Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Monday, April 23, 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Burgess and appreciate his leadership on this issue and the hard work he and his members on both sides of the aisle have done on the Subcommittee on Health in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

As we all know, the opioid crisis is wreaking havoc and death on our Nation. It is striking at the heart of communities from one side of the country to the other. On any given day, you can browse the headlines to learn of yet another life lost to addiction or about a raid that seized overwhelming quantities of prescription painkillers or illicit drugs.

At roundtables throughout my district in Oregon over the last few years, I have met with those victims. I have met with their families. I have talked to doctors and treatment advocates. I have met with law enforcement officers on the front lines of this fight. Sadly, their stories are all too similar and all too familiar, but they put the names and faces to this crisis that has touched every community in our country.

We are here tonight because this crisis is having a devastating impact on each of our districts and the people who live in them. No community is exempt from the scourge of addiction. Nobody is immune from the dangers of powerful drugs. The crisis has taken a hold on the very fabric of our Nation, and we must do everything we can to stem the tide of addiction, to help those who are addicted, and to stop the deaths and destruction that follow the abuse of opiates.

Earlier this week, I visited the Prescribed to Death opioid memorial that was stationed at the White House Ellipse. I was able to see the individual faces of Americans who lost their own battles with opioid addiction etched into the 22,000 pills on display. There was one for each fatal overdose in 2015.

It is a daunting visual. It was made only more poignant by the knowledge that those numbers have only continued to climb.

More than 100 Americans die from opioid overdoses every single day, claiming the lives of more than 42,000 Americans who died in 2016 alone. That same year, we lost 506 Oregonians from opioid overdoses.

The committee--in particular, the Energy and Commerce Committee and your subcommittee, Mr. Chairman--has a long history of working to combat this evolving epidemic, from launching our earliest investigations in 2012 to advancing bipartisan legislation like the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA, and the 21st Century Cures Act.

Most recently, we included critical funding to aid in the fight in the recent government spending bill that President Trump signed into law. This legislation included a record amount of resources to combat the crisis, providing billions of dollars to communities across America to tackle one of the biggest public health problems in a generation. But we know that more can and must be done.

Now, the good news is that combating the opioid crisis is our committee's top priority. It is why we have reviewed literally dozens and dozens and dozens of comprehensive, bold, and bipartisan pieces of legislation. In total, these bills will bolster our enforcement efforts, will protect our communities, will advance our public health and prevention efforts, and will address coverage and payment issues within Medicaid and Medicare.

Tomorrow at the Energy and Commerce Committee, we will hear the personal stories from families affected by the drug crisis and individuals who are battling addiction. Then, next week, the Energy and Commerce Committee will mark these bills up in our Health Subcommittee. It is an important step forward to keep us on track in our goal of having legislation to this House floor ahead of the Memorial Day district work period.

We know that there is no silver bullet, there is no one-size-fits-all approach that will remedy the catastrophic effects of this crisis that has been building for the last decade, but much more can be done. We will do much more, and we will do it on a bipartisan basis, to help vulnerable patients get the treatment they want and need, remembering there are some 20 million Americans with chronic pain. And we will ensure these powerful drugs are not getting into the wrong hands.

As I conclude, I think it is important to point out that, if people want more information, they can go to energycommerce.house.gov/opioids and see the testimony that we have received and the work that we are engaged in to rid this country of this terrible scourge and make our communities safer again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the patients, the patients who face terminal diagnoses but have exhausted all available known treatment options.

Before us today we have legislation that received 260 bipartisan votes last week; that was nearly 260 votes to increase patient access to investigational drugs through a new pathway.

I want to thank Dr. Burgess for his incredible work on our Energy and Commerce Committee to do our due diligence, to take an issue that is important to our citizens and our colleagues and make sure that it has been properly vetted, reviewed, and improved upon from what we got from the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, 38 States have right-to-try laws, including my own State of Oregon. This is something that people want and deserve. Wisconsin will make it number 39 once the bill they have passed gets across Governor Scott Walker's desk.

While the State policies vary, they have a common goal, and that is helping vulnerable patients. President Trump praised the movement during

the State of the Union, saying: ``People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure--I want them to have a chance right here at home.''

I have spoken to the President directly about what we are doing here, and he gave me a shout-out when he was up in New Hampshire the other day about moving this bill forward. We worked closely with the Vice President and his team and with Scott Gottlieb, who is the doctor who heads the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, to get a really good, thoughtful product before this House, and they support what we are doing here. President Trump also highlighted this bill, as I said, when he was in New Hampshire.

It is important to note that this isn't the first time we have considered this bill. As you may know, last week, we tried to move this on the suspension calendar, never imaging that the Democrats would actually whip against giving dying patients the right to try one of these drugs. We had 32 Democrats support this legislation, and that is why we brought it back under regular order in a rule today.

Now, today, there is an existing process, and you have heard about it--and we looked at this in the committee--for patients to access unapproved drugs. The FDA oversees expanded access, commonly known as compassionate use. This program has been critical in helping patients access experimental drugs. It does work.

Commissioner Gottlieb and the agency should be commended for their continued work to improve the expanded access program for patients. As you have heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this program works, and works effectively, but it doesn't do it all, and that is why this legislation is before us.

To improve upon this successful program, the bill before us today provides liability protections for manufacturers, sponsors, physicians, clinical investigators, and hospitals that participate in the existing expanded access program and the new alternative pathway that we create under this legislation.

This was a very big issue for those who needed to be brought into participation who otherwise might have sat on the sidelines and never made these drugs available. This provision removes one of the biggest hurdles that patients face and that was identified by the Government Accountability Office; it is the biggest hurdle they face in getting access to experimental therapies: manufacturers' hesitancy to participate. That is the hurdle we are trying to overcome today in a safe way.

The bill also creates a new alternative pathway for patients who do not qualify for a clinical trial. This legislation strengthens patient protections with clearer informed consent and adverse event reporting. The bill also ensures the FDA is notified when a patient receives an unapproved drug through the new alternative pathway to ensure proper oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House, and especially Dr. Burgess on the Health Subcommittee, but also Representative Brian Fitzpatrick; Andy Biggs, who is behind me; Morgan Griffith; and our Vice President, Mike Pence. I am grateful for their work and for their understanding that our job here in the House is to do our work: to hear from people who are affected or might be affected, to improve upon products, to go through regular order, and to bring this bill to you today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of my friends, and two exemplary Oregonians who have dedicated their lives to service of their community and country. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Les Cochenour and his wife, Jody, are stalwart citizens of The Dalles, Oregon--my birthplace--who will be relocating from their treasured home in the Columbia Gorge to start a new chapter in their lives in Bend.

Before Les and Jody's new chapter begins, though, I would be remiss if I did not provide a brief account of their impactful chapters written in Wasco County.

