Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This impeachment resolution was supposed to be our second rule of the day. We had an emergency meeting last week in the Rules Committee about fixing SALT. Everybody hurry up, it is an emergency. Better do it right away so we can vote quickly. Then--get this--last night a change was made to pull their emergency bill from the schedule. It was such an emergency that Republicans decided it is not an emergency at all.

Not only did their bill not even fix the problem that they, themselves, created, it is not even going to come to the floor now because of their inability to govern. This majority is so incompetent, they couldn't even manufacture a fake vote to pretend New York Republicans are good at legislating.

We wasted hours last Thursday at the Rules Committee debating a rule that has now been pulled from consideration--and for what? Will the gentleman from Texas tell us next that he is glad he had to sit through a hearing on a rule his leadership can't even bring up because they are so bad at governing? This Republican-led House is an unmitigated disaster. I would say it is a clown show, but that would be a disservice to actual working clowns.

That brings us to the second emergency rule. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is one of the most solemn, serious, somber things that we can do in this body. It is not something that ought to get thrown around lightly or invoked when you disagree with someone or you don't like their policies or you think they are doing a bad job.

It is something that should happen after a grave constitutional offense has been committed, a crime against the Republic. The Founders in Article I reserve it only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Consequently, today, I am very confused because our Republican colleagues have presented zero evidence for impeachment. This could be the first time in American history an impeachment will go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives with no evidence, no proof, no elements of a crime, nothing at all.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the lead Republican for immigration policy, our colleague, Tom McClintock. He says: ``The problem is they [the Articles] fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable. . . .''

Another Republican, Ken Buck, says: Secretary Mayorkas did not commit an impeachable offense and is not guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors.

These are not my words. These are your fellow colleagues, Mr. Speaker, openly admitting that these vague, unprecedented Articles of Impeachment trivialize this process and make a total mockery of this institution. What does this impeachment have to do with fixing our challenges at the border? Nothing at all.

They say this is about securing the border, and their plan to secure the border is to impeach the guy responsible for securing the border and replace him with--now wait for this, wait for it--they aren't sure. The chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security couldn't tell us during our Rules Committee meeting who will replace Secretary Mayorkas if he were removed. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

For months and months and months, Republicans have said that they would shut down the government, they would default on our debt, refuse to do anything unless we passed a border bill. Well, good news. Senate Republicans worked out a border bill, and the person who negotiated it for Republicans, Senator Lankford, was someone Donald Trump endorsed. Donald Trump said that Senator Lankford is ``strong on the border.'' Therefore, I am shocked by the Republican rejection of Senator Lankford's bill.

Before we even saw what was in it, before the ink was even dry on the discussion draft, Donald Trump came out, and he ordered them to kill it. He ordered them to do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. They would rather let chaos prevail than work with Democrats to have a conversation about a path forward.

Here is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Republicans simply do not want to participate in government. They want to create chaos. They want to create confusion, and they want to create a campaign issue for Donald Trump going into the next election. They are not interested in solving problems. They only want to gain power.

That is the real dereliction of duty here: House Republicans' refusal to address our challenges at the border because Donald Trump told them he wants a crisis so he can help his campaign, so he can hide from his crimes.

Well, they own this now. Republicans own this now. They own the border. They own the fentanyl crisis. They own it all because they refuse to behave like adults. They are acting like spoiled, rotten children who got what they want and still can't take ``yes'' for an answer, but they own all of this now.

If anyone needs more proof than that, look no further than the sponsor of this resolution--Marjorie Taylor Greene, a MAGA extremist who amplifies Holocaust deniers, who said 9/11 was a hoax, who says wildfires are started by Jewish space lasers. That is the legislative and intellectual force behind this impeachment resolution. In fact, if it passes, she is going to be an impeachment manager on the floor of the United States Senate. God help us.

It is just more proof that this is fraudulent, unconstitutional garbage, but Donald Trump wants another fraudulent impeachment, another distraction from his own legal troubles, another excuse to kill a bipartisan border deal instead of working across the aisle to get something done.

Here we are, because Trump calls the shots around here. He directed Speaker Johnson and extreme MAGA Republicans not to work with Democrats to address challenges at the border. One thing we know, Republicans work for Trump, not for the voters. They worship and they work for Donald Trump, who doesn't care about anybody but himself. They are frightened to death of the former President.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas is a good man, a decent man, someone who is trying to do his job despite the fact that Republicans refuse to give him the tools needed to do what they are asking him to do. He is an honorable public servant who respects law enforcement and takes seriously his oath of office and his obligation to uphold and enforce the law.

In smearing his good name, Republicans are only impeaching themselves and showing that all their rhetoric about the border has been nothing more than a bunch of BS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas just took almost 10 minutes--10 minutes of my life which I will never get back--and still didn't get it right, which is basically that this move to impeach Secretary Mayorkas is a sham. There is no basis for this.

Just because you don't like the guy or disagree with the policies of this administration is not a reason--it is not a high crime and misdemeanor. It is not a reason to move forward on impeachment.

I am listening to the gentleman and also my colleague from Texas. Republicans are really good about complaining about things, talking about what the problems are. We agree with

some of the things that have been highlighted, that they are problems. What my Republican friends are not really good at is actually solving a problem or getting to yes on anything.

The gentleman from Texas said: Oh, we are asked to consider a Senate bill that the Senate hasn't acted on. Wait a minute. The Speaker of this House of Representatives has already said he will not have a vote in this House, no matter what happens in the United States Senate.

Donald Trump, the guy you are all afraid of, has been making calls saying: You better not do this. You better not do this.

The author of this Senate bill--again, I haven't read it all--there is lots of stuff in it that gives me heartburn, from what I can tell, but the guy who wrote it was a Senator from Oklahoma who Donald Trump says is strong on the border.

