Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neal for yielding. The Inflation Reduction Act was a huge step toward lowering healthcare costs and energy costs for families all across the country and creating new jobs in my home State of Michigan.

It was fully paid for by making sure the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals paid their fair share in taxes.

This funding for the Internal Revenue Service helps ensure that it has the resources to go after those wealthy taxpayers that are avoiding paying their fair share.

It is simply not fair that billionaires like Elon Musk and massive companies like Amazon have paid less in Federal income taxes some years than a Bay City teacher, a Saginaw nurse, or a Midland factory worker.

Further, the Inflation Reduction Act is helping to fight inflation, bringing down costs for Americans.

With this bill, Republicans are trying to roll back these efforts to fight inflation.

A vote against the motion to recommit that I will offer is a vote against the Inflation Reduction Act.

Today, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this bill will add $114 billion to the national deficit.

This is the first order of business for this majority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add the text of this amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, on December 8, 2022 I missed Roll Call Vote 515. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 515.

Madam Speaker, on November 29, 2022, I missed a roll call vote on S. 4003. Had I been present, I would have proudly voted for this bill to provide law enforcement the resources and flexibility needed to train their officers.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 486.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Inflation Reduction Act to help fight inflation and lower costs for the Michigan families and seniors that I represent.

With this bill, we will be able to lower healthcare costs for Michigan families and seniors. This bill will allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs, including capping the cost of insulin for seniors at $35 a month.

With this bill, we will create good-paying jobs to combat the climate crisis. This bill will invest in domestic clean energy production and manufacturing facilities to lower costs. It will support making solar panels at companies like Hemlock Semiconductor and electric vehicles in Michigan, not in China.

With this bill, which is fully paid for, we will ensure the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals pay their fair share of taxes. Right now, 55 of the Nation's biggest corporations pay zero in Federal taxes while making billions in profits. A Flint nurse, a Saginaw farmer, or a Bay City teacher should not pay more in taxes than the largest, wealthiest, most profitable corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the CHIPS Act will help boost the United States' semiconductor manufacturing capacity. The legislation includes a 25 percent investment tax credit for businesses to invest in facilities for which the primary purpose is the manufacturing of semiconductors or semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Experts agree that a semiconductor is a substance, such as silicon, whose electrical conductivity is between that of a conductor and that of an insulator, or a semiconductor device. Semiconductors have become an essential aspect of modern life, and this legislation will increase the production of semiconductors here in the USA, including in my home state of Michigan. I support passage of this crucially important legislation which accelerates the production of U.S.-made semiconductors by providing support along the entire supply chain.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Grand Blanc Township chief of police Ron Wiles as he retires after 26 years of service on the police force.

In his quarter century serving Grand Blanc Township, Chief Wiles has been an incredible champion for community policing, bringing law enforcement and the community together keeping mid-Michigan residents safe from crime.

Chief Wiles is an important member of the Genesee County Advocates and Leaders for Police and Community Trust, or ALPACT, a forum where community leaders and law enforcement come together to develop public safety solutions for crime.

Chief Wiles is also well-recognized as a figure across Michigan law enforcement. Recently, he completed an outstanding term as president of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.

Chief Wiles has also served on the Governor's Traffic Safety Advisory Commission; and in March, Chief Wiles was appointed by Governor Whitmer to serve on the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards where he will continue working to better the law enforcement profession and keep Michiganians safe.

I personally thank Chief Wiles for his service to our community, for our work together on behalf of mid-Michigan. Grand Blanc Township has been blessed by his presence, and I congratulate him on his retirement.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 1254, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 623, H.R. 3952, H.R. 3962, H.R. 4551, H.R. 5313, H.R. 6933, H.R. 7132, H.R. 7361, H.R. 7569, H.R. 7624, H.R. 7733, and H.R. 7981.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1254, I call up the bill (H.R. 6929) to increase the benefits guaranteed in connection with certain pension plans, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam 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 on the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act of 2022, will restore the hard-earned pensions of more than 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees, including 5,000 in my home State of Michigan.