Like me, both Les and Jody were raised in The Dalles. They are both proud alumni of The Dalles High School--high school sweethearts who graduated one year apart from each other and married just a few short months after Jody graduated. The foundation of their 56-year-long marriage began in high school, and so did the start of an inseparable duo of public servants.

Les entered the local National Guard Unit as a private straight out of high school. With a work ethic acquired at a young age on his farm in Dallesport, Les soon went on to officer candidate school and became a second lieutenant.

After more than two decades in the National Guard, Les joined the Army reserve, where he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and retired after another decade of service. Les' military record spans 31 years with the Army reserves, and 42 years as a military officer.

Just as his military service was winding down, Les' community service in The Dalles was just beginning. Les served as Mayor of The Dalles for two terms from 1990-1994. His leadership qualities and dedication to his constituents, including the planning of the Fort Dalles Readiness Center, earned him the position of President of the Oregon Mayor's Association in 1994.

A veteran himself, Les made it a top priority in his life to serve his fellow service men and women. He served on the board of the Oregon Veterans' Home for five years, dedicating his time to providing veterans and their families with a place to seek care, rehabilitation, and a roof over their heads.

Les is a founding member of the Mid-Columbia Veteran's Memorial Committee, providing another venue for service to his fellow veterans. All the while, Les has had a partner in this admirable endeavor of service to those who have served our country: his wife, Jody.

Jody, also a public servant who worked for the state in the Building Codes Division, is a board member of Mid-Columbia Veterans and a lifetime member of The Dalles Veterans of Foreign War Auxillary. A trailblazer of her own right, Jody launched the Red Crested Purple Breasted Cronies, a chapter of the National Red Hat Society that donates to a charity of their choosing each month.

Les and Jody have not been without recognition for their unique history of devoted service to others. Les has been honored with the bronze medallion of the Order of St. George from the U.S. Calvary and Armor Association, a prestigious honor that recognizes the long and honorable service to cavalry and armor, and recognizes the very best cavalryman.

Jody was awarded the Order of St. Joan D'Arc, an equally prestigious recognition for a spouse with ``significant voluntary contributions to the morale, spirit and welfare of the armor and cavalry communities.''

Suffice to say, today will be just one of many accounts of Les and Jody Cochenour's service to their fellow citizens in The Dalles, and people across America. While their address may change, I know that their commitment to our state and country will not.

Their home will always be in The Dalles, and their legacy of service to others will certainly be passed along to their five grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren, and I imagine it will only be a matter of time before their impact will be profoundly felt by the community in Bend.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whole House of Representatives and the people of The Dalles, please join me in expressing our sincerest thanks and gratitude to Les and Jody Cochenour for their lifelong dedication to community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5247) to authorize the use of eligible investigational drugs by eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or condition in which there is reasonable likelihood that death will occur within a matter of months, or with another eligible illness, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the patients who face terminal diagnoses but have exhausted all available treatment options. These are patients like Jordan McLinn, who is with us today.

Jordan is a tireless fighter who self-advocates for others living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He is a namesake of this bill we are considering, like Matt Bellina, who testified before the Health Subcommittee last year. Because of folks like Jordan and Matt, we have a chance to increase patient access to experimental therapies.

Thirty-eight States across our great land have right-to-try laws, including my home State of Oregon. Wisconsin, with a bill on its way to Governor Scott Walker's desk, will soon make it 39. While the State policies vary, they have a common goal: helping vulnerable patients.

President Trump praised the movement during the State of the Union, saying: ``People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure. I want to give them a chance here at home.''

Now, today, there is an existing process for patients to access unapproved drugs. The FDA oversees expanded access, commonly known as compassionate use. This program has been critical in helping patients access experimental drugs.

Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and the Agency, the FDA, should be commended for their continued work to improve the expanded access program for patients.

To improve this successful program, the bill before us today also provides liability protections for manufacturers, sponsors, physicians, clinical investigators, and hospitals that participate in the existing expanded access program and the new alternative pathway created under this legislation.

This provision removes one of the biggest hurdles that patients have faced in getting access to these medicines, in gaining access to experimental therapies, as identified by the Government Accountability Office: manufacturer hesitancy to participate. That is the big hurdle. We seek to overcome it with this legislation.

The bill also creates a new alternative pathway for patients who do not qualify for a clinical trial. This legislation strengthens patient protections with clearer informed consent and adverse event reporting.

The bill also ensures the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, is notified when a patient receives an unapproved drug through the new alternative pathway to ensure there is proper oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House sponsors of this legislation who have worked tirelessly to bring this to a good place today: Brian Fitzpatrick, our colleague from Pennsylvania; Andy Biggs from Arizona; and Morgan Griffith from Virginia. I also thank the Vice President, with whom Jordan and I met today. I am grateful for their work on behalf of these courageous patients, and I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now have the honor of yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who has been, even before he got to the Congress, an extraordinary advocate for this cause and for the patients with terminally ill conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the former chairman of the full committee and the current vice chairman.

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers from California and Texas, two of our biggest States, a grand total of two legislators voted ``no.'' Otherwise, it was unanimous in both those States to do what we are doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), an incredible advocate of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when Illinois took this up, they approved it 169-1 in their assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chair of our Health Subcommittee. Texas voted unanimously for the Right to Try Act.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a distinguished member of our committee and a pharmacist by training and trade.

Mr. Speaker, we have two, I believe, left.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains for each side.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Energy and Commerce Committee took up this issue in its broadest form, we heard from the FDA Commissioner, we heard from patients, we heard from family members, and what we heard was that there are barriers in States that preclude these State laws from working.

That is what the Government Accountability Office told us. They identified two issues--liability and use of outcomes--as the two barriers as to why these laws passed in 38, soon to be 39, States. And in many cases--most cases, I would say--these laws have passed unanimously, with Republicans and Democrats back home supporting them, including in my own State. I think it was unanimous in both the house and the senate, all controlled by Democrats, in Oregon.

We have listened to our constituents; we have observed what has happened in our States--great laboratories--and we are acting here today to allow those who have been given this wretched, wretched prescription that their life is about to end to have a chance and a choice. That is what we are doing today. We are overcoming the barriers that exist at the State level. We are doing it in a reasonable and thoughtful way that protects patient safety and creates this new alternative pathway for them.

This is important legislation. It is not often in this body we get this opportunity to make this kind of a change and provide chance and hope for those who see their loved ones dying before their eyes.

I met with Jordan McLinn and his mother, Laura, earlier today. They have been incredible advocates for this cause. And they had just come from a meeting with Vice President Pence, who, with the President, has been an extraordinary supporter of this effort.

From his Bible, Jordan showed me the Parable of the Lost Sheep, which is one of his favorites. It is a parable he had shared with the Vice President.