I will repeat what I said before: What we are doing today does nothing to help anything at the border--not a thing, not one thing.

Any opportunity to do something requires working in a bipartisan way to move a bill forward, which apparently my Republican friends here in the House do not want to do.

That is a shame, but here is the deal: You now own this. This is a problem that you are maintaining, that you have deliberately decided that you will own, because you will do nothing.

You are blocking any attempt for any kind of legislation to come to this floor that has a chance of passing in a bipartisan way and getting signed into law. You are doing it. Even the Border Patrol union has endorsed what the Senate is doing.

I haven't read the whole thing yet. I bet you none of you have either. Even before the ink was dry on the draft copy, Trump gave you the orders to kill it, and that is where we are.

Complaining about a problem, I get it. Maybe it used to be good politics, but here is what I am predicting. The American people are watching. They are now seeing how this works. If we want a bill, if we want to work in a bipartisan way, there is a bipartisan coalition that developed in the Senate, led by a very conservative Republican Senator, and they come up with a bill. As soon as they do: No, we don't want to solve the problem. We want to continue the problem for political purposes.

So now you own all of this. You own all of this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas to ask this question:

Does he agree or disagree that to change enforcement we must change the law? Does he agree that we need to change the law if we are going to change enforcement?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am using Dr. Burgess' words from 6/18/2018 when he said: We know that to change enforcement we must change the law.

Then he went on to talk about immigration bills that we might consider in Congress, and he talked about the importance of legislation, and this is how democracy works.

So the bottom line is, Republicans are really good about complaining but they are not so good at legislating. They are not so good at getting things done. When things begin to move in the direction where we may get something done, then they back away and they say no. They can't get to yes on anything.

That is not leadership. That is not governing. That is, frankly, incompetence. When Trump was President my friends were saying one thing, and now that Biden is President, they are saying another thing.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is if we are going to get something done, we need to come together in a bipartisan way. That is what has begun to happen over in the Senate.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the Speaker of the House of Representatives, why my colleagues on the Republican side, one after another after another do not want to do anything.

Well, you know what, if you do not want to do anything, that means you are satisfied with the status quo and you own this problem. This is a problem of your creation because we are trying to fix it and we are trying to work in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to a central reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions, which many Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman from Texas confuses me because not too long ago--and I will use one of his quotes--he said: ``President Trump has presented a clear path forward; however, he cannot solve this crisis alone.''

Those are the gentleman's words.

Congress must stand ready to put partisan politics aside and pass meaningful solutions, but now all of a sudden Joe Biden can do it alone?

I mean, when Trump was President, he needed Congress, according to the gentleman, to give him the ability to be able to do what he wants on the border. Now, all of a sudden, it is a different story because it is a different President.

Mr. Speaker, let me also address something that the other gentleman from Texas mentioned in his 10 minutes of remarks when he said something about this isn't about politics.

I would point out that in April of 2023, Chairman Green, who is the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, promised Republican donors that he would produce an impeachment case against Secretary Mayorkas-- before donors.

According to a recording of Chairman Green's remarks to campaign contributors, he said: ``On April 19, next week, get the popcorn-- Alejandro Mayorkas comes before our committee, and it's going to be fun.''

Chairman Green also said: ``That'll really be just the beginning for him.''

The chairman said those things 2 months prior to the committee formally announcing its so-called investigation--2 months prior, Mr. Speaker.

He already promised his Republican donors that he would deliver impeachment charges.

To be clear, this entire impeachment process has had a predetermined outcome. This has nothing to do with a legitimate case for impeachment, but it has everything to do with Republicans' mission to distract, deflect, and exact revenge for President Biden winning the 2022 election.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the New York Times article titled: ``Key Republican Tells Donors He Will Pursue Impeachment of Mayorkas.''

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am very distressed about is that many of my Republican colleagues who are upset that Donald Trump lost the last election and they were not able to overturn the free and fair results of that election, they are upset that they didn't get their way, and they weren't able to overturn the results.

So now this is kind of a continuation of that effort to deny the legitimate results of the election. This in many respects is a continuation of what happened here on January 6, and it really is sad.

There is another election coming up in November. I predict that my friends will understand better then that their policy of obstruction, impeachment, distraction, and not wanting to solve problems, I think they will realize that when people go to the ballot box, that is not what they want.

The American people want us to work together to get something done. We have a serious situation at the border. We are trying to provide President Biden with the tools to be able to act. Just as my friend said that Donald Trump needed the legislative tools to be able to get what he wanted to get done--and unfortunately, notwithstanding some very impressive bipartisan cooperation in the Senate--my friends here have decided to reject everything; anything that might solve the problem; anything that might ease the situation at the border; anything that might help our Border Patrol agents, anything that will do anything to be able to solve this problem they are against.

It is pathetic that that is the state that we are in right now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is not about Secretary Mayorkas or a high crime and misdemeanor. It is about a policy disagreement with President Biden.

Again, it is interesting to point out that when Trump was President, he couldn't do things because Congress didn't give him the tools. Biden is asking for more tools, and my Republican friends don't want to do anything.

Mr. Speaker, I have a memo here, released today on the arguments regarding impeaching Secretary Mayorkas, offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, Mr. McClintock.

In listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, surely you would assume that the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, the lead Republican on immigration issues, would conclude in his memo that this impeachment is necessary and warranted. But, no, you would be wrong.

In fact, he concludes the exact opposite, and Mr. McClintock has said he will vote ``no'' on impeaching the Secretary.

Now, I would ask unanimous consent to put the entire memo into the Record, but it is so exhaustive in its analysis of how this impeachment is a bunch of garbage, that the memo exceeds the page limit for the Congressional Record.

