Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called American Health Care Act. It was a bad deal for America before, and it is a worse deal today. It is an offense to working families. You are going to pay more for your premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, and you are going to get less.

Preventative services, gone. Mental and behavioral health services, no more. Prescription drugs, gone or, at best, a whole lot more expensive.

It is a life-and-death proposition for the 326,000 people in my district with preexisting conditions, segregated into expensive high- risk pools, facing mind-boggling premium increases if you happen to have asthma, diabetes, cancer, or become pregnant.

It is a broken promise to America. President Trump promised not to cut Medicaid; broken. He promised insurance for everybody; broken. He promised preexisting conditions would be covered; broken.

Mr. Speaker, I won't be complicit in this broken promise. I won't uninsure 24 million Americans. I am resisting. I am voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to this so-called Working Families Flexibility Act, a bill that would hurt, not help, working people.

This bill would ensure workers have less time, less flexibility, and less money. Under this proposal, workers would forego the overtime they earn today in exchange for comp time in the future, except workers can't choose when they can use that time.

There is nothing stopping a boss from denying a worker from using their comp time to care for a sick child or attend a school event. The only thing that this bill does is provide more flexibility for bosses, while taking away hard-earned overtime pay that many workers rely on to make ends meet.

This is an attempt to undermine hard-fought, 80-year-old worker protections guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. If Congress wanted to give working families more flexibility, we should give them earned paid sick days, combat pay discrimination, give them a say in their work schedules, and raise the minimum wage. These are the policies that working families truly need to thrive.

They are popular, commonsense ideas that, unlike this bill, don't force workers into choosing between time and money. Families depend on both. Let's work together to support real flexibility for working families.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach President Trump's 100th day in office, I rise to address the vision, the agenda, and the plans the White House has laid out. Except, Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to speak up.

President Trump promised an agenda that was supposed to make America great again, but no one in America or the administration seems to know what that includes. As the dust settles on the cruise missile strike in Syria and the dropping of bombs in Afghanistan, where is the plan for ISIS, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan that Candidate Trump promised?

The President said his $1 trillion infrastructure plan to create millions of jobs is coming fast, but, again, where is the plan? Instead, President Trump's one-page proposal is a massive $2 trillion giveaway to corporations and the wealthy and doesn't include a penny for infrastructure. That is a missed opportunity.

I could keep going. Where is the plan on fixing America's water infrastructure? Where is the plan on making trade fair for American workers? Where is the plan to provide affordable childcare that the President promised?

Mr. Speaker, there is a hard truth the President needs to realize: the difficult work of governing on behalf of the American people is more than tweets and photo ops. The President's first 100 days have been all talk and no action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Fairmont Heights Hornets for winning their first State basketball championship in 36 years.

After trailing by as much as 9 points, the Hornets, under the leadership of Coach Chuck Henry, won the 1A boys State title by a score of 65-52. The team of young scholars was resilient, played hard, and never panicked.

Credit is due to Coach Henry, who has taken his team to the State championship after only 2 years on the job. He is a role model, had high expectations for his students, and constantly pushed them to play better on the court and achieve more in the classroom. Throughout the season, Coach Henry never lost faith in his young team.

Mr. Speaker, the students on the winning Fairmont Heights team may not go on to play in the NCAA or the NBA, but the memories of this moment, the bonds they have built, and the lessons they have developed will stay with them for a lifetime.

Fairmont Heights High School has a proud legacy. When it opened its doors in 1950, it was only one of two high schools in the State of Maryland for African Americans. Now, nearly 70 years later, the school has made history again. This team has made Prince George's County and the entire Fourth Congressional District very proud.

Go, Hornets.

Mr. Speaker, the Russian cloud over this White House and over our democracy is darkening. I rise today to call on this body to come together to create a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the full extent of Russia's influence on the Trump administration and our democracy.

Mr. Putin wants to weaken America and our allies, and he views democracy and human rights as obstacles to Russia's reemergence as a global power.

After Russia maliciously hacked emails and distributed false information to influence our elections for their favorite candidate, they have turned their eye to Germany and France. They want to sow disunity and weakness among Western democracies and undermine the transatlantic alliance.

Mr. Speaker, we must know the full truth of the Trump administration's ties to Putin and the Kremlin. There are too many unanswered questions about financial ties, personal ties, and political ties. Every new tie we discover is followed by another distorted fact from the administration.

