Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, the American people will see clearly what each and every Member of this House is made of. Will we vote to willfully strip healthcare coverage for 24 million Americans, older Americans, working Americans, Americans with chronic illness and developmental disabilities and now, incredibly, we even know, Americans who wore the uniform of this Nation?

In a few minutes, we will see who will vote to raid the Medicare trust fund in order to cut Medicare taxes for the rich, and we will see who will vote to cut Medicaid's coverage for patients struggling with the curse of opioid addiction.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a vote. This is a gut check of who we are as people and whether our purpose, as elected officials, is to serve the public interest or, rather, feckless special interests.

Show the Nation that we care more about people than politics, that we care more about the long arc of American history toward justice rather than the short news cycle of who is up and who is down in Washington.

Make no mistake: History is watching this vote. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, again, as someone who was a small-business employer for 27 years and provided health benefits for my staff, I am acutely aware of the challenges in the small-business market which long predate passage of the Affordable Care Act and which is still something that we can do better in terms of helping folks deal with this issue, which, again, is so important because small businesses are the job creators in the American economy.

What I want to sort of point out is that this legislation, in my opinion, is just a complete misfire. Let's, first of all, remind everyone that there are over 670 association health plans existing in America today.

The notion that the Affordable Care Act somehow is smothering or stifling association health plans is, in fact, just factually false. There are many that are in business, providing coverage, as has been said by some of the prior speakers, for people in industries like restaurants, et cetera. Again, we are not talking about some existential threat that is out there in terms of association health plans today.

The guts of this bill--and it is quite extraordinary coming from, again, the Republican Party--is to preempt State Governments from having any say over the solvency and the benefit design of plans that operate under association health plans.

Back in the 1990s, there was a spate of problems with association health plans going belly up because, again, there was no State insurance solvency standards to make sure that there were funds set aside to pay the bills of people who were employed in the businesses that these plans were set up to serve.

As a result, Congress acted. We basically said that the Federal Government was doing a lousy job in terms of protecting patients. And we gave States the ability, through their State insurance departments, to make sure that certain solvency standards were met and, as was stated earlier, that they weren't able to cherry-pick just the healthiest and leave the rest for the other segments of the health insurance industry.

As a result of the fact that we made this change, again, the State insurance commissioners all across America, Republican States and Democratic States, have weighed in. They sent a letter on February 28 pleading with Congress not to do this, not to pass this bill which eliminates their ability to protect the citizens of their States.

So this bill is actually an anti-states' rights bill because it is basically saying the Federal Government is just going to step in and wipe out the way in which these plans operate and just lead, again, a race to the bottom, the lowest threshold of protections for patients; and that is considered healthcare reform or somehow advancing the ball in terms of helping small businesses.

There are many other ways to deal with this issue, and this is not the right one. Again, this is not some new idea that we are debating. This has been back and forth over the years, in the 1990s and the early 2000s. It predates the Affordable Care Act by decades, and it is just an old chestnut that is being thrown out in the floor in the name of some idea to sound like we are doing something for small businesses.

Again, under the Affordable Care Act, we set up a 50 percent tax credit for businesses that qualify for it to make health insurance affordable.

I did two townhalls back in my district. I had a plumber from the next town over who, again, took advantage of that 50 percent tax credit. He saved thousands of dollars in terms of providing health benefits for his small business.

We can expand that tax credit to get a wider universe of small businesses, and that is what we should be doing. We should be building on what is successful, again, not watering down existing patient protection and consumer protection laws that ensure that plans are actually going to have enough funds to pay the bills when people get sick or go to the hospital and certainly not be able to cherry-pick what benefits are considered essential or not.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be allowing health plans to decide we are not going to cover maternity or that they can pick and choose what essential benefits that, again, the rest of the universe of businesses have to provide now under the Affordable Care Act, which are, again, based on sound medical research, not political decisions or not just the whims of people who are running health plans, like association health plans.

Again, this is the wrong approach. This is, again, turning the clock backwards. It is not going to provide any protections, and it certainly is not responding to some existential threat of association health plans. There are 672 in operation today. Let's help them with programs like tax credits. Let's not just sort of turn that whole sector of the health insurance marketplace into the Wild West because it is patients who are going to lose. Our citizens are going to lose. We can do better than that as a Congress.

