Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I invite my Texas colleagues, particularly, and others who may want to come up to honor our colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor our colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee. It is strange to be here and not see her at a microphone because we know her as the outspoken and the oft-spoken colleague in this House.

When I was elected back in 1994, Sheila and I were part of a very small Democrat class of 13. Even then, certainly, and even last year or even a couple of months ago, I never thought that I would be memorializing her after an illness that took her far too swiftly.

She is an icon in Houston and in Texas politics. She always showed up for her constituents, just as she always showed up here. She chose to spend some of her final days helping those who were trying to recover from Hurricane Beryl, personally passing out food and water and connecting families to necessary assistance.

Sheila is known all over Houston for being a fighter for her community. Here in Washington, she was certainly a fierce advocate for many causes, but particularly racial justice and equality. She was responsible for our Nation now recognizing in the bipartisan effort she made with Senator Cornyn Juneteenth as a Federal holiday to recognize the horrors of slavery and our recovering from them.

She fought relentlessly to end the scourge of community violence in her work on the Violence Against Women Act, the Sentencing Reform Act, the Kimberly Vaughan Firearms Safe Storage Act.

Of course, she treasured her children, Erica and Jason, and her grandchildren, Ellison and Roy, as well as her dedicated staff members here in Washington and in Houston.

She graduated with honors in the first Yale University class to include women. She was a trailblazer there, as she was here, and a mentor to many. While a demanding boss, she had a great sense of humor, a side many do not remember. She seemed to be everywhere and involved in just about everything here, providing inspiration to many with her determined advocacy.

The stories from her former staff members who knew her best attest that she played a major role in their professional development and provided a launching pad for their careers.

With the bipartisan support of so many here, I ask that all join our delegation in a moment of silence for our

respected colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee. Let's be inspired by her legacy to meet the challenges that we face.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This is a bipartisan amendment that I offer together with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman). We may appear as the odd couple politically, but we share a common interest in trying to ensure that taxpayers get their money's worth, and that is true on military contracts as with every other aspect of government. When it comes to those contracts, we are concerned that that is not happening on too many of them.

We don't ask you to just take our word for it, but we have turned to a fellow named Shay Assad, sometimes referred to as the most disliked person in the Pentagon. He had four decades of experience in negotiating government contracts, served as the top director for procurement for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

He was central to an illuminating ``60 Minutes'' report last year about price gouging, which he described as unconscionable and widespread. He has returned to the Pentagon now as the director of procurement at the Air Force.

I know that Chairman Rogers and Mr. Smith have been concerned about this problem. Their committee has given it some attention, but I think we can supplement their efforts. Military contractors deserve to get a fair profit, but American taxpayers deserve to be treated fairly also.

We have seen a consolidation in the defense industry where 50 firms have been reduced to about 5 primary contractors. This is a very modest amendment. It requires essentially a one-time type of audit by a review panel that will conduct oversight on the reasonableness of prices on sole-sourced munitions and weapons systems, a 1-year investigation to determine whether the Department has achieved fair

prices in surveyed contracts and make recommendations made to the Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon to be sure that taxpayers are getting the best bang for their buck.

Just as one example that was cited, we have had inflation. All of us are concerned about it, but the cost of a Stinger missile of the type we have been shipping to Ukraine rose from $25,000 in 1991 to $400,000 to replace it. That is a little more than the increase in inflation and the improvements that may have occurred to the missile.

The Patriot, the PAC-3 missile, is very important in defense. Hundreds of millions of dollars were saved after a review, and it was found that the contractor was earning a 40 percent profit.

Our amendment would not change the procurement process or add new requirements of contractors. It would simply look at what has occurred in the past and determine if there is a way to improve it. It has the support of bipartisan groups across the ideological spectrum, including the R Street Institute, the Project on Government Oversight, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Public Citizen, and American Economic Liberties Project.

There have been hundreds of amendments offered to the bill that we are considering. This is the only bipartisan amendment made in order for addressing reasonable prices.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this modest step forward. It is a very modest step, but I think it can be helpful to the committee and to all of us in ensuring that we get our money's worth.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman, and I know he shares my concern about this. I am eager to work with him on it. I appreciate his comments and will be delighted to work with him.

Sometimes this offer to work ends and begins at once. So long as this is not going to turn into mush in the conference committee or be totally dropped, I am ready to work with the gentleman and cooperate. I appreciate it.

