Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on December 11, the G8 convened a dementia summit in London to examine and presumably harmonize the various national action plans on the growing international crisis of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The outcome appears to indicate a coalescing around the U.S. plan to make significant headway on addressing dementia by 2025, which would have significant implications globally, particularly in low and middle-income countries where increasing aging populations and numbers of people with dementia strain limited resources. On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Alzheimer's Project Act (NAPA), requiring the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the National Alzheimer's Project. Among other provisions of that law, the administration was mandated to: create and maintain an integrated national plan to overcome Alzheimer's disease; coordinate Alzheimer's disease research and services across all federal agencies; accelerate the development of treatments that would prevent, halt, or reverse the course of Alzheimer's disease; improve early diagnosis and coordination of care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease; improve outcomes for ethnic and racial minority populations that are at higher risk for Alzheimer's disease; and coordinate with international bodies to fight Alzheimer's globally. That congressionally-mandated plan apparently found favor with the G8, which endorsed that plan as being comprehensive and forward- looking. But even before the summit, the U.S. national plan on Alzheimer's led nearly a dozen other nations to adopt their own national strategies. According to the testimony at this subcommittee's November 21, 2013 pre-summit hearing, this comprehensive approach is vital to meeting what is a looming global health crisis. The World Health Organization and Alzheimer's Disease International 2012 Dementia Report estimates that there were 35.6 million people with dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, worldwide in 2010. This number is projected to nearly double every 20 years, increasing to 65.7 million in 2030 and 115.4 million in 2050. The global cost of this condition totaled $604 billion in 2010, according to the Alzheimer's Disease International. To put this figure in context, Alzheimer's cost would equal the Gross Domestic Product of the 18th-place country in the world ranked by GDP. While the other G8 countries may pledge funding to address Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia in the developing world, we are facing an impending global health crisis over Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The FY2014 federal budget request for U.S.-funded global health programs was $8.3 billion. The focus is on achieving an AIDS-free generation and ending preventable child and maternal deaths through the Administration's Global Health Initiative. Under this budget, maternal and child health would receive $680 million, malaria program would receive $670 million, tuberculosis programs would receive $191 million, neglected tropical disease programs would receive $85 million and pandemic influenza and other emerging threats programs would receive $47 million. WHO estimates that more than half of global dementia cases are in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where cases are projected to grow. Across Asia, Latin America and Africa, these developing countries are expected to see the most rapid growth in dementia cases over the next several decades. In 2010, roughly 53% of dementia cases were in low- and middle-income countries. By 2050, WHO expects 70% of all cases to be found in such countries. So how will this impact our foreign aid portfolio, especially as regards global health? We need to better understand the level of international cooperation our government can expect in the search for early detection techniques, prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. There has been collaboration among scientists across borders on HIV/ AIDS, but how much can we expect on the various forms of dementia? Many countries in the developing world don't even have surveillance adequate to provide reliable statistics on the incidence of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Given the negative impact of the brain drain, they may not be able to be the active, effective partners we need them to be in this area. However, without their help, it will be difficult to even formulate programs to help such nations cope with this growing health threat. These are questions we addressed at a recent hearing. The administration was unable to participate in my subcommittee's November 21, 2013 hearing on the subject, but we recently had the head of the National Institute on Aging to provide the administration's view on what the summit produced. We were also joined by two representatives from the NGO community who participated in the London summit to give us a private sector view of those proceedings. We will need more than rhetoric to deal with this crisis. As more of us live longer worldwide, the threat of developing Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia grows exponentially. We cannot afford to have a robust domestic program to fight this condition and find that our international efforts are undermined by the failure of other donors to play their proper role in this effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to thank Virginia Foxx for her extraordinary leadership on behalf of the weakest and the most vulnerable among us. Madam Speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates, or chemically poisons an unborn child to death, Americans have consistently demanded that public funds not pay for abortion. I would note parenthetically--and we just