Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 57. ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 58. ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 59.

Mr. Speaker, after years of attacking the Affordable Care Act, Republican's repeal plan will have cold, hard consequences for millions of Americans; not just the millions on the insurance exchange, but also those of our constituents who receive insurance through their employer coverage.

Beginning now, on a State-by-State basis, hospitals, doctors, patient advocates, and faith groups will be stepping forward to express the negative impacts of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act has improved Americans' lives in the areas of healthcare coverage, consumer protections, costs, and quality.

Millions will lose health coverage. The individual insurance market will be in shambles. Hospitals in our States will lose billions and the economy will be hurt.

Without health insurance, people with chronic diseases will lose care and become sicker. Without healthcare coverage, people with chronic diseases die.

It is bad for patients, budgets, and the healthcare system as a whole. Every major law that has passed Congress needs to have oversight revisions to make sure it is as effective as intended.

Congress can amend any law, but doing so in a way that will cause millions of Americans to be without insurance is just wrong.

No repeal without a replacement.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 22 million Americans would lose their health insurance if the Republican bill from last Congress becomes law. Let's don't make America sick again.

There should be no repeal of health reform without an immediate, adequate replacement that achieves the same historic goals in coverage, ensures people with preexisting conditions aren't blocked or priced out of the market, and that plans cover a basic set of benefits and consumer protections.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement in place will cause chaos. Millions will lose coverage; the individual insurance market will be in shambles; doctors, hospitals, and States will lose billions; and the economy will be hurt. Without health insurance, people with chronic diseases will lose care and become sicker.

Every major law that Congress has passed needs oversight and revision to make sure it is as effective as intended. Congress can amend any law, but doing so in a way that will cause 22 million of the newly insured people to be without health insurance is just wrong.

I urge my colleagues to stop working against the health of American people. We should not be making America sick again.

Mr. Speaker, let's not make America sick again.

I am deeply disappointed my Republican colleagues are moving forward with their plan to undo the historic progress we have made by expanding health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, repealing it and leaving millions of Americans with no coverage.

While repeal and replace was an abstract talking point for years, it is clear that there is no plan for replacement, no plan. The new phrase ``repeal and delay'' will, in effect, be repeal and chaos, with no plan in place.

Repeal will have real-life, personal impact on 30 million Americans who will stand to lose their health insurance. The options for the 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions who have newfound health security would disappear. We would be returning to a time of lifetime limits, annual caps for care, and consumers will be sold junk health plans at high costs.

Not only will the newly insured suffer, repeal would destabilize the individual health insurance market and send the healthcare system into disarray. Let's don't make America sick again. Let's have no repeal without a replacement.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 309, sponsored by my Texas neighbor, Congressman Pete Olson, and our other colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, David Loebsack of Iowa, the National Clinical Care Commission Act.

This legislation aims to improve Federal efforts to treat and prevent metabolic disorders, autoimmune diseases, and diseases resulting from insulin deficiency or insulin resistance.

The most common metabolic disorder in the U.S. is diabetes, which affects more than 29 million Americans. Racial and ethnic minority communities suffer increased rates of this condition. 15.9 percent of American Indians and Alaskan Natives, 13.2 percent of non-Hispanic Blacks, and 12.8 percent of Hispanics have diagnosed diabetes, compared to just 7.6 percent of non-Hispanic Whites.

Diabetes takes a huge toll on human health. It is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. Additionally, all too often, diabetes leads to avoidable complications such as blindness, limb amputation, and kidney failure.

In addition to the effects on human health, diabetes care makes up a large percentage of U.S. healthcare expenditures. Currently, $1 of every $5 of healthcare costs is spent on caring for people with diabetes. The proportion of Medicare funding is even greater. Currently, $1 of every $3 of Medicare expenditures is spent caring for people with diabetes.

That is why it is important to improve Federal efforts that prevent avoidable cases of diabetes and metabolic disorders and ensure all Americans have treatment and management of services necessary to successfully manage this and other of these conditions.

I am glad to see this legislation move forward, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 309.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time in case someone shows up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) to the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 315, the Improving Access to Maternity Care Act.

This important legislation would require the Health Resources and Services Administration to better identify areas with increased need for maternity care services. This would help ensure the placement of maternity care providers within the National Health Service Corps in areas with the most need for their services.

Improving access to maternity care providers in our most underserved communities will help reduce the poor health outcomes that can result when women don't have access to quality, prenatal maternity services that they need. Those outcomes can include increased infant mortality, preterm births, low birth weight infants, and maternal mortality.

To provide just one example of how limited access to quality maternity care service is affecting American communities is that while global maternal mortality rates have fallen by more than a third from 2000 to 2015, the maternal mortality rate in the United States has increased. In 2015, 25 women lost their lives during pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 births in the U.S., compared to 23 women who did so in only 2000.

