Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of the Servicemember Family Protection Act, H.R. 4201, a bill introduced by my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Turner). Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's servicemembers continue to endure long deployments overseas, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is there to protect their interests at home. At its core, SCRA ensures that servicemembers have certain protections in the event that military service impedes their ability to meet certain financial and legal obligations. Although the current SCRA covers everything from mortgages to cell phone contracts, it simply fails to protect one uniform framework for protecting servicemembers' rights under child custody actions by State courts. This bill would protect these rights by amending the SCRA to require that if a court gives temporary custody of a servicemember's child to someone else because of the servicemember's deployment, the servicemember has the opportunity to have the previous custody order reinstated upon their return. This would occur unless the court determines that such a move would not be in the best interest of a child. The bill would also prohibit courts from considering the absence or potential absence of a servicemember from being considered as part of the court's determination of the child's best interest. Finally, my colleagues, the bill ensures that if higher protections than that provided by the bill, H.R. 4201, exist under any State law, then the higher standard should be applied. Mr. Speaker, in previous Congresses, Members have received anecdotal evidence of servicemembers having to make the difficult decision of choosing between their military career and the legal custody of their children because of rulings made by courts that took their military service into account when assigning custody of the child. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our servicemembers who stand guard in constant defense of our liberties should never have to make this choice. That is why this bill's revisions to SCRA are so critically important to unit morale and our Nation as a whole. So I want to again thank Mr. Turner from Ohio for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Jeff Miller and Ranking Member Mr. Filner for their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on H.R. 4201.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4201) to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I'll close using such time as I may consume to say: This is a very important bill. Mr. Turner just touched on something that I think I want to bring up again. This, the language in this bill, has passed the House on seven separate occasions, six times as part of the House National Defense Authorization Act in FY 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and once, my colleagues, as a stand-alone bill by voice vote in 2008. And all the while, this bill has had strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, if I can, I urge the United States Senate that, upon passage today, our colleagues over there simply take up this bill and the 10 other bills that the Veterans' Committee has passed through our committee and the House and pass those also. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It streamlines, as mentioned, eight separate congressionally mandated reports into one, a single comprehensive report. As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, as Mr. Scalise mentioned, I, along with Chairman Walden, have looked into the backlog and workload of the FCC. In a report we released in November, we found that annual reports to Congress, such as the Satellite Competition Report and Video Programming Report, have not been completed in years. This is just disconcerting, particularly since the Telecom Act of 1996 was designed with a deregulatory slant-- requiring the FCC to conduct these competition reports to determine whether regulation was indeed necessary. How can the FCC appropriately make these decisions and regulate an industry it has not comprehensively analyzed in more than 4 years? This bill is aimed at reducing some reporting burdens on the FCC to ensure that these annual reports are just that--they are simply reported annually. At the same time, this bill encourages the agency in today's age of convergence to analyze competition in the marketplace as a whole, rather than based on archaic technology-specific silos. We no longer need to consider the Internet, satellite, and cable industries in a vacuum, as they compete head to head in most markets across this country. In 1992, when we passed the Cable Act, cable occupied about 96 percent of the market. The FCC's most recent data cable now only occupies about a third of this market, competing with FIOS, satellite, Netflix, and the Internet. The report that looks at the marketplace as a whole will inform both the FCC and Congress more sufficiently, and it's a long time due. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation, and I appreciate its authors.