saw this last week--since 1973, some 56 million babies, unborn babies, have been killed by abortion, a number, a death toll that equates with the entire population of England. Madam Speaker, a huge majority--well over 60 percent according to the most polls--show that women and men in this country don't want to be complicit in abortion by subsidizing it. A December 2009 Quinnipiac poll found that 72 percent opposed allowing abortion to be paid for by public funds under health care reform. Another poll asked: If the choice were up to you, would you want your own insurance policy to include abortion? Sixty-nine percent of women said no. Madam Speaker, this is because an ever-growing number of people recognize that abortion isn't health care; it kills babies and it hurts women. We live in an age of ultrasound imaging: the ultimate window to the womb and the child who resides there. We are in the midst of a fetal health revolution, an explosion of benign life-affirming interventions designed to diagnose, treat, and cure the precious lives of these youngest patients. Abortion is the antithesis of health care. H.R. 7 will help save lives and it will reduce abortions. The Judiciary Committee report accompanying H.R. 7 notes that the high demand has saved over 1 million children, and the number is probably far larger because one in four women who would have had procured an abortion don't go through with it if public funding isn't available. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals: One, make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibition permanent; Two, ensure that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President; And three, provide full disclosure, transparency, and the prominent display of the extent to which any health care insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. Madam Speaker, in the runup to passage of the Affordable Care Act, America was repeatedly assured by President Obama himself, including in a speech to a joint session of Congress in September of 2009, that: ``Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.'' On March 24, 2010, President Obama issued an executive order that said the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Nothing could have been clearer. That seemed to be ironclad. As far as my colleagues will recall, the Hyde amendment has two principles: it not only prohibits direct funding for abortion, but also bans funding for insurance plans that include abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. We now know that the Hyde amendment principles have not been extended to the newly created health insurance exchanges. H.R. 7 seeks to correct that. Under the Affordable Care Act, Madam Speaker, massive amounts of public funds in the form of tax credits are today paying for, and will soon pay for, insurance plans that include elective abortion. That violates the Hyde amendment and that violates the President's solemn promise. As we all know, the new law is poised to give billions of dollars-- they call them tax credits--directly to insurance companies on behalf of people who purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office counts the cost of these so-called tax credits under the ACA as either direct spending or revenue reductions. Direct spending involves funds taken from where? The Treasury, to subsidize health insurance coverage. According to the CBO, the ACA premium assistance credits will cost the Federal Government $796 billion over 10 years. Absent repeal or reform of the law, taxpayers will then be forced to foot the bill for abortion. Again, an overwhelming percentage of the people have consistently polled they don't want to be complicit in the taking of human life.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership. Madam Speaker, let me again convey to my colleagues the fact that H.R. 7 seeks to make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent. Just a couple of weeks ago, as part of the omnibus bill, Members on both sides of the aisle voted to renew the pro-life riders for another year. Title I of H.R. 7 are those separate riders made permanent. That is all it is. Secondly, it ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms to the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United States. As the previous speaker just said, she believes it comports with the Hyde amendment. It doesn't. The Hyde amendment is made up of two parts, I remind my colleagues: direct funding for abortion and no funds to any insurance policy, any coverage, any plan that includes abortion. It couldn't be simpler. It is right there in the Hyde amendment. It has been there year in and year out. I would note, parenthetically, that I authored the ban on funding for abortions in the Federal Employees Health Benefit program. We mirrored the language of the Hyde amendment so that today every single insurance plan in the FEHB does not include abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother, just like the Hyde amendment. Let me also say to my colleagues that we need transparency. There is a galling lack of transparency in ObamaCare on a myriad of fronts, including whether or not a plan includes abortion. In my own State of New Jersey, we tried and tried and took hours upon hours and finally found out that of the 31 plans offered in the State, 14 plans subsidized abortion on demand. Yet none of the plans--not one--makes this information available to the consumers shopping online. Ditto for State after State. You can't find out. When you make those phone calls, you get conflicting feedback from the person on the other side, who himself or herself doesn't know either. Every single ObamaCare plan in Connecticut and Rhode Island includes abortion on demand. Every single one. You may be happy with that, but we see that as