The American people are demanding answers now. This House cannot become an accomplice to the administration's desperate efforts to divert attention from this investigation. An independent commission is now the only way to find out what happened and ensure it never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, we must follow the facts. We can't let ourselves be attacked this way ever again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to address two critical public health issues that are important to the families of Maryland's Fourth Congressional District.

Nearly 26 million Americans are estimated to have chronic kidney disease. 700,000 people, including 3,000 in my district in Prince George's County, have irreversible kidney failure or end-stage renal disease often because of complications of diabetes and high blood pressure, where you cannot survive without a kidney transplant or dialysis treatment. And 70 percent of those patients are on dialysis treatment at least three times per week.

This is a serious issue for us to consider today because nearly 50 percent of all end-stage renal disease patients rely on Medicaid. If we pass the Republican plan to gut Medicaid, we are making life-and-death choices for these patients who are disproportionately seniors, minorities, and some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

I saw the potential impact of these brutal cuts on my constituents when I toured a DaVita Dialysis facility in my district. Nearly half of all people with end-stage renal disease in Prince George's County are being treated at a DaVita facility. There I got to speak to several patients receiving lifesaving treatment, and I heard how important it was for them to have access to dialysis.

Many of these patients simply would not get care if it wasn't for the Medicaid expansion, subsidies to afford quality health coverage, and the consumer protections under the Affordable Care Act that prevent health plans from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions and prohibiting insurers from dropping people from plans when they become ill. These are real people who will suffer the consequences of our actions if we pass this pay-more-for-less bill.

As Republicans rush to pass this bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with more expensive and worse care, we are also turning a blind eye to the impact on the opioid crisis that is ravaging many of our communities. In my district in Anne Arundel County, the number of people killed by heroin and opioid overdoses in 2016 was more than the prior 2 years combined.

Records show there have been more overdoses in the first 3 months of 2017 than all of 2016. And last week alone, over a 24-hour period, there were 16 overdoses and 3 fatalities in Anne Arundel County. The Republican bill offers no solutions for this drug crisis. In fact, it makes it worse by dramatically cutting Medicaid and ending the requirement that addiction services and treatment be covered by States.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, 1.3 million people are receiving treatment for substance abuse disorders or mental illnesses under Medicaid expansion. In Maryland, Medicaid pays for nearly 40 percent of all addiction treatment medication.

Without this expansion, the clear majority of those people would either fall into the treatment gap, unable to receive substance abuse treatment because of a lack of insurance or public funds, or be forced to wait months or years to get into publicly-funded treatment programs.

The so-called flexibility Congressional Republicans want to give States would only mean less funding for substance abuse. This is a step in the wrong direction, at a time when we are facing this urgent public health crisis.

Reducing access to addiction treatment would lead to more drug overdose deaths and more trips to our emergency rooms. We know that untreated addiction leads to more crime and more homelessness. Again, I worry that the proposals being offered in this House could cost the lives of thousands of people in my State and around the country.

The GOP plan for repeal will hurt a lot of people: the 24 million Americans who will be uninsured; the millions of middle-income families, especially the elderly, who will pay thousands of dollars more for care; the 33 million children and 10 million people with disabilities impacted by Medicaid cuts; the 390,000 women who will lose care if Planned Parenthood is defunded.

But these aren't just numbers in a CBO report, they are the dialysis patient in Upper Marlboro, or the family whose son is finally getting the addiction treatment he needs in Severna Park.

Mr. Speaker, let us think about all of these families before we vote on this ill-conceived and ill-advised bill. Let's not put partisanship before patients.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 159, YEA on Roll Call No. 160, and YEA on Roll Call No. 161.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Connecticut for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1181, which has very little, if anything, to do with protecting veterans' Second Amendment rights as the bill's title suggests.

I am a 30-year veteran of the United States Army. I served in Iraq. I have led soldiers in both combat support and combat service support units in the active and reserve components.

Our servicemen and -women face harsh realities in harsh environments--not just in wartime, but in peacetime as well. Military life, Mr. Speaker, is a hard life during war and in peace. It takes a toll on the body and the mind. The number of military members seeking mental and behavioral health services in the last 16 years, as well as the mental health-related incidences involving soldiers and veterans, substantiates my point.

