Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. To you folks, when you hold up that glass, there is another glass in Texas that is willing to take this low-level radioactive waste. You should know that. We are not just talking about the plant in Utah.

Mr. STEARNS. I think it is in the process of being certified. And there are other States that are willing to do the same thing. If you don't mind, your colleague from Tennessee has a question for you.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for allowing me the time to speak.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, this bill is about a hundred pages, and the Judiciary Committee had probably the majority of this bill. We start at page 74 in title II, and the preponderance is in the Judiciary. But the bill is critical in the sense that this act itself is going to expire at the end of this month and we need to make sure that this passes. This has been a great display of bipartisanship. You had two committees. The Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee had separate bills just like they have in the Senate. The Senate has a separate bill in their Commerce Committee and also in the Judiciary. But we've come together, and it's a tribute to Mr. Boucher and Mr. Waxman as well as Mr. Barton that we came together here in the House of Representatives with a bipartisan bill, and we now have it on the floor. And we're hopeful that the Senate will do the same thing, because at this point, they haven't, and we might have to have an extension. I hope not. But I think it's been outlined pretty much, some of the aspects about it, so I'm going to concentrate in the areas that deal with telecommunications, a committee I serve as the ranking member. The Communications Act provisions make clerical and substantive changes to reflect the end of analog broadcasting. That's a statement in itself with the new digital spectrum. They also require an FCC report on whether the signal strength and antenna standards for distant signal eligibility should be modified in light of the DTV transition. They implement the deal DISH has struck with broadcasters to regain authority to provide distant signals if they offer local-into-local service in all 210 markets. They clarify that nothing in this act affects must-carry rights. They clarify that if a subscriber starts receiving from their satellite operator the network programming from a local station's multicast stream, the subscriber shall no longer receive a distant signal carrying that network's programming. They include language clarifying that restrictions on use of compulsory licenses do not limit private deals negotiated without compulsory licenses, such as to provide in-State programming to orphan counties. It requires an FCC report analyzing, one, the number of households that receive out-of-State signals; two, the extent to which consumers have access to in-State programming; and, three, whether there are alternatives to use of the existing Nielsen- defined markets. Earlier, Lamar Smith, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned there are some things that have to be ironed out, and I think that's true. While it still contains, in this bill, a provision we opposed in the committee during the markup that tries to twist DISH's arm into carrying public broadcasting stations in high-definition format, and I was the one that spoke against this, the additional views in the committee report reflect our concerns, and there is a chance that provision will become moot since, obviously, the parties are in negotiation, and we're hoping for a favorable negotiation so that will work itself out. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. STEARNS. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis). (Mrs. Lummis asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today is World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness, COPD, Day. COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. COPD includes many conditions such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, refractory asthma and bronchiectasis. It is preventable and treatable. However, it is also progressive and there are millions of Americans that do not detect COPD in the early stages. There are over 12 million Americans diagnosed with COPD and that number is growing. It is estimated that COPD will be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2020. Despite all this, there is lack of awareness of COPD. That is why, as one of the founders of the COPD Caucus, I've worked to highlight the problem of COPD and am introducing today, a Resolution, with my friend and colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, designating COPD Awareness Month.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ocala Recycling Company, which is located in my home town of Ocala, Florida, for becoming the first RIOS certified scrap recycling facility in the world. RIOS, which stands for Recycling Industry Operating Standard, was developed by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and is an integrated standard encompassing environmental and health and safety controls into one streamlined management system. Since 1988, Ocala Recycling's 34-acre facility has recycled everything from bottles and paper to automobiles and even washing machines. Each month, Ocala Recycling collects more than 16,000 tons of recycled goods. This unique honor and certification demonstrates the ongoing commitment of Ocala Recycling to recycle and process quality products in an efficient, safe, and environmentally responsible manner in a manufacturing environment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in recent floor speeches and in numerous media appearances, some Members of Congress continue to repeat the mistaken idea that a significant number of people will die automatically because of lack of access to health insurance. Now, as Franklin Roosevelt said, ``Repetition does not transform a lie into truth.'' The American people deserve better than this kind of rhetoric. The American people deserve a Congress that can work together to find solutions to our most pressing problems. This argument is based upon a questionable study conducted by biased researchers, inaccurate characterizations, and faulty ideas. Oftentimes these Members quote from a Harvard study, which estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. What they neglected to tell you was that the two authors of this study, Dr. Himmelstein and Dr. Woolhandler, are cofounders of the Physicians for a National Health Program. And what do they support? This program supports government-backed, single-payer health coverage. In fact, Dr. Woolhandler testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee, where I serve on the Health Subcommittee, on June 24. What did he testify on? On the absolute need, in his opinion, for a single- payer system. So he is totally biased. This report reflects his demand and his desire for a one-payer system. It's clear that this study was conducted by researchers who knew what they wanted the outcome to show before they even conducted the study. Furthermore, this study used questionable methodology to reach its conclusion. According to analysis by John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, the authors of this Harvard study ``interviewed the uninsured only once and never saw them again. A decade later, the researchers assumed that participants were still uninsured''--this is after 10 years they assumed it--``and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes.'' Obviously, that's faulty logic. Yet, like unemployment, uninsurance happens to many people for short periods of time. It happens to a lot of people. Most people who are uninsured again regain insurance within 1 year, yet they forgot about this statistic. The authors of this study did not track what happened to the insurance status of the subjects over the decade examined, what medical care they received, or even the causes of their death. How can they make those claims? In Massachusetts, for example--the public option here in Congress is patterned after Massachusetts. It has the highest percentage of its residents insured in the United States at 97 percent. We can see the effects of a government-run health care system by looking at Massachusetts. According to a 2009 survey by Merritt Hawkins & Associates, there is a 63-day wait to see a family medical doctor in Boston, the longest of the 15 cities surveyed. This long wait is, in large part, due to Massachusetts' health care initiative. So, instead of waiting over 2 months to see a doctor, patients are flooding the emergency room since they cannot find a doctor, and this is putting a major strain on already overburdened and crowded emergency rooms. Obviously, these supporters of the public option here in Congress don't tell you how many people would die waiting for a medical doctor. The United States has the best health care in the world, especially in comparison to countries that have a one-payer system. In 10 of 16 specific cancers, American patients have statistically better outcomes than their European counterparts. A new report released found that up to 15,000 lives could be saved every year if patients in Britain's National Health Service received the same type of quality care that patients in the United States receive. British Government responded by saying it's going to give patients the ``right'' to see a cancer specialist within 2 weeks of diagnosis. I could go on. There are horror stories all around this world from countries that are practicing socialized medicine. From 2001 to 2003, the British health system would only allow doctors to prescribe a treatment to preserve vision for those suffering from age-related macular degeneration after the patient had lost vision in one eye. Only after they lost one eye. A woman with epilepsy in the United Kingdom faced a 56-week wait to see a doctor. Also, in the United Kingdom, Christine Preuth, 72 years of age, was told she was too old to receive treatment for a head injury at a 24-hour walk-in center. While walking in, she tripped and fell on the pavement. Bleeding from the head, the nurse said she was not able to receive full treatment because she was over 65 years of age and her complaint was a head injury. We need to support health care reform that provides greater access to private insurance, lowers costs, and allows people who like their insurance to keep it. The public option does not allow that. Unfortunately, Democrats believe that the government-run health care system, spending over a trillion dollars, will solve the problem. The facts in all socialized countries do not bear that out. The numbers just don't add up, and future generations will be on the hook for paying for this dangerous Democrat health care experiment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Democrats, why did you do this in a health care bill: In section 340N, called Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program, it is going to cost the government taxpayers $283 million over 5 years because you are forgiving loans for veterinarians. So the real question I have for you folks: Why are veterinarians part of this health care bill? When you go to section 555, Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit, you remove the eligibility for tax credits for biofuels. My question again: What do biofuels have to do with health care? I would like the gentlelady from New York to answer why veterinarians are included in this bill in terms of loan forgiveness and why you are creating a brand new tax on biofuels when it is not necessary. In fact, this is a gift for trial lawyers as it lacks real tort reform, and also it establishes Health Czars to oversee all health plans and dictate coverage options. If you are happy with the health care system today, then you won't be happy with the new Health Care Czar described in this bill. This is a bad bill for the American people. Vote against the rule.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this bill. The Congressional Budget Office has said that tort reform will save the Federal Government $54 billion. Instead, we get a bill today that makes a mockery of tort reform. The Democrats add a provision that will clearly increase costs for health care and that will make it harder to recruit doctors. The new language explicitly prevents States who accept these grant funds from capping noneconomic damages or attorneys' fees even if it is current law. Said another way, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can give such sums as he deems necessary to any States that do not cap attorneys' fees, or said another way, the bill undoes all States' tort reform. This bill violates States' rights. It undermines their efforts at real tort reform. It allows trial lawyers to begin open season on our doctors and medical providers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 858, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is left on our side of the aisle?

