Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, all teachers are special, but educators who stay way beyond normal retirement dates deserve extra credit. In my district, I have four educators from the same high school, Inter-Lakes High School in Meredith, NH, who are retiring after a combined 150 years in education. That is truly remarkable, and I join with their community to thank them for their service to the children and the community.

Vice Principal William Athans has been working in education for 51 years, which is simply incredible. Guidance counselor Christina Gribben has been assisting students and helping them reach their full potential for 43 years. World languages teacher Nancy Stetson has been teaching for 35 years, and science teacher Joyce Warburton has been expanding minds and preparing students for 21 years.

These educators have played a tremendous role in the lives of so many New Hampshire students. They have planted knowledge and wisdom in young minds and prepared their students for success. I hope our newly minted retirees enjoy a long and happy retirement. They certainly have earned it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Cancer Society, which states cancer patients and survivors need affordable, accessible insurance coverage with no preexisting condition exclusions or annual and lifetime caps and that high-risk pools have failed to meet these basic needs.

American Cancer Society

Cancer Action Network,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The American

Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is deeply

concerned about the reports of additional amendments to the

American Health Care Act (AHCA), including one that would

allegedly add $8 billion in new spending for state high-risk

pools. This amendment is particularly egregious because it

would further incent states to apply for waivers from

current-law market rules that protect patients with pre-

existing conditions.

Historically, state high-risk pools have fallen short of

providing coverage of prevention, treatment and follow-up

care for cancer patients and survivors. Segmenting people

with cancer and other serious illnesses away from the private

marketplace and into high-risk pools absent an adequate and

permanent source of public funding has never been an adequate

solution.

Between 1976 and 2010, 35 states created high-risk pools to

cover individuals who could not otherwise purchase insurance

in the private market, usually because of a pre-existing

condition. Every one of those risk pools experienced net

operating losses year after year. Furthermore, high-risk

pools did not result in lower premiums. All of them set

premiums above the non-group market average or standard rate

in the state, usually by 150-200 percent. Only a few states

provided additional premium assistance for low-income

individuals, leaving many who could not afford premiums

priced out of the program. Most states also imposed waiting

periods before covering pre-existing conditions. An

individual with a prior cancer diagnosis often had to wait 6-

12 months before the high-risk pool would cover the costs

associated with cancer treatment or follow-up survivorship

care. Most states imposed limitations on coverage with either

lifetime or annual limits. And most plans offered deductibles

of $1,000 or higher. Neither AHCA, nor the new amendment

would fully protect patients from any of those conditions.

Cancer patients and survivors need insurance coverage that

is affordable, readily accessible, and protects them from

pre-existing condition exclusions, annual and lifetime caps

on coverage and extraordinary out-of-pocket costs. Past

experience has shown that high-risk pools failed to meet

these basic needs, yet still were a drain on state budgets.

As we have indicated in our earlier letters, there are

reasonable fixes that could be made to the current law. We

stand ready to work with you to develop policies that improve

the law and encourage a robust health insurance market that

provides affordable and comprehensive coverage options.

Sincerely,

Christopher W. Hansen,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this cruel bill on behalf of my constituents, especially those it would hurt the most: people with preexisting conditions, older Americans, veterans, and lower income people.

If this bill passes, we will go back to the days when people with preexisting conditions could be denied coverage or charged more, when insurers could decide whether or not to cover basic care like hospitalization, and when sick babies might hit their insurer's lifetime coverage limit before they could even walk.

Under this bill, older Americans will pay more. In fact, Americans aged 50 to 64 would pay premiums five times higher than others. Veterans will lose access to tax credits that make private coverage affordable, and lower income people will be hurt.

Taking away Medicaid expansion would put affordable coverage out of reach for millions and set us back in the fight against the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis.

Instead of this cruel bill, let's come together to improve health care, not take health insurance away from millions just to give tax credits to the wealthiest. We are better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the families and communities across the Nation that are confronting a public health threat of our time: the heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioid crisis.

This motion would simply ensure that the health insurance plans that today's bill would permit must still cover substance use disorder treatment, including for opioids, as an essential health benefit.

Under current law, we require insurers to cover this treatment. Before the Affordable Care Act, many insurers either didn't cover treatment at all or imposed onerous requirements that blocked people from getting needed care.