We so often hear about waste, fraud, and abuse as being able to finance essentially the whole government. I know there are many contractors that are doing their job. They are vital to our security. I hope we can work together and find a way to get at the core of this problem and save taxpayers money at the same time we keep our military second to none.

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

Mr. Speaker, horrified by seeing a baby's arm blown off, the President successfully demanded the Israeli Prime Minister to halt the bombing.

President Ronald Reagan also halted deliveries of weapons, but today's Republicans don't want America to lead; they would defer the decisions about the best course for America to Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir. They would place us on a disastrous path of isolation and greater Mideast instability.

They attack President Biden now for halting delivery of 2,000-pound dumb bombs that are used in ways he rightly described as ``indiscriminate bombing'' that pulverizes large areas and kills and mutilates thousands of innocent women and children.

Leveling Gaza, starving, and killing a multitude offers Israel no genuine victory over Hamas, no end to the cycle of violence.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas can never be a genuine partner for peace, but Netanyahu, so willing to sacrifice the hostages and protect himself, is also obstructing peace. Limiting the flow of bombs is a constructive step forward toward assuring long-term security for the families of America, Israel, and Palestine.

Mr. Speaker, those who committed atrocities against Israelis on October 7 were not martyrs. They were murderers and rapists. But neither were those murderers children, and the children of Gaza have paid an incredible cost for Netanyahu's massive assault. His policies have shown conscious indifference to children, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, and civilians in general. I believe strongly in Israel's right to self-defense, but that does not require dropping hundreds of 2000-pound nonprecision ``dumb'' bombs in densely populated areas, nor does it require a medieval-type siege denying water, food, and medicine, using famine as a weapon of war, nor does it require killing, not only World Central Kitchen aid workers, but so many others.

This rule gives us a proper opportunity to finally, belatedly, vote to help desperate Ukraine from Putin's war crimes and offensive without voting to support Netanyahu, but the rule, I believe, improperly rejected amendments that would have permitted a vote in support of Israel's right to self-defense without embracing Netanyahu's wrongful policies, which are killing the innocent, sacrificing the hostages, and endangering Israel's long-term security.

Sending more offensive weapons to Netanyahu while begging him not to use them simply does not protect Rafah and others from an assault. I would vote to defend Israel but do not want to be complicit in providing weapons for an assault on Rafah that will cause thousands of deaths and likely lead to a wider and tragic war.

Mr. Speaker, this corporate tax windfall bill, thinly disguised as help for children, offers even more tax advantages to corporations that are paying today a mere 7.8 percent tax rate.

A working mother of two earning the average wage pays a Federal effective rate of 20 percent. Even The Wall Street Journal called one provision in this bill a retroactive sop. It is minimal help for children and maximum benefits for those who are failing to pay their fair share. For every $1 that goes to children under this bill, $5 goes to corporations.

Republicans are enabled to lock in $600 billion in extended Trump tax breaks while millions of children are left in preventable poverty and are denied a full tax credit. While bipartisan, this bill is no more equitable than our broken bipartisan tax code overflowing with loopholes and special advantages for the well-connected.

This deal only continues slanting our tax system against working families. Reject the unjustified corporate ransom and lock in genuine relief for children.

Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote on Thursday, November 2, 2023. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 572.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another step in the Republican crusade to impose a national abortion ban to treat women across America the way Texans have been abused already. And this drastic, harmful strategy is about so much more than abortion healthcare.

It is about the right to life for expectant mothers. It is about the right of a mother to be physically able to deliver a future baby. What happened to Texan Kate Cox is so very instructive. A mother herself, she was advised that having another child could not be possible if she was forced to deliver a fetus that could not live, yet Republicans insisted that she do just that. Under the Texas vigilante law, medical professionals--indeed, anyone who provides advice about an abortion, even for a child who is the victim of rape or incest--there are immediate penalties for them.

As they seek to cut support for Women, Infants, and Children funding, House Republicans want to divert tax money to these propaganda centers, usually posing as a health center but lacking any medical professional staff--public funds to centers designed to fearmonger and intimidate vulnerable women.

While Republicans demand protection of life from the moment of conception, they show so little interest in life after delivery. Women deserve healthcare protection free from coercion. For every American whose freedom is threatened by Republican interference, both patients and their doctors, I strongly oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this transparency bill lacks transparency on two of the major problems that are impacting soaring healthcare costs. The only reason to reject transparency for, first, private equity and, second, Medicare Advantage is that they have got more to hide and apparently more lobbying power.