Mr. Speaker, again, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, after 7 years of railing against the Affordable Care Act, a little less than 2 weeks ago we finally got an opportunity to see what the Republican repeal-and-replace plan actually looks like.

President Trump described it on March 7, again, a little less than 2 weeks ago, as our wonderful new healthcare bill.

The new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, solemnly promised that no one will be worse off financially as part of this bill known as the American Health Care Act.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as President John Adams once said a long time ago, facts are stubborn things; and over the last 2 weeks, we have had an opportunity to see what the Congressional Budget Office says about the American Health Care Act. Again, this is the neutral body that advises the Congress and the Nation with budgetary analysis both in terms of taxes and spending and also in terms of healthcare coverage.

What it has told us is that 24 million Americans will lose their health coverage between now and 2024. In fact, it will go up by 14 million just in the first couple of years under this bill, which, again, after 7 years, we never got a chance to see it, but now we are finally getting that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is a little sort of too much to talk about these large numbers and top-line numbers. What I want to share with you and my colleagues and also anyone watching this speech is that the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is, again, one of the most respected healthcare, nonprofit, educational institutions in our country, has produced an interactive website which basically gives any American the opportunity to scroll across a map of America, find the county where you live, punch in what their income level and age is, and then compare the existing law with the American Health Care Act. Again, that website is kff.org/interactive/tax-credits. Again, kff.org.

I had an opportunity to use that website for my district in eastern Connecticut, a district I proudly represent, the home of the UConn Women Huskies and the home of the Groton submarine base, the oldest submarine base in America. What it showed is that, for people living in New London County, in Windham County, in Tolland County, in Middlesex County, if you are 60 years old and you are making $50,000 a year, you lose $3,230--in terms of premium tax credits compared to existing law-- in the proposal which, again, was finally unveiled 2 weeks ago.

If you make only $30,000 a year and you are 60 years old, you lose $5,850, a 59 percent reduction in terms of your income assistance to buy health coverage. Again, the prior number was 45 percent.

Unlike what Mr. Price said, this, in fact, is much worse off financially for people in those age groups and where they live. It is far worse off financially in terms of where they stand. In fact, it makes it impossible for people to afford health insurance.

That is why the Congressional Budget Office, looking at that kind of data, has made the conclusion that, if we pass this bill--and the vote is scheduled on Thursday--we will see, again, millions of Americans who will basically be priced out of the opportunity to buy health insurance.

And when you are 60 years old--as someone who is 63, I can tell you-- that is not a good place to be in terms of your health status and the risk that you carry when you get older in life in terms of the need to be able to access healthcare coverage.

Mr. Speaker, it is that reason why, when you look at what the stakeholders that deliver health care in America--the American Nurses Association, the American Hospital Association, the AARP, and, finally, the American Medical Association--who have looked at this bill over the last 2 weeks, they have universally pleaded with Congress to block this measure, to slow down the rush to judgment which is going to deprive people of one of the most elemental, basic needs that all of us share.

We are not immortal. We are not immune to getting illness and disease. It

is something that affects every single American.

To pass a bill which will wreak that kind of havoc, again, is irresponsible and takes this country in the absolute wrong direction.

So, again, I would plead with Members and I would ask anybody watching this speech, go to the Kaiser Foundation website, find where you live, think about your uncle or your children or people that you know in your neighborhood, and really plug in that data and information and think about what, in fact, we are being told is, in fact, a wonderful healthcare bill and something that won't hurt people and won't make them worse off financially. Again, the opposite is true. CBO is telling us this, the doctors are telling us this, the nurses are telling us this, the hospitals are telling us this, those who advocate for older Americans are telling us this.

Again, it is not too late. This vote is coming up on Thursday. It is time to listen to the people who are closest to the system and stop this rush to harming millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, in March of 2010, the Affordable Care Act was signed into law after a 2-year process of hundreds of committee meetings, exhaustive markups--which I personally participated in--floor debate that went on for days, and, again, back- and-forth between the House and the Senate.

Since that date, despite the, again, bitter criticism by the Republican majority when that law went into effect, there have been 60 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act; and up until this morning, the majority has always begged the question about: What is your replacement? Again, just last week, we heard rumors that there was a replacement, that the Speaker actually had drafted a bill.

