unlike the budget President Obama submitted to Congress, the House budget calls for a fairer, simpler Tax Code and promotes job creation and a healthy economy. It will work to cut red tape that is suffocating our private employers, and it creates a more transparent and accountable government. It is time to put money back in the pockets of our hardworking American taxpayers, and this budget will do just that.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the floor leader for yielding the time. Madam Speaker, there is no amendment necessary to this rule. Three weeks ago, we passed a fully funded Department of Homeland Security. Except for the President's illegal actions, the entire rest of the Department is funded: TSA, the Coast Guard; all these critical things. Let's review how Congress really works. The House takes an action--we did 3 weeks ago--and then the Senate is supposed to take an action. What action did they take? Harry Reid and the Democrats have blocked three efforts to even debate the bill. They know if they didn't take that action, the Senate could debate the bill and they could strike those amendments. The Democrats are free to strike the amendments that we put on the bill that limit the President's illegal actions with regards to amnesty. They know they can. Madam Speaker, let's be honest. The last time the President shut down the government, 87 percent of DHS was fully funded. TSA was there. The Coast Guard was on the job. Yeah, there were some administrators who didn't go to work for a few days, but let me tell you, after the unemployment problem we have had in this country, there are a lot of people outside the Federal Government who don't go to work for a lot more days. That is not what the American people expect from us. The fact is that this bill is sitting over in the Senate. The President said 22 times he didn't have the authority to do what he did on amnesty. All we did is just made it quite clear the House position is he doesn't have the authority. So, we are not going to spend the money. We take article I seriously. We have the authority over spending, and if we think the President is taking an illegal action, we have the authority to withhold that funding--and that is what we did, fund the entire Department except for that one illegal activity the President is doing in violation of article I of the Constitution. It gives us the authority over the law. The President said he can't rewrite the law 22 times--and he did. We are just going to keep him to his word. He can't rewrite the law. The previous speaker said you can't do authorizations on appropriations. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We can correct the President's mistake in the bill. We did. That is the bottom line. The Democrat leadership in the Senate has blocked even debate on the bill. What kind of country are we when one party, the party that is really holding this bill hostage in the Senate--not the Republicans; it is the Democrats--refuses to even debate the bill? I am shocked. Americans expect the Senate to debate. That is what we are asking them to do. That is what they are not doing. I don't understand that. Why don't they want the Homeland Security bill to be funded? I don't get it. Madam Speaker, I will close by saying we just need to move the motion on the previous question, pass the rule, and build the Keystone pipeline.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this year, House Republicans have hit the ground running in addressing harmful and outdated policies that have hindered job growth and hurt the American economy over the last several years. One of our first priorities has been to pass a bill to build the Keystone pipeline, which I hope will have final passage here later today. It has been 6 years since the original Keystone pipeline application was submitted--6 long years where we would have increased job creation, energy security, lowered energy costs, and built a stronger economy. It is time to take action where this administration has failed to and move forward with the Keystone pipeline, an issue that has broad bipartisan support and will create jobs and positively impact hardworking families across the country. We plan on getting a lot done this Congress, and our top priority will be kick-starting our stalled economy. House Republicans remain focused on creating good-paying jobs, growing our economy, and ensuring that every hardworking American has the opportunity to succeed.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, one area of unfinished business for the 113th Congress is comprehensive tax reform, which would have given us the chance to reduce the burden of the Internal Revenue Code on families and businesses and would have stimulated economic growth. Recognizing that tax reform is an issue that the 114th Congress should prioritize, I am introducing today a bill that offers a creative solution to the problems associated with the current federal estate tax. I want to note at the outset that I was an early cosponsor of Congressman Brady's legislation to repeal the estate tax. However, as part of the tax reform process, Members of the Ways and Means Committee have demonstrated a willingness to consider a variety of policy suggestions and thus, in the interest of stimulating discussion, I am introducing the American Solution for Simplifying the Estate Tax Act of 2014, the ``ASSET Act.'' As I will explain further, the ASSET Act is intended to be a revenue-neutral solution that would provide a new voluntary simplified method for Americans with large estates to pay a fair share of taxes but without any of the distortive, inefficient effects created by the current method of collecting the estate tax. The origins of the current federal estate tax arise out of the need to fund World War I and enactment of the Revenue Act of 1916. In that respect, this law has outlived its original purpose. It might come as a surprise to some that over the past 50 years, the much-debated federal estate tax has generated only around one percent of total federal tax collections and in 2013 brought in $14 billion, or around 4/10th of a percent of total tax revenue. When one considers the distortive effects of the current estate tax and the disproportionately low amount of revenue actually raised, it is incumbent upon us to identify more appropriate policy solutions. The case for reform is dramatically illustrated by reviewing the data cited by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) in its May 2006 study and updated in a July, 2012 study issued by the Republican staff of the JEC. The 2006 study indicated that individuals' costs of complying with the estate tax (avoiding wealth transfer taxes) roughly equals the revenue yield