The Susan Muffley Act is a bipartisan bill supported by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. I worked most particularly with Mr. Ryan of Ohio and Mr. Turner of Ohio on this legislation along with the other cosponsors. It is endorsed by the AARP, the AFL-CIO, and the UAW. I am glad we can come together finally to do what is right for these workers. These are workers who lost their pensions through no fault of their own.

In this country, Madam Speaker, if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to retire with dignity and with peace of mind. Instead, these workers had the rug ripped out from underneath them and lost their hard-earned benefits. When General Motors filed for bankruptcy during the Great Recession the Federal Government--I repeat, the Federal Government--made the unprecedented step to move in and save the auto industry. At the direction of the Federal Government, however, the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the PBGC, assumed responsibility for the Delphi salaried retiree pensions. After negotiations with the Federal Government, the PBGC cut those hard- earned benefits by as much as 70 percent for 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees.

These retirees were treated differently than other retirees impacted by the GM bankruptcy. They suffered significant cuts to their benefits, upending the lives of thousands and thousands of families.

In September of 2019, the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association filed suit against the PBGC to have their pension benefits restored. It went all the way to the Supreme Court until the Court declined to hear the case, making it clear that only congressional action could restore these earned pension benefits.

Our legislation would make this unique group of retirees who had their pensions unfairly and disproportionately cut will make them whole again. This means that beneficiaries will receive a payment of the difference of what was actually paid to them by the PBGC and what they would have earned had they been able to keep their pensions like everyone else did. Moving forward, beneficiaries will receive their full earned pension.

This bill is fully paid for and will not add to the deficit.

Delphi salaried retirees deserve to have their pensions made whole because it was the Federal Government that singled these workers out. It was the Federal Government who stepped in to rescue General Motors but decided to treat these workers differently and cut their earned pensions. It was the Federal Government, not General Motors, who directly negotiated with the PBGC.

What happened to these hardworking retirees was wrong, and now it is the Federal Government who has the responsibility to fix the mess that itself created.

We need to get this legislation done for people like Susan Muffley for whom this bill is named. David Muffley, Susan's husband, worked at Delphi as an electronics technician for 31 years but lost the full value of his pension in 2009. His wife, Susan Muffley, was a core part of the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association's leadership team fighting to restore these pensions.

Because of the financial difficulties of losing their pension, Susan avoided seeing her doctor because they couldn't afford it. Sadly, she was ultimately diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and passed away.

After working hard for 30 years to earn a pension to support your family through retirement, no worker and no family member should be forced to forgo medical treatment to make ends meet. These workers need the Susan Muffley Act. The last 13 years have been an absolute nightmare for these families. These are people I know.

During the Obama Administration, the problem was created but never addressed. During the Trump administration, the former President talked about fixing the issue but never acted. He ran out of time before that moment could occur. But now, today, after lots of talk and not so much action, Congress can finally act to provide relief and justice for these workers, these Delphi salaried retirees.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I disagree with the conclusions that she makes, and I would only challenge a couple of things.

One is on the issue of precedent. There is no precedent, unless the precedent is when the Federal Government intervenes and takes control of a company, takes ownership of a company, it buys the problem. It then owns the solution. It owns responsibility for the solution.

So the only precedent that I think this sets is one that I learned a long time ago: if you broke it, you bought it. The Federal Government intervened and made these decisions disproportionately affecting these particular employees.

The rest of the employees got their pensions topped up, why wouldn't this particular set?

Secondly, I disagree with the reference that this is candy. For these taxpayers, these families, this is rent, this is food on the table, it is their mortgage payment, it is a car payment, and it is medicine-- medicines that, sadly, Susan Muffley didn't have the ability to get to because her pension was cut. This is about justice.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), who unfortunately is spending her last months in Congress. I wish that weren't the case.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I appreciated the gentleman's comments. I will point out, since the gentleman did refer to the former President, Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump saw this as an injustice and directed his administration to address it as well.

And I also think there is enough partisanship in Washington, more than enough, so let's not make something that is bipartisan just for the point of rhetorical value into something that is claimed to be partisan.

