Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pride to announce that an educator from my district has been awarded the Gilder Lehrman Institute's Tennessee History Teacher of the Year Award.

Ms. Andrea Guy was nominated by her own students from Hardin Valley Academy for this very prestigious award.

Just one year ago, Andrea was selected to participate in the Supreme Court History Society's Summer Teacher Institute in Washington, D.C.

The education of our young people can only be as good as our teachers, and Andrea has showcased what great education looks like through her hard work and dedication to her students and to the history of Our Nation.

This is a very high honor that I am proud to recognize.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. As the House Liberty Caucus wrote, this bill violates the 10th Amendment that conservatives have always supported.

More troubling is the way this bill is worded. It could lead to what the Liberty Caucus describes as a ``massive expansion of Federal authority'' because it could make almost every medical malpractice case a Federal case. Every case should not be a Federal case.

The States have already put pretty severe limits on medical malpractice cases. I have two other problems with this bill. I am in my 29th year in Congress. The doctors were asking for this $250,000 limit then, too. $250,000 29 years ago is certainly not $250,000 today.

Finally, this bill, in the end, is saying there are really no limits on suits against 99.8 percent of the people I represent, but we are going to have special protection for this one very respected group of people. Conservatives have traditionally had more faith in people than in government.

I was a judge for 7.5 years before coming to Congress. Conservatives used to believe strongly in the jury system, and still should believe in that today.

Mr. Speaker, in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers today is this cartoon, a cartoon showing a general with several stars on his shoulder, saying: ``Sixteen years of blood, bombs, bullets, and devastation, and no one's winning,'' talking about our 16- year war in Afghanistan. And then the cartoon shows a very greedy- looking man holding a briefcase called War Incorporated, with all kinds of cash sticking out of both sides and with this greedy smile saying, ``Oh, I wouldn't say that.'' And that is what this war is now all about, this 16-year war. It is being held up and continued only because so many people and companies are making money out of it.

Just yesterday, in The Washington Times, there was this story entitled, ``War and Waste,'' and I would like to read some of that story.

``Those are the basics for outfitting an Afghan soldier. But in that simple uniform combination are the threads of two troubling stories-- one about the waste of millions in American taxpayer dollars''-- actually, it is many billions--``the other about the perils of propping up a partner army in a seemingly endless war.

``Together these tales help explain why some in Congress''--and it should be everyone in Congress--``why some in Congress question the wisdom of investing even more resources in Afghanistan, nearly 16 years after the United States invaded the Taliban-ruled country in response to the al-Qaida attacks of September 11, 2001. The Army general who runs the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan calls it a stalemate. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis says the U.S. is `not winning.' ''

And I will continue with this story: And, sadly, the only Americans who are being killed in recent weeks have been killed by the Afghan soldiers who we are paying and who we are there trying to help out.

Continuing this story: ``The long war has generated repeated examples of wasted funds, which may be inevitable in a country such as Afghanistan, where the military has been built from scratch, is plagued with corruption and relies almost completely on U.S. money for even the most basic things, including salaries and uniforms. Among the costs rarely noted publicly: The Pentagon has spent $1 billion over the past 3 years to help recruit and retain Afghan soldiers.''

And then, I continue with the story: ``The Pentagon has not disputed the gist of findings by its Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, John Sopko, that the U.S. spent as much as $28 million more than necessary over 10 years on uniforms for Afghan soldiers with a camouflage `forest' pattern that'' is totally ``inappropriate for the largely desert battlefield.

``In a report released this past week, Sopko's office said the Pentagon paid to license a propriety camouflage pattern even though it owns patterns it could have used for free.''

The Pentagon spent $28 million to get something that it could have gotten for free.

``The choice,'' it said, was based on the seemingly offhand fashion preference of a single Afghan official.