Well, with scenes that looked like it was out of ``The Blair Witch Project,'' we had Members of Congress going around the Capitol opening doors with cameras doing live streams and live coverage, again, to empty rooms and denials that there actually was a bill that anyone could actually take a look at.

Well, as I said, this morning, we now have been told that there actually is a bill that has been filed, which tomorrow will be marked up and voted out of committee with not one single public hearing and, incredibly, with no analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which any bill that has any impact on budget, whether it is a tax bill or a spending bill, has, as a matter of course, for decades, always been the case. There is no measure which contains more significance in terms of a Congressional Budget analysis than reforming the healthcare system of America, which constitutes about 15 to 20 percent of the American economy and affects the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Well, from what we have seen so far, it appears there is a good reason that the folks wanted to keep the bill a secret. Again, the basic fundamentals of the Affordable Care Act is built on two pillars. There was an expansion of Medicaid, and there were subsidies based on income for Americans to be able to buy insurance through the marketplace.

In the State of Connecticut, where I come from, we have cut the uninsured rate down to 3.6 percent from approximately 9 percent when the bill was signed into law 7 years ago.

What this bill does is, again, it just basically decapitates the Medicaid expansion. So about 11 million Americans are going to have their healthcare coverage threatened. And those are not just, you know, people on entitlement programs. We are talking about working Americans.

I know a farmer in my district who almost lost his foot from a chain saw accident, who thanked me the other day that he had Medicaid to cover the costs of his hospital coverage.

Again, the subsidies which allowed people to buy plans on the insurance marketplace, well, they basically, as I said, decapitate Medicaid. And they also convert the subsidies from an income-based system to an age-rated one, which means that, basically, a well-to-do person gets the same tax credit that a poor person or a single parent has.

A conservative economist, Avik Roy, just a few minutes ago, issued a statement, saying:

Expanding subsidies for high earners while cutting health

coverage for the working poor sounds like a caricature of

mustache-twirling, top-hatted Republican fat cats.

Again, you cannot imagine a more Robin Hood in reverse than a plan that does what this tax credit change encompasses.

And, again, the list goes on and on in terms of some of the really just outrageous proposals that this new measure contains.

For seniors, again, the Affordable Care Act contracted the age rating from 3 to 1 from what existed before; it was about 6 to 7 to 1. In other words, a senior, an older person, could be charged seven times the same rate as a 20-year-old. Again, the Affordable Care Act reduced that span to 3 to 1.

This bill expands the span again to 5 to 1, which the American ARP has already issued a statement, saying:

It is nothing more than an age tax. It is charging people

based on their age, which is nothing that any human being can

control.

It also, again, rolls back tax increases, slight tax increases, for high income earners, as Mr. Roy's comment indicates, and worsens the fiscal solvency of the Medicare trust fund, reduces its solvency by 4 years.

Again, the Catholic Health Association has come out today criticizing this proposal. Again, just an incredible array of stakeholder groups all across the country are already speaking out.

The fact that this measure is going forward in committee tomorrow morning, less than, really, 24 hours for the American people to have even a glimpse in terms of what is being proposed without an analysis in terms of a budget score, again, is just an abuse of the legislative and democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, again, we have seen an outpouring of Americans over the last 2 months at townhall meetings--I have had four of them--people telling heartfelt stories about how the ACA helped them. Yes, we can improve the law. There are many ideas that we can work together on. That is what we should be focused on, not butchering the law, which this proposal seeks to do.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Ms. Plaskett's amendment and just want to drill down on one point, which is, in the name of job creation, we have this bill before us, and we are going to spend $30 million which will, I suppose, create some jobs here in Washington with some folks who sit on the commission and the staff who are going to have to populate it.

But just a couple of days ago, President Trump had the manufacturing CEOs of this country at the White House, and what they said was jobs exist, but skills don't; that there is a skills gap in this country, and that we need to have job training out there to connect people to these jobs.

Well, we have the Workforce Investment Act that was signed into law by President Obama in 2014, which created a framework for apprenticeship programs, advance manufacturing programs, all the things that these CEOs were talking about, and we are underfunding those programs--just to take one, the Adult Formula Grants--by just about $30 million.