Let me just read a quick excerpt instead.

He writes: ``The problem is that they fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable. . . .''

``Stretch and distort'': Those are the words of the Republican chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from California, who came to the well and basically called it as he sees it. He told the truth.

We need some more truth around here. This is a sham. This is a dangerous precedent to go down.

To impeach somebody because of a policy disagreement, I tell you, this is not what we should be doing. I am hoping that there are Republicans on the other side of the aisle who still believe in the Constitution and in this institution and who will reject this.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Michael Chertoff, the former Republican- appointed Homeland Security Secretary, the first-ever Homeland Security Secretary, has also come out in support of Secretary Mayorkas.

He said: ``I can say with confidence that, for all the investigating that the House Committee on Homeland Security has done, they have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar.''

He went on to say: ``I don't agree with every policy decision the Biden administration has made. There are aspects of immigration strategy that are worthy of debate. But House Republicans are ducking difficult policy work and hard-fought compromise. Impeachment is a diversion from fixing our broken immigration laws and giving DHS the resources needed to secure the border.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an opinion piece written by Michael Chertoff and published by the Wall Street Journal titled: ``Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.''

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal titled: ``Impeaching Mayorkas Achieves Nothing.''

Mr. Speaker, everything we have heard from the other side has confirmed that this impeachment is a predetermined political stunt. Again, this is the first time in American history an impeachment could go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives with no evidence, no proof, no elements of a crime, nothing at all. Not my words, Mr. Speaker. It is your own colleagues who say that.

Here are a few more quotes. Jonathan Turley, a top Republican legal adviser, says: ``There is also no current evidence that he [meaning Secretary Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense.''

Donald Trump's own impeachment defense lawyer, Alan Dershowitz: ``I urge principled Republicans who care about the Constitution to oppose those in their party who are seeking to impeach and remove Mayorkas based on nonconstitutional accusations.''

Republican leaders told their donors behind closed doors that they were going to impeach Mayorkas before they even began their sham investigation. They raise money off of this. They promised Marjorie Taylor Greene last year that they were going to impeach, no matter what, in order to help Donald Trump, to distract from his legal troubles and their own incompetence.

I get why they need to change the subject. Trump was the worst President in my lifetime, probably in history. He tried to overturn the election results when he lost. He said he wants to be a dictator ``on day one'' and he invokes Adolph Hitler, saying: Immigrants poison the blood of our country.

He had the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. He told everyone to drink bleach and take horse medicine during COVID. He has been indicted more times than elected and is currently in trial for 91 felony charges. That is after being ordered to pay $83 million after a jury of his peers decided he was a rapist.

That is the leader of the Republican Party. That is who this impeachment is about, Donald Trump; not Secretary Mayorkas, a good, honorable, decent man. Donald Trump is a corrupt, dishonorable, disgraceful man.

This is all about helping Republicans rile up MAGA voters and distracting from their inability to govern and address the critical issues facing our country.

Instead of legislating, they are being led by Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme MAGA chock-full-of-nuts caucus to pursue this baseless, extreme, and harmful impeachment charade that distracts from actually securing the border.

Do we have a problem at the border? Absolutely. Democrats and President Biden want real, comprehensive solutions to fix it, but the MAGA extremists have shown no interest in working with House Democrats to address the challenges facing the American people.

What we need is Republicans to stop playing political games. That is the exact opposite of what is happening here, the exact opposite of this cynical, reckless, impeachment stunt.

We are going to continue, as Democrats, to put people over politics, to fight for issues that matter, to try to lower costs, grow our economy, and, yes, to secure our border.

If Republicans decide they want to join us as partners in government to solve these challenges, we welcome that. If they don't, there is an election coming up in November.

I would say history is going to judge this Republican majority, but I don't think we need to wait for that. The voters are going to judge us all in November, and I think people are going to look at this fraudulent impeachment and they are going to look at Republicans' lack of accomplishments and they are going to vote them out because of their incompetence, their extremism, and their refusal to work with Democrats to address the challenges our country faces, including the border.

As I said before, this entire impeachment stunt is an absurd, cynical exercise in extremism. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 485, the so-called Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act, a bill that, unfortunately, does not live up to its name.

This legislation is not about protecting healthcare for patients. Instead, it is a Trojan horse intended to undermine the progress that President Biden and Democrats have made in lowering prescription drug costs for American families.

My Republican colleagues say this bill is intended to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from using a measure called ``quality-adjusted life years,'' or QALYs, which could be discriminatory against Americans living with disabilities, but Federal law, including the Inflation Reduction Act, already prohibits Medicare from using QALYs in its coverage determination, and State Medicaid programs are required by law to cover all drugs.

Instead, H.R. 485 goes further than current law and opens a back door that will be used to bar the use of any value measures by the Federal Government. These measures are used by Federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and by States to negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs.

When this bill came before the Energy and Commerce Committee, I sought to clarify its intent through an amendment during markup. My amendment would have ensured the legislation could not be construed to undermine Federal agencies or the Biden administration's ongoing work to lower prescription drug prices for Americans, but that amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.

I still do not understand why the Republican majority would be opposed to clarifying that the bill before us today is not intended to undermine the Federal Government's efforts to determine fair prices for prescription drugs.

Now, I respect the chairman of our committee a great deal, but she keeps talking about how she is banning similar discriminatory measures. Well, the fact of the matter is that the bill doesn't say ``similar discriminatory measures.''

If she had said during the markup that she was willing to ban things that were discriminatory, it might have been a different situation. We might have had a consensus, but that is not what is going on here. This says ``QALYs or similar measures,'' not similar discriminatory measures.

Some may say: Well, what is the difference?

The difference is the word ``discriminatory'' is not in the language of the bill.