`` `This is not an isolated event,' Sopko said in a telephone interview. The U.S., he said, has been `in a mad rush to spend money like a drunken sailor on a weekend furlough.' It reflects a pattern, he said, of spending too much money, too quickly, with too little oversight and too little accountability.''

And he continues, Mr. Sopko: `` `This was more than just a bad fashion move,' he said. `It cost the taxpayer millions of dollars' more than might have been necessary.

``Money is rarely part of the debate over what the United States should do differently or better in Afghanistan, and thus the accumulating costs are often overlooked.

``Since 2002, the U.S. has spent $66 billion on Afghan security forces alone''--in addition to many, many billions more on other things in trying to do nation building in Afghanistan, which we never should have been doing in the first place.

``In recent years, this spending has grown''--listen to that. In recent years, this spending has grown over the $66 billion.

``Stephen Biddle, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, said the money wasted on camouflage uniforms is symptomatic of a broader problem of official corruption that has sapped the strength and spirit of too many Afghan soldiers.''

And he added this: `` `The real problem in Afghanistan is not, ``Can we get a rational decision about which camouflage design it should be.'' The real problem in Afghanistan is that cronyism and corruption' ''--that word is in that story several times--`` `corruption in the government and the security forces saps the combat motivation of the soldiers.' ''

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to end this very wasteful war and get out of Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, for 7\1/2\ years before coming to Congress, I was a judge in Tennessee trying felony criminal cases. I tried the attempted murder of James Earl Ray and many other high- profile cases.

Robert Mueller, with his close relationship with James Comey, should never have been appointed as special prosecutor in a case in which Mr. Comey is such a central player. Mr. Mueller should never have accepted such an appointment when offered. That would have been the honorable thing to do.

Then, to make matters much worse, he has hired several lawyers who are big contributors to and are active campaigners for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.

Most people believe there are many conflicts of interest here. There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers who could have been hired who had not been involved in any way for either the President or Mrs. Clinton.

This investigation has been tainted, and any action now will look like a partisan witch hunt. Former Speaker Gingrich said what we now need is a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I met, once again, with representatives from Remote Area Medical, its founder and president, Stan Brock, and its leaders, Jeff Eastman and Anabel Evora.

Remote Area Medical, also known as RAM, is an organization that helps medical professionals volunteer their services to our Nation's neediest.

Over its 32 years, RAM has provided free healthcare to almost 1 million people over the course of 862 weekend events so far. Their largest clinic was in Los Angeles, where over 7,000 people showed up to receive free dental care, eyeglasses, women's health services, and other free medical services.

Unfortunately, only 12 States currently allow RAM to host these free clinics with volunteer medical professionals from all over the country. That is why I introduced H.R. 860, the HEALTHIER Act, so that people nationwide can have access to free healthcare clinics like RAM's.

RAM is willing to provide these free healthcare services to several million more people across the Nation if only we will allow them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Stan, Anabel, Jeff, and all the others who work with RAM for their great work, and I urge my colleagues to help to support my bill, the HEALTHIER Act, to help many more people receive free medical care.

Madam Speaker, this is my 29th year in Congress. I have followed the issues since my early teens more than 50 years ago. I have never seen anywhere close to the anger and hatred there is on political issues today.

Yesterday, on the ``Chris Plante Show,'' he mentioned a professor, John Griffin, from the Art Institute of Washington. Last month, Professor Griffin posted a link to a Washington Post column, with the professor commenting that all Republican Members of the House ``should be lined up and shot.'' He added, ``That is not hyperbole. Blood is on their hands.''

That was in support of a Washington Post column by Paul Waldman saying the Republican healthcare bill was an ``act of monstrous cruelty'' that should ``stain those who supported it to the end of their days.''