A growing private equity takeover of healthcare has already undermined care in nursing homes and now threatens hospitals and medical specialty practices across the United States with higher prices, higher cost to taxpayers, and less quality.

A Senate committee has just launched a major investigation into the impact of private equity on hospital costs and lower quality care.

Having failed to save taxpayers a dime that was promised--of the many millions that was promised--Medicare Advantage costs $1,500 per person each year over the cost of traditional Medicare. That is billions in wasted taxpayer dollars.

The best way to fund much-needed services at community health centers and to expand and improve and strengthen Medicare with services such as dental, hearing, and vision is to take it right out of Medicare Advantage.

This bill, I believe, should be rejected until these issues are addressed by permitting the very amendments that we offered in the House Ways and Means Committee that rejected them, as usual, to address private equity and Medicare Advantage.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the bipartisan efforts and hard work in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I believe there is a better way to finance needs, and a very important need, to address the issues of transparency on Medicare Advantage and private equity. Therefore, I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``present'' for H. Res. 894, not for a lack of commitment to condemn antisemitism and the Hamas atrocities as well as the outrageous examples of violent antisemitism referenced in the Resolution, but because of some of the language tucked into this measure and some that is omitted.

While Anti-Zionism can be a cover for antisemitism, not all actions that are anti-Zionist are antisemitic. This resolution states ``clearly and firmly'' that ``anti-Zionism is antisemitism''--such a blanket statement is wrong. It fails to reflect the complexities of the Jewish people or the definition of Zionism and anti-Zionism itself. Undeniably, some in the Jewish community do not support the Zionist movement.

Although I personally believe in Israel as an independent Jewish state, I have often criticized the Netanyahu government. Surely it would only devalue the meaning of antisemitism to misapply it to the many--Jewish and non-Jewish--who strongly disagree with that government.

Much is omitted from this Resolution. Mr. Netanyahu's ultra-right wing government and the Israeli settlers, who have terrorized Palestinians in the West Bank, share a common view with some Palestinians--all want only one country; they differ only on who gets to expel the other. I believe and have long advocated for a future with two states, living in peace and security--one is Israeli and another Palestinian.

Additionally, after the murder of a six-year-old child because he was a Muslim and the shooting of three Palestinians, apparently because they were Palestinian, and numerous examples of hate directed against Muslims, this Resolution fails to acknowledge that Islamophobia is just as wrong as antisemitism or Asian hate or other expressions of racism. Indeed, all these forms of bigotry have historically arisen from ultra- right wing white nationalists like those who marched in Charlottesville shouting ``Jews will not replace us.'' This resolution should have condemned all forms of hate speech. None of us are truly safe unless all of us are safe.

Finally, the timing of this Resolution is troubling. It occurs on a day when the United Nations has described conditions in Gaza as ``apocalyptic.'' Along with demanding accountability from Hamas for its terrorism, we should be focused on how to stop the killing of innocents and secure the release of all remaining hostages.

Because I do not want my views on Hamas, antisemitism or other hate to be misconstrued and because no amendments to correct this defective resolution are permitted, I will vote ``present.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is soft on war crimes. The massacres in Mariupol, Bucha, and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, similar to what happened in Israel, are all crimes against humanity. Like the Holocaust, there is no ``other side'' justifying these crimes. All of these criminals must be held accountable.

Yet, because of Trump affection for Putin and his little helpers here in Congress, this bill offers absolutely nothing to help fight Russian terrorists and nothing to stop Hamas terrorists, unless well-connected Republican tax cheats get help first.

Nor does defeating Hamas require encouraging collective punishment of the children of Gaza by denying them food, medicine, and water. Immediate Senate correction of the many failings in this bill can produce a balanced bill that I and many others will join in supporting.

A humanitarian pause now, stopping disproportionate responses, represents no surrender to Hamas--rather, it offers the chance to secure the hostages, avoid a wider war, and achieve long-term security.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 1 year since the death of a young woman, Mahsa Amini, in Iran, and it has been 1 year during which revulsion to repression has given birth to so many courageous Iranians expressing their defiance of arbitrary restrictions on their freedom.

Nevertheless, it has also been another year of torture and murder at the hands of a fanatical tyranny. With approval of this legislation named for Mahsa, we say to Iranians: ``Your voices are heard, your voices are important, and you are not forgotten.''