This is not a partisan piece of legislation. I see Mr. Turner on the other side of the aisle. We have worked together on this for years; 17 of the 37 cosponsors of this legislation are Republicans, including Members with whom I don't think I have ever shared sponsorship. I don't recall, for example, being a cosponsor of any piece of legislation with Mr. Mo Brooks. We are on this one.

This is not a partisan bill, so let's not call it that. You can disagree with it. You can vote against people getting their hard-earned pensions, but let's not make it into something that it isn't.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a friend that I have known for a very long time, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a gentleman that I have been working with on this issue for as long as I have been in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the longest-serving woman in the history of the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

I do believe, and I agree with my colleague, that the facts ought to be correct and that the Record ought to be clear. That is why I want to clarify a couple of things.

Number one, I continue to hear opponents of this legislation depict it as a Democratic bill, a partisan bill. That is just not true. It is amazing to me in this body that we can still have people say things that just are patently untrue. That is not true.

Just look at the list of Republican cosponsors of this legislation. If you don't want to look at that list, don't look at that list. Just look back a couple of years when then-Republican President Donald Trump saw this as an injustice and directed his administration to solve this problem.

This is not a partisan piece of legislation. I understand the game; I get it. Everything around here somehow has to be turned into Democrats versus Republicans.

I am going to tell you something about the Delphi salaried retirees. Some are Democrats. Some are Republicans. Some are Independents. They live in every part of this country. They are people who worked really hard and did nothing wrong and lost everything that they had worked for in some cases.

Two, the other fact that I want to correct, it is true that only the losses that these pension recipients received, the losses that they experienced would be made up for. So when my colleague points out the fact that some did not receive a 70 percent cut, that is true. People will only receive what was promised to them. That is kind of an American ideal, isn't it? We keep our promises.

As to the point that this is a private pension that was mismanaged and failed and the government shouldn't become involved, that ship sailed a long time ago when the government got involved. The government took control of the company, took control of its assets, made these decisions.

So if there is a precedent to be set, the precedent is this: The Federal Government makes a mistake, the Federal Government has the obligation to fix it. I don't know what is wrong with that. I don't know what is wrong with that. I mean, that is the way I was raised.

I don't know who is watching today. I don't know how many Americans are watching, but I hope they are paying attention. I know a lot of those Delphi salaried retirees are watching. Despite some of what you heard today--because this place becomes very political, unfortunately-- despite some of what you heard, what you saw and what you are about to see in a little while, we are Democrats and Republicans who disagree on a lot of things and we are coming together to fix a problem that has lasted for 13 years, a problem that occurred on the watch of a Democratic President, a problem that a Republican President was attempting to address, but who didn't get it done, and now in this moment Members of Congress--with whom I have very little in common-- share one thing for sure, we represent many of the same people, people who have suffered an injustice and are looking to the Congress of the United States as the last chance they have to have that mistake made right.

That is a precedent I don't mind seeing us set. If the Federal Government makes a mistake, we fix it. That is what we are about to do here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), my friend, for yielding to me to speak in favor of this rule, which includes consideration of legislation that I and others drafted, the Susan Muffley Act, to ensure that people who worked hard, played by the rules--20,000 of these Delphi salaried retirees, including 5,000 in my home State of Michigan--have their pensions protected.

The Susan Muffley Act is a bipartisan bill. I will address that again in a moment. Republicans and Democrats came together to pull this legislation together. The AARP supports it; the AFL-CIO supports it. These are workers who lost their pension through no fault of their own.

When General Motors filed for bankruptcy during the recession, PBGC assumed responsibility for these retirees and unfairly cut their benefits as a result of the discharge of that bankruptcy. These retirees were treated differently than other retirees affected by that bankruptcy. As a result, it upended so many lives.

In September of 2009, the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association filed suit. After unsuccessfully petitioning the Supreme Court, it became obvious and clear that a legislative solution was the only way to get this done.

My legislation would make those retirees whole again. The beneficiaries will receive a payment, the difference between what they would have received had their pension been protected.