Those who have so much hatred and anger in their hearts and minds seriously need to seek religious or psychiatric help.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare has created a healthcare crisis for the people in my district. Not long ago, I received this letter from one of my constituents in Knoxville: ``I just read where Humana Insurance Company will not offer health insurance in any of the exchanges in 2018. This puts my wife in a predicament, as there will be no health insurance companies offering health insurance in 2018 in Knoxville at this time. We need help with this mounting issue, as I am sure there are a lot more of us in the same boat. When we first signed up for ACA insurance 3 years ago, her monthly premium was $245. The second year it was $660. This year it is $963 a month. This is absolutely ridiculous for a person on a limited income.''

Many thousands in Tennessee and across the Nation have very similar stories. My constituent was right. It is ridiculous. Now, even this expensive insurance will disappear, and there are a lot of people in the same boat as my constituent and his wife.

Because there has been so much publicity about how the Republicans now control both Congress and the White House, it seems a great many people do not realize that we are still totally and completely under ObamaCare. A bill was passed in the House, but a different version is being discussed in the Senate. So Republicans have not yet done anything to change ObamaCare. So if someone is still having trouble getting health insurance or is still paying too much for their insurance, it is still because of ObamaCare.

Just today, in the nonpartisan Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill, is this headline, ``Insurer exits bolster GOP case for ObamaCare repeal.'' Insurance companies are still pulling out right and left all over the country because of ObamaCare. ObamaCare is still imploding all over the country.

ObamaCare's allegedly compassionate regulations were supposed to guarantee access to healthcare for the sick. Instead, they have made access worse. Current propaganda seems to be persuading some people that ObamaCare is really protecting the people it claims to be, but Harvard and others are finding otherwise in their studies. They are finding that the ObamaCare regulations literally penalize insurers who offer quality coverage for the sick. This motivates insurers to offer only unattractive plans to people with expensive medical conditions.

The insurance company who offers the best plans ends up with the most--and the sickest--enrollees, and so the highest costs. Sadly, this is causing a race to the bottom. The ObamaCare regulations are causing everyone, including people with preexisting conditions, to have low- quality coverage or no insurance options at all.

ObamaCare's harmful government regulations have driven every insurer out of the marketplace exchange in 16 counties in the Knoxville region. For 43,000 Tennesseans--unless Blue Cross Blue Shield can come back into the area, which they are considering--there will be no exchange plans available after December.

But it is not just in Knoxville. Millions of Americans have only one insurer left in the exchange, if any. ObamaCare's regulations are driving out more and more insurers every day, leaving Americans with less choice and ultimately no choice.

Throwing more taxpayer money at this problem won't solve it. This will continue to happen all across this country as long as we have ObamaCare's harmful regulations on the books.

Knoxville, Tennessee, is the canary in the ObamaCare coal mine. Mr. Speaker, President Trump says he wants to repeal ObamaCare. He should send his healthcare people to Knoxville, talk and listen to our people, share my constituents' stories, show the American people that ObamaCare's regulations are the cause of our Nation's crisis and are limiting access to healthcare.

If President Trump goes before the Nation on national television and explains in understandable detail what is going on with ObamaCare now and how he is trying to fix it, the American people will rally once again to repeal ObamaCare's harmful government regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Wall Street Journal article written by Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 28, 2017]

How ObamaCare Punishes the Sick

(By Michael Cannon)

Republicans are nervous about repealing ObamaCare's

supposed ban on discrimination against patients with pre-

existing conditions. But a new study by Harvard and the

University of Texas-Austin finds those rules penalize high-

quality coverage for the sick, reward insurers who slash

coverage for the sick, and leave patients unable to obtain

adequate insurance.

The researchers estimate a patient with multiple sclerosis,

for example, might file $61,000 in claims. ObamaCare's rules

let MS patients buy coverage for far less, forcing insurers

to take a loss on every MS patient. That creates ``an

incentive to avoid enrolling people who are in worse health''

by making policies ``unattractive to people with expensive

health conditions,'' the Kaiser Family Foundation explains.