But our soldiers are resilient, and that is no less true when we take off the uniform.

But for many of our veterans, it might take some extra help, some extra time, to recover from that harsh and sometimes traumatic military experience.

As a nation, we must support our veterans in recovering from that experience not only by providing the benefits they deserve, but by protecting their right to enjoy the rights that they have defended.

But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1181 misses the mark. When a determination is made that a veteran is mentally incompetent or incapacitated, for whatever reason, that determination is made to protect them, not to punish or deprive them. When that determination is made, we owe it to our veterans not to put a weapon in their hand, but, rather, to put the full weight of a responsive mental health system at their disposal.

We entrusted our soldiers with a weapon while in uniform, so let's treat our veterans with the same expectations and standards of safety when they take off the uniform. If the unintended consequences of the current law, as the bill's supporters claim, are too broad and disqualified too many of our veterans from responsible gun ownership, then let's work together to tackle that issue.

However, this bill goes too far and would prohibit the VA Secretary from sharing important information with law enforcement on veterans who might be a danger to themselves or to others.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1181 misses the mark and ignores the responsibility to safeguard and take care of our veterans who have sacrificed so much to protect our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three documents, and they are the testimony of Brigadier General Xenakis, an op-ed from General Chiarelli, as well as testimony submitted by Jeffrey Swanson.

Testimony of Brigadier General (Ret) Stephen N. Xenakis, MD

erik erikson scholar, the austen riggs center

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Hearing

June 24, 2015

H.R. 2001--Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Thank you to the Committee for this opportunity to submit

testimony regarding H.R. 2001--Veterans 2nd Amendment

Protection Act. I am Dr. Stephen Xenakis, retired Brigadier

General and Army Medical Corps Officer, with 28 years of

active military service. I am certified by the American Board

of Psychiatry and Neurology in General Psychiatry and Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry, and have dedicated my professional

career to providing medical and psychiatric care to our

soldiers and veterans and sustaining the readiness of our

fighting force. First and foremost, I am dedicated to

improving and protecting their health and wellbeing, and

therefore urge the committee not to pass H.R. 2001--Veterans

2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001) in its current form.

Under the current process, if a veteran is determined to be

incapable of managing his or her disbursement of funds from

the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the veteran is

assigned a fiduciary, categorized as mentally incompetent,

considered ``adjudicated mental defective,'' and therefore

prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. In its

current form, H.R. 2001 would

change the process, stating those who are deemed mentally

incompetent by the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) would

NOT be considered adjudicated mental defective ``without the

order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial

authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a

danger to himself or herself or others. The result being,

individuals who are currently prohibited from purchasing or

possessing firearms, because of a VBA fiduciary finding,

would no longer be prohibited.

Though I concur that there is room for improvement in the

VA interpretation of the mentally incompetent determination,

H.R. 2001 is misguided in its approach. Yes, there may be

individuals who have been swept into the ``adjudicated mental

defective'' category because they need assistance managing

their disbursement of VBA funds and for whom firearms access

would not pose a risk to themselves or anyone else. However,

there are also individuals in this category for whom access

to a firearm would indeed be dangerous. Therefore restoring

firearms in the sweeping manner to everyone declared mentally

incompetent by the VA, as H.R. 2001 would do, would put our

veterans, and citizens, in harm's way.

To discuss H.R. 2001 is to discuss this country's veteran

suicide crisis, and to discuss suicide is to discuss access

to firearms. The high suicide rate among the veteran

population is devastating; a 2012 report from the VA reported

an estimated 22 veterans per day commit suicide. Data shows

recent veterans who were on active duty during the wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan have a marked increased risk of suicide

compared to the general population (41% higher suicide risk

among deployed veterans; 61% higher risk among those non-

deployed). Access to firearms is a significant part of the

problem; a study of male veterans found that veterans were

more likely than non-veterans to use firearms as a means to

suicide. Research shows firearms are the most lethal means to

suicide; an estimated 85% of suicide attempts using a firearm

are fatal, compared to 2% by poisoning or overdose, or 1% by

cutting.

The evidence is strong and paints a grim picture--suicide

is a serious public health problem. According to 2013 data

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide

is the 10th leading cause of death for all age groups.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for those age

25-34, ahead of heart disease, liver disease, or HIV. Over

half of the 41,149 suicides in 2013 were by firearm.