We have no problem banning things that are discriminatory, like QALYs or similar discriminatory measures, but that is not in there.

So the problem is that this will be used by pharma to raise prices. The vagueness of the language opens up the door to pharma and the drug companies to sue and say that negotiated prices and efforts to try to reduce costs are not acceptable.

I am not suggesting that that is what the Republicans have in mind necessarily, but that is the reality of it. This is backed by pharma, by the pharmaceutical industry because they want to use it to undermine every effort the Democrats have made to try to bring down costs for prescription drugs in the Medicare market, in the Medicaid market, in Veterans Affairs, and on down the list.

I am deeply concerned that the ambiguity in the bill text would be a prime target for litigation by the pharmaceutical industry, an industry that has already shown a willingness to sue to keep outrageously high prescription drug prices in place.

We know that Big Pharma is already using similar tactics to try to fight the implementation of the Medicare drug price negotiation program enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act. This bill could give them yet another point of entry to undermine Medicare's ongoing work to negotiate prescription drug prices.

Now, in addition, the Congressional Budget Office agreed that this legislation will hinder the ability of our Federal health programs to lower costs. CBO estimates that this bill will increase spending for prescription drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health programs, including the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs' health programs by $1.1 billion in the next 10 years, and potentially tens of billions in the years that follow.

So because of the fact that this bill raises prices for the Federal Government, increases costs for prescription drugs, the Republicans had to put a pay-for in the bill.

The Republican bill before us today would gut the Affordable Care Act's Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to pay this $1.1 billion for the legislation. It has long been the goal of Republicans to decimate the ACA's essential funding stream to lower healthcare costs through prevention. This funding in the prevention fund goes to our State and local partners to improve public health and prevent chronic diseases.

The prevention fund encourages smoking cessation, prevents childhood lead poisoning, and enhances infectious disease control.

This fund plays a critical role in our efforts to help the American people live healthier lives. House Republicans' decision to cut the prevention fund in order to throw more money at their Big Pharma friends makes it clear that they are not interested in reaching consensus or finding a bipartisan solution.

Instead, they would rather jam through a partisan bill that would hurt the very communities that they claim to be helping.

Mr. Chair, this bill is nothing more than a giveaway to Big Pharma at the expense of the American people and our Nation's public health. I strongly oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), a member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Republicans are pointing to the Congressional Budget Office's score of their bill as proof that healthcare programs are already using the QALY to discriminate against people, but that is simply not what the CBO score says.

It is ironic Republicans would point to CBO's analysis, given it highlights my exact concern that this bill's reference to other ``similar measures'' is ambiguous and undermines drug price negotiations.

It is precisely this uncertainty that would result in a chilling effect on States and Federal agencies being willing to look at the cost of prescription drugs.

Again, I take no issue with banning QALYs, and I offered an amendment in committee to ban QALYs when this

bill was marked up, but that is not what this is about.

This is an effort by the Republicans to back up pharma and make sure that we don't look at cost measures; that we don't negotiate prices, which they oppose in Medicare; and that we simply let the pharmaceutical companies charge whatever they want.

Imagine what it would be like if the pharmaceutical companies could charge whatever they want. Not only would it cost another $1.1 billion, which is what the CBO says, but it could undermine any efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs throughout any Federal and State programs.

What does that mean? What does that mean for people? How would we continue to fund programs for seniors, for the disabled, for anyone if we cannot adjust the cost issue and keep costs down for prescription drugs?

There is no effort here on the Democrats' part to continue with QALYs. We are opposed to them, but you have to continue to be able to look at costs in a nondiscriminatory way.

That is what is not going to happen if this bill becomes law. There will not be any way or any effective way for any Federal, State, or local agencies to look at cost measures, and costs will continue to skyrocket, exactly what pharma wants.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry would like to see the gains we have made to lower drug prices through the Inflation Reduction Act halted or reversed. That is why they have brought numerous Federal lawsuits against the law in courts throughout the country, even as the Department of Health and Human Services just announced opening offers for the first 10 drugs selected for negotiation to bring down costs.

This bill would simply provide a new avenue for the pharmaceutical industry to pursue litigation intended to hamper the IRA and the negotiation program overall, and it doesn't stop there. It could strip States of one of the only tools that they have to negotiate Medicaid drug rebates.

Now, while proponents of this legislation would have you believe that this bill just extends current law, unfortunately, that is not the case. It expands and changes current law. It applies the language from the Inflation Reduction Act in a new context and broadens its applicability to ban the use of other similar measures across the Federal Government, and that means limiting the ability to look at costs. If we don't have the ability to compare drugs and see which ones are effective and which ones cost more, then we won't have the ability to lower costs. What that means is we allow pharma to charge whatever they want.

The CBO says this is going to cost another $1.1 billion, which is why the Republicans seek to cut the Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for it. But this is going to lead us down the path of saying that we can't look at cost at all. That means that costs will balloon for Medicare, for Medicaid, and for prescription drugs. The consequence of that is you can't pay for other programs that help seniors, that help poor people, that help veterans, that help those in the military with their health and the quality of their health.

This is a very dangerous piece of legislation, and Democrats are speaking out against it because of the consequences and our ability to fund health programs around the country at every level.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Republicans' decision to offset this bill by raiding the Prevention and Public Health Fund underscores the real intentions. They are not seeking to improve the lives of those with disabilities or end the use of discriminatory measures, but to push forward with a partisan bill that will raise prices and cut critical funding used to improve public health.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in the Affordable Care Act to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in health prevention and restrain the rate of growth in healthcare costs. Republicans have consistently sought to undermine, slash, and redirect these essential funds for unintended purposes.

Cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund decimates our ability to effectively prepare for the next pandemic, respond to ongoing public health threats, and puts our States and local healthcare partners at a disadvantage moving forward.

Nearly 200 public health organizations sent a letter earlier this week expressing strong concerns with the manager's amendment, noting how detrimental cuts to the Prevention and Public Health Fund would be.

It is the height of irony that Republicans claim this bill would reduce discrimination for those with disabilities, while also cutting Federal investment in programs that improve the lives of those with disabilities.

The American people deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about why we need to oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Democrats, and, hopefully, some Republicans, too, have spent a lot of time trying to reduce the cost of prescription drugs--and the States, as well. The bottom line is that we know that prescription drugs now are, if not the majority, a significant portion of healthcare costs.

If the Federal Government or the State government, or any government, is going to continue to provide quality care in this country, we must rein in the cost of prescription drugs, not only the cost but also have our agencies determine what drugs are effective and what drugs are not. We have no problem as Democrats in banning QALYs.

I have said that over and over again today, and I will keep repeating it. The bottom line is the way the language of this bill is constructed, it could easily lead to a situation where no Federal, State or government agency could effectively look at whether or not a drug is effective and what the cost is or make any decisions to pay for it based on the actual costs.

Now, sure, we could live in a world where the government pays unlimited amounts of money for everything--and I am sure pharma would love that because they like to charge whatever they want to increase their profits--but that is not a real situation. If you don't rein in the cost of prescription drugs, it not only is going to cost more for individuals out of their pocket, but it also means that the government can't provide services to people with disabilities or to seniors or to veterans.

That is why the CBO was saying that this bill is going to cost another $1.1 billion, at a minimum, and possibly even more in the future, if you read what the CBO has actually said.

Republicans have a pay-for rule, so they say that if it is going to cost more, they have to pay for it in some way.

Well, how do they pay for it?

They cut the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the very fund that is used to prevent worse diseases, worse outbreaks, fund local public health programs so they can deal with public health in an effective way.

How is that beneficial to people with disabilities or anyone? It certainly isn't.

That is why there is so much opposition by various public health agencies to cutting this prevention fund to pay for this bill.

There is no justification for this bill. There was an opportunity in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I submitted language that would say not only would we ban QALYs, but we would ban any kind of discriminatory measures being used. The Republicans wouldn't accept that. This is what we are left with, a bill that is very dangerous, that is just a giveaway to pharma.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose what I consider rather dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate and respect the views of the disability community and their strongly held belief that the use of QALYs in Federal health programs is discriminatory. That is why I do not oppose this amendment.

However, the amendment does not cure the problem with the underlying bill. This bill is a Trojan horse that purports to ban discriminatory measures like QALYs but in reality does a

lot more. This bill has the potential to ban a broad swath of cost containment measures that are not discriminatory and could harm the very communities that this bill is purported to help.

Those with disabilities need access to lower drug prices and healthcare services, and the Federal Government's and States' ability to use nondiscriminatory health measures is essential to bringing down costs. Otherwise, without leverage to get a better deal, we are stuck paying whatever pharma wants. The CBO agrees. That is why they estimate this bill will increase Federal spending by over a billion dollars in the next 10 years and potentially tens of billions of dollars more in the years ahead.

For this reason, I do not oppose the amendment, but, unfortunately, it does not resolve my concerns with the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 485.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 485, my Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act, which affirms every person's life has value by banning the use of quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs, and similar discriminatory measures from all Federal healthcare programs.

As many of you know, my son Cole was born with an extra 21st chromosome. Most of you know it as Down syndrome.

When Cole was born, the doctors gave us a long list of challenges and chances for heartache. It was difficult, but I could have never imagined just how positively he would impact my life, my family's life, and the world.

Today, Cole is a fun-loving 16-year-old with big dreams. He wants to be a football player, a pastor, and a race car driver. He is on the basketball team. He plays the drums. For Cole, the sky is the limit.

Cole and others with disabilities deserve every opportunity to succeed. We shouldn't be discounting their potential or prejudging the quality of their life just because of their disabilities.

Unfortunately, several tools frequently used in our healthcare system do just that. QALYs, and other similar discriminatory measures, assign a dollar value on the life of a patient to decide if a certain treatment is cost effective, oftentimes discounting an individual's worth and the need for care solely because of their disability or chronic illness.

It means a bureaucracy coldly determines the value of someone's life and could deny necessary healthcare due to that calculation.

Measurements like QALYs remove the consideration of unique circumstances and health conditions of a patient and their doctor's judgment from deciding what is best for the patient.

I am not alone in opposing the use of these measures.

Democrats acknowledged this when they passed the Affordable Care Act, and they banned the use of QALYs in Medicare.

In 2020, the Democratic National Committee platform stated that: ``Democrats will ensure that people with disabilities are never denied coverage based on the use of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) indexes.''

The nonpartisan National Council on Disabilities wrote a report in 2019 titled: ``Quality-Adjusted Life Years and the Devaluation of Life with a Disability'' that condemned the usage of QALYs and they have continued to write additional letters to Congress urging us to ban their use.

Additionally, we have heard from nearly 200 advocacy groups spanning the political spectrum who are calling on Congress to prohibit the use of QALYs and other discriminatory measures.

This legislation, the Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act, bans Federal payers, like Medicaid and VA healthcare, from using QALYs or other discriminatory measures that devalue the lives of people with disabilities and chronic or rare diseases, and it does it by simply applying the current ban on QALYs and other similar measures that exist in Medicare today to all Federal payers.

In passing this bill, it will mean that healthcare bureaucracies can no longer discriminate against the weakest and most vulnerable patients, and it will help ensure that people can get the healthcare that they need and that their doctors think is best.

This would be a big deal.