To mitigate that perverse incentive, ObamaCare lobs all

manner of taxpayer subsidies at insurers. Yet the researchers

find insurers still receive just $47,000 in revenue per MS

patient--a $14,000 loss per patient.

Predictably, that triggers a race to the bottom. Each year,

whichever insurer offers the best MS coverage attracts the

most MS patients and racks up the most losses. Insurers that

offer high-quality coverage either leave the market, as many

have, or slash their coverage. Let's call those losses what

they are: penalties for offering high-quality coverage.

The result is lower-quality coverage--for MS, rheumatoid

arthritis, infertility and other expensive conditions. The

researchers

find these patients face higher cost-sharing (even for

inexpensive drugs), more prior-authorization requirements,

more mandatory substitutions, and often no coverage for the

drugs they need, so that consumers ``cannot be adequately

insured.''

The study also corroborates reports that these rules are

subjecting patients to higher deductibles and cost-sharing

across the board, narrow networks that exclude leading cancer

centers, inaccurate provider directories, and opaque cost-

sharing. A coalition of 150 patient groups complains this

government-fostered race to the bottom ``completely

undermines the goal of the ACA.''

It doesn't have to be like this. Employer plans offer drug

coverage more comprehensive and sustainable than ObamaCare.

The pre-2014 individual market made comprehensive coverage

even more secure: High-cost patients were less likely to lose

coverage than similar enrollees in employer plans. The

individual market created innovative products like ``pre-

existing conditions insurance'' that--for one-fifth the cost

of health insurance--gave the uninsured the right to enroll

in coverage at healthy-person premiums if they developed

expensive conditions.

If anything, Republicans should fear not repealing

ObamaCare's pre-existing-conditions rules. The Congressional

Budget Office predicts a partial repeal would wipe out the

individual market and cause nine million to lose coverage

unnecessarily. And contrary to conventional wisdom, the

consequences of those rules are wildly unpopular. In a new

Cato Institute/YouGov poll, 63% of respondents initially

supported ObamaCare's pre-existing-condition rules. That

dropped to 31%--with 60% opposition--when they were told of

the impact on quality.

Republicans can't keep their promise to repeal ObamaCare

and improve access for the sick without repealing the ACA's

penalties on high-quality coverage.

Mr. Speaker, people who are the loudest in proclaiming their tolerance are often the most intolerant people of all.

This has been proven in spades this year at the most liberal leftwing college campuses all over this country. Almost all colleges and universities now have programs or offices supposedly promoting diversity. However, this diversity apparently does not apply to conservatives.

Probably the least diverse groups in this Nation today are the faculties of our universities. And while almost everyone in higher education will say they are for freedom of speech, conservative students know they can express their views only at the risk of lower grades.

In addition, almost no leading conservatives are invited to be college commencements speakers. This year, we have even seen very hateful demonstrations and some violence at universities when conservative speakers have been invited to speak at these supposed bastions of free speech. Some of the young student haters conducting their far-left demonstrations would have fit right in during the book- burning, anti-free speech days in Nazi Germany.

Mr. Speaker, the Chaplain mentioned, in his prayer a few minutes ago, D-day. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to honor the brave Americans who fought the most influential naval battle of World War II: the Battle of Midway.

This week marks 75 years since U.S. forces defeated the Japanese Imperial Navy, forever changing the course of history. Victory in this battle allowed the United States and its allies to go on offense for the duration of the war. This was a real turning point in World War II.

The Japanese came to the battle from June 4 to June 7, 1942, with the largest armada they had ever assembled and the intention to finally defeat

U.S. Naval forces in the Pacific. An American intelligence breakthrough cracked the Japanese fleet codes, allowing us to anticipate and to prepare for this attack.

With our mere three carriers to their many carriers, battleships, and cruisers, the odds of victory were not in our favor, a true underdog story. The land-based air supports that Midway Island allowed and our naval officers' uncanny ability to adapt and think on their feet led to our success and kept our country safe from the Axis powers.