Our society can mitigate this problem however with smart

policies and practices. We should take a page out of the

military training manuals. The military trains us to think

``safety first'' and avoid unnecessary harm and injury. It is

our standard practice among military psychiatrists to

confront a potentially suicidal soldier and intervene

aggressively to protect the soldier and the family. I

routinely ask--``do you have weapons, where are they, what

can you and your family do now to keep you and them safe?''

As such, it is absolutely crucial, that any veteran who has

been deemed mentally incompetent by the VBA go through an

individualized process to restore his or her firearms rights,

including an assessment for risk to self and others

consistent with best medical practices, to ensure that the

veteran would not constitute a danger to the self or others

going forward. Such a process is not outlined in H.R. 2001

and, therefore, I urge the committee not to pass the

amendment in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 132 would allow a title transfer of two Federal buildings to the Arbuckle Master Conservancy District in south central Oklahoma. These buildings are part of the Arbuckle Project, which is a water project authorized by Congress in 1962 to provide flood control, recreational opportunities, and municipal water supply.

Nearly all of the facilities within the Arbuckle Project were already transferred to the Arbuckle Master Conservancy District in 2012 after the district finished repaying what it owed the Federal Government for construction. However, due to some overly narrow language in the legislation authorizing the Arbuckle Project, two buildings within the project have yet to be transferred.

Transferring the two remaining buildings will save taxpayer money that would otherwise be needed to operate and maintain the buildings and will also relieve the Federal Government of any potential future liability associated with the buildings. This is straightforward legislation that should be quickly passed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 648 would increase the amount of water that can be stored in the Fontenelle Reservoir in Lincoln County, Wyoming, by allowing the active storage capacity of the reservoir to be used. This bill has been written in a balanced manner that respects existing laws, compacts, and treaties, and does not attempt to expand Wyoming's entitlement to Colorado River supplies at the expense of other Colorado River Basin States.

H.R. 648 is a straightforward, noncontroversial piece of legislation that is identical to a bill that was unanimously passed by the Committee on Natural Resources last Congress. I support H.R. 648 and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

H.R. 267 is an important and historically significant piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support. In fact, it passed the House on a voice vote just over a year ago. The bill accomplishes two primary goals: to designate the Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia, as a national historical park; and to adjust the boundary of the park to include the Prince Hall Masonic Temple, the first headquarters of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Taken together, these actions will enhance the National Park Service's ability to tell and elevate the story of Dr. King.

The site, which is the final resting place of the great civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., continues to connect visitors with the historical and contemporary struggles for civil rights in this country.

These stories are as relevant today as they were half a century ago. By officially designating the area as a national historical park, this legislation will provide the site with the acknowledgement it so justly deserves.

Lastly, I want to thank Congressman Lewis, who remains an important and iconic civil rights leader, for bringing this important bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I again urge adoption of this important legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the proposal offered by the Republican majority to replace the Affordable Care Act.

After nearly 7 years of repeal votes, House Republicans finally released their healthcare proposal on Monday. Simply stated, this proposal is bad for seniors, it is bad for the poor, and it is bad for the sick. It costs more and offers less. It raises cost on middle class Americans while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and to special interests.

Madam Speaker, more than 12,000 of my constituents receive financial assistance to buy health insurance on the exchange in the commercial market. Almost all of them will get less help under the Republican proposal.

Why is that?

Because the proposed tax credits will vary by age and income, which means premiums will be unaffordable for the low- to moderate-income families and seniors. As premiums go up with healthcare costs over time, these tax credits don't rise, making insurance less affordable year after year.

Regarding the individual mandate, while removing it may be politically popular, experts who have studied this expect premiums to increase 25 percent when the individual mandate is eliminated. When the employer mandate is eliminated under the GOP proposal, fewer employers will offer insurance to their employees.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the GOP proposal because it will significantly raise healthcare costs on individuals in their fifties and sixties.

And why is that?

Because the plan will allow insurers to charge them five times more than younger policyholders. In fact, if you are 60 years or older and making an average income, under the GOP proposal your insurance bill will go up by $3,200 each year while you lose $6,000 in tax credits and subsidies.

Madam Speaker, nearly 30,000 men, women, and children in my district are currently covered by the Medicaid expansion provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Each of them now stands to lose coverage if the Republican Congress eliminates Maryland's Medicaid expansion. Even our Republican Governor understands that much.