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the authorization of the FDA user fees will simply provide stability at FDA's new product review as companies submit new and innovative devices and drugs for their approval. I'm especially proud that in this bill I had a piece of legislation called the Faster Access to Specialized Treatments--FAST--Act, which is H.R. 4132. It was included in the FDA Reform Act. This act modernizes the FDA accelerated approval pathways to reflect the 20 years of science developed since accelerated approval was first established in 1992. So think of that: since 1992, with this bill that I've included in our FDA bill, it will accelerate approval through the FDA. It will simply allow new drugs to get to market faster for people who are suffering from rare diseases. There are 30 million Americans suffering from one of over 7,000 rare diseases, but only 250 currently have any treatment. This act will save lives. I would like to enter, Mr. Speaker, this letter of support for FAST signed by over 150 rare-disease groups into the Record. I'm also glad that the FDA Reform Act includes the Expanding and Promoting Expertise in Review of Rare Treatments Act, EXPERRT Act, H.R. 4156. This will help FDA consult with medical experts when evaluating drugs dealing with rare disease such as cystic fibrosis. As the cofounder of the Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, I'm glad we're giving this tool to the FDA. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of the FDA Reform Act. March 23, 2012. Hon. Cliff Stearns, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Edolphus Towns, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressmen Stearns & Towns: On behalf of patients, physicians, and other members of the health advocacy community we are writing to express our support for H.R. 4132, the Faster Access to Specialized Treatments (FAST) Act. This legislation will modernize and expand the FDA's Accelerated Approval pathway to encompass a broader range of diseases and leverage 21st century drug development tools and strategies. This reform will speed the approval of much- needed therapies and cures to patients who are facing serious and life-threatening conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, neuromuscular disease and hundreds of rare diseases that remain untreated. We commend you for championing legislation that maintains the FDA's high standard for approval while at the same time ensuring the Agency can help facilitate the development of new and novel therapies to patients in a more timely manner. In many cases our patients have no available treatment for their diseases, or they are using a therapy that is older and may not work as effectively and safely. This is not acceptable. We believe that this legislation will ensure patients receive the best, modern treatment as soon as possible and we applaud your efforts on their behalf. Thank you for your leadership on this important bill and we look forward to working with you as it moves forward. Sincerely, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs; Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness, Inc.; Affiliated American CSA Foundation; Alliance for Aging Research; Alliance for Patient Access; American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association; American Brain Tumor Association; American Childhood Cancer Organization; American College of Medical Genetics; American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering; American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology; Batten Disease Support and Research Association; Break Through Cancer Coalition; Californians for Cures; Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University; Celiac Sprue Association; Charcot- Marie-Tooth Association (CMTA); Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation, Inc.; Chinese American Association of Greater Chicago; Coalition Duchenne; Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis; Colon Cancer Alliance; Cooleys Anemia Foundation; Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America; Cryoglobulinemia Vasculitis Organization; CureDuchenne; CurePSP; Digestive Disease National Coalition; Erik Metzler Foundation; EveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases; Fabry Support & Information Group; Georgia PKU Connect; GIST Support International; Hadley Hope Fund; Hannah's Hope Fund; Hayden's Batten Disease Foundation Inc.; HealthHIV; Hope4Bridget Foundation; ICE Epilepsy Alliance; I Have IIH; In Need of Diagnosis, Inc. (INOD); Inspire; International Cancer Advocacy Network (ICAN); Jacob's Cure, Inc.; Jain Foundation Inc.; Jonah's Just Begun-Foundation to Cure Sanfilippo Inc.; LAM Treatment Alliance; LGS Foundation; Liddy Shriver Sarcoma Initiative; Little Miss Hannah Foundation; Lung Cancer Alliance; Lupus Foundation of America; Lymphangiomatosis & Gorham's Disease Alliance (LGDA); Lymphatic Malformation Institute (LMI); Macular Degeneration Support, Inc.; Madisons Foundation; Midwest Asian Health Association (MAHA); MLD Foundation; Mpdsupport.org--Myeloproliferative Disease Support; Muscular Dystrophy Association; National Family Caregivers Association; National