That Parable of the Lost Sheep tells us that not a single sheep should be lost, that the shepherd cares about them all. That same sentiment is what brings us here to right to try today.

Every opportunity to save a life matters, and every patient deserves that right to try. That is the legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker. It is well conceived, it is well thought out, and it will make a difference in saving lives.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and pass this legislation and give people a right to try.

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

Mr. Speaker, ask anyone who lives in or near communities with waste coal piles from abandoned mines and they will tell you that they can be a significant environmental hazard. They can leak acidic water into rivers and streams. They can sometimes catch fire, burn uncontrollably for months and result in both damage and heavy emissions. And they can be an economic drag on any community that has to deal with them.

The good news is that a process exists that can take this byproduct and use it to produce electricity. The result of that process is an environmentally-safe ash that can be used to remediate the land from which the waste coal was taken. It has worked well, and there are numerous examples of contaminated lands and streams being restored because of these coal refuse-to-energy plants.

Given the substantial environmental benefits of coal refuse-to-energy plants, I believe we have an obligation to work to keep them open. That is why I urge support for H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act.

Unfortunately, these plants are at risk of being tripped up by EPA regulations aimed at conventional coal-fired power plants. Specifically, EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics standards did not distinguish between conventional coal-fired plants and these coal refuse-to-energy plants that operate very differently. The EPA's standard as written for one of the targeted compounds, hydrogen chloride, or HCL, would be difficult for these facilities to consistently meet.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1119, the SENSE Act, addresses these concerns and provides an alternative compliance mechanism for HCL that still requires substantial emissions reductions, but one that is achievable for these facilities.

By finding a use for potentially dangerous and damaging coal refuse piles, coal refuse-to-energy plants provide affordable energy and a tremendous environmental benefit. The SENSE Act is commonsense, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that benefits both consumers and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the BRICK Act, makes commonsense adjustments to preserve small businesses and American jobs while still protecting the environment. This bill addresses the impact of regulations and policies aimed at brickmakers, and-- particularly important to many in my home state, wood stoves.

In many parts of Oregon, we're surrounded by forests and affordable wood, so wood stoves are often the most economical way to heat a home or a ranch shop. Oregonians also know what a real air pollution crisis looks like, as we have recently dealt with the thick smoke from several very bad wildfires across the state. Compared to that, wood stove emissions are far from a crisis, especially now that

they all must comply with EPA's 2015 emissions standards. There is no reason to threaten wood heater affordability as well as industry jobs by insisting on the unworkable 2020 deadline for the next round of standards. This bill takes the sensible step of extending the deadline to 2023, thus preserving wood heater choice and affordability.

Opponents of these bills have claimed that H.R. 1917 is harmful to the environment and public health protections, but I think we need to maintain a sense of perspective.

Neither brickmakers nor wood heaters are a significant source of emissions, and both industries have already reduced emissions significantly due to earlier regulations that are not affected under this bill. For example, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the brick industry has already committed millions of dollars to install and operate controls to reduce emissions by nearly 95 percent in order to comply with previous regulations.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill does not repeal any health-based regulation--it simply makes minimal, temporal adjustments to reduce the risk of plant shutdowns, layoffs, and higher prices for consumers. We should be looking at ways to get people working, not imposing unnecessary and tough to meet regulatory timeframes that take away people's livelihoods.

We need a balanced approach. These brickmakers and wood heater manufacturers are important employers in the small communities where many are located. The data shows that there is little environmental justification for inflicting economic harm on these small businesses and their communities, and thus there is every reason to pass this bill to ensure that any such harm is avoided.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4986) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reauthorize appropriations for the Federal Communications Commission, to provide for certain procedural changes to the rules of the Commission to maximize opportunities for public participation and efficient decisionmaking, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the House of Representatives is taking up an important bill from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It is titled the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018, or RAY BAUM'S Act.

I thank our subcommittee chairman, Marsha Blackburn, for her hard work in introducing and moving this legislation forward.

Before I get into the policy side, I want to touch on the meaning behind this bill's title.

H.R. 4986 is a nod to our dear friend, and mine of 30 years, the former staff director of our Energy and Commerce Committee, who recently lost his battle with cancer.

It is a testament of not just Ray's dedication to telecom policy--as you know, he served as public utility commissioner, he chaired the Joint Board with the FCC on communications issues, and was such a policy brain for our committee--but also his ability to work across the aisle and with all levels of government officials. He got good things done for America.

Years ago, when I became chairman of what was then called the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Ray, at my invitation, finally agreed to come back to Washington and work on the committee.

He had served as a State representative and as majority leader of the Oregon House. He had been chairman of the public utility commission in Oregon and brought a lot to our process as senior policy adviser.

In the years that followed, these issues remained both a priority and a passion for Ray, and I believe and I hope our bipartisan work today reflects admirably the kind of commitment he wanted all of us to share in making good public policy.

By the way, that is Ray right there, for those who didn't know.

The RAY BAUM'S Act reauthorizes the Federal Communications Commission. It includes efficiency and transparency reforms for the FCC, and it spurs the development of next generation 5G technologies.

It is good for consumers, and it is good for our Nation's critical telecommunications services.

Importantly, the bill before us today is the product of a bipartisan and bicameral agreement, House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, including my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), Senate Commerce Committee chairman Mr. Thune, and the ranking member in the Senate, Bill Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, we bring you a good product today of sound policy named for a wonderful individual, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 6, 2018.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden: I write concerning H.R. 4986, RAY

BAUM'S Act of 2018. This legislation includes matters that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure will forego action on the

bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual

understanding that foregoing consideration of the bill does

not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment

of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation

that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, this is conditional on our understanding that

mutually agreed upon changes to the legislation will be

incorporated into the bill prior to floor consideration.

Lastly, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I

request your support for the appointment of conferees from

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure during any

House-Senate conference convened on this or related

legislation.

I would ask that a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest as well as the

mutually agreed upon changes to be incorporated into the bill

be included in the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor, to memorialize our

understanding.

I look forward to working with the Committee on Energy and

Commerce as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the chair of the subcommittee, who has been an incredible leader on our communications issues on the Energy and Commerce Committee for some time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), who is a talented member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), who is a great member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) to speak on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), who has been a real leader on telecommunications issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would concur with my friend's comments. I am happy to work on these issues involving spectrum. I know there are multiple uses around, and we want to make sure that those using these frequencies are not disadvantaged. I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He also happens to have a pretty important title around here as the whip of the House. He has been very involved in telecommunications policies since he first came on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who has been a very important member of our committee and active on these issues, and he had a provision in this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for his good work on this legislation and his kind words in memory of our mutual friend, Ray Baum.