The GOP plan to so-called modernize Medicaid essentially turns the program into a block grant program that shifts the costs to States. States simply cannot afford that. As a result, we will eventually see massive cuts to this cost-efficient program.

This plan to turn Medicaid into a block grant program would hurt the working poor, children, seniors, and people with disabilities that rely on this program. This is wrong and disgraceful.

And why do Republicans want to cut Medicaid, Madam Speaker?

I am not sure, but I do know they are also proposing huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

Under Monday's midnight proposal, we now see that the 400 wealthiest households in America will receive annual tax cuts of $7 million. The proposal also includes a tax break for insurance companies that pay their CEOs over half a million dollars a year.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans kept this proposal under lock and key for a reason. They scheduled a committee markup without a single hearing or even a CBO score.

The American people and their Representatives deserve to see the numbers. That means every Member of this Congress needs to hear from the Congressional Budget Office: How much will it cost taxpayers? How will it impact our hospitals and health centers?

How many people will lose the health coverage they have right now?

The American public demands and deserves to know.

Madam Speaker, this is not regular order and this is not why I came to Congress. When Democrats introduced the Affordable Care Act, whether you supported it or not, we held 79 hearings over 2 years, heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, and posted the bill online 30 days before markup.

The Republicans have done none of these things. That is hypocritical and shameful. We will resist this dangerous repeal proposal, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 122.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Farenthold

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Prince George's County Public Schools for achieving a record high school graduation rate. Prince George's schools are living up to their motto of being Great By Choice.

Eight schools have met the goal of graduating 90 percent of seniors within 4 years, including three schools in the Fourth Congressional District: Charles Herbert Flowers High School, DuVal High School, and the Academy of Health Sciences at Prince George's Community College.

Many schools in the Fourth District, including Suitland, Potomac, and Forestville high schools have demonstrated real progress, with graduation rate gains of more than 4 percentage points.

Mr. Speaker, these gains have been made possible by the incredible dedication of educators and parents who are focused on policies that improve student success like expanding mentoring programs, effectively using data to target student needs, and emphasizing core reading and math skills.

Mr. Speaker, we must prepare students for successful lives and careers once they graduate from high school. That is why I am committed to working during this Congress to ensure every student has access to rigorous, relevant, and results-driven career technology education programs to equip them with the skills to succeed in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 38. Today, I speak against eliminating the Department of the Interior's stream protection rule. The proposed rule is

about balancing the need to support our American coal industry with our responsibility to safeguard and protect our environment.

What is most concerning and simply outrageous is that this bill proposes to not only overturn the stream protection rule, but it would prohibit the Interior Department from ever issuing a similar rule in the future, even as technology advances and best practices to safeguard the environment improve.

The rule, which was drafted over 7 years, after 30 public meetings and over 100,000 public comments, is the first major update to surface mining regulations in more than 30 years, but is being rolled back without even a single hearing in this Congress, which doesn't follow regular order.

Mr. Speaker, Maryland has a rich history of coal mining, a history that predates our Nation's founding. Yet, for a decade, we have witnessed a slow decline in coal production and a shift toward cheaper and cleaner sources of energy. Nevertheless, the industry in Maryland continues to employ hundreds of people, produce nearly 2 million tons annually, and coal is the leading export commodity leaving the port of Baltimore. I support the coal industry in Maryland.

But in Maryland, where the streams from our mountain panhandle, coal country, flow into the Potomac and eventually the Chesapeake Bay, we have taken proactive steps to mitigate the environmental impact associated with mining, requiring companies to develop and follow reclamation plans, divert streams, treat acidic drainage with chemicals, and control erosion and runoff.

However, our efforts and requirements haven't kept up with modern technology and innovative best practices. And the proposed rule enables us to employ better technology to better achieve our environmental goals.

The Department of the Interior estimates that compliance costs will amount to a de minimis percentage of coal industry revenues, there will be a minimal impact on mining jobs, and it will create good-paying, green jobs. We will protect 6,000 miles of streams, 52,000 acres of forest, and reduce 2.6 million more tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Speaker, representing families in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, I understand firsthand that once the ecologies of streams, rivers, and bays are degraded, they cannot be easily reclaimed.

Now is not the time to turn back or turn our back on technology that is available and that is offered up in this rule.