While the type of military action against Iran urged by fanatics outside

of Iran would be disastrous and counterproductive, through this act we seek to use all other available means to hold accountable the cruel repressors in Tehran.

Those of us who are progressives, opposing any war against Iran, are equally opposed to the Iran war that the government is currently carrying out against its own children. We share the battle cry of peaceful Iranian protesters: Woman, life, freedom.

This bill has little to do with the Iran nuclear agreement, which was wisely negotiated by President Obama's administration and our European allies. The world is less safe today not because of that agreement but because of President Trump's unilateral cancellation of the agreement presenting us today with an Iran that is nearer the development of a nuclear weapon than it was prior to the agreement.

We need to be seeking to do everything we can to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon short of war; but our desire for a safer world should not impair our willingness to do more to make Iran safer for its own citizens.

As Amnesty International reported just this past month, Iranian authorities have been subjecting victims' families to arbitrary arrest and detention, imposing restrictions on peaceful gatherings at gravesites, and even destroying victims' grave markers, and now within the last few days, detaining Mahsa's uncle so that he cannot speak out this Saturday on the anniversary of her murder.

Already this year, the Iranian Government has executed 320 people, doubling the rate prior to Mahsa's death, and giving Iran the wretched distinction of the highest number of executions per capita in the entire world.

Building upon current, existing executive orders, this bill proposes to codify existing sanctions targeting those at the top of the Iranian regime for their human rights abuses and for this egregious action over the last year.

Nevertheless, the attacks on President Biden really are misplaced if this is to be a truly bipartisan initiative. I believe that passage of the MAHSA Act sends a message to Iranians not about this administration, but of the fact that we, the elected Members of the people of the United States, oppose these abuses.

Mr. Speaker, passage of this act is not about what this administration has or has not done, but that it reflects the broad determination of this body, the Congress, the Representatives of the people of the United States, to speak out against a brutal theocracy. We stand with Iranians who seek a brighter future where the rule of law and freedom are respected, and hopefully one day there will be an end to the terrible division between our two countries.

Mr. Speaker, today, it is with a heavy but grateful heart that I rise in honor of the late Joseph ``Joe'' Trent Siff, who was a dedicated, principled political activist with more than 50 years of support and work for local, state, and national leaders. His involvement began in 1968 and lasted through his local precinct work in Houston and his volunteer work for Rep. Lizzie Fletcher in 2022.

Joe was born on November 16, 1947, in Akron, Ohio, the son of Alvin Stanley and Iris Gene Siff. The Siff family moved from Akron to Houston, Texas, when Joe and his twin brother Ted were 6 months old.

From the beginning, Joe and Ted were each other's biggest supporters and good-natured competitors--even running against 1 another for president of their sixth-grade class, but losing to a third candidate.

With an impressive list of accomplishments as a child and young adult, Joe was an Eagle Scout as well as a proud member of the first class to attend all 4 years at Memorial High. He was also a multi-year class officer and champion orator and debater. Joe excelled at almost everything he did.

As a huge Houston Colt 45's/Astros fan, Joe worked for many years as a press box runner and assisted sports writers, announcers, and scoreboard keepers during home games. Always 1 to pay it forward, he helped several fellow members of the Memorial High speech and drama teams get summer jobs as tour guides and ushers.

After completing his freshman year at Lafayette College, Joe finished college at Rice University, studying architecture. In 1968, he was part of the campaign team to elect John Hill as Governor of Texas.

In 1970, Joe was elected president of the Associate Student Chapters of the American Institute of Architecture (AIA), where he served on the national board and testified before Congress. Two years later, Joe would return to help John Hill become the Texas Attorney General while also taking part in the campaign for Sissy Farenthold for Governor. He also served on the advance team for Sargent Shriver's Vice-Presidential campaign.

Campaign work inspired Joe and eventually resulted in him becoming an assistant to Boston Mayor Kevin White. Before Joe's health problems arose, he would also serve as a precinct election worker. He was a loyal member of the Texas Democratic Party. His advocacy, like his concern for others, knew no boundaries; his passion knew no limits.

At the completion of his work for Mayor White, Joe returned to Houston where he started his career as a financial advisor. He quickly became a senior vice president at Prudential Bache Securities and then at Lehman Brothers.

In the early 1980s, Joe married Bonnie Hickerson. This marriage was blessed with the births of Iris Trent Siff and then Jordan Benjamin Siff.