But let me just get to the point why this action is necessary. I will specifically address some of the concerns raised by my friend, Dr. Burgess. This is not a precedent unless you consider the precedent for any other time that the Federal Government, whether you agreed with it or not--and I know many didn't--inserted itself into this situation where GM and Delphi were facing bankruptcy, took control of the company, provided capital to the company, got their money back.

It was the Federal Government who stepped in to do this. It was the Federal Government that contributed to the decision to treat these particular workers differently when it came to their earned pensions. So now it is the Federal Government's responsibility to fix the mess that it created in the name of Susan Muffley, a woman whose husband worked at Delphi for 31 years and failed to seek medical treatment because they didn't have access to healthcare during that period that they were being overlooked.

Look, after working for 30 years to earn a pension, you ought to be able to be respected. The issue here, this is not a precedent in the sense that it is not just a private pension system that failed. It was a system that was taken over by the Federal Government, run through bankruptcy by the Federal Government, and decisions by the Federal Government that contributed to this.

It is not a partisan piece of legislation. The gentleman says it is a partisan bill. It is not. I wrote it with Mr. Turner of Ohio. I see Mr. Katko on the floor, a cosponsor of this legislation. For goodness' sake, there are very few bills where I find my name on the same piece of legislation with Representative Mo Brooks. He is on this bill. If you think that is not bipartisan, I don't know what is.

This is something the Trump administration attempted to resolve, and now the Obama administration is working with us to get it done. I am sorry--the Biden administration. Actually, the Obama administration failed to get it done. Some of my friends on the other side have said that I might be reluctant to say so. No.

Here is my view: If you broke it, you bought it. This was a failure that occurred during the Obama administration. I am not afraid to admit that. But that doesn't mean because I happen to be a member of that same party that I don't think we ought to step up and do the right thing when we can to deal with this. The Federal Government is responsible for what happened to these workers. No two ways about it. The Federal Government owes it to them to fix it.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize a longtime leader in our community, Mark Flegenheimer, as he retires from Michigan Sugar.

Mark has been in the sugar industry for 40 years. He first started with Michigan Sugar in 1994 before quickly moving up to become president and CEO in 1998, where he succeeded his father.

At one point, the sugar beet industry was on the brink of collapse in Michigan, a fate that many other communities across the country suffered, but through Mark's leadership and the determination of the beet growers and those who work with him, they got through these really difficult times. During Mark's tenure, in fact, Michigan Sugar has doubled its output while using 40 percent less energy to save costs and to protect the environment.

In mid-Michigan, we have thousands of family farms, including sugar beet growers. Every day they work with and depend on Michigan Sugar, and so we thank Mark for all he has done over the years.

Mark is not only a great businessman but also a really good guy, a great part of our community. He volunteers his time as a member of the Delta College Foundation board of directors and as vice chairman of the board at the Midland Center for the Arts.

Mark, thank you for your dedication to mid-Michigan, and congratulations on your retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to lower prices for families I represent in mid-Michigan, and I thank Chairman Blumenauer for his leadership on this very important issue.

Production of infant formula in this country isn't working properly. It is not getting to the shelves, and it is denying families what they need at the most important time in the development of the life of a child. After product recalls, corporate consolidations, and obviously pandemic-related supply chain issues, this is a real struggle for American families.

As parents raising three kids, my wife and I empathize with those anxious parents out there who are struggling to find formula for their newborn children. That is why Congress has to act to increase imports of formula until domestic production can get back to the point where we can supply our domestic needs with our own production capacity.

However, as has been said, some formula imports are still subject to really high tariffs, up to 27 percent, and there is no reason at this moment that American families who are struggling should have to pay that additional cost. They shouldn't have to pay more for something that is absolutely necessary for their children.

That is why we introduced this legislation, supported by Republicans and Democrats, to suspend these formula import tariffs for the rest of the year and to lower costs for families with children. I really do urge my colleagues, all of us, to join. This is something we ought to be able to do together to immediately reduce prices

for families who have needs, for families with small children, to make sure that until we can get our domestic production back online, we can supply what we need at a cost that is affordable to those families that are simply trying to take care of their kids. That is our obligation. That is why we swore the oath to come here and do this work. We have the tools in our hands to get this done.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) for offering this very important piece of legislation and to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer) for his support on the amendment that I am offering and all of our dedication to the Great Lakes being quite evident by this work.