I think it would be appropriate, as well, to thank the staff who put so much work into this, including Robin Colwell, Tim Kurth, Sean Farrell, Lauren McCarty, Evan Viau, and Elena Hernandez on the Republican side, and David Goldman, Gerald Leverich, and Dan Miller on the minority side. We thank all of them for working both here and on the Senate side.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly go through the provisions again, because this really is important.

For more than a quarter of a century, the FCC has not been reauthorized. We do that here, thanks to Chairwoman Blackburn's legislation.

Second, we take care of our broadcasters, both public and private, and their translators, including FM translators as well as public broadcasting.

Mr. Pallone has been a long champion of the repack effort and, of course, his SANDy legislation.

You heard from Mr. Scalise on the legislation to consolidate redundant and outdated FCC reports: get rid of the ones we don't need, streamline the rest, and bring efficiency.

Mr. Johnson's legislation to establish an independent inspector general at the FCC, this is just good government we can all embrace.

Congresswoman Mimi Walters' legislation gives the chief information officer of the FCC the authority to play a significant role in planning, budgeting, and programming.

Congresswoman Grace Meng's bill to prohibit spoofing calls or texts originating outside the U.S., plus an 18-month shot clock, is put on the FCC to

conduct rulemaking in this matter. I think we are all kind of getting tired of those spoofs we get on our phones. It looks like they are coming from our hometowns, and it turns out they are not. We are going to try to get to the bottom of this and have the FCC work to do that.

Congressman Guthrie and Congresswoman Matsui's bill to include a spectrum auction deposit fix, this will actually allow future actions to go forward legally. They couldn't do that under existing law because of an interpretation, and so we fixed that. That was very, very important.

Congressmen McNerney and Kinzinger's legislation to require the FCC to report to Congress on promoting internet excess for veterans, we all know how important that is, especially those low-income veterans in our rural communities.

Congressman Loebsack's legislation to improve mapping methodology for mobile coverage, we need to know where we have service in America and where we don't and have numbers we can trust.

Representative Ruiz's legislation is very, very important, dealing with broadband in Tribal areas and carrying out rulemaking to address unserved Tribal areas. We have lots of Tribal areas in our country that lack service.

Anna Eshoo's legislation to provide further improvements on 911 caller information that builds on Kari's Law that we have already approved, that is really, really important.

And, again, Eliot Engel's legislation requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the NTIA, to study and consider how the agency can best coordinate the interagency process following cybersecurity incidents.

It just goes on and on, including Senator Thune's MOBILE NOW Act that will help us move forward on 5G.

So, as you can see, this is comprehensive, thoughtful, well-written legislation on telecommunications, moves our country forward, reauthorizes the FCC, and is a fitting tribute to my friend and our policy leader, Mr. Ray Baum from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Shimkus, who has worked tirelessly--not just this year, not just last year, but probably since the first year he came to Congress--to try and find a permanent solution to the storage of nuclear waste in America. He has been a tireless worker in this endeavor, a smart worker in this endeavor, and a successful, so far, worker in this endeavor, as this bill passed out of the committee 49-4.

I rise tonight to address this pressing national need, and that is the importance of fixing our broken nuclear waste management program.

It was more than 35 years ago that the United States Congress made a commitment to communities throughout our Nation which host spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Congress, the Federal Government, agreed to assign the Department of Energy with the responsibility to permanently dispose of hazardous material, nuclear waste, by 1998.

There are many of those communities, like in the Tri-Cities in Washington State, co-located with the Department of Energy's Hanford site just up Columbia River, across the river from where I live and the people I represent. We have been DOE's partner to help win World War II at that site. It has maintained a nuclear weapon deterrent and powered our fleet of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

Additionally, electricity consumers in many other communities have paid the Federal Government more than $40 billion to develop, license, construct, and operate a nuclear waste repository. They have already paid $40 billion to do this, and that was pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the law that Congress enacted. Yet rate payers have little to see for their investment because, I will call it political science, has deprived the public of the actual science to prove that nuclear waste can be safely and permanently disposed of.

As a consequence of this political interference, taxpayers and rate payers across the country are on the hook for DOE's inaction. The American people pay over $2 million every day to temporarily store used fuel scattered throughout the United States. So it is up to us to fix this waste management program and stop this cost that will continue in perpetuity if we don't act.

Now, after hearing from dozens of expert witnesses over many years, the Energy and Commerce Committee developed and passed a bipartisan bill by a vote of 49-4. Mr. Shimkus led our effort in this measure.

This legislation makes targeted reforms to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to set the Federal Government up to finally, finally, keep its promise.

Nuclear waste challenges have vexed policymakers for generations.

We, this Congress, have the chance now in a bipartisan way to successfully build a durable solution. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve that goal, which brings about tonight's Special Order.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to show something. This is a piece of glass. This is not actually nuclear waste. The Pacific Northwest National Lab, when I visited Hanford a little while back with Secretary Perry, gave me this because it is an example of what the liquid waste, the waste at Hanford, will end up being.

It will look like this in a big cylinder. It is glass. This is what would go to Hanford, and it would be stored safely when that occurs.

If we don't have a repository, these nuclear wastes, in their various forms, will sit around in various locations, not nearly as safe or secure as we can have with the kind of legislation fully enacted that Mr. Shimkus has led on. So I thank Mr. Shimkus for his leadership on this. And I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their encouragement, their participation, their counsel. We are going to get this thing done.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough night for those of us on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We come to the floor tonight to pay honor to our staff director Ray Baum, who passed away after a valiant multiyear fight with cancer.

He left this world on February 9, unexpectedly in many respects. He left before we were ready, but not before he filled us with love and grace and kindness, shared his intellect and his great humor.

I got to know Ray in 1988. I know you don't know this is actually me on the right here. I had hair. I was younger. This is Ray here. We were both elected to the legislature.

And I don't know about you all, but oftentimes you meet people and you don't remember 30 years later or whatever where you first met them. With Ray, I absolutely remember the minute I met him.

Then-State Representative Bob Brogoitti from La Grande decided not to run and was announcing that pretty late in the process. I happened to be in Salem at the capitol when he brought this young attorney out of La Grande, Ray Baum, into the capitol and said: I am going to announce I am not running, and he is my guy to replace me.

Well, Ray and I both were first-time candidates in 1988; he in La Grande in northeast Oregon, and I in Hood River, Sherman, Gilliam, Wheeler Counties and part of Wasco. We both ran in the seats that our fathers had held and, in different eras, both been defeated. His dad already had the votes to be speaker of the house, he just didn't quite get reelected in his seat.

And we both won in 1988. We served together in the Oregon Legislature, became fast friends. The Republican leader of the house looked at the two of us and dubbed us the ``pablum twins'' after the baby food. We certainly outgrew that over time.

But we became very good friends. We shared a lot of time together, legislated a lot together. We had a terrific experience. We both really, really were committed to public service.