I was very pleased to work with the late Senator Jesse Helms and the International Midway Memorial Foundation to pass legislation declaring Midway Island a national memorial so that it may be protected and forever serve to honor the American lives lost in the pursuit of victory in this war.

Mr. Speaker, many years ago I received an undergraduate degree in journalism, was a reporter on a daily newspaper, and taught journalism for 1 year. In those years, there was a clear separation between the front page and the editorial page.

I don't believe I have ever read a more biased, partisan, opinionated

paragraph in a ``news'' story than one that was on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post. Philip Rucker does not now deserve the title of journalist but, instead, should be referred to as a Democratic or leftwing hack.

He wrote that a traditional President would have reacted carefully ``to the London attacks by instilling calm, being judicious . . . and appealing to the country's better angels.'' Instead, he accused President Trump of reacting ``impulsively . . . stroking panic and fear, being indiscrete with details . . . and capitalizing on it to advocate for one of his more polarizing policies and to advance a personal feud.''

Apparently, Mr. Rucker is so blinded by hatred for the President he cannot see straight and has written one of the most unfair, one-sided articles I have ever read in a ``news'' story in what used to be a newspaper.

Madam Speaker, in my 29 years in Congress, the issue on which I heard the most from constituents in the shortest time was on the big bank bailouts of several years ago.

When that was before us, I received 6,600 emails in one weekend just in my Washington office from Friday, when the office closed, until Monday, when we opened back up. This, of course, was in addition to the many thousands of phone calls, letters, and emails that came in during the week before and the week after.

I opposed that big bank bailout, but, of course, extremely big business won again and the Congress voted for the bailout.

Three years ago, in 2014, I wrote the following in a newsletter to my 760,000 constituents:

``A few weeks ago, George Mason University released a report saying that `since the financial crisis, U.S. banking assets and deposits have continued to consolidate in a handful of large banks.' The five largest banks now hold 44 percent of U.S. banking assets compared to 23.5 percent in early 2000. Liberals in Congress passed the Dodd-Frank law, which I opposed, supposedly to get back at the banks that caused our most recent financial troubles. The George Mason report also said the Dodd-Frank law is `disproportionately burdensome to small banks' and `creates a market expectation that designated firms are too big to fail.' Columnist Veronique de Rugy wrote that `the number of small banks has dropped dramatically over the years,' and this has been `driven by regulatory burdens that make it hard and expensive for small banks to survive.' I have been told by several east Tennessee bankers that, unfortunately, their fastest-growing departments have been their regulatory compliance sections. The more any business or industry comes under Federal regulation, the more it ends up being dominated by extremely big business.''

Now, to update what I wrote in 2014. According to the Congressional Research Service, 1,744 banks have ceased to exist since the passage of Dodd-Frank. Many of those have been forced to merge with a bigger bank because they simply were not able to keep up with all the rules, regulations, and red tape of Dodd-Frank and the resulting compliance costs.

Even worse, 203 small banks have failed--been forced out of business by Big Government--with a resulting huge loss of jobs and lost investment by stockholders. In addition, nationally, 160 credit unions have closed. Either they failed or were forced to consolidate with a bigger credit union. Thus, Dodd-Frank, as most Federal regulatory legislation, ended up helping the big giants and hurting the little guys--the smallest banks and credit unions.

In a study by Hester Peirce and Robert Greene, the authors wrote: ``Regulatory compliance can be a particular challenge for small banks with limited compliance expertise. Regulatory expenses absorb a larger percentage of small banks' budgets than of their larger counterparts' budgets. As financial regulation has increased, so has banking concentration. The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010, imposes a new set of regulations that are disproportionately burdensome to small banks. Moreover, by designating the largest financial institutions as `systemically important,' Dodd-Frank creates a market expectation that designated firms are too big to fail and generates funding and other competitive advantages for the largest U.S. banks.''