Growing up in Michigan, my family would camp and fish every year in East Tawas, Michigan. We grew up on the Great Lakes. These are really fond memories I have from my childhood, and it is a particular honor as a result to represent 118 miles of Lake Huron shoreline in Congress.

Over the past couple of centuries, nearly 200 non-native species have established populations in the Great Lakes. In my home State, invasive species like Asian carp, zebra mussels, and phragmites threaten the health of our Great Lakes. Zebra mussels have clogged our water infrastructure costing millions in cleanup. Asian carp eat the wetland plants that are critical habitats for native fish and waterfowl. We have to prevent the spread of invasive species in our Great Lakes, we have an obligation to do that.

This bipartisan amendment would expand the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund to manage and prevent invasive species. We believe this simple amendment makes this very good bill stronger and will have a positive impact on the Great Lakes economy.

When we protect our wildlife and natural resources, we strengthen our economy and we preserve our way of life. The Great Lakes are a source of drinking water for millions, a critical wildlife habitat, and help support 1 million jobs in boating, fishing, and tourism industries.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan amendment to protect our Great Lakes and strengthen our natural resources, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I agree that we ought to do everything we can to address this issue of invasive species. I just happen to believe that this bill is a very appropriate approach to this.

Coming from the Great Lakes, I will say we need every tool we can get our hands on to protect this incredible resource. I welcome the opportunity to include this language in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), my colleague, friend, and the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the debate and the conversation, but for me and I think for Congresswoman Dingell, and certainly for Congressman Meijer and anybody else who has grown up knowing and loving the Great Lakes, this is an important economic resource. It is an important cultural resource. It is literally the definition of the lines of our State.

Protecting the Great Lakes is an incredibly high priority for Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, people all across the spectrum. And every opportunity we have to take even a small step to do more to protect this precious water resource we are going to take that opportunity.

For that reason, I support the underlying legislation. I advocate on behalf of my amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me, Mr. Meijer and Mrs. Dingell in supporting it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, from Oxford, Michigan, to Uvalde, Texas,

Americans have seen more than 240 mass shootings in just 158 days. In the past week, a pregnant woman was shot at a picnic in Saginaw, Michigan, and a young boy was shot in Flint.

It does not have to be this way.

America is the only developed country in the world where this type of gun violence happens every single day.

And that is why I support these commonsense efforts to expand red flag laws; to raise the purchasing age for some semiautomatic weapons to 21 years of age; to crack down on gun trafficking and straw purchases; to address ghost guns, untraceable guns without serial numbers that can be bought and assembled at home; to restrict high- capacity magazines; and to ban bump stocks, devices that turn semiautomatic rifles into automatic weapons, into a machine gun.

I wrote this legislation back in 2017 after a mass shooter in Las Vegas was able to fire over 1,000 rounds in just mere minutes, killing 60 people.

While no single law will stop every tragedy, we can do what we can, and that is why I support this important legislation. I am glad the House passed it. The Senate should take it up now.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Neal for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee in helping to bring this important legislation to the floor.

Right now, families and seniors that I represent in Michigan, and all across the country, are paying too much for prescription drugs, in particular, for insulin. That is why Congresswoman Craig and Congresswoman McBath and I have introduced the Affordable Insulin Now Act to make insulin more accessible and more affordable.

This legislation would lower out-of-pocket costs for Americans with diabetes by ensuring that insurers and Medicare can't charge more than $35 a month out-of-pocket for this medication.

Insulin was discovered over 100 years ago. Since then, little about this lifesaving medication has changed, but the price of insulin in the United States has absolutely skyrocketed. As a result, Americans pay 10 times more for insulin than patients in other developed countries, and one in four Americans who rely on insulin have cut back or skipped their doses due to costs.