Ray was a member of the bar. From 1983 to 2003, he practiced law with his brother David in La Grande.

As I said, he was elected to the Oregon Legislature in 1988 and served through 1997. I became majority leader when Republicans took the house in 1990 and served in that role until I went over to the senate. He followed me as the house majority leader for the '95 session.

And then an interesting thing happened. He left the legislature, and Democratic Governors, knowing what a great leader he was and how well he got along with people, decided to appoint him to the Public Utility Commission in Oregon. It is a three-member commission appointed by the Governor, and he was the lone Republican.

In 2003, he and the family moved to Salem. He accepted this position as a commissioner for the Oregon Public Utility Commission, where he was until 2011.

In 2010, the Governor appointed him as chairman, as a Republican, of the Public Utility Commission with the other two Democrats, and they always kept the consumer in mind. He was always about good, fair public policy.

From 2005 to 2011, he served as the State chair of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. From 2008 to 2010, he served as chairman of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Telecommunications Committee. So he rose up in the ranks of the national organization to which he belonged.

He was an incredible family man. Those of us who knew him knew it was all about his wife, Kristine, and all about their children, Rachael and Wyatt and Alexis and Mary and Andrew and Elizabeth. His kids and his 10 grandchildren, they were the light of his life.

He had twin callings, if you will: his family life--an incredible father, grandfather, and husband--and public servant. He was asked about that all the time.

He said about his wonderful wife, Kristine: ``She has been a great example of service to others. Her charity never ends. She supported me in my pursuit of politics and put up with my `public service impairment.' ''

He was all about public service, and it showed. In the work we did on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I remember calling him when I became chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee. We interacted over the years on telecom policy, given his national roles.

I said: Ray, they are going to make me chair of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee. I am going to need your help.

He said: Oh, yeah, yeah. Sure. Just call me. Whatever. Yeah, that is fine.

I said: No. Ray, I am going to need your help.

He said: Well, I can come back from time to time.

I said: No. Ray, I am going to need you here in Washington.

He said: Oh, oh. I don't think Kristine would go for that.

Well, their kids were out of the house at that point, and as fate would have it, she said: Actually, I think that would be fun. I think that would be a nice change.

That shocked him. So he came back and served as a senior counsel, a special adviser on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, and he played a big role.

Then, our mutual friend, Gordon Smith, with whom we had both served in the State legislature and who now is president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters, lured him away for, I think, all of about 9 months. And as much as he enjoyed fighting the fight for broadcasters, which was my background, he really loved public service.

When I became chairman of the committee, he actually reached out to me and asked: Hey, you know, what are you going to do with that position?

I was delighted that he had an interest in coming back to public service, and he loved it.

You heard from our colleagues earlier tonight during 1 minutes, Anna Eshoo and Frank Pallone, the top Democrats on the committee, who loved Ray and still do. He was just one of those rare human beings.

I talked about his great intellect and I talked about his friendship. But what I haven't talked about is what I would call his ``Rayisms,'' these funny little sayings that he always used that I think found their way into our vocabulary and speech without us even knowing. His constant reminder was: ``The fun never stops. The fun never stops.'' And he would use that along the way. Generally, when things were going off the rails, he would say: ``The fun never stops.'' And he would also say: ``Thanks for coming out today.''

We all heard that on a regular basis. And on Fridays, he would go around to the staff and he would say: ``You know, you have been doing such a great job, why don't you take the next couple of days off?'' Saturday and Sunday, of course. He would say: ``Remember to come back in the morning.''

He was, as I said, cursed, as he would describe it, with a public service impediment. He was very faithful, had deep faith, and was very active in the Mormon church--he and Kristine both. And he would joke that he was the only Mormon ever to oversee the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. He was a member of that, too, along the way.

I want to share a couple of things. Before I do, let's get this picture off of here because I am aging in place. This is Ray with Senator Cory Gardner from Colorado, and he was on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Anna Eshoo, and some of the great staff we have worked with over the years on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, where he just really thrived and got a lot done. I think about the work that we passed in a bipartisan way to free up spectrum and all.

When he was diagnosed with prostate cancer several years ago and it had migrated, tragically, into his bones, I forget who gave him the hats, but we knew he was going to lose his hair. So somebody came back with a different set of hats to cover up the loss of hair. Now, there is nothing wrong with losing your hair, I might say just as an aside, but he tried them all on; and I think you get the spirit of Ray: ``The fun never stops.''

I want to share a couple of comments, and then I know I have got

some terrific colleagues here who want to share with the body and with our friends who are watching.

Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted out when he learned of Ray's passing last week: ``Ray Baum was a kindhearted man with a deep commitment to public service. The whole House mourns his passing. Please keep Ray's wife, Kristine, and their family in your prayers.''

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said: ``I had the pleasure to work with him over the past few years and was impressed by his keen intellect, fundamental kindness, and passion for advancing the public interest. He was a good man and I will miss him.''

Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said: ``More than a colleague, Ray was a wonderful individual with an endearing smile.''

Gordon Smith at the NAB said: ``In the time he spent working at NAB, he was to everyone a delight. We will miss his everyday greeting: `It's nice to have you out today!' His zest for life, his creative legislative mind, his infectious humor, his love for others, and his determined work ethic as he battled cancer, these were an inspiration to all.''

We both served with a guy in Oregon named Peter Courtney. I think he probably holds the record for the longest-serving State legislator, a Democrat from outside the Salem area. And I know he holds the record for the longest presidency of the Oregon State Senate. He said: ``Ray taught me a lot about how to work with the other party; how to disagree and still get things done.''

Former State Senator David Nelson from Pendleton said: ``He had a great sense of humor and a great mind, a quick mind. He was a consensus builder.''

Don't we need more of those in this process?

Former Union County Commissioner, Democrat John Howard, said: ``When he took a position on an issue, people listened. Whether they were Democrat or Republican, people valued his opinion.''

People just on Facebook wrote:

``Ray Baum served the people of northeastern Oregon with distinction.''

``Ray was a wonderful person who set a great example.''

``Being blessed to have been neighbors for a number of years with Ray and his family, chukar hunting on the breaks of the Snake River will never be the same.''

``Ray was one of the finest persons I have ever encountered in Oregon politics. Top-notch selfless person.''

One of Ray's assistants, Drew McDowell, said: ``One of my first days here was a very rainy morning, and Ray walks in without skipping a beat and says, `Sure is a nice day for a duck.' I knew right then he was the type of guy that could brighten up a rainy day.''

A.T. Johnson from the Energy Subcommittee said: ``One of the last legislative victories came from the health team--providing FDA help for our soldiers and other servicemembers. When I think of Ray, I really do think of the happy soldier--fighting for others, fighting his own battle, and doing it with joy and grace.''