the taking of human life. I remind my colleagues, look at what abortion does to the unborn child. The baby is either dismembered, chemically poisoned, or decapitated. The methods are horrific, and we live in a culture of denial that does not want to look at the method. It also is highly injurious of women, especially on the intermediate and long-term basis, as relates to psychological health. Let me also say to my colleagues as well: Do you want to know what ObamaCare is doing? Just look at our own plan. Look at the DC Health Link, our own portable health insurance. Of the 112 plans that you and I and our staff can obtain, 103 of those plans are subsidized by Federal dollars, completely in violation of the Hyde amendment--and my amendment, frankly. Only nine plans are pro-life. And 103 of those plans that you and I can buy pay for abortion on demand. Just look at the facts. The rhetoric that is so attacking of our side on the issue--I believe in talking about the issue and not attacking my friends and colleagues, and I do count so many as close personal friends, but when it comes to this issue, we need to talk about victims. I work with a lot of women. I know a lot of women who are post-abortive. They are in need of help and reconciliation. Abortion is the abandonment of women and also the destruction of a child. ObamaCare has not lived up to its promise. H.R. 7 gets it to the point where it does so.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for her leadership and her very eloquent remarks. My friend from New York talked about a narrow agenda and a narrow perspective. More than 60 percent of every poll, in the case of one poll, 69 percent of all women in the United States of America say they do not want their funds being used to subsidize abortion on demand. Let me remind my colleagues that this legislation accomplishes three goals: One, it makes the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent. We just reauthorized all of those riders just a few weeks ago. This just makes them permanent; Ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms to the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United States; And provides full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display that is absolutely lacking right now of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. Madam Speaker, the President of the United States stood about 10 feet from where I am standing right now back in September of 2009 and told a joint session of Congress: Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. The executive order that was issued in March of 2010 said, and I quote, that the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. It is absolutely not true. As my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has two parts. It prohibits direct funding for abortion, and it bans funding to any insurance coverage, any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Earlier speakers have said not a penny will go to pay for abortion. Yet under the Affordable Care Act, massive amounts of public funds-- what are they if they are not public? They are public funds coming out of the U.S. Treasury in the forms of tax credits. That is the word used. $796 billion in direct spending, over 10 years, according to CBO, will pay for insurance plans, many, perhaps most of which will include elective abortions, abortion on demand. Madam Speaker, that massively violates the Hyde amendment. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are for the Hyde amendment and you are comporting with the Hyde amendment when you violate it in such a way. Let me also point out to my colleagues that there are many States where pro-life individuals and constituents will have no opportunity to buy a plan that is pro-life on the exchanges. That includes Connecticut and Rhode Island. Every plan is abortion-on-demand, so their premium dollars, your tax dollars and mine, will be combining to buy plans that provide for abortion-on-demand. In 2014, Madam Speaker, we have learned so much about the magnificent life of an unborn child. Increasingly, we have also learned about the deleterious effects that abortions have on women, psychologically, the children born subsequently to them and, of course, to other aspects of their physical health. Please support H.R. 7.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Michelle Coyoti-Varela, Joyce Falotico, Morgan Fuerbacher, Jacqueline Hennessy, Adriana Poznanski, and Francesca Poznanski of Girl Scout Troop 1701 of Middletown, New Jersey for their breast cancer prevention and awareness campaign. Their national initiative, ``Do It For Your Daughter,'' encourages moms to get mammograms so as to ensure and promote early detection, and if necessary, effective treatment. The National Cancer Institute estimates that in 2013 alone, 232,340 Americans were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 39,620 died as a result. Roughly one in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer sometime in their lifetime. For them and their loved ones, research and treatment provide hope as they fight the disease. Many survivors and their families commit to awareness campaigns as an opportunity to save lives and help others going forward. Each of one of these extraordinarily bright and articulate girls has had their life touched by someone who has had breast cancer. They realized this common thread during their Troop Health Walk while discussing what they could accomplish as a troop--and how they could change the world for the better. Through research and meetings with health experts, they learned that early detection can be key to survival. When breast cancer is detected at the localized stage--confined to the primary site--the five year relative survival rate is 98.6%. As the stage of the cancer