Joe's personality was infectious. He maintained relationships, fostered friendships, and often tried to help friends achieve their goals. It was a natural transition in the 1990's when he created his firm, Access Strategies, to connect people and their ideas to the capital and other resources they needed. This talent, matched with his wide-ranging network, resulted in projects involving real estate, art, book and live performance productions, and so much more. His multi- decade representation of artist David Adickes is I example of his many skills.

A great storyteller with an unceasing curiosity about the world around him, Joe loved his family, conversations, politics, architecture and design, and travel. He was a kind and supportive father, brother, and friend, including mine for many decades.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023, our world lost a bright soul, who was committed to making it a better place for everyone. Joe was 75 years old, and is survived by his 2 children, Iris and Jordan, and their mother, Bonnie; his twin brother Ted Siff (Janelle Buchanan) of Austin, Texas, as well as nieces and numerous cousins.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to honor the life and legacy of Joe Siff, and I am grateful to share his story with the rest of our Nation. I cherish our memories while admiring his significant, personal contributions.

He worked tirelessly to make our state and the world a better place. May he Rest in Peace.

Mr. Speaker, a strong military is certainly essential at a time when we face so many threats, from Russia's war crimes in Ukraine to threats from the People's Republic of China and North Korea to constant cyberattacks.

Paying for this security is very costly. It accounts for almost one- half of every dollar discretionarywise that we approve each year in the Congress. Of those dollars, almost one-half of the defense dollars goes to defense contractors--billions and billions of dollars.

While designed to ensure that we get more national security, this national defense authorization should also be doing more to provide taxpayer security--security from being ripped off by price gouging and by war profiteering.

As currently written, this bill provides insufficient protection for taxpayers regarding the private defense industry, which can too often extract monopoly prices and demand basically a blank check for weapons and military supplies that are essential to our servicemembers.

An industry that is basically self-policing itself without much competition and without much of a watchdog inevitably leads to overcharging. Since the 1990s, there has been massive consolidation of defense contractors, and at the same time, the Pentagon has cut tens of thousands of contract negotiators and watchdogs, leading to less oversight, less transparency, and too little accountability.

Overpricing for our military can impact the readiness of our Armed Forces, the well-being of our servicemen and -women, and certainly the resources of American taxpayers.

Let me give you just a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. A woodruff key, which is a one-half inch semicircular disk that is used to connect machine parts to rotating shafts, is available at Walmart or you can go online to Amazon and buy one for about 10 cents a key. The Department of Defense recently bought some of these for $300 per key.

The Pentagon paid over $10,000 for an oil switch when a commercial equivalent was available for about $300. It has spent over $32,000 for an oil pump kit when one was commercially available for about $3,600.

These prices just keep soaring. Decades ago, the original price of a Stinger missile was $25,000. Now it is up to over $400,000.

I have submitted two modest amendments to try to rein in some of the waste and abuse and to, quite literally, provide our military more bang for the buck. Both of these have been endorsed by the Project On Government Oversight, by the R Street Institute, and by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

One would simply establish a panel to review major contracts to determine whether fair and reasonable prices were paid and make recommendations to better ensure that the Pentagon gets the best possible deal. The second would strengthen transparency and provide government contracting officers access to sales data that they need to make informed, reasonable decisions in negotiating fair prices.

Both result from the excellent report that ``60 Minutes'' did in May that highlighted price gouging by some of the giant corporations that just happen to be enjoying record profits.

For Republicans who are always telling us that we need to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, now is the time to do something about it in the biggest appropriations bill and authorization that we have before this Congress. Because they have thus far refused to approve these taxpayer protection amendments, I think that we are not getting at the waste in Pentagon procurement.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and remain hopeful that eventually these amendments to do something to protect taxpayers along with our military readiness will be approved.

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

Millions of Americans are finding the security and the peace of mind that comes from having access to a family physician through the Affordable Care Act. If the gentleman has been listening to the American people, he has turned a tin ear to the 16 million Americans that have now enrolled in the marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans, unwilling to accept the success of what they demeaned as ObamaCare, Republicans who failed more than 60 times in this House to repeal ObamaCare, who failed three times in the Supreme Court to undermine ObamaCare, have now embarked on a new strategy, which is to circumvent and undermine the invaluable protections of the Affordable Care Act.

With this bill, Republicans are demanding that every individual who gets stuck in one of these newfangled plans that they have is denied protection from having their insurer exclude preexisting conditions, no assurance of coverage for essential medical care, and no assurance of affordability.