Jennifer Sherman, press secretary, said: ``Ray loved returning to Utah to visit with his family, particularly when there was a new grandchild to be welcomed.''--Did I say there were 10?--``And when Ray returned to D.C., he made the focus of his daily walk-and-talk about the newest little one, to show off the latest photos''--how proud he was--``or to tell us what his grandkids were up to while he was hard at work in D.C. It was always clear that his heart was in Utah and Oregon with his loved ones.''

It is hard to stand here and pay tribute, not because I don't feel all that for Ray, but because I probably spent most of the last 4 years in wonderful denial, just believing that Ray would somehow muscle through it and be with us.

I would say, being chairman of the committee, I get one of those passes from time to time that allows a senior staffer on the floor. I think there were a lot of Members who, for a long time, wondered what district he represented because he just interacted with Members here in a way I have never seen, including with the leader and the Speaker.

He would corral them. He would cajole them, work them on our issues and the committee's issues, and always did it with such a smile and such a wonderful way: big heart, big brain, incredible mentor for young and old alike. For young staff and old Members, he was a friend. He will be missed. He will not be forgotten. His imprint is all over the State of Oregon and, now, all around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very kind and thoughtful remarks and his tribute to a really great public servant. I think he hit the nail on the head. Ray's having served and having gone through elections gave him that perspective. And having come from a rural part of America, like a lot of us do--in fact,

my district encompasses where he is from--it gives you a different perspective as well about some of the issues that sometimes get lost otherwise. I thank the gentleman for coming and for sharing.

I know we have some other Members here who I think wanted to make some comments. I don't know who would like to go next. Maybe the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who also was a public utilities commissioner--if I have the right title for whatever it is in North Dakota--public service commissioner. The gentleman knew Ray from that era and got to put up with him here, as I would kindly say.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Cramer. I appreciate his coming down here tonight and sharing his thoughts. I think he really summed it up well.

Now the chairman of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, Bob Latta, who was the vice-chair of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee when I chaired that. Ray was a big part of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee and ended up as the staff director. I thank Bob for coming down to share his comments tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman both for his wonderful words about Ray and also his terrific record of public service here in this institution.

I know we have a couple other Members who have come down tonight. I think this really speaks volumes about the impact that Ray had on all of us that so many Members of Congress are coming down tonight at this hour to pay tribute and to say thanks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). Morgan Griffith is a terrific member of our committee. He is the vice- chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. I thank the gentleman for coming down.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Morgan for those comments.

He always maintained such a wonderful sense of humor about his own predicament knowing that there was a timeline. He had been given 3 to 5 years because of the bone cancer. He went through the treatments and held up very, very well. But I know on more than one occasion he looked at me.

I said: How are you doing, Ray?

He said: Well, I am doing all right. But, hey, nobody has gotten out of here alive yet.

He would always take the edge off. When you were feeling bad about him, he somehow would relieve that tension.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter). Buddy Carter is a distinguished member of our committee. He worked with him on a lot of different issues, healthcare, and different things. I thank Buddy for coming down tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Carter for those wonderful words. I know Ray had such great respect for the gentleman from Georgia and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the committee. The working relationships that he developed were almost unlike any other staffer I have ever known, because he really wasn't a staffer. It is kind of a funny thing. It is not like he thought of himself as a Member or anything. He was just Ray. He didn't let barriers keep him from helping people succeed.

I just think for Oregon, my home State, he was kind of the sixth Congressman. The only thing he lacked was a voting card. People knew when Ray was speaking, he was speaking on my behalf. We could double up on Northwest issues, whether it was the Columbia River Treaty, rural telecom issues, or energy grid issues.

It was really a twofer for the price of one. Well, maybe 1\1/2\. Ray had that ability to reach across the aisle, reach across any divide, and close the gap and make us better people.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that Ray was one of those people, as I said in the beginning, who left before we were ready, but not before he filled us with love, kindness, grace, and shared his wit and humor--some humor better than others.

It was just good to have Ray. God bless him on his journey. God bless Kristine, his brother and sister and their families, and his kids and grandkids. He touched our lives. He left us better than he found us-- this country, this State--and we are all indebted to him and so appreciative that we got to know him and work side by side with him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and his great staff who have worked diligently all year, month after month after month. Five months ago next week, they approved all 12 appropriations bills, one after another, regular order, through the House of Representatives. But there they sit over in the Senate and the Democrats block them.

What brings us here today is really important work. What brings us here today is that we are taking care of significant public healthcare issues. We are fully funding for the next 2 years community health centers.

I have heard from my colleagues about the things that aren't in this bill that they wish were, so that is why they are going to vote ``no,'' or some other thing that is not even before us and that is why they are going to vote ``no.''

But let's talk about what is actually before us.

What is before us is taking care of our men and women in uniform and their needs, especially when they are in harm's way, and fund really, really important public health programs that used to always be bipartisan.

Let's talk about those. Valley Family Health Care Outreach Center in Ontario and Winding Waters Clinic in Wallowa County. I have visited both of these recently. They are on the front lines of healthcare prevention. They are on the front lines of saving lives and helping children and adults. Or La Clinica down in the Medford-Ashland area.

In fact, in my district, we have 12 federally qualified health centers and 63 delivery sites that give care for 240,000 Oregonians. Twenty-four million nationwide are served by this.

On November 3, this House had the opportunity to fully fund those community health centers for 2 years and take care of children's health insurance and a lot of these other programs. It was a separate bill brought to the House floor, and a handful of Democrats broke with their party and voted with us. But, unfortunately, when it got to the Senate, they couldn't be freed up to support it. So we had to come back in the last continuing resolution and fully fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. I am not sure many Democrats voted for that here, unfortunately.

But here we are today, same process, same situation to fund community health centers. So we are going to do that. Your choice when you vote is ``yes'' or ``no,'' you want the community health centers funded or not, you want to shut the government down or not, you want to take care of our military or not.

Then there is the disproportionate share hospitals.

What are those?

Those are the hospitals in our districts and States that take care disproportionately of more poorer people than other hospitals. Under the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, however you want to describe it, there was prescribed in law automatic cuts to these hospitals that take care of the poorest of the poor in our communities. Those cuts totaled $2 billion.

In this legislation, as in the legislation we brought from the Energy and Commerce Committee on November 3, we turn off those cuts. We say: Don't do that to our DSH hospitals.

If you are at Saint Alphonsus in Ontario, Oregon, that is the most affected hospital, I am told, and they will lose money and have to decide how they cope with that. We solve that here for 2 years at $6.8 million in my State.

Then we extend the special diabetes programs. For heaven's sake, we should be able to come together in this Chamber and in this Congress to take care of people with diabetes. My grandfather lost both legs due to diabetes. They were amputated. I have other relatives and good friends whose kids have dealt with diabetes and still do to this day.