H.R. 1101 would roll back that guarantee. It would allow association health plans to return to the kind of skimpy coverage that left so many people struggling with an opioid disorder in dire straits at critical moments. We know there is often a narrow window of opportunity--after an overdose, for example--for someone to commit to treatment, and these are the moments when being able to make a single phone call can make all the difference.

This week's debate about health care is extremely important. Will we decide to work together to improve the American people's access to quality, affordable health care or weaken benefits and kick 24 million or more of our constituents off their plans? We all need to speak up on behalf of those whose lives have been turned around because they can now access health care.

As I talk to families, medical professionals, and law enforcement officials in my district, I hear stories that highlight the dramatic impact that improved access to coverage has had in making treatment a real option for people with substance use disorder. This week, we see that base of coverage is under serious threat. In fact, experts estimate that repealing the Affordable Care Act's coverage provisions would cause about 2.8 million Americans with a substance use disorder to lose some or all of their coverage. The quality of that coverage is also at risk.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance must now cover treatment for behavioral health and substance use disorder, just the same as it would cover any other medical service. These parity protections mean insurers must cover treatment for substance use disorder with comparable cost-sharing, with no surprises like annual visit limits, higher copays, or frequent preauthorization requirements and medical necessity reviews.

Badly needed facilities are opening because plans now cover these services. I recently visited a recovery home for pregnant women and new mothers in my district. They were able to open the doors this year in my hometown only because it could rely on Medicaid expansion. Legislation like H.R. 1101 would cause fewer people to have this coverage, meaning fewer facilities can open and treat.

Many of you know that my home State of New Hampshire is on the front lines of the heroin, fentanyl, and prescription opioid crisis. Our communities are struggling, and helping people get treatment is key to turning the tide. I have met people who couldn't be in a recovery facility without Medicaid expansion.

Today, Members of Congress can say to my constituents in New Hampshire and their constituents across this great Nation: we hear you. We know your sons and daughters, your nieces and nephews, your neighbors and friends are struggling, and we have your back.

We believe all Americans deserve good health insurance they can count on when they need it most. We aren't going to pull the rug out from under people who are about to turn their lives around.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion, which would not delay passage of the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to

Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, the VA would create a database to help match qualified job applicants to critical open positions in order to more quickly fill those vacancies.

My amendment is simple. It requires the VA to include mental health positions in that database, allowing it to better serve veterans with critical needs by ensuring that the VA uses all available tools to recruit and hire qualified mental health professionals in a timely and effective manner.

The VA faces a critical shortage of mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health counselors, and peer support specialists. These providers care for our veterans with behavioral health needs that include post-traumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, and substance use disorder. Too many of our veterans must wait to receive the mental health care we have promised to them, and some might never receive needed care at all.

In my home State of New Hampshire, we are fighting a fentanyl, heroin, and prescription opioid crisis that is disproportionately affecting the veteran community. Rates of opioid-use disorder among veterans rose 55 percent between 2010 and 2015, and overdose rates for prescription opioids are twice as high as the national average among veterans getting care at the VA. Increasing mental health provider capacity will allow more of these veterans to enter treatment and, ultimately, recover.

Our veterans deserve to be treated by professionals who fully understand the veteran experience and veteran-specific mental health conditions. That is why it is so important for veterans to have the option to receive specialized mental health care from VA mental health professionals who have the training that will allow them to build trust.

In fact, only 13 percent of non-VA mental health providers meet the criteria to deliver veteran-centric mental

health care, according to RAND. That is why it is so important to hire and retain mental health professionals within the VA.

Right now, there are several open mental health positions at our local VA Medical Center. They seek to hire clinical staff and a mental health service line manager, but are finding it hard to locate qualified applicants. My amendment will make it easier for the VA to find such applicants and match them with the open positions that we need filled.