I offered an amendment to correct one part of this defective bill to give Americans statutory protection, so they are not back in the old pre-Affordable Care Act period of losing coverage when they needed it most because they had something the insurance company defined as a preexisting condition, but that was rejected.

At the time, they claimed that was their intent, but when you look at the specific statutory language, there is no doubt that the protection for preexisting conditions and essential conditions is excluded from their legislation.

These so-called Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements, ICHRAs, are about as convoluted as the name suggests. They are as my grandson, Canyon, would say, they are icky.

Handing people a voucher and telling them to go shop for coverage follows the same ill-conceived Republican approach to sabotage Medicare, which they continue to promote in their latest budget. Instead of giving Medicare beneficiaries guaranteed coverage, they would give seniors a voucher with declining value and tell them to go find coverage.

Instead of the guaranteed, comprehensive coverage workers now receive, this bill would force so many people to find healthcare in a sea of junk, exposing them to misleading marketing and aggressive brokers. An estimated 2 million workers would be immediately impacted by this sorry bill, and with another provision that is in the bill that directs the Treasury Department to go out and promote access to junk plans, we could expect these numbers of impacted workers to increase.

Inevitably, the result is bare-bones, junk insurance that misleads on coverage, has high out-of-pocket costs, and abandons those with preexisting conditions. The policy's fine print takes away all the bold promises of the marketing. Those who need coverage the most will be unable to afford it or receive minimal junk coverage.

In a Nation that is as rich as America, going broke shouldn't be a side effect of trying to get healthcare, but exposing more people to financial ruin is exactly what this kind of legislative approach will achieve.

This misguided scheme suffers, I think, from a form of preexisting condition itself. It is called amnesia, because they forget the conditions that

existed for so many Americans in this country before the Affordable Care Act became law. Situations like those who contacted me from Texas: Someone who had been a victim of domestic violence declared to have a preexisting condition; an infant born with some preexisting condition denied the coverage that they need; any number of excuses when coverage was needed the most because of preexisting conditions.

That is why I thought it was so important to amend this legislation, and the refusal of my Republican colleagues to clarify that now sends forward loud and clear that that is their objective.

There is even more ick to the ICHRA bill that is being introduced, and that is the opportunity that is created for class discrimination. This bill legalizes that discrimination. My amendment would have prevented that also.

Employees that are out there on the assembly line; those who are in the chicken processing plant, or the meat-packer, or out in the cornfields; they are in the dirtiest, most difficult, and usually the lowest-paid jobs. They can be treated one way under this bill, while the executives sitting off in the office tower are treated another and getting an entirely different kind of coverage because of the way they have written their bill.

Lower-wage workers who would be eligible, in fact, for a better policy under the Affordable Care Act with a no-premium or low-premium policy, would instead be required to search for a policy with more holes than safety net.

Finally, we discover something on which Republicans are pro-choice. I didn't think they were pro-choice on anything, but the genuine choice they provide is to the employer, not to the employee, a choice to divide employees into the haves and the have-nots; providing employer coverage to some and leaving others to fend for themselves.

Predictably, that burden will fall on the low-wage workers and the sick employees that employers don't want to cover. One survey already of employers found that 60 percent of large firms intended to offer ICHRA to only low-wage workers. That is icky.

To prohibit discrimination by employers and junk plans alike, the amendment I offered would have offered protection. This bill, as it stands, does not. It should be rejected.

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

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

The gentleman has repeated his stated intent to provide the protection that his bill denies, and I would refer him, again, to page 3, line 2 of this bill as it was presented in committee, and the failure to refer to section 2791(b)(5) of the Public Health Service Act means that that protection will not be there. It could easily have been added if that were the true intent. It is omitted.

Same page, line 12, the failure to include guarantees against nondiscrimination is not there.

He is concerned about federalizing healthcare. Well, all that I want to do is set a minimum Federal standard that no person in this country will be denied because of a preexisting condition the healthcare that they deserve. That is what the Affordable Care Act was designed to achieve, not only for those in the marketplace, but beyond.

Secondly, I want to ensure that different classes of employees are not treated differently. Let me just describe a little more of what is involved there.

Just as they would allow insurers to discriminate against a newborn with a

heart murmur and call that a preexisting condition, their bill would permit an employer to discriminate against their own employees.