For our Native Americans and others, we have two separate programs. We fully fund them and tie them together. That is done in this legislation. Fifty thousand people in my district have diabetes. My hunch is all of our districts are not dissimilar from that. We take care of those people in this legislation.

Then we take care of therapy caps. Since 1997, when this law was put in place, people who needed physical therapy--my colleague from Tennessee talked about it--stroke victims, seniors who need therapy, rather than the physical therapist or the speech therapist saying, ``Here is the program you need to get well, get on your feet, recover from whatever it is that afflicts you,'' the government put an arbitrary cap, and that was it. You were done whether you were done or not.

Everybody is different in terms of recovery. We repeal the therapy caps in here.

By the way, we have heard about all these things that now won't get funded because a part of this funding comes out of the Public Prevention Fund. Mr. Speaker, $2.85 billion is not insignificant, it is true, but we are applying that money to help prevention and community health centers, as we did before for the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We are providing it for diabetes health. We are removing the physical therapy caps so that people can get well. That seems to me to be pretty good use of the Prevention Fund.

By the way, during the same period we are spending $2.85 billion out of that, there will still remain $12 billion left, and the talented folks at the Appropriations Committee will decide how that money is spent on vaccines and all these other issues, all these things we care about. There is still $12 billion left. So we are using discretionary funds that were set aside for that very purpose here.

Then we heard about some Medicaid cuts. Let me tell you what those are. We said: If you are a big lottery winner, maybe now that you have won a big prize, you shouldn't be on government-funded Medicaid because, by the way, you won a bazillion dollars.

So we are taking lottery winners and saying you have got to treat that big windfall when you calculate whether that person is poor or not anymore. So that is in here.

Then, on third-party liability, we said that if insurers actually are responsible for the cost, insurers should pay the cost rather than the taxpayer. So we make a little reform here that puts the insurers first to pay rather than the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the marvelous work he has done.

Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight about the Children's Health Insurance Program, funding for community health centers, stopping the cuts on our low-income hospitals, and extending the Special Diabetes Program for Native Americans.

As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I can tell you that we did our work. We held hearings, we held markups, we brought a package to the floor and approved it on November 2. Tragically, only one dozen or so Democrats voted for that package at that time. It was fully funded. Community health centers would have 2 years of funding, the Children's Health Insurance Program 5 years, and the largest funding amount ever accorded to CHIP. The Special Diabetes Program was funded.

We care about these programs as a conference, yet it was a partisan divide, tragically, and it went to the Senate where they couldn't find the votes to pass it.

So we have come back consistently thereafter to approve children's healthcare. The Children's Health Insurance Program provides insurance coverage for 9 million American children and pregnant women. We all support that as a Congress.

We have had to emergency extend the funding in various continuing resolutions, most of which my colleagues on the Democratic side have opposed.

Today, we find ourselves with seven States about to run out of money and cancelation notices going out to about 2 million people. This is unnecessary, it is unconscionable, and it should not happen, but it is. That is why the Children's Health Insurance Program now can be funded for 6 years in the CR we all voted on, and nearly every Democrat voted against; but we can do 6 years of funding for CHIP, and with the changes in other law in the Tax Code, we did not have to identify ways to pay for it. That is already taken care of.

That is why it is troubling to me to hear the remarks of some of my colleagues who say they are all for this, and they want to vote for this when we have given the entire House this opportunity on numerous occasions to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, to fund community health centers, and to fund the Special Diabetes Program.

We didn't have to be here, and you sure as heck didn't have to shut down the government. Our choice yesterday was vote to fund the government or not and vote to fund children's health insurance for 9 million children. By the way, in States like mine, that also includes DACA kids. So when you voted against that yesterday, you voted not to provide insurance to children and pregnant women in our States. That is wrong. We are here to govern. We are governing as Republicans, we will get this government up and running, and we will take care of those children.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this discussion because the prevention fund, which the gentleman from Maryland referenced, is a

very important fund--to do what? Provide preventive healthcare.

What do you think children's health insurance is about? Providing healthcare.

So you don't think providing insurance for pregnant women and children is about good health? Holy smokes. No wonder you voted ``no.'' No wonder you voted ``no.''

You have used the prevention fund in the past.

I thought I was, Mr. Speaker. I guess I was just steering a little to the left.

Both parties have used the prevention fund to do things they thought were important. I can't think of anything more important than to use a portion of the fund that gets replenished by $2 billion every year. The appropriators--God bless them--decide how those funds get appropriated every year. We thought it made sense to use a portion of that fund for children's health. There was still going to be an enormous amount of money left to be appropriated.

We also thought that people on Medicare making $500,000 a year-- $40,000 a month roughly--could pay $137 more for their Medicare so we could take care of pregnant women and children and keep our health centers open. That was one of the pay-fors. We were open to negotiating because we knew we would have to in the Senate on how else we pay for it.

But the long and the short of it is: Why are they pitting one group of kids in America against another?

Governor Sandoval from Nevada said as much. He supports what we did yesterday. Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts--I talked to him yesterday--wants the CHIP bill funded.

Can't we put the politics behind us and take care of America's children?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut's strong words.

Here is the deal. The Democrats have used money out of the Prevention Fund to fund tax cuts over time. That is a true statement.

They have used it for all kinds of things. But the long and short of it is that we brought two clean CHIP bills; one that fully funded community health centers and the Special Diabetes Program, and teaching hospitals that stopped--you know the only thing that did against ObamaCare that I think a lot of you wrote and asked me to do?

We turned off the cuts to DSH hospitals.

That is a requirement under the existing ObamaCare law.

You told us: You got to turn off these cuts to our hospitals that serve the low-income people.

We said: You know, you are right.

That is actually bipartisan. Most of what we did was bipartisan that you all and we all agreed on.

Then, when they didn't like that--and I think only 15 Democrats voted for that whole package. They are all for community health centers; they are all for the Special Diabetes Program; they are all for turning off the DSH cuts; they are all for CHIP, until they have an opportunity to vote for it, and then they voted ``no.''

And then we brought a clean CHIP bill to the floor as part of keeping the Federal Government open, and they didn't like that. They were for a 5-year CHIP bill until they wanted 10. We gave them 6. They can't figure out how to vote ``yes.'' They vote ``no.''

What is it we have to do here to get this done, to get you on board to stop the partisan politics?

Mr. Speaker, you know this. You are on appropriations. This is important work. Seven States, including my own, are on the cusp of running out of funds. Two million Americans are about to get notices from insurers that this cannot be extended because the money is running out. We have performed as Republicans. We should perform as Republicans and Democrats. We should put the health of America's children first, and they never should have shut down the government.

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the people of Borneo did to deserve the wrath of my colleague from Ohio, but perhaps she can explain later to them.