You want to create jobs? Don't spend $30 million on this ridiculous commission when, again, we have so many other resources here in Washington to review regulations. Let's put that money directly into the programs that will create the skill sets so that people can actually get a job to support themselves and their families. And don't take it from us, take it from the CEOs who were with President Trump just a few days ago about the fact that at a time when we have jobs in existence, the fact that we are underfunding job training programs is just totally criminal.

Let's use this $30 million in a more productive way that will actually connect people to the jobs that are out there in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, as we are sitting here in this Chamber, right now off the coast of Groton, Connecticut, 30 miles from the Groton Navy Sub Base, which is the oldest submarine base in America, there is a Russian spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, that is loitering--as was reported this morning from the Navy and news sources--off the coast, again, within the bare minimum of international waters.

I can attest to the fact that--having just flown down from Connecticut a few days ago--anyone who would loiter off the coast of Connecticut is not doing it because of the great climate and weather. It is freezing weather out there. They are doing it, obviously, with aggressive intent, to say the least.

Mr. Speaker, this is part of a pattern that is going on right now not just off the East Coast of the U.S., but also overseas. The USS Porter, which is a Navy missile ship, was buzzed by military aircraft from Russia on February 10. They came within 200 yards of the ship. Again, because we have such incredibly competent and professional leadership that captain those vessels, an incident was avoided.

However, the danger of jet aircraft moving within 200 yards of a U.S. naval ship obviously is just common sense to anyone how high risk that is in terms of creating an incident that could have huge ramifications.

In addition to that, the news reported again just the last couple of days or so that the Russian military is now deploying intermediate medium-range nuclear warheads in different places throughout Western Russia, near Eastern Europe. Again, this is clearly in violation of treaties that go back decades.

As General Breedlove, who was the commander of NATO and the European Command who just stepped down, said that this new effort really just cannot go unanswered. It completely destabilizes the balance of power in that theater of the world.

Again, the folks in Connecticut woke up this morning with that news about the spy ship off the coast. As you can imagine, it has created a lot of consternation and questions.

Once again, I would reiterate that I have total confidence in our Navy leadership both at the Groton Navy base and here in Washington that they will react to this with total vigilance and professional competence to make sure that, again, our security is protected.

But I think it is time now for all of us in Washington, D.C., to understand that Vladimir Putin, during the 5 years that he has been in power, again, has taken a posture that is completely destabilizing any sort of global system of peace and security.

This new administration, which clearly has an infatuation with Putin--and this goes back during the campaign with President Trump talking on the campaign trail about his high regard for Putin's leadership--needs to basically move on and recognize that this is an emerging threat and that we have to take all necessary steps to respond to it both in the short-term and, obviously, as we take up defense policy and defense budgets, which is that the resurgence of the Russian Navy is a game-changer in terms of the demands on our fleet.

That is something that, again, on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which I am the ranking member, we are working hard in terms of implementing the Obama administration's boost to Navy shipbuilding and increasing the fleet size.

Again, we need to really, as I said, just disavow ourselves of any naive assumptions that somehow the Putin government is somehow something that we can trust, and shows any regard for international norms or international law.

Again, to the folks back home, I want you to know that we are monitoring this situation with our Navy team down here in Washington and I have total confidence that we are on top of this situation.

It is a reminder that the Russian Government and the investment that they have put into their Navy fleet is not a friendly gesture in terms of creating a system of global peace and security; and this administration needs to wake up and recognize that and move on to a bipartisan effort to respond to this threat.

They can do that by, again, disclosing all the background regarding General Flynn's interaction with the Russian Government because it is part and parcel of all those incidents which I listed in terms of aggressive actions that are happening in real time as we are here in Washington, D.C., today.

Mr. Speaker, at 11 p.m. last night, the UConn women's basketball team once again stunned the sporting world and, really, the Nation by winning their 100th straight win against a very good team, the University of South Carolina.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the UConn women just continue to defy the laws of gravity. They have won 11 NCAA titles, again, shattering all records before them, and the 100th win was exceeding the last record which the UConn women set a number of years ago in terms of consecutive wins.

Coach Geno Auriemma has an extraordinary program, which has almost a perfect record of graduation. These are true student athletes. Last night, Gabby Williams, Napheesa Collier, Kia Nurse, and Crystal Dangerfield once again made us proud in the State of Connecticut to be the home of real champions.