progresses, the relative survival rate drops. This knowledge led the girls to film a public service announcement (PSA) urging mothers everywhere to have mammograms done--if not for themselves, for their daughters. The PSA has played for several months on several TV channels, and the girls have appeared on shows like Good Day New York to spread their message. Through their campaign, the girls of Troop 1701 are educating us all--men and women--about the importance of early detection. I hosted the girls in my office after they reached out to me about the project. Let me tell you, these are impressive young citizens. They are incredibly passionate and smart, and they truly are making a difference, both in our home state of New Jersey and across the county. The girls have already heard from dozens of mothers--and others--who have scheduled their mammograms after seeing the PSA. A number of organizations, both national and local--the American Cancer Society and Meridian Health of New Jersey, to name a couple--have joined the girls on the initiative. The girls have implemented their campaign in a number of creative ways. They held the inaugural ``Jam for the Exam'' Health Fair at their school, attracting 400 attendees who were able to meet with health professionals and learn valuable health tips. It was there that they launched their ``Pinkie Promise'' campaign, having mothers sign a banner, making a pinkie promise to their daughters that they will get their mammograms done. The girls were recently honored at the annual Girl Scouts delegate meeting where--after presenting their PSA and receiving a standing ovation--they received their Bronze Award in front of the New Jersey Delegates. It is the highest honor a Junior Girl Scout can achieve. As a fellow scout--a boy scout and Eagle Scout--I know that these girls exemplify the scout traits of courage, confidence, character, and citizenship. This coming March, the girls will receive a further honor when they receive The Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore's first-ever Junior Women of Distinction Award. The Woman of Distinction Award was traditionally reserved for adult women in the state and local community for making a positive impact. The award is certainly well deserved, and these girls are just getting started. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the girls of Girl Scout Troop 1701--Michelle Coyoti-Varela, Joyce Falotico, Morgan Fuerbacher, Jacqueline Hennessy, Adriana Poznanski, and Francesca Poznanski--for their truly impressive efforts in the fight against breast cancer. They are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of our Special Order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her very eloquent remarks and for her leadership on behalf of the unborn and their mothers. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mrs. Roby, thank you very much for, again, underscoring the viable option that is available and that is far too seldom selected, and that is the loving option of adoption. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Latta, thank you very much for your leadership and for your compassion for the weakest and most vulnerable. I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Dan Lipinski, the cochair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend and colleague for his leadership, for standing so strong, and for reminding everyone about the importance of the crisis pregnancy centers, which are a lifeline to so many women who might otherwise abort and make that irreversible decision. So thank you for underscoring that. I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Nebraska, who has also been a tremendous leader in the cause of life and human rights in general.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for his very, very eloquent remarks. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Michele, for those very sensitive remarks. I really appreciate your leadership. I now yield to my friend and colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much. That story about Sloan was great. I would like to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Missouri, a former U.S. Ambassador, Ann Wagner.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your very eloquent comments. I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Tim Walberg.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. I would now like to yield to Randy Hultgren, the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, I say to my friend from Illinois. I would like to now yield to Mr. Huelskamp.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Huelskamp, thank you very much. And thank you for your work on the Pro-life Caucus. You have really stepped up, and it is deeply appreciated by all of us. Thank you so very much. I would like to now yield to, we have a number of pro-life doctors in the U.S. House of Representatives, and we have two with us today. First, beginning with the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Dr. Roe, for your very kind remarks, but more importantly, for your witness for life, particularly as an OB/GYN and for delivering those 5,000 babies. I would like to now yield to another doctor, Dr. Andy Harris, the gentleman from Maryland, who works often at Johns Hopkins, and a great defender of life and an eloquent spokesman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much. I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamborn. I'd like to now yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for his very, very wise comments and very eloquent comments. I would like to now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend. I would like to now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Pittenger. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).