of the estate tax for the Treasury. Both studies demonstrated that the costs of the estate tax includes tens of millions of dollars of compliance costs, a substantial reduction in the capital stock of our economy, reduced savings/increased consumption, and the dissolution of family-run businesses. The 2006 study cited the Congressional Budget Office in saying that many estates that owed estate taxes had a tax liability in excess of their liquid assets, which is a key reason why many family-run businesses are liquidated prematurely or sold at firesale prices after the death of the primary owner. One example of this problem is Maryland resident Jack Fitzgerald. Jack is a successful owner of a number of automobile dealerships. He has explained to me and to many others in Congress that he is kept up at night by concerns that he will pass away and that his heirs will have to liquidate his thriving small businesses in order to pay the federal estate tax. He routinely mentions the 1200 employees whose livelihoods depend to a great extent on him and his managers. To prevent against the risk of a forced liquidation, Jack says that he pays nearly $700,000 annually in life insurance premia so that his estate would have enough funds to cover the IRS tax liability. Those are funds that he could be reinvesting in his business, his employees, or otherwise using productively if the current estate tax were not looming in the distance. We all know of farmers, ranchers, and other family-run businesses that have to consider selling at an inopportune time in order to ensure that the tax man will get his share. One famous example was captured in the film, ``Secretariat,'' when the horse's owner almost has to sell him and the entire horse farm to pay the estate taxes after the patriarch's death, but she creatively developed an innovative syndication scheme to raise the $6 million and to keep the trailblazing horse and the farm within the family My office has received letters in support of the ASSET Act from a diverse group of Marylanders, including a CPA, the owner of a minority/ woman-owned public relations and advertising firm, the president of a general contracting firm, and the Maryland Auto Dealers Association. One gentleman, who is a farmer who also owns an agricultural business, wrote that ``the present federal estate tax law is very detrimental for businesses (whether it be a farm or other operating business) to pass onto the next generation. During my lifetime I have seen many hardworking farmers and business owners' lifetime work be sold upon their death in order to pay for the inheritance tax. This is a bad situation for creating and keeping jobs and it also creates a real hardship on families.'' Responding to their concerns and others I have heard on numerous occasions when meeting with constituents, the ASSET Act offers a new, simplified approach that will solve permanently the problems with the current estate tax. It permits individual taxpayers to opt-in to a new system in which death would no longer be a taxable event. By taking the uncertainty of death out of the question of how and when assets should be liquidated, the ASSET Act will contribute to economic growth and preserve the stability of companies. Small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and others will not have to live their lives fearing the tax liability imposed under the existing estate tax and will not have to dismantle profitable companies, sell farms and ranches, over-purchase life insurance, and waste their money on lawyers and accountants with sheltering strategies. Under the ASSET Act, individuals could make a ``down payment'' on their estate taxes during their earning years and then the government would rely upon traditional capital gains taxes to generate revenue from estate assets when sold. In the current draft of the ASSET Act, a taxpayer may ``opt in'' to this approach by agreeing to pay an additional one percent of his/her AGI each year. (If, based on Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimates, the one percent rate needs to be adjusted to ensure revenue neutrality over time, that would be possible prior to enactment.) Once in the system, these payments must continue through the earning life of the taxpayer, but no tax will be levied against the estate of such a taxpayer at his death. His or her assets remain intact until they are sold, at which time they will be subject to capital gains tax at the then current rate Taxpayers must pay the I percent fee for a minimum of seven years before they can take full advantage of the ASSET Act system. There are several primary reasons to support the ASSET Act. As noted earlier, owners of small and medium sized businesses could better plan for the orderly succession of their companies and preserve critically needed jobs. This can avoid forcing the heirs to liquidate the company at just the wrong time, destroying the business and eliminating jobs. And, the government can avoid losing significant capital gains tax revenue that it would have realized had the asset been sold at the right economic opportunity in the future. The ASSET Act solves those concerns and ensures stability for vital engines of our economy. The ASSET Act will help reduce tax avoidance scheming. Current law exempts estates that are worth less than $5 million for an individual or $10 million for a couple. However, it does not solve the liquidation problem for large estates, which will pay 40% on amounts above those levels. Individuals with very large estates or who expect to accrue such large estates now spend a great deal of time and significant money on strategies to shelter their assets from the estate tax. When these strategies are successful, the government receives nothing. That is why, historically, estate tax revenues have comprised only 1% of total federal tax revenues and 2.47% of the AGI of taxpayers earning more than $1 million per year. The ASSET Act eliminates the incentive to hide assets from the IRS and to engage in unproductive strategies and avoidance schemes, so individuals will ``stay within the system'' and contribute their fair share of taxes to the Treasury. The ASSET Act is intended to be revenue neutral and would offset the revenue loss of eliminating the current estate tax collection methodology for some taxpayers by imposing a very small annual prepayment surcharge and by capturing the benefits of increased capital gains tax revenues that would occur over time as estate assets are sold. I encourage my colleagues to study the ASSET Act and to work with me to ensure that as the next Congress considers comprehensive tax reform proposals, we leave no stone unturned in the effort to rectify the problems associated with the current estate tax.