No one should have to choose between taking their medication as prescribed and putting food on the table or a roof over their head. People must make that choice because of Big Pharma's unfair pricing practices. This is something I know a little bit about.

As a father of a type 1 diabetic, I have seen firsthand how the high price of prescription drugs like insulin can harm patients and harm families. When my daughter turned 26 and got her own health insurance, there are months where she spends a third of her take-home pay, because she is diabetic, on staying alive. She has her mom and I to back her, but not everybody has that advantage. Either way, it doesn't make it okay.

In Michigan, it is estimated that 1 in 10 people have some form of diabetes. The average sticker price for a month's supply of insulin is $375, but for some it can be as high as $1,000 a month, just because they need to take more insulin. That is just not right.

Jill Verdier, a type 1 diabetic from my district, was my virtual guest at the State of the Union this year. She told me that insulin is like air to people with diabetes, they need it to survive.

At a time when Big Pharma is making record profits, Congress has to do more to lower costs, out-of-pocket costs. And that is why I fought to bring this bill to the floor with my colleagues, Representative Craig and Representative McBath. I urge my colleagues to vote to pass our legislation to lower costs. This is important legislation. I know we need to invest in cures. Obviously we would like to see the total price of insulin come down. But it is difficult to hear my colleagues on the other side who oppose the legislation to bring down the cost will also oppose this legislation to keep Americans from having to spend more out of their pocket. I think this is legislation that makes sense. It would help people. It would save lives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is also a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, to my friend from Arizona, I appreciate his passion. I wish it were true that he had somehow cured diabetes. It would be great news for my daughter and so many other Americans who say that they are looking for that cure. In the meantime, while we are working to get there--and I appreciate the effort, I do, because I am on board, I am completely on board with the notion that we ought to cure this terrible disease--however, until that day comes, let's make sure that the people who depend on insulin in order to stay alive can live to see that day that I know he and I both are looking forward to.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who is my colleague from the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues' support of this legislation. This is important legislation.

I will say this: I understand the points that have been made on the other side. As a father of a type 1 diabetic, I am one of those many millions of families that pay very close attention to the important research that we think ultimately may lead to a cure for diabetes, so I embrace the suggestion made on the other side that we have hope for a cure. I have hope for a cure. Ever since my daughter was diagnosed, I have been waiting for that moment, as she has, for that cure to appear. If it is just outside our grasp, let's do everything we can to get there.

But that is not what this legislation is intended to attack. It doesn't mean we ignore that. It means we continue to push.

I have worked with my colleague on this side of the aisle, Congresswoman DeGette, to try to do everything we can to find these cures. But in the meantime, let's make sure that there is not a diabetic who is standing at the pharmacy counter with lifesaving medication just beyond their reach, not because it is unavailable but because it is unaffordable to them.

I take the point that while this legislation doesn't do what we all would like to do--and that is to reduce the overall cost of medication through the way markets actually work, negotiation between a buyer and a seller. I mean, that is the way the free market works. Let's let the free market work and not have law that allows the seller to dictate to us the price of a drug that can save lives and make huge profits while there are people in a pharmacy reaching for a drug that they can't get because the price is too high. This legislation will help save lives in the immediate term.

I hope there is a day when Democrats and Republicans can come together to establish policy that would allow negotiation on the overall price of these lifesaving medications. That would be a solution. We support it; you oppose it. In the meantime, let's do this and save some lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the recent forced removal of Sudan's transitional government by Sudan's military forces.

Before the October coup by military leaders, Sudan's civilian-led government was positively reengaging with the United States and the rest of the world, including being removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list and opening up the Sudanese economy for foreign investment.

The Sudanese people have bravely stood up to demand the right to democratically choose their own future after decades of oppression under a previous regime. The Sudanese military must respect the rights of the Sudanese people.

America must stand with those who want democracy, including the people of Sudan. The U.S. and our allies must use every diplomatic tool available to restore stability and civilian-led control of Sudan's government.

Thousands of Sudanese civilians are risking their lives every day for democracy, and the United States must align its policies to support their democratic aspirations.