MPS Society; National MS Society; National Niemann-Pick Disease Foundation, Inc.; National PKU Alliance; National Tay- Sachs & Allied Diseases Association; National Venture Capital Association; NBIA Disorders Association; New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research; NKH International Family Network; Noah's Hope--Batten Disease Fund; Oxalosis and Hyperoxaluria Foundation; Pachyonychia Congenita Project; Parkinson's Action Network; Parry- Romberg Syndrome Resource, Inc.; Partnership for Cures; Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation; RARE Project; Russell-Silver Syndrome Support; Scleroderma Research Foundation; Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Inc.; Society for Women's Health Research; Solving Kids' Cancer; Student Society for Stem Cell Research; Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndromes (SADS) Foundation; Taylor's Tale; The Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (AFTD); The Children's Medical Research Foundation, Inc.; The Erythromelalgia Association; The Focus Foundation; The Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Children's Hospital Boston; The Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association (RSDSA); The Stop ALD Foundation; Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; Veterans Health Council; VHL Family Alliance; Vietnam Veterans of America; ZERO--The Project to End Prostate Cancer.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Let me say to the gentlelady and to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Nadler: This is a war on ethics or WOE. You talk about a war on women. This is a war on ethics. Woe to you if you vote against this bill. Mr. Nadler was down here talking about this bill and how he's going to vote against it. But let me ask you: Is there anybody in this Chamber that wants to vote against sex-selection abortion? Is that what you want to do? The coercion of sex-selection abortion, is that what you want to do? The solicitation or acceptance of funds for sex- selection abortion, you want to vote against that? And lastly, the transportation of a woman into the country to obtain a sex-selection abortion, you want to vote against that? Woe to you. War on ethics. This is wrong for you to do that. In a recent letter, the Planned Parenthood has once again chosen to put profits before women's well-being and is encouraging Members of Congress to oppose this legislation, reinforcing sex discrimination and positioning the United States of America as a safe haven for those who cannot legally acquire a sex-selection abortion in their own home countries. But this is not surprising, considering Planned Parenthood's record. As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have led an investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of the more than $1 million of Federal funds they receive every day and their compliance with sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws. This was the first ever such investigation in Planned Parenthood's history. Planned Parenthood has an extensive and well-documented record of improper Medicaid billing practices--all of you know that; you can go to the State of California and New York and read about those indictments--and violating State sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws and of encouraging young girls to simply lie about their ages to circumvent State reporting laws. These four things in this bill, woe to you--war on ethics--if you vote against this bill. And I am just amazed that people of strong religious belief would come on this floor and say that you're going to believe that sex-selection abortion is okay. I can't even comprehend what you're doing. So let me just close by saying I encourage all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support this lifesaving legislation and ban sex-selection abortions and to send a clear message that each and every girl is valued in our society. My colleagues, with passage of this critical legislation, the United States will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in prohibiting the barbaric practice of using abortion as a method of sex selection. It is astounding that in a country that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in various contexts, such as employment, education, and housing, it is legal to abort a child simply because she's a girl. Pure and simple, these abortions are female infanticide. The victims of sex-selection abortion are overwhelmingly female, and most sex- selection abortions are grisly, later-term abortions, likely occurring after the child becomes capable of feeling pain. In a recent letter, Planned Parenthood has once again chosen to put profits before women's well-being and is encouraging Members of Congress to oppose this legislation, reinforcing sex discrimination and positioning the U.S. as a safe haven for those who cannot legally acquire a sex-selection abortion in their home countries. But this is not surprising considering Planned Parenthood's record. A recent undercover investigation by Live Action once again exposed Planned Parenthood's hypocrisy and anti-life ideology by showing a Planned Parenthood facility located in Austin, Texas knowingly facilitating the sex-selective abortion of a baby girl. Even going so far as to coach a late term abortion, in order to confirm that the baby was the unwanted sex. The video also shows the Planned Parenthood employee instructing a young woman about how to commit Medicaid fraud. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have led an investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of the more than $1 million federal dollars they receive everyday and their compliance with sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws. This was the first ever such investigation in Planned Parenthood's history. Planned Parenthood has an extensive and well-documented record of improper Medicaid billing practices, violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and of encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this life-saving legislation and ban sex-selective abortions and to send the clear message that each and every girl is valued in our society. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. But the point is that you folks are not accurately portraying what this bill does, so I support H.R. 4628. I agree with Secretary Sebelius, the slush fund will not affect women, families, and children.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague, and let me just say to the gentleman from California, who is just getting ready to leave the floor, when he mentioned that Republicans are going to prevent tobacco prevention of our youth today, he and I both know there is a separate program in CDC just for tobacco prevention and, in fact, in this so-called PPHF, which all of us have called a slush fund, which is the prevention and public health fund, there is, right now, $191.685 million for this spending for tobacco prevention. After this bill passes, there would be $109 million still remaining in this for that smoking and health component of CDC. I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, I mean, you're yelling fire and there's no fire. I mean, I can go through all these things to show you that your arguments are wrong. The fact that Sebelius, the head of the Health and Human Services, has said publicly--as the gentlelady from Alabama so eloquently pointed out-- she, in fact, pointed out that this so-called slush fund is not going to impact what Mr. Hoyer says, dealing with women, families, and children. They bring up Rep. Wiliam Natcher. Well, Mr. Natcher says it's very noble, very good, and you constantly use that. But I'm just going to take you through these different areas where you say that it's going to be unable to provide support for families and women and children. Cancer prevention and control, which includes breast and cervical cancer screening, it's funded at $205 million in the FY 2012 budget. The FY13 budget goes up to $261 million. It goes up almost $60 million. No prevention funds are being used for free cancer screening, and they will not be affected. Let's take birth defects and developmental disabilities. In FY 2012, the CDC birth defects program was $138 million. It's now going to be $125 million. Again, these funds would continue to receive discretionary funding. Nutrition, physical activity and obesity activities, again, will continue to receive funding, viral hepatitis screening, CDC health care statistics and surveillance, and, lastly, prevention and research center. All of these things, I say to the folks on this side, are going to continue to receive base discretionary funding. I challenge you, the gentleman from Massachusetts, to point out where in each of the ones I have talked about, all these programs are going to remain in existence. So how in the world can you come down to the floor and constantly say----

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week, April 17, was Tax Day, when all hardworking Americans must file their taxes with the Internal Revenue Service. Ironically enough, April 17 was also Tax Freedom Day, the day when Americans earn just about enough earned income to pay off the tax bill for all Federal, State, and local taxes. The first 111 days of the year, everything you and I, and all Americans earn went to fund the United States Federal Government, the same government that wasted $800,000 on a GSA conference with mind readers, commemorative coins, and bike building exercises, and the same government that thought giving half a billion dollars to Solyndra was a good idea. In 1900, Americans paid about 5.9 percent of their income in taxes, and Tax Freedom Day came about 22 days into the year. It is a far cry, my colleagues, from what we have to endure in taxes today. If you think 111 days to reach Tax Freedom Day is excessive, just wait till next year. We are on the cusp of a tax Armageddon. I like to call it a Taxmageddon. It's scheduled to hit on January 1, 2013. It will be the largest tax increase in memory, possibly ever, a $494 billion tax increase in 1 year. When we talk about taxes, we usually project the increase or decrease in revenue over a 10-year budget horizon. But this $494 billion