It is clear that we must do more to reverse the troubling trend and other poor outcomes that result in limited access to maternity care providers. Congress must make it a priority to ensure our women have access to prenatal and maternity care services.

I support H.R. 315. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 302, the Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act. This bill solves a problem unique to sports medicine professionals who are required to travel to different States with their teams. Medical licensure is regulated on a State-by-State basis and does not work across State lines. Thus, often when a sports medicine provider travels with a team to another State, they are technically practicing without a license, and their medical liability insurance is rendered null. This is not something that is not important.

This weekend, the Houston Texans are proud to be in the playoffs. They are going to New England, and we would like to have our Texas doctors making sure our players are safe.

This bill would ensure that sports medicine professionals who contract with a team are covered by their medical liability insurance while traveling with their team. It also provides that any incidents of medical malpractice occurring under the care of a traveling team sports medicine professional must be treated as if it occurred in the professional's primary State of practice, regardless of where the game took place. Providers still would not be allowed to practice beyond the scope of their licenses, and they may only treat athletes on the field.

By working with the Energy and Commerce Committee and stakeholders last Congress, the sponsors of this bill have created a sensible solution to this distinct problem. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

I thank Mr. Guthrie from Kentucky and Mr. Richmond from Louisiana for their excellent work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 304, the Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017.

Ensuring that we have access to the right medicine at the right time is critically important in emergency situations. While controlled substances have abuse and diversion potential, they also have lifesaving potential. In fact, they are very often used by emergency medical services--EMS--providers in situations where every minute counts.

Currently, these providers must often administer controlled substances during emergencies using a standing order. However, it is unclear whether or not this is permissible under current law.

To help clarify the current law, H.R. 304 would amend the Controlled Substances Act to make clear that EMS personnel can, in fact, administer controlled substances in emergency situations under a standing order from an EMS medical director.

This bill helps guarantee that patients will have timely access to drugs they need during an emergency. It will also streamline the DEA's emergency medical services registration process by allowing a single registration for a State EMS agency as opposed to a separate registration for each EMS agency location.

To help safeguard against diversion, the bill will hold registered EMS agencies responsible for receiving, storing, and tracking all controlled substances.

This bill passed the Energy and Commerce Committee and the House floor last Congress, and it incorporates important feedback from a wide range of stakeholders. I believe our efforts in this important bill will ensure that EMS professionals have the flexibility that they need to respond during emergencies, while preserving the DEA's ability to enforce controlled substances laws and regulations.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of H.R. 304.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Congressman Hudson and Congressman Butterfield, both great members of our committee on this very bipartisan bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Section 3:

``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

``Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes.''

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act works, but the majority of Republicans want to make America sick again. Republicans have voted more than 60 times to roll back the historic progress that has been made to expand health care to 20 million-plus Americans and to improve coverage for those who already have it. At every turn, they have undermined the law at the expense of American families and now are setting the path for full repeal.

2.6 million Texans stand to lose healthcare coverage, including 20,000 in our district. Fifty thousand of my constituents would gain coverage if Texas would have expanded Medicaid along with more than 1 million Texans. Texas stands to lose $62 billion in Federal funding for Medicaid, CHIP, and financial assistance for marketplace coverage if the new President and Congress repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Making America sick again is not the solution. Let's don't have a repeal until we have a replacement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 11.

I'd like to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for bringing this resolution to the Floor.

Your continued bipartisan support for our friend and ally, Israel, sets the right tone for any discussion this body has regarding this vital relationship.

Almost 70 years ago, on May 14, 1948, with the support of fiercely Democratic president, Harry Truman, the nation of Israel was born.

Created in the aftermath of World War II, the special relationship that our two countries now enjoy was founded. For 70 years, our government has supported Israeli interest because they represent American interest.

Throughout the decades, from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama, from the great Texan, and Speaker Sam Rayburn to Speaker Ryan, our government has worked across party lines and across branches of government to ensure the one, true democracy in the Middle East is able to grow and prosper without hindrance.

Recently, we have reaffirmed our support for Israel by signing a new Memorandum of Understanding and resoundingly telling the world that we support our ally in the Middle East. UNSCR 2334 does not align with this affirmation.

It should be the policy of the United States to support a viable two- state solution, where Palestinians and Israelis live in prosperity and security. This does not mean negotiating out of fear or forced necessity.

I want to, again, express my gratitude and appreciation for this body and our friends on the Foreign Affairs Committee for leading by example.

U.S.-Israeli relations have always been bipartisan and should remain that way. It is my hope the new Administration will build on the foundation created by the Presidents and elected officials that came before us and support Israel in a bipartisan fashion.

I ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 11.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow my colleague and my neighbor in Texas to regret the loss of our two National Guardsmen from the 36th Division. The 36th Division is a historic division, Texas division, T-Patchers, and to lose two of our soldiers is tragic.

But I am on the floor today to talk about health care. The Republican majority has taken the first legislative step to make America sick again. The first step was to take away health care from tens of millions of Americans, including premium increases for millions more in America. The second action lights the fuse on the dangerous legislative process that threatens to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and health tax credits that Americans are now benefiting from.

There should be no reform without a replacement because we may never have a replacement, but we have millions of Americans who will lose their healthcare coverage because of the actions of this House. Let's don't make America sick again.

I want to thank our ranking member for allowing me to have 2 minutes to talk about how I support the Keystone pipeline. We have a little diversity on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.

I represent a refinery and chemical plant community in Houston, east Harris County, Texas. We have five refineries in my area alone, which would use that Keystone crude oil. In fact, Congressman Weber has the eastern leg of it, and I have the western leg that actually stops in our district. We have two, big, old, huge tanks in Channelview, Texas, which are ready to get that oil and distribute it to our refineries. We have refineries, literally, from Corpus Christi over to Pascagoula in the Gulf of Mexico, on the gulf coast, that could use that crude oil. They are already using heavier crude from other parts of the world.

It has taken 6 years to get this permit for the pipeline's development. This is the longest study of any cross-border pipeline that I have ever seen. Unfortunately, because of the backlog, we have 11 other cross-border projects that have not moved through the process. Some of these are just a simple name change, and that is the problem. The Presidential permitting process has broken down. That is why Congress needs to act. The State Department has studied the project four different times. Each time, they have come back and have said that the environmental and climate impacts would be negligible.

Let me talk about the jobs issue.

We will have a year of high-paid pipefitters, teamsters, laborers, electrical workers--you name it. Those are great jobs, and they are high paying for a year. Construction jobs are temporary. Then they will go on to another job, and, frankly, in Texas, we have no shortage of need for pipelines even though I have never not lived on a pipeline easement in Houston, Texas.

The bill is not as perfect as I would like, but we need to send this bill to the President--it got out of the Senate--and give the President a chance to do it. We need cross-border pipelines whether it is Canada to the United States, Texas to Mexico, or the United States to Mexico, or back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. I represent a refinery/chemical plants. The refineries on the Gulf Coast will use the crude oil.

I rise in support of this bill because I support North American energy development.

The pipeline has been in development and waiting for approval for six years. This is the longest study of any cross-border pipeline that I have ever seen.

Unfortunately, because of this backlog, there are now 11 other cross- border projects that have not moved through the process.

Some of these projects are as simple as a name change.

The Presidential Permitting Process has become nothing more than a political game.

Opponents of domestic infrastructure projects use the process to delay projects endlessly in an attempt to raise money under the guise of environmental protection.

The State Department has studied this project four different times.

Each time, the Department reported back that the environmental and climate impacts would be negligible.

However, opponents of the project do not like that answer so they continue their attack until the project is deferred.

Opponents of the project now decry that because oil prices are low, more studies should be conducted.

Opponents cite low oil prices as a reason the federal government shouldn't approve the project.

Last time I checked, the federal government wasn't involved in private business decisions.

If oil prices remain low, the market will dictate which projects remain viable and which do not.

The federal government has one job to do and should complete its work in a timely fashion.

Further, opponents claim that Keystone XL will only result in 35 permanent jobs.

What they fail to address is that Keystone XL, along with the majority of other cross-border facilities, will create thousands of construction jobs.

Those who oppose the project say, those are only temporary jobs.

Well, to my friends who oppose the project, construction jobs by their very nature are temporary jobs.

But I can tell you this, the pipefitters, operating engineers, electrical and Teamster laborers that work on their segment of the pipeline are darn happy to have that job.

That is a large paycheck to help support his or her family.

I continue to urge support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, Members, last Friday and Saturday I visited and walked with United Steelworkers union members who are on strike for health and safety issues in our east Houston congressional district.

Their jobs are very dangerous. They produce refined products and chemicals that our Nation needs. We have, sadly, lost lives recently in the industry, and to have men and women working 10-plus straight days for shifts of 10 hours is not reasonable.

These men and women work hard in a dangerous occupation, and they should not have to go on strike for safety. Safety is important to employees and companies. Let's settle the strike with new safety standards so that no family has to worry that their loved one will not come home from work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state that I was unable to be in Washington on February 2nd for votes due to inclement weather that impacted travel throughout the Midwest and Northeast.

If I had been able to vote yesterday, I would have voted as follows:

On passage of H.R. 361, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

On passage of H.R. 615, the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

On passage of H.R. 623, the Social Media Working Group Act of 2015, I would have voted ``yea.''