Liberals, Madam Speaker, often claim that they are for the little guys, and most Federal laws are well intended. But there is a saying to ``beware of the tyranny of good intentions.'' Every industry that is highly federally regulated almost ends up in the hands of a few big giants.

Federal regulators should start trying to help out the smallest business instead of always ending up helping extremely big business. That is something that happens in almost every business and industry in this country, and it needs to be reversed.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Res. 69, the National DIPG Awareness Resolution, in honor of Julia Barbara Psar--one of my constituents who passed away from Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG) on May 17, 2016.

DIPG is the deadliest type of pediatric brain tumors. According to the CDC, brain tumors are the leading cause of childhood cancer death, and DIPG is the second most common malignant brain tumor found in children. DIPG has a less than 1 percent survival rate, and most children die within nine months after being diagnosed.

This little girl--Julia Barbara Psar--died just before her third birthday. I have always read and heard that the worst thing in the world is to outlive one of your own children, and I have no doubt this is true. I have met with my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Psar, and I do not believe someone can ever have closure after a loss like theirs. Words cannot express how heartbreaking this tragedy is.

Our children urgently need us to find a cure for DIPG. Today, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 69, establishing May 17th as National DIPG Awareness Day in hopes of curing the deadliest type of pediatric brain tumors.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. C.L. Trammell was a high school teacher and coach in my hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee for over 30 years.

When he was a boy, he always wanted to make it big as a baseball player, but had a different destiny instead.

He became the father of Bubba Trammell, a star Major League Baseball player for several major league teams.

Mr. Speaker, I wish today to pay tribute to a longtime friend and one of the finest women I have ever known.

Margaret Gaiter recently passed away on May 12, 2017 at the age of 91. I was honored to know Mrs. Gaiter and her late Husband, Felix. They both helped me as a young attorney by giving me the privilege of representing their business. Mrs. Gaiter had always been very kind to me and was a person who treated everyone with love and respect.

A 1947 graduate of Knoxville College, Ms. Gaiter worked for the Knoxville Housing Authority in the 1950s and 1960s where she helped families relocate from dilapidated homes and buildings. She also worked for the Knox County Public School System's parent involvement program which she retired from in 1988.

A member of Rogers Memorial Baptist Church in Knoxville, she served as minister of music for the church for over three decades. Mrs. Gaiter always lived her life by the Golden Rule.

In 2007, Mrs. Gaiter and her late husband Felix were awarded the Knoxville Area Urban

League's Whitney M. Young, Jr. Lifetime Award for their work on social justice and civil rights issues. This speaks to the role she played as a leader in her community.

In 2007, after the Knoxville News-Sentinel wrote a very nice series of articles about Felix and Margaret Gaiter, I wrote a letter to the paper commending it for doing so. In my letter I stated: ``The Gaiters have touched thousands of lives in kind and positive ways and have set an outstanding example for everyone. This Nation is a better place today because of Felix and Margaret Gaiter.''

My wife Lynn went to visit Mrs. Gaiter a few weeks ago when she found out Margaret might possibly be nearing her death. Lynn and I send our condolences to Mrs. Gaiter's children and many grandchildren and great- grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, Margaret Gaiter was a wonderful wife, mother, and citizen. I call her life and accomplishments to the attention of my Colleagues and others. This Nation would be a much better place if we had more people like her.

Mr. Speaker, President Eisenhower's most famous speech was his farewell address in which he criticized the military industrial complex.

However, 7 years earlier, in April of 1953, he gave a speech, entitled, ``The Chance for Peace,'' with these words: ``Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. . . .''

``The cost of one modern heavy bomber,'' Eisenhower added, ``is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. . . . We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . .''

Eisenhower concluded: ``This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense . . . it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.''

President Eisenhower loved the military, but he hated war. He would never have gone along with a 16-year war in a place like Afghanistan, especially since it is one mainly done for personal glory for generals and more money for defense contractors.