tax increase isn't over a 10-year budget window; it is an immediate massive tax increase in 1 year. Where do these tax increases come from? There are a number of tax provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. Unless action is taken to extend these provisions or make them permanent, it will lead to an unheard of tax increase in January. About one-third of the tax increases will come from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts reduced the marginal rates for all Americans and expanded the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty, and increased the tax breaks for education costs. The majority of the tax benefits in these tax cuts were targeted towards the middle and lower income tax folks. About a quarter of the tax increases will come from the expiration of temporary payroll tax cuts that were created just 2 years ago. Another quarter of the tax increases will come from the expiration of the alternative minimum tax. With all of this talk about creating the Buffett rule, the President seems to forget that we already have the Buffett rule in the AMT. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensure that 155 high-income households paying zero Federal income taxes would pay income taxes. Unfortunately, it was never indexed to inflation. So more and more Americans become entangled in the AMT, and today the AMT threatens to hit most Americans in the middle class and is regularly patched to protect taxpayers, but never repealed. Unless it is dealt with, it will impact millions of middle class taxpayers. In 2013, we get a brand new tax, courtesy of ObamaCare. There will be a 3.8 percent tax on wages and salaries over $250,000 and investment income over that same amount. While this seems like it won't affect most people, this tax can apply to unearned income, like capital gains from selling your home, which will affect middle class families when they sell property. Like the AMT tax penalty, this tax is not indexed to inflation, which means that more and more Americans will be affected by this tax over time. We'll also see the return of the Death Tax to its pre-Bush levels, when the maximum rate can be 55 percent of your estate. I believe there should be no taxation without respiration; that is, you have to be breathing. It is wrong to tax a business or a family farm when it's transferred from parent to child. This tax has hurt family farms and family businesses where children have been forced to sell the business or farm because they could not afford to pay the Death Tax. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has referred to all these expiring tax provisions as a ``massive fiscal cliff.'' When we talk about taxes, we usually project the increases over 10 years, but this is going to be immediate in the year 2013, January 1. There has been a failure of leadership from the White House. The President's budget is full of election-year gimmicks and unwillingness to try to address the upcoming Taxmageddon. Instead, the President doubles-down on his election year rhetoric, he doesn't address expiring taxes, and instead proposes a slew of new taxes on American companies. You do not raise taxes during a recession. Raising taxes will halt what little economic growth we had over the last 3 years and return us to the days of double-digit unemployment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on May 18, 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama gave a speech where he mentioned that a number of our veterans had been apparently ``shortchanged.'' He went on to say: When a young man and woman goes off and serves the country in the military, they should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect when they come home. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposal seeks to further increase the cost for health care for our military retirees and all of our veterans. On October 1, 2011, TRICARE Prime annual enrollment fees were increased dramatically for new family enrollments and dramatically for new individual enrollments. In fiscal year 2013, the administration proposes additional fees and cost-sharing increases, a new annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life, increases in pharmacy copayments, and a catastrophic cap of $3,000 per family. Mr. Speaker, when our President promised our servicemembers change, I'm sure they didn't expect it would be ``shortchanged.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I'd just say that the 50 State laws are not allowing a physician to help. He has to mop the floors. I yield 45 seconds to Mr. Franks from Arizona. He's chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Conyers, the point is this is a Federal disaster, and a Federal disaster like Katrina, in which the Federal Government is involved, you want to have a bill that's a Federal bill.

Mr. STEARNS. The one thing I would say to the gentleman, this is not unlimited. As I pointed out, there are provisions to allow for stipulations. I yield 1 minute to the cosponsor on the Democrat side, Mr. Matheson from Utah.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have left on my side?