Medicaid is the largest payer for people with disabilities, and we are letting it use measures that discriminate against the very people it was designed to support.

That is nothing to say of the millions of injured or disabled veterans who rely on the VA for their healthcare, which is also allowed to use these types of measures.

However, let me be clear in this: H.R. 485 does not prohibit healthcare programs from rewarding value or finding other ways to hold down costs.

For example, if a treatment does not work or shouldn't be covered or it is more appropriate to start with other more cost-effective treatments first, nothing in this bill will preclude the Federal payers from continuing to make these kinds of coverage decisions.

In fact, the National Council on Disability has already identified alternative ways to measure value that do not devalue the life of someone with a disability or chronic illness.

Because of Cole, I have spent my time in Congress as an ability advocate, encouraging people to focus on every individual's God-given talent and potential.

Millions of Americans like Cole need their voices to be heard. Whenever I meet someone with a disability or chronic illness, or with their family, I hear the same thing over and over: They want the same chances to succeed in life as everyone else.

You know what? We are all just one car accident or one diagnosis away from having a disability ourselves.

I hope that banning the use of discriminatory measures by Federal payers against people with disabilities and chronic illness and affirming every person's life has value is something that we can agree on. Let's give people with disabilities, rare diseases, or chronic diseases hope.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The reasons that the ranking member says to oppose the bill, they do not match what the bill actually says.

Current law already prohibits the use of QALYs and other similar measures in Medicare. Current law reads: ``The Secretary shall not utilize such an adjusted life year or (such a similar measure) as a threshold to determine coverage. . . . ''

I am not sure why all of a sudden we have this concern about other measures. All the bill would do is apply current Medicare law to other Federal payers, and if people are insistent that other measures are not discriminatory, then they should have no problem in using them.

I will also point out to anyone who may be listening, according to CBO's cost estimate: ``CBO does not expect that enacting H.R. 485 would affect the prices that result from negotiations between the Secretary and drug manufacturers.''

I don't support this capping or government price fixing of drugs. I don't support it. I would like to see us work together to reduce the cost of drugs, but this bill, according to CBO, does not expect that H.R. 485 would affect the prices that result from negotiations between the Secretary and drug manufacturers.

Don't get distracted from the underlying bill here.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Chairman, this bill should be bipartisan. This legislation before us today takes the language that the Democrats put into the Affordable Care Act, and again I will quote it: ``The Secretary shall not utilize such an adjusted life year (or such a similar measure) as a threshold to determine coverage. . . .'' We take that language from Medicare inserted by the Democrats in the Affordable Care Act, and we apply it to all Federal payers. It should be bipartisan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, if this legislation harms people who we are intending to help, why do we have support letters from nearly 200 disability patient advocate groups across the political spectrum? Down Syndrome Society, Autism Speaks, Disability Law Center, and ARC all support this bill.

If the Democrats want to suggest that they are committed to lowering the cost of prescription drugs and that the reason to oppose this bill is because it is going to increase costs, the only reason this bill would increase costs is if you are denying care to people who have disabilities. That is the only reason. You are discriminating against people. That is the only reason this bill would cost any money.

CBO already estimates that this bill is going to cost $1.1 billion. Why is that? Why would this legislation cost $1.1 billion? Because CBO is forecasting that there are going to be discriminatory measures used against individuals, and we are going to ban that. We are going to make sure that doesn't happen.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We have worked together on important legislation to lower costs, provide more transparency, bipartisan legislation from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am quite disappointed today that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to come to the table on this one.

We just heard that there is no justification for this legislation. The ranking member actually said it is dangerous. Let me just point out again, nearly 200 advocacy groups, spanning the political spectrum, are calling on Congress to prohibit the use of QALYs and other discriminatory measures, perhaps because they see the VA's website today. Go to the VA's website and you will read, to date, the quality- adjusted life year, QALY, is the preferred metric for estimating health effect.

We have also heard that this bill is a big giveaway, a blank check, to pharma. Republicans agree, we must lower the cost of prescription drugs, and we have worked on it. Discriminatory action, discriminatory metrics against people with disabilities and chronic illnesses is not the way to do it.

We have heard today that the offset is a partisan pill. Let me just highlight that Senator Sanders is using the prevention fund. Senator Sanders is proposing right now to use the prevention fund to offset increased funding for community health centers. The Senate passed this provision 90-6. It is disappointing that now this is an issue of offsetting costs of no longer discriminating against those with disabilities.

Yes, we have to offset the cost of no longer discriminating against those with disabilities. That is why there is even a CBO score on this bill.

I also note that ``similar measures,'' which seems to be an issue today with my colleagues across the aisle, are current law for Medicare. We are simply expanding that same language in Medicare to other Federal health programs. Why have different standards?

Mr. Chair, this should be the law of the land. This legislation is important. Those with disabilities and the advocacy groups are asking for Congress to take action. We have addressed the issues in the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge support. I hope today that we can come together, Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, to protect the healthcare and the access to healthcare for every individual with disabilities and chronic illnesses. As I mentioned, we are all just one car accident or diagnosis away from being that person. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 485, the so- called Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act.

The truth is this bill fails to protect health care for all patients. Instead, this bill undermines the Affordable Care Act by stripping funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, our nation's first mandatory funding system dedicated to improving our nation's public health system and lowering public health care costs. This critical funding has helped the Centers for Disease Control reduce the leading causes of death and disability nationwide and support early detection of and response to public health threats.

This legislation is a step in the wrong direction. If passed, this bill would make it more difficult to improve the affordability of prescription drugs. House Republicans claim that this bill will help prevent discriminatory policies because it prohibits Medicaid, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, Medicare Part D Plans (PDPs), the VA, and the Defense Health Agency from using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The truth is federal law already prohibits Medicare from using QALYs in its coverage determinations, and state Medicare plans are required by law to cover all drugs.