There is an urgent need to address this problem. Every day, 20 veterans commit suicide. MST, opioid, PTSD--these are all crises we need to address. The time to act is now. Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on individuals like the Syrian skin cancer researcher living in Germany whose visa to visit colleagues in Philadelphia has now been revoked. Let us vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was so pleased to join Families in Transition for the ``I AM ONE: New Hampshire Day to End Childhood Homelessness'' on September 4. I am a social worker by trade and by heart. I can remember just twenty years ago when people saw the issue of child homelessness as the government's problem, not the community's. And yes, the federal government needs to play a role, and so do the states, and so do the cities. But we also need people involved. We need these wonderful non-profits, like Families in Transition, who can do so much on the ground in our communities. Thanks to all attendees for caring, because we know that, in New Hampshire, 25 percent of the people who are homeless are children.

What does it mean to a child, at the end of the day, to have no place to go home to? What does it mean to a child if there isn't a medicine chest there if they feel sick, there's not a refrigerator if they're hungry, there's not a bed to sleep in? And what does it mean to a child when they find out that the people and groups at I AM ONE are coming together to help them? It means everything. Absolutely everything.

Thank you so much for the work that you do. This is a great community and a great state because we work together on these issues. And we're going to solve the problem of child homelessness together.

Mr. Speaker, how did a $35 million earmark for 2012 and maybe 2016 Republican Presidential candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry get into this bill and why? If Texas Governor Rick Perry chooses to send the Texas National Guard to the Texas border on his own, not as a national decision or response, that is his right, but he should pay for it. It is wrong to tax New Hampshire taxpayers and taxpayers around the country to pay for a $35 million earmark for a Texas Governor who acted on his own and now should pay for his decision.

Mr. Speaker, today we stood up again for a moment of silence because there was violence in schools, and we know this has happened repeatedly since Newtown.

These families are waiting for us to do something. They are waiting for Congress to do something. They don't want us to keep standing up for a moment of silence. They want us to stand up for a vote.

I call on Speaker Boehner to bring some legislation to the floor. We have legislation, good legislation that can help prevent some of this terrible tragedy. So let's work together and start addressing this terrible program that is impacting so many people in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to all of the other problems that my colleagues have cited, this bill would exclude walking, biking, and transit projects from TIGER funding, wrongly suggesting that these are not crucial parts of our transportation network. Rails to trails projects, like the one championed by the Mount Washington Valley Trails Association in New Hampshire, are innovative and important. According to Transportation for America, more than 11 percent of all trips are made by biking, and more than 12 percent by walking. We should continue to invest in transportation infrastructure that our constituents rely on and keep this TIGER program strong.

Mr. Chair, due to sequester cuts, the Department of Defense (DoD) needs to increase efficiency and lower costs wherever it can, but this costly amendment prevents DoD from hiring the most cost- efficient workforce. It also would prevent DoD from ever correcting, through insourcing, any contract that costs too much or is poorly performed, period--regardless of the increased costs to taxpayers.

According to the Government Accountability Office, DoD reports savings of almost $1 trillion through insourcing in FY10 alone. In 2013, the DoD Comptroller acknowledged in a Senate hearing that civilian employees are significantly cheaper than contractors, particularly for the performance of long-term functions. So why would anyone want to make it impossible for DoD to save money by correcting overly costly or poorly-performed contracts, especially in a time of shrinking defense budgets? DoD can't afford this amendment, and neither can American taxpayers. Please join me in opposing this costly and wasteful amendment.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I attended the annual New Hampshire Law Enforcement Officers Memorial ceremony. This year's ceremony was particularly somber as we added a new name, Officer Stephen Arkell, to New Hampshire's Roll of Honor.

Officer Arkell was a police officer in the rural community of Brentwood. He was a husband, a proud father, and he loved his town and its people. He was also an accomplished carpenter, a respected youth sports coach, and an avid outdoorsman.

Just a week ago, Officer Arkell responded to a domestic disturbance in a senior housing complex. He walked into a situation that all men and women and their families who serve in our police departments know is possible. He was shot and killed trying to save a citizen.

Officer Arkell is survived by his wife and his two daughters. My thoughts and prayers are with them as they face life without their hero, without our hero.

We all owe Officer Arkell a tremendous debt of gratitude for the courage and sacrifice he showed. He is a true hero, along with Fremont Officer Derek Franek, who risked death himself trying to save him.

I am grateful for the heroism and the bravery of all the law enforcement personnel that responded that day, particularly the other officers from the Brentwood Police Department, the State police SWAT team, and the firefighters who had to put out the fires that the suspect started. I will never forget any of them, and we all are grateful for their service.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has decided the very wealthiest Americans should now be allowed to have even more influence in politics to advance their personal or political or business agendas.