Mr. STEARNS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a very simple amendment today. It's the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Amendment. This amendment would allow trained medical professionals to volunteer across State lines to assist in Presidentially declared Federal disaster sites. My colleagues, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw firsthand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is a need to provide liability protection for these very experienced individuals. According to the Council of State Governments, the most pressing need immediately after Katrina was the availability of medical volunteers. However, out-of-state practitioners providing medical treatment face the real possibility of noncoverage under their medical malpractice policies. Those that volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of violating existing statutes and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liabilities. A Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, ran a story in September 2005 that talked about Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who was in the midst of giving a woman chest compressions when FEMA asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection. CNN ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the New Orleans' airport. The doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help them. He wanted to ply his professional talents and heal the sick, but was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. ``They told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor,'' and that's what he was forced to do. And so he mopped the floor while people died all around him. What was the cost of inaction because of the litigious society that we have? It's incidents like these, my colleagues, that's why I introduced the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act, H.R. 3586. It's a very simple bill, and its the foundation for this amendment to the PATH Act. This amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. It would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort. This is limited protection. It still allows victims to sue for serious acts such as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct, or gross negligence. It does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers. You shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, through residency, spent years as a practicing physician, push a mop when there's clear need for their services. This is wrong, and my amendment will correct that. My colleague from Utah Mr. Matheson and myself have a very simple amendment today. It is the Good Samaritan Health Professional Amendment. This amendment would allow trained medical professionals to volunteer across State lines to assist at presidentially declared disaster sites. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw first hand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is a need to provide liability protection. According to the Council of State Governments, the most pressing need immediately after Katrina was the availability of medical volunteers. However, out-of-State practitioners providing medical treatment face the real possibility of non-coverage under their medical malpractice policies. Those that volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of violating existing statues and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liability. A Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, ran a story in September 2005 that talked about Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who was in the midst of giving a woman chest compressions when FEMA asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection. CNN ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the New Orleans airport. The doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help. He wanted to ply his profession and heal the sick, but was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. ``They told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor.'' And so he mopped the floors while people died around him. What was the cost of inaction because of our litigious society? Its incidents like this, that's why I introduced the Good Samaritan Health Professional Act, H.R. 3586. It's a very simple bill, and it's the foundation for this amendment to the PATH Act. This amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. It would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort. This is limited protection. It still allows victims to sue for serious acts such, as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct or gross negligence. It does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers. But for everyone working in good faith and doing the right thing, it will provide this basic protection to any trained medical volunteer. It will protect: Doctors, nurses or physician assistants that treat the injured; The psychiatrist, psychologist or therapist that provide emotional assistance to those grieving, and; The pharmacists or respiratory therapists that helps treat chronic conditions like diabetes or COPD. You shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, been through residency, and spent years as a practicing physician, push a mop when there is a clear need for their services. This is wrong, and my amendment will correct this. The Good Samaritan Health Professional Amendment has a broad coalition of supporters. They include: The American College of Surgeons The American Medical Association The American Hospital Association The College of Emergency Physicians The Neurologists The Physician Insurers Association The Roundtable of Critical Care These are just a sample; there are more medical groups that support this amendment. I also would like to submit these letters of support into the Record. This is a good amendment. It will save lives. American College of Surgeons, March 21, 2012. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the more than 78,000 members of the American College of Surgeons (ACS), I would like to express our support for amending H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare (PATH) Act of 2011 to include H.R. 3586, the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act of 2011 (Stearns/ Matheson Amendment). The ACS supports this amendment which would ensure disaster victims' access to medically necessary care in a declared emergency. Rapid medical response in a disaster can greatly decrease loss of life and improve outcomes for patients who desperately need assistance. Surgeons in particular, with their training in trauma and critical care, play a major role in the health care community's response to most disaster situations. Properly trained volunteers are critical in such circumstances. However, due to inconsistent state laws and lack of federal policy, it is often unclear whether protections against unnecessary lawsuits exist for medical volunteers who cross state lines. Sadly, this lack of uniformity has greatly hindered the ability of volunteer health professionals to provide care; in some cases, volunteer health professionals have even been turned away due to uncertainty about potential liability. Enactment of the Stearns/Matheson amendment would provide volunteer health professionals with the same level of civil immunity that they have in their home state when they provide urgently needed care in a declared emergency. Removing barriers that prohibit licensed surgeons and other qualified health care professionals from voluntarily administering medically necessary care during disasters will ensure citizens access to high-quality surgical services in the event of a crisis. Again, we strongly support the Stearns/Matheson amendment to H.R. 5 and look forward to working with you to ensure its enactment. Sincerely, David B. Hoyt, MD, FACS, Executive Director.