If House Republicans were serious about ensuring all Americans have access to affordable, comprehensive health care treatments, they would have supported clarifying amendments to this bill that would ban discriminatory practices. Instead, we are presented with another bill that does not address the problem and does not put the interests of patients and taxpayers first.

Mr. Speaker, I get no great joy being on the floor of the House of Representatives and talking about something as important and solemn as the removal of a Secretary of one of our Departments, particularly one as important as the Department that is in charge of homeland security. This is an individual who was appointed and then confirmed by the United States Senate. Impeachment is one of the highest charges we have as Members of the United States House of Representatives.

The charge by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the ranking member on the Rules Committee, that this is a political exercise or that there are individuals taking ``orders'' from former President Trump, I think indicates the extent to which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle desperately want to make this political.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle desperately want to take the abject and total failure of Democrat leadership on the southern border, resulting in death and destruction of the American people, the undermining of economic activity, the death of our children, fentanyl pouring into schools, ranchers who are getting absolutely decimated, the empowerment of cartels, and the empowerment of China.

This has all happened at record levels, record numbers, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. Therefore, they are desperately trying to deflect, deflect to legislation that was political and never had a chance to move from the Senate to the House, never had a chance to move, but they want to be able to deflect. They want to deflect an entire conversation about the failures of President Biden and the failures of Secretary Mayorkas to secure the border by not having a serious conversation about why we would be bringing Articles of Impeachment against a sitting Secretary.

The reason is simple: The Secretary of Homeland Security has blatantly ignored the laws of the United States he is charged to faithfully execute.

He has done so with reckless abandon. He has done so in a way that has

led directly to the death of American citizens and to the death of the very migrants that the Secretary suggests they want to try to help.

A thousand migrants along the southwest border are dead, and 53 migrants died in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio last year in the district I represent. Mr. Speaker, 75,000 Americans died from fentanyl poisoning last year.

These numbers are off the charts, at levels we have never seen before, and they are the direct result of the policies enacted by the Biden administration but very specifically by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It is his leadership of that Department that has led to an abject failure of the Department to secure the border.

It is not the line men and women of the Border Patrol or ICE who are out there trying to do their jobs. They are being denied the ability to do their jobs because the Secretary won't let them. The Secretary has turned them into processing machines. He has done so intentionally to flood the zone, and they basically acknowledge that.

He has turned the law upside down. The basic law requiring that they have operational control of the border, that we stop the flow, that you have to have papers to come to the United States has been turned upside down.

In its place, the administration, and specifically Secretary Mayorkas, has used exceptions to swallow the rule: exceptions for asylum, exceptions under parole that are supposed to be on a case-by- case basis, based on our benevolence as human beings to try to help people, a bipartisan desire to do so. We have been made to swallow the rule of actual border security. As a result, the numbers have been astounding.

The key considerations, of course, are the types of individuals that are coming into the United States. We are not talking about some workers who want to go from Nuevo Laredo to Laredo or Juarez to El Paso. We are talking about dangerous individuals from all over the globe, including 331 that have been encountered that are associated with terrorist organizations under this administration, under Mayorkas' watch, which compares to 11 under President Trump.

They say: Well, aren't they doing their job? They encountered them. No. Those numbers indicate who we are finding, not the 50,000 a month or so got-aways that are pouring into the United States.

Now we see cops being beaten in the streets of New York by people who are here illegally walking out of the court with no bail and flicking off the American people.

We have a woman being dragged out of a parking garage in New York by migrant gangs, dragged through the streets of New York.

We have all sorts of danger to the American people, people like a cheerleader getting killed in Texas by somebody here illegally and an illegal who posed as an unaccompanied child who lived with a family in Florida and then killed the family.

That is what we have happening in the United States of America, and it is directly a consequence of a Secretary of Homeland Security who is failing to secure the homeland as he is charged to do when he takes an oath to fulfill his duty to carry out the laws of the United States.

If the Attorney General just went out and ordered all the United States attorneys and prosecutors and assistant U.S. attorneys to stop enforcing the law, allow reckless abandon, he should be impeached. That is, in fact, a high crime and misdemeanor.

This is where I disagree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and a few, I think, on my side of the aisle, this notion of high crimes and misdemeanors and what it includes or does not include. It most certainly includes officials in the administration, in the executive branch, who are completely refusing to carry out their duty. Literally, his job is to secure the homeland, and he is refusing to do it.

The fact of the matter is, some of my colleagues have concerns about issues of maladministration and so forth. If you believe this is maladministration--and I do not. I think it goes beyond maladministration. It is the purposeful, willing ignoring of the law to endanger the American people. It goes beyond maladministration.

Even if you accept the notion that it is maladministration, I keep hearing people say: Well, the Founders rejected maladministration.

The fact of the matter is Colonel Mason put it forward. Mr. Gerry put it forward, seconded it. Mr. Madison raised a concern. He said the term would be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

There was some debate. Gouverneur Morris, Colonel Mason withdrew maladministration. There was no vote. There was no affirmative rejection of it. There was a debate. They withdrew. Instead, in its place, he substituted--the language was not there at the time--other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Now, you go back and say: Well, what does that mean? Well, I wasn't there. You can go back and look. There are debates about what it meant.

One thing is, British common law had developed a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors that included but was not limited to maladministration.

Now, this is a debate worthy of academic debate, but the fact is, it is up to us. There are no elements of the crime in the Constitution. There is no specific requirement that there be a violation of statute. There is no mens rea in the Constitution. It is for us and us alone to determine.

When the Secretary violates his duty to the Constitution, violates his oath to defend the people of the United States and secure the homeland, then it is incumbent upon this body to call out and reject that Secretary--in this case, that Secretary being Secretary Mayorkas.