The Court has allowed even more money into campaigns, and this threatens to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Today's Supreme Court McCutcheon decision is the worst affront to democracy since Citizens United. Congress must take action.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to it in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill and will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, just a few years after a financial meltdown that crashed our economy and punished middle class families, some politicians here want to go back to the days when Wall Street wrote its own rules and consumers got the short end of the stick. We all know how that worked out. It brought a tremendous financial crisis.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau emerged out of the ashes of that financial disaster. Congress had learned a hard lesson: consumers needed a watchdog. That is what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is all about. It is a watchdog for consumers. It stands up for people, including students, seniors, and veterans who are often targeted by predatory financial lenders with shady products. Why on earth would we want to hamper the CFPB?

In its short lifetime, the Bureau has secured more than $3 billion for nearly 10 million consumers, including members of the military. It has received more than 270,000 consumer complaints. It has taken action against any payday lenders and debt collectors who take unfair advantage of our Nation's consumers.

The CFPB is working to protect consumers from some of the worst abuses in the financial marketplace, but the bill we are considering today would undermine its work.

First, the bill changes the structure of the CFPB to a five-member commission instead of a single director. In a Congress that is so divided and dysfunctional, it is not fair to mire the Bureau in political gridlock and make it less able to carry out its mission.

Second, this bill would defund the CFPB. Under the guise of transparency, its opponents want to cripple the Bureau by tying it up in Congress. They say this will result in significant cost savings. If they don't fund it properly, of course it will end up in savings.

We would also save money on food inspection if we would only stop inspecting food, but that doesn't mean we would be better off. Defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau comes at the expense of American consumers.

The bill also allows other bank regulators who failed to protect consumers to overrule the CFPB, and it cripples the Bureau's ability to oversee consumer financial markets.

Our constituents don't want us to weaken consumer protections. They actually want us to extend consumer protections to include protection of our personal data and information.

Today's motion to recommit builds on this work and makes sure that Congress is focused on consumer protection. This motion ensures that seniors, servicemembers, students, and other consumers affected by security breaches are promptly notified that their data has been compromised.

Even more importantly, it makes sure that consumers know what steps to take to recover from and how to prevent additional financial fraud. In the event of a personal data breach, companies need to do more than simply alert consumers that it happened. They need to work with the CFPB to inform consumers about how to remove fraudulent charges and monitor their credit going forward.

The motion also addresses a growing problem of predatory lenders targeting our servicemembers and their families. These lenders are taking advantage of loopholes in current law to profit from bad loans that have outrageous interest rates.

They take advantage of our servicemembers by obscuring these interest rates. Some lenders even target our servicemembers looking for home mortgages. This activity is reprehensible, and Congress should stop this activity.

Students are another population this motion would protect. For example, the CFPB recently started investigating campus financial products, such as school-issued debit cards that students use to access financial aid. These cards often have hidden fees, which can add up for students and families who are already struggling to pay for college.

What makes this even worse is that many college campuses don't have fee-free ATMs, so students are being hit with debit card fees and then hit again when they want to access that money. The CFPB needs to be able to make sure that banks aren't taking advantage of our students.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit will make sure that we pass a bill that is fair to consumers, not just banks.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on these commonsense changes, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republican leadership's refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect unemployed workers in my State of New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter that I received from a constituent who is about to have her unemployment benefits cut. I quote:

Now that I am laid off and older, I am having difficulty

finding a job. I understand now I cannot get unemployment

extension. I have never collected anything in my life. So now

what? I am going to be homeless. I do not qualify for

anything because I made too much money. I have spent my

savings, applied for 500-plus jobs to an aimless black hole.

What am I going to do? A homeless shelter? My credit is

damaged and soon I will not pass a background check. I do not

qualify for retraining programs, et cetera, because I have

excellent skill sets. All I hear is I am in a perfect storm,

``Sorry, you are not alone.''

I have been a productive member of society for many years

and do not consider myself a ``taker.'' How many unemployed

will lose their homes, dignity, and hope? I wanted you to

know.

So, to my constituent, I do know and Americans know. It was wrong to leave without fixing this problem.