Again, congratulations. You are in unchartered waters now at 100 wins and counting, and we look forward to more success in the future.

Go Huskies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. And I do so as someone who, in 2008, actually was a member of the conference committee when we passed the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, that is the last time Congress has moved forward, and we are about 3 or 4 years overdue in terms of modernizing and updating that law.

But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, having been to the meetings--and we actually met as conferees and we had votes and we had discussion, unlike a lot of the short-circuited processes that unfortunately dominates most of our business these days--it was a healthy process.

This issue of teacher preparation in setting up standards was totally noncontroversial. There were a couple of items on which the two sides actually debated, but this one was a no-brainer. It just makes perfect sense that we want to make sure that there is at least a minimum standard out there to make sure that kids are getting the opportunities they need, particularly with the changing demands and needs of the workforce.

What also just sort of astonishes me is the manner in which this regulation was issued, which was only last October. The ink is, really, barely dry on it. We have a new incoming administration with a new Secretary, whom I will talk about in a second, and they have more than ample opportunity to go back into the regulations process and amend it, make changes, if they so choose. Instead, rather than using a scalpel, we are using a chain saw to basically carve out, in essence, a section of the law because the ability of the Department's to go back and do a similar regulation is not allowed under the Congressional Review Act.

This is a measure which, as I said, was just totally noncontroversial, on which we had a very strong vote, by the way, in terms of the final result of the conference that took place back in 2008, and the process that is being used is just tremendous overkill.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I think, as we stand here today in the Chamber--and just an hour or so ago, we had a Secretary who was confirmed in an unprecedented procedure during which the Vice President had to come in and break the tie--it, unfortunately, has the look of, really, being part of a pattern that we are seeing emerge here with the confirmation hearing process during which the incoming Secretary showed almost no regard for the notion of accountability in terms of charter schools and voucher programs, which, for the taxpayer and for the kids and the parents who really depend on our education system, is just a totally unacceptable approach.

As I said, this CRA bill on the teacher preparation program is just part of the same cloth. It is saying that we are just going to carve out a section which was a totally bipartisan, commonsense provision back in 2008 and that we are going to handcuff the ability of the Department to even come in with a substitute. The chances of Congress, at this point, coming in with new legislation--I mean, I am the eternal optimist. Hopefully, that will happen, but it sure hasn't happened over the last 3 or 4 years since the HEA, Higher Education Act, expired.

This is really, I think, a very unfortunate effort that is being put forth here on the floor. As I said, given what is going on with the Department and the vote that took place here earlier today, for those who really care about making sure that our free public education system, which has been, basically, part of America since Abraham Lincoln first proposed it back in the

middle of the Civil War, we need to be totally on guard--on standby--to make sure that the taxpayer is protected in terms of making sure these grant programs go to school districts and systems that are actually following through with programs of value and to make sure that we protect the pillars of public education. Anyone watching that confirmation process over in the Senate, I think, was extremely worried and alarmed, which is why, I think, we had this avalanche of emails and calls that came in all across the country during that process.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for all of the reasons I have stated.

Madam Speaker, as we stand in the House Chamber today, over 4,000 U.S. military personnel are bringing the fight to ISIL terrorists in Iraq. Navy and Air Force pilots, Special Forces, and advisers are working hand in hand with Iraqis and Kurds to eject ISIL from Mosul, the city they declared 3 years ago as the capital of their caliphate.

Great progress has been made. Supported by thousands of U.S. air strikes, the eastern half of the city has been reclaimed by the forces of the civilized world and efforts are underway to finish the job in western Mosul.

Madam Speaker, none of this could have been done without the help of brave Iraqi interpreters who are essential to communicating all of the pieces of these operations.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am proud that from 2008 to 2016, we passed and repassed a special immigration visa program to open the door of immigration to the U.S. for these interpreters as a safe haven, and also as a reward for putting their lives at risk and making sure that our troops can communicate safely and effectively in their operations.

Incredibly, on Friday, with one stroke of the pen, President Trump slammed the door shut on that program because he canceled all visa programs from Iraq.

If anyone could imagine a more demoralizing way to undercut the anti- ISIL alliance at such a critical time, Friday's order won the prize; and we are hearing from military commanders who are over there in Iraq talking about the blowback that is coming from our allies that were literally underway in real operations in real time.