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman. This bill, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas said, is an opportunity for him to vote to not let bureaucrats make the decision. He has a chance to do this. I'm a little surprised why he's saying he's against the bill. Of course, I think many of us are going to repeat the same arguments. The fundamental point is that this bill will save almost $50 billion over 10 years. How many people on this side don't want to save money? I think everybody on both sides of the aisle would like to save money. So this is stopping defensive medicine and untold amount of litigation by passing this bill. This could effectively create lower premiums for everybody and lower the cost of health care. This bill would eliminate, as pointed out even by the gentleman from Texas, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, given the colloquial name of IPAB. Just this morning, as chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Committee, we held a hearing on the President's failed health care law. It's clear that countless pages of regulation, rules, and requirements for ObamaCare have been incredibly confusing. When we had this hearing, it was brought up clearly that this bill, over 2 years old, has given almost 1,700 waivers to entities who cannot comply with this health care bill. So my constituents and individuals throughout this country view these massive new rules and regulations as increasing interference by the Federal Government into their lives. And, obviously, business communities are seeking waivers. Seventeen hundred entities are asking for waivers because they can't comply. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace. So for all these reasons we must pass this bill. In fact, IPAB is SGR on steroids. Rather than fixing the SGR problem in the health care law, Democrats are happy to allow continued cuts to physician payments and then double down on further cuts through IPAB. This is a group of 15 unelected bureaucrats who would save Medicare by making draconian cuts to provider payments. Democrats wanted to control the future cost of Medicare by giving unelected, bureaucrats the power to cut payments to hospitals and to our doctors. If Democrats were serious, they would support this bill. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker and minority leader said, ``We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it.'' Remember that quote? I am determined to make sure we don't have to fully implement the bill so we can see what it costs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 665, the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2011. This important bipartisan legislation will decrease the deficit by selling excess federal buildings and property by empowering the executive branch to more quickly dispose of excess federal property. This bill would also permanently modernize the existing disposal process through reductions in administrative overhead. This bill also requires greater accountability from those responsible for federal property disposal. The federal government owns a staggering one-third of the United States and owns more real property than any other entity in America: 900,000 buildings and structures covering 3.38 billion square feet. According to a February 10, 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 24 federal agencies identified 45,190 underutilized buildings that cost $1.66 billion annually to operate. More recently, Office of Management and Budget Comptroller Daniel Werfel testified before a Senate Subcommittee that the government controls even more, with 14,000 excess buildings and structures and 76,000 underutilized properties. This large inventory of underutilized federal property is the product of a convoluted and inefficient disposal process. H.R. 665 works to correct this by establishing a five-year pilot program, beginning on the date that the legislation is enacted, to dispose of excess federal property. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) would identify, with input from federal agencies, the 15 excess properties with the highest market value. These properties will be disposed of through public auction, and after one property is sold, the GSA will have 15 days to identify another property to replace the auctioned property on the list for disposal. Ninety-eight percent of profits will be deposited into the Treasury and 2 percent will be directed toward the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide grants for homeless assistance. Selling off unused federal property would allow the federal government to focus our limited fiscal resources on maintaining the property the United States currently owns. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act to begin prioritizing the public auction of unused federal property and reducing the nation's $15 trillion national debt.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Clay County Detective David White who was killed in the line of duty on February 16, 2012 at age 35. Detective White and his partner, Detective Matt Hanlin, were in the process of breaking up a meth lab in Middleburg, Florida. Detective Hanlin was shot in the arm and is expected to recover. White is the first Clay County deputy shot on duty in nearly 40 years and the first killed in the line of duty since 1913. He is not only a hero as part of the Clay County Sheriff's Office, but also in his service as a specialist in the U.S. Army Reserve as a military police platoon team leader in deployments to Croatia, Bosnia and Iraq. He is survived by his wife and two children, ages 3 months and 2 years old; he and his family are in our prayers. David's life is a testament to the courage and sense of duty that men and women possess, who chose to dedicate their lives to defend us all. His tragic death is not in vain but a tribute to the highest ideals of self-sacrifice for freedom and justice. God Bless him.