But here is the deal. The Energy and Commerce Committee did work across the aisle, or attempted to, to fully fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, to fully fund community health centers, to fully fund extenders; and, at every step of the way, when my colleagues and friends from the other side of the aisle asked me to stop and work with them, we tried. We couldn't reach full agreement on the pay-fors at the time, but we tried, and we worked in good faith with each other.

Fifteen Democrats on the House floor voted to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program for a full 5 years. By the way, that equals the longest extension and the most generous funding to help children and pregnant women that has ever been done for that program. We sent it over to the Senate. Unfortunately, they couldn't find agreement; so we came back, and we kept extending it.

By the way, the Democratic leader of the House, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, said what we are doing today, by putting full funding for Children's Health Insurance Program for the longest extension in the history of the program, a full 6 years, is, and I quote, sadly: ``A bowl of doggy-doo, put a cherry on top and call it a chocolate sundae.'' Is that what this has devolved to?

We have an opportunity today, with the help and leadership of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to fully fund our States' Children's Health Insurance Program for not 5 years but a full 6 years. This is the longest extension in the history at the strongest funding level in history.

So when you vote ``no'' today, as you all apparently are going to do, you are voting to close the government and deny our States, but, more importantly, the children and pregnant women, access to children's health insurance. The cancelations that go out, the notices, are on your terms.

Let me tell you what the children's hospitals have said to Congress:

``Kids cannot wait, fund CHIP now.''

``Congress has a chance to pass a long-term extension of CHIP that will provide security for millions of kids. The continuing resolution being considered by Congress includes a 6-year extension of CHIP. Children's hospitals support a long-term extension of CHIP and urge Congress to take this opportunity to pass CHIP this week. The time is now to extend funding for this lifeline millions of children and their families count on every day.''

That is children's hospitals. Can't we put the partisan divide aside and at least fund children's health insurance for children and pregnant women in this country and keep the government open? That is the question before us today.

The question before us today is: Do you want to keep the government open

and the services provided and 6 years of full funding for children's health insurance and pregnant women, or will you vote against it? It is as simple as that. The rest is just political rhetoric.

So let's fund CHIP. Let's take care of our families and kids and keep the government open.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his hard work and cooperation on this legislation.

The choice before us today is actually very, very simple. It is a choice the American people are watching. The choice is: Do you fund the government while you work out the other differences, or do you close the government?

It is a binary choice. It is not about all the other things I would like in this bill or you would like in this bill. The choice before us today is to keep the government open or close the government. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, if you vote ``no,'' you are voting not to keep the government open. It is that simple.

The other choice before us today is: Do you want to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for the millions and millions of children and pregnant women across America?

That funding, while we have had emergency extensions, literally is about to run out in a matter of days. It will run out.

The choice tonight for this body and every Member, regardless of party, is: Do you want to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for children and for pregnant women?

There are 122,700 Oregonians on this program. There are millions across America in our districts. They don't like the fact that we are having this fight, but they know the fact is that it is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. That is why the children's hospitals have said: Please take this bill and fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. Take us out of your fight.

What we are voting on tonight is a 6-year fully funded Children's Health Insurance Program. A ``yes'' vote says you are for it. A ``no'' vote says: I will take a pass. Somebody else can carry this program. I am not going to do it.

Well, I am doing it because I support the Children's Health Insurance Program, just as I support the community health centers, just as I support the teaching hospitals, just as I support the other extenders.

By the way, your Energy and Commerce Committee, through regular order, provided a path forward for all of those essential health services. Yes, we took the heavy lift to fund them.

You heard a couple of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about: Oh, they took money out of this fund or took money out of that fund.

The Prevention Fund is funded every year, by law. It is up to the appropriators to decide how those funds are spent.

Using some of the Prevention Fund to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers and the other programs seems like a pretty good investment for an otherwise unallocated batch of money. So we used a bit of that.

Then you heard the scare tactic the Democrats always use: Medicare. Let me tell you what this specific pay-for is. It is one that former President Barack Obama wanted to use even further than what we did.

What we said is: If you are making $500,000 a year, we are going to ask you

to pay roughly $137 more in your Medicare part B and D, which, by the way, is just your share. The government is still going to subsidize 75 percent of that. It is still a very good deal.

We figure that somebody who is making $500,000 a year could afford a little more, so we can pay for community health centers for the poor and the Children's Health Insurance Program for those who need it. That is the pay-for you have heard about.

When we brought the fully funded bill for 5 years for the Children's Health Insurance Program and 2 years for community health centers and save our DSH hospitals--those are the ones, by the way, that take care of the poorest among us--15 Democrats voted with us and I think two or three Republicans voted ``no,'' and we sent that bill to the Senate.

We did our job in this House in a bipartisan way. Now we need to do that job again, because the Senate hasn't acted. They couldn't get enough Democrats there to support the proposal in the Senate. So we are back here.

But the choice is a clear one: shut down the government and don't fund CHIP; or keep the government open and fund CHIP. That is the choice before us tonight that we need to make.

Now, we have heard all kinds of rhetoric on this floor and out in the public about this is somehow a cherry on top of dog doo-doo. Sorry to use those words, but they are the ones that the gentlewoman from San Francisco used in the press. I find it offensive. It is unnecessary. It doesn't help bring us together.

When you vote ``no,'' you vote to shut the government down and you vote against the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill fully funds the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years. There is no argument about the pay-fors now because there aren't any in there.

So if your argument for voting ``no'' was the pay-fors before, what is your argument today, other than a partisan one?

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members of the House to approve this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say congratulations to the National Grange on 150 years of service to rural America, and to thank Susan Noah, President of the Oregon State Grange, and her husband, Mark, for their continued leadership in my home state.

In Oregon, we understand how important it is to support our rural communities. The National Grange has been a steadfast partner in this effort. With over 167 Granges and 5,000 fraternal members in Oregon-- and several thousand affiliate members--the National Grange is a strong advocate for rural communities in our great state of Oregon and across the country.

The Grange has been essential in the development of rural America during three centuries: during the 19th Century, they advocated for legislative protection for farmers through the Granger Laws; in the 20th Century, they promoted research and education to improve agriculture through the Cooperative Extension Service and Land Grant Colleges while working to expand mail delivery and electricity to rural areas; and in the 21st Century, they have encouraged the expansion of broadband internet service.

The Grange has provided a megaphone for the voice of rural communities throughout the country. The effort of this organization to bring people from across the country and across the political spectrum together in support of rural America is truly inspiring.

Being a champion for rural America is an endeavor that transcends party lines and benefits all Americans, not just those living in rural communities. The Grange has led the effort in this, with an emphasis on service to the local community and volunteerism to improve the quality of life and economic well-being of rural America.

On behalf of rural communities in Oregon and across the country, and the entire United States Congress, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the National Grange on 150 years of unwavering service to rural America.