We, in Congress, need to stop this order for the sake of our standing in the world as a beacon of hope and freedom and, if for nothing else, to support our troops and their allies in harm's way.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the 250th Anniversary of the Incorporation of the Town of East Hampton, Connecticut. The citizens of this community will celebrate this anniversary with a series of festivities occurring over the course of the year.

East Hampton's resiliency has been demonstrated since their earliest days. In 1739, the original settlers, led by Isaac Smith, braved the wilderness of the Northeast to settle along the east bank of the Connecticut River. The town was originally named Chatham in 1767, commemorating its robust shipbuilding economy, but was later renamed to East Hampton in 1915.

The Town of East Hampton has retained much of its old-time charm and beauty for which many New England communities are so famous and it remains the embodiment of community and tradition. Since its resurrection in 1978, thousands of residents and visitors attend the town's Old Home Days glorious celebration. The celebration, which spans three days, fills the streets of East Hampton with live music, delicious food, carnival rides, and concludes with the highly anticipated Old Home Day parade.

East Hampton also has a rich history of honoring its military community. From hosting Yellow Ribbon Ceremonies for departing and returning veterans to erecting the Veterans Memorial Monument, which honors over 2,000 East Hampton veterans, East Hampton has always bestowed the greatest honor upon their veterans.

East Hampton was also the hometown of Connecticut's 84th governor William O'Neill who served in that position from 1980 to 1991. Governor O'Neill was a leader in strengthening Connecticut's public education system, healthcare for seniors, and fixing Connecticut's roads. He was a Korean War Veteran and longtime legislator before ascending to the governor's office. Despite his amazing service he never lost touch with regular people, and I believe it was due to the fact that he and his wife Nikki, always kept their home in East Hampton, where Nikki still resides today.

Mr. Speaker, for 250 years East Hampton and its residents have persevered and flourished through shifting economic, political, and social landscapes. The enthusiasm and amiability from East Hampton's citizens is truly telling of their pride and sense of community. On this anniversary, I ask my colleagues to join me and my constituents with honoring and celebrating this 250th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better sign of a healthy economy than a healthy real estate market. We know this in this country from bitter experience since the real estate and financial collapse of 2008.

In my State in Connecticut, we are barely at a place now where home sales and home equity has even come in a positive direction and climbing back towards what existed back in 2008 when the collapse occurred.

Listening to the President's speech on Friday where he very powerfully talked about the forgotten American, middle class individuals and working people who really felt that they were left behind in terms of the work that happens in this city, he clearly touched a nerve that propelled him to the White House. As I said, it was probably the most powerful part of his message that he delivered on Friday.

I mention that because it was astonishing that within an hour after taking the oath, President Trump signed an executive order rolling back a rate reduction for mortgage insurance for homeowners. What that means is that for many homeowners--particularly first-time home buyers--they need to have mortgage insurance in order to qualify for a mortgage. That ensures that if there is a default, that the mortgage will be paid off. It de-risks the loan so that, again, particularly people who are first-time home buyers can actually buy a house. The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, runs this mortgage insurance program.

Again, there was a rate reduction that was slated to go into effect on January 27, from 0.85 percent down to 0.6 percent. President Trump canceled that reduction.

So what does that mean?

The National Association of Realtors, which is hardly a partisan group, has, in the wake of that order, released numbers that about 750,000 to 800,000 homeowners are going to be adversely affected by losing those savings that are just going to go to the government, by the way. Those mortgage premiums basically are paid into the government. And right now there is a surplus in that account, which is why the rate reduction was slated to go into effect. There is no reason for the government to be overcharging for mortgage insurance, given the healthy balance that exists in that mortgage insurance account.

They also calculate that 30,000 to 40,000 home buyers will not buy a home in 2017 because of that order that was issued on Friday. Again, these are people who--$500 to $1,000, which is going to come out of their pocket in terms of higher payments because of this executive order--are basically going to be priced out of buying a home. The home builders, the realtors, the people who are closest to the market and clearly are not partisan--I mean, I know a lot of these guys in my district, and they are staunch Republicans in many cases--are dumbfounded at the fact that that order, of all things, within the first hours of the new administration, would be a priority for, again, the new Trump administration.