Mr. STEARNS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. We understand that the Transportation Committee under Mr. Dent has extra time and that could be allotted, if he's not using it, to our side to use it. Is that possible by unanimous consent that we could take his 15 minutes? We have some Members who actually are going to be affected by this bill, and they're going to lose jobs in their districts. They're quite passionate about this bill, and I would like to give them more than the 3 minutes that is available. So I am asking unanimous consent if it's appropriate to do that.

Mr. STEARNS. All right, then, so we are stuck with just 3 minutes. Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent that we can extend our time beyond the 3 minutes?

Mr. STEARNS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Dent shows up on the House floor and he makes a request to give us his 15 minutes, do we need a unanimous consent? Or I will stand in and manage the time for him and then we will have 15 more minutes that we can use for these individuals who are going to be affected by this bill?

Mr. STEARNS. If Mr. Dent comes down, he can manage the time.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, just to be careful here, I think what I am going to do is I am going to take a minute, and hopefully Mr. Dent will show up and then we can have that extra time for us.

Mr. STEARNS. He is coming. In fact, he might be on the floor as I speak.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cites a 16 percent decline in chemical manufacturing jobs, this Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act would force people out of work by imposing needless and harmful regulations on American industries by making the production, use and storage of chemicals more expensive and burdensome with little benefit to public safety or national security. Absent Federal preemption and a uniform national standard, this legislation will create overlapping and conflicting security requirements that could cause disruption of Federal security standards, increase government red tape, and create more economic instability. This legislation will also impose new mandates on American manufacturers as to which products and processes they use without any regard for practicality, availability or cost. I, along with undoubtedly every Member of this body, believe that securing chemical facilities against deliberate attacks is crucial to protecting Americans, which is why, since 2006, clear and comprehensive chemical security regulations have been put in place. Removing the sunset date and making the current chemical security regulations permanent would provide the certainty needed to both protect citizens and support our Nation's economic recovery. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this detrimental bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.