There are other tools at our disposal, but there are not many. We have the power of the purse. We should use it. That is a speech for another time.

One last point on this notion that somehow by rejecting the bill that the Senate was debating and that, by the way, has not been sent to us-- the Senate is merely debating it. They are not even debating it yet. They haven't even proceeded to it yet. They haven't even gotten past cloture on proceeding to it yet.

Why? Because it is fundamentally flawed. The bill does not do what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are suggesting it does.

I am sorry. You are getting punched in the head 10 times. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say: Well, sorry. We will just start punching you in the head five times. Why won't you take that half a loaf?

I am sorry. That is not how this works. That is not what we are here to do. We are actually here to stop the flow.

That bill was flawed. It would have set essentially in permanent stone, effectively, mass migration. It has 250,000 visas and 250,000 work permits.

It ensconces alternatives to detention as part of how the releases would work for asylum claims. It would spend $4 billion to hire up new asylum officers by this administration, by this Secretary, who has the power right now to stop this flow but refuses to use it.

The President of the United States could use 212(f) right now and stop the flow. The Secretary could apply the laws the way they are supposed to be applied with respect to asylum and parole. He could stop it right now but refuses to do so.

We are here to defend the people of the United States who don't have a voice. We are here to stand up for the forgotten men and women of this country who are tired of getting rolled over.

That is why we are here, and the Secretary of Homeland Security deserves to be held accountable. I rise in support.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 996, providing for the consideration of two measures: H.R. 485 and H. Res. 863.

The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 485 under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate and H. Res. 863 under a closed rule with 2 hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, or their designees. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, what is needed is border security. What is needed is border protection. Immigration reform can come later after border security is established.

So a discussion about what is happening over in the Senate, to me, until you get the border secured, you have no opportunity to discuss any type of immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr Speaker, I would recommend to the gentleman to enforce existing law as a starting point.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, may I further inquire as to engaging in personalities or destruction of personalities? Is that something we are now doing on the floor of the House?

It wasn't a hypothetical; it was what was said on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about existing authority that the President has today that he could use to solve the problem at our southern border. He could end catch and release, reinstate the remain in Mexico policy, enter into asylum cooperative agreements with other countries, end parole abuses, detain inadmissible aliens, use expedited removal, rein in taxpayer-funded benefits for people who are in the country illegally, and issue a proclamation to suspend or restrict entry.

All those are available to the President right now, today, to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulty that we have is that President Biden will not use any of the tools he has in his toolbox, and now he is asking for additional tools.

The other problem is codifying 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, 2 million a year, is not, in anyone's estimation, a solution to a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a memo prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security, released on September 30, 2021, discussing the Secretary being there to enforce the laws.

In this memo, he basically says he is going to make the laws that he then purports to enforce.

He bemoans the fact that there is no path for citizenship that has been established, but then goes on to say: ``The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article detailing the number of children that the Department of Homeland Security has lost.

Mr. Speaker, that number has increased year over year. It was 100,000 kids last year. What are we doing if we are losing track of 100,000 children that have come into this country illegally?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen one of the worst cases of Trump derangement syndrome ever recorded.

I would just remind people that I am not running for reelection, so I am not beholden to anyone. As I told the gentleman last week, I am bulletproof. I am only beholden to the constituents I represent. And the constituents I represent do not understand why Texas has had to endure basically an invasion during the tenure of this Secretary of Homeland Security, why he has not enforced the laws that he swore an oath to uphold and enforce. He won't do it.

What are we left to do when we have someone who is charged with protecting our country, charged with enforcing our laws, and he says it is too much trouble, I can't do it?

We know it is possible, because I was on a codel with Speaker Johnson down to the border down at Eagle Pass not but a couple weeks ago. The week before, we had seen on Bill Melugin's report on FOX News thousands of people on the riverbanks on the United States side who were there awaiting processing to be released into our country to parts unknown, for lengths of time unknown. When the Speaker of the House goes down there, there is not a soul on that riverbank.

This problem can be stopped literally overnight, if the Secretary and the President would make it a priority and would do it, but they won't. What are we left to do?

I agree with the gentleman that there is an election coming up. I hope people do remember that. I hope they do remember they have a President who, under 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, has it in his power right now to suspend activities on the southern border, but he won't do it.

We are being invaded, Mr. Speaker. My Governor, Governor Abbott, has officially declared an invasion. I don't think there is any debate about that. The administration and this Secretary have done nothing to help Texas. Instead, they have turned around and sued the State at every turn. Mr. Speaker, $12 billion dollars is what Texas has had to spend over the last year to do the job that Secretary Mayorkas should have been doing.

Just by the numbers, over 2 million illegal aliens apprehended last fiscal year, 15,000 pounds of fentanyl seized from drug smugglers crossing our border. How many families need to lose a child? How many American lives have to be cut short before Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden, and his border czar, Vice President Kamala Harris, change course and actually enforce existing law?

The consequences of this administration and Secretary Mayorkas' actions have been staggering: A southern border open to drug cartels, criminals, human traffickers, and potential terrorists; a record number of migrant deaths; rising human trafficking; exploitation of minors; a growing public health disaster; and an annual net burden to the American taxpayer exceeding $150 billion.

Mr. Speaker, each of these consequences would have been avoidable if Secretary Mayorkas had just enforced existing law. This willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law and the continued breach of public trust by Secretary Mayorkas will not be tolerated. For this, he must be impeached.

I also thank Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers for her leadership in bringing H.R. 485 to the floor and Chairman Mark Green of the Homeland Security Committee for his work on a proper and thorough investigation leading to consideration of H. Res. 863.

Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.