We have work to do in terms of getting this economy turned around, but if you look at home ownership, home construction, buying a house, having a healthy real estate market, that is absolutely the sweet spot of trying to succeed in this country. We do not need to be overcharging Americans for mortgage insurance, which, again, is the gateway for home ownership, particularly at that lower end of the market. Because every time someone buys a house for $200,000 or $250,000 in Connecticut, which is towards the lower end, or even lower in other parts of the country, that frees up existing homeowners either to buy up or to retire or get a condo. When those people are locked out--which raising these mortgage insurance premiums are going to effectively do--we are just stifling the real estate market from recovering. That is a bad start in terms of an administration that says it is about growing America's economy.

I will pledge to my constituents that I am going to do everything I can to reverse that unwise order and help the folks who are out there doing the hard work of selling houses, building houses, hiring people, to accomplish their goal because when they succeed, America succeeds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Doyle for his generous yielding of time and the great work he does representing the great city of Pittsburgh, which has had many Super Bowl rings in the past and will again in the future no doubt.

Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in support of this measure. As Mr. Kinzinger indicated, this is the third try that we have pushed this bill on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully the third time will be the charm. It was introduced only 10 days ago, and the fact that, again, we are moving so quickly hopefully is going to send an encouraging signal that the Senate can really move forward and finish this very, I think, important and useful piece of legislation.

There are about 737,000 ham radio operators that have been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission across the country. As has been said, they provide a great backup for emergency services around the country. Again, in Connecticut, where we did get hit with Hurricanes Sandy and Irene in back-to-back years, the harm that was done to the wireless communications system as well as just the regular radio system really put the spotlight on the fact that ham radio operators were critical in terms of keeping police, fire, and small communities and State services in up-to-date, realtime communication regarding both weather conditions as well as public safety conditions. So the work that they perform is not just kind of a hobby; it really has great value to the country.

What I think this bill tries to address is that, in 1985, the FCC issued an order and ruling basically describing ham radio as critical to the Nation's information and communication infrastructure, and that reasonable accommodation should be made in terms of public entities like zoning boards and land use bodies. It did not extend, however, to private land use restrictions.

Since the 1980s, there probably hasn't been a deed signed in the country that hasn't had land use restrictions, and this bill really tries to, I think, adjust to that reality with the compromise language that has been put forward so that condominium associations and, again, neighborhood developments have to reasonably make sure that this network is going to be able to function.

The good news is that the technology has moved forward so well that the antenna intrusion really is not what it used to be, that the equipment that they have is quite remarkable to see how strong their signals are and the reception is with, again, just really almost tiny antenna technology.

So, again, this legislation I think really updates the FCC's promotion of ham radio. Communities that are going to end up depending on it because of natural disaster and other emergency situations I think will benefit strongly. So again, I congratulate all the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I thank Mr. Doyle again for generously yielding his time to me.

Mr. Speaker, last night Speaker Ryan told a national audience on CNN ObamaCare is crumbling. Donald Trump has said over and over again ObamaCare is a disaster. I would like to share just a tiny fraction of the emails my office has received in the last few days to demonstrate that the opposite is true:

Peter, a 63-year-old farmer from Ellington, Connecticut:

ACA has allowed me and my wife access to quality health

care. If this law is repealed, either I sell off my land and

livestock or go without insurance.

Becky, a 41-year-old small-business owner and single mom from Enfield, before ACA hadn't seen a doctor in 4 years. Now, she and her kids have a plan for $315 a month.

George, a 53-year-old freelance designer from Niantic: the past 2 years, he and his wife with preexisting conditions have been covered by an affordable plan.

Michelle, a registered nurse with health issues from Killingworth, has the same message.

Sue from Vernon, her husband has cancer.

Barbara from North Stonington, a 59-year-old registered nurse, has a chronic condition.

All are watching this destructive process with outrage. For these people, the only thing that is crumbling is their confidence in Congress to do the right thing and stop this rush to repeal.

As George from Niantic said:

I have never been so worried for my country.

Vote ``no'' on repeal. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Peterson and Mr. Conaway, with whom I did serve on the Agriculture Committee with for a number of years, and I recall well some of the discussion and debate as Chairman Gensler appeared before the committee on article 7 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Although, I didn't author that position, former-Senator Dodd is a constituent of mine. So I guess that is close enough to the work that was done creating this section.

Again, let's be very clear about what this amendment does. It is not about clarifying anything. It is about stripping from the law article 7 of Dodd-Frank, which was a congressional mandate to establish position limits for speculative trading.

Again, this was not done in a vacuum. It was done because there has been an explosion of speculative trading that is taking place in commodities markets. We had testimony in the Congress back in 2010 that it had grown from 22 percent to 67 percent speculation on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs--when, again, we were dealing with close to $4 a gallon for gas--had a report which said that 27 percent of that price was due to speculation. So, Congress appropriately instructed CFTC to come back with a regulatory plan to limit speculative positions in a reasonable way.

Again, no one quarrels with the fact that end users, whether it is farms, ranchers, airlines, or businesses of all sorts, should be able to exercise options in market swaps.

In those instances, these are firms and businesses which actually take physical possession and control of the commodity. Again, what Goldman Sachs and other analysts had demonstrated is that what has been a burgeoning trend is that firms were beginning to take dominant position in markets that, again, were not even close or remotely involved in the actual production, processing, or use of the commodities that were in question.

So again, CFTC has begun an arduous, painful process of trying to craft a rule. In fact, just a few weeks ago, on December 5, the CFTC voted unanimously to again move that process along and come up with a draft of a balanced, reasonable rule, so it is not a dead-end situation.

As has been reported, what they basically were looking at was a fundamental or a basic limit of roughly about 25 percent of a commodity could not be controlled by one firm. The end users that I spoke to, as this rule has been making its way, actually think that the CFTC is being too generous in terms of allowing an individual firm to control up to 25 percent of a market. I think a lot of Americans would understand that that kind of position really would provide for an opportunity to manipulate market prices.

In fact, there are some end users who think the rule should be very simple, that you have to take actual physical possession of the commodity in order to be able to hedge a position or engage in a future option. Again, the CFTC did not go to that radical extreme. Again, they tried to listen to the thousands of comments--Chairman Gensler, Chairman Massad--to try to fashion a rule that allowed a healthy market but did not allow situations which were occurring during high gas and oil prices.

In Connecticut, we had home heating oil suppliers who were describing situations where the price of the heating oil by the time the truck left the garage and came back was going up 10, 15 cents just during that short period of time for no reason at all. There wasn't like a refinery explosion or some incident that was happening overseas. It was, again, the movement on Wall Street of people who were profiting not from use of the commodity but, in fact, just from the movement on the price. That is really what CFTC has been hard at work doing.

This amendment will basically shut that down. It is not a clarification. It basically takes away what was Congress' instruction to CFTC.

Again, I respectfully oppose this amendment. I think we should allow the Commission, which is going to have a Republican Chairman in a few weeks, to continue to work on this issue and to provide protection for the true end users, the people who actually use the commodities, as well as consumers. Whether it is those who get their home heating oil tank full, their gas tank full, whether it is farmers and ranchers who are dealing with things like feed costs, we should have a healthy system of making sure that individuals or firms cannot have a dominant position in terms of controlling commodities.

This is not an arcane, esoteric issue for Americans. This affects bread-and-butter issues in terms of how much they pay for essential goods and commodities for them and their families. I would strongly urge the Members to not accept this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss and honor the life of Conor Irwin.

The child of Whit and Holly Irwin, Conor was a resident of Ledyard, CT. He graduated from St. Bernard School and was a freshman at Ledyard High School. He was just 14 years old.

In 2013, I had the honor of meeting Conor when he visited me to discuss the quality of food served in local schools. He had been a youth representative to the New London County Food Policy Council and was seriously concerned about the effect of poor food quality on health. Wonderfully precocious, he was full of good ideas that might help address this problem.

Like many 14 year-old boys, he loved soccer, playing outdoors, and listening to music. Just this past year, he even earned his first varsity letter for cross country. But those who knew Conor acknowledge something special about him. Even at so young an age, he was already a gentleman and true renaissance man. It may have been his voracious appetite for knowledge, his signature bow ties, or his love of travel and exploration. But mostly, it was his thoughtfulness that set him apart. He was always looking out for the younger kids, helping his mom with groceries, and holding the door for whomever may be passing by.

My thoughts and prayers are with Conor's family and friends as they mourn this terrible loss. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing my condolences and honoring a truly special soul, Conor Irwin.