Just to give you a practical example. We have a lot of chicken processing plants down in northeast Texas. If there is a facility out there where the chicken pluckers are chasing the chickens, removing the feathers that are flying, those tough, dirty, hot jobs processing them may be managed by a group in some high-rise in Dallas or Tyler.

Well, this bill, as it is written, will allow those executives to get their group health insurance policy with all the protections against preexisting conditions and being able to see, perhaps, a concierge service for their healthcare. But the folks that are down there chasing the chickens and plucking the chickens, they get an ICHRA. All they get is ick. That is wrong.

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

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

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

Let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He says there is nothing in this bill about preexisting conditions and discrimination, and he is absolutely right. That is the whole failing of this bill. It does not include the protections that are necessary to ensure that no American is discriminated against on the basis of preexisting conditions and that no employer can discriminate among groups of its employees.

He also says this is going to open more opportunities for more people to get health coverage. I would point out that studies have shown that 95 percent of the people who are in these icky plans now once had good group health coverage. My concern is that we will see even more people lose their good group health coverage and be put into an icky plan.

As for the Small Business Flexibility Act, I am for the Treasury and others educating all employers and employees about their rights and opportunities, but I think this part of the overall package is very slanted. Treasury needs to be out there educating employers, some of whom may not know themselves the limitations that these junk plans have and how much they will disserve their employees. We need education of employees on how to understand whether their employer's offer of coverage meets the minimum standard and is truly affordable for the

purposes of being able to otherwise enroll in subsidized marketplace coverage. I think there are limitations on that portion of the bill as well and that it, therefore, should be rejected.

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

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

The chairman of our committee says that there were great gifts to insurance companies. What the Build Back Better bill did was to give individuals additional tax credits. Some Republicans call those tax cuts, but they were credits given to people to be able to afford insurance. As a result of that improvement, many more Americans got the insurance that they need.

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

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

I say to the chairman, he is absolutely correct. I referred to the Build Back Better instead of the American Rescue Plan. It is easy to get confused about them. The American Rescue Plan was, of course, signed into law and has helped so many Americans. However, we always know that whatever the name, Republicans are against all of them, as they were, and voted unanimously against all of the opportunity that they created for millions more Americans to get and keep health insurance and provide themselves security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I focused on one part of this entire package of bills, but together it is truly a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the Affordable Care Act. Being unable to repeal it, having nothing but nothing care to replace it with is really kind of a death by a thousand cuts, making healthcare less accessible and affordable for so many at-risk workers.

The bills in this package include a codification of the Trump-era rule that allows employers to offer these ICHRA plans to their employees instead of employer-sponsored health plans.

Under this plan, employers may offer a voucher and force their employee to shop for their own coverage.

Under this bill, employers are permitted to pick and choose among their employees and discriminate against some with their vouchers.

This bill also includes an expansion of the association health plans, which my colleague from Virginia will discuss at greater length. That has been a standard tenet of Republicans' assault on the Affordable Care Act. It is a provision that would allow self-employed individuals and small businesses to circumvent the guarantees of the Affordable Care Act and steer consumers into shoddy coverage that does not cover the healthcare they most need when they need it, the essential health benefits.

It also does not offer them protection against preexisting conditions or age or the fact that before the Affordable Care Act was adopted, women were discriminated against at a great rate and often denied the coverage that they needed or it was priced so high they could not afford it.

The bill would also preempt State regulation of association health plans and disrupt risk pools as these plans do not have to follow standard premium-setting rules and risk adjustment. This bill is similar to the Trump administration rule that was struck down in 2019.

If you are beginning to recognize a pattern here, this is all Trump, Trump, Trump because he is still the Pied Piper for the Republican Conference, as we just saw in this disgraceful presentation about our honorable colleague Adam Schiff.

This package also contains a provision to encourage employers to offer self-funded plans, which are not required to comply with ACA protections, again, on preexisting conditions, on essential health benefits, and more. Most employers do not want to take on the risk of offering a self-funded plan. However, by expanding stop-loss coverage, which sets a catastrophic amount the employer will be responsible for, and then covers any other costs that may come up from covering their employees, self-funded plans will be more attractive.

This legislation prevents Federal and State governments from regulating stop-loss coverage and risks more employers opting for self- funded plans that do not protect healthcare consumers.

Finally, without providing any additional resources, this legislative package tells the Treasury Department to educate employers about how great these new icky plans are and their health reimbursement accounts, which would bar workers from more affordable coverage under the marketplace already available.

At the heart of this effort is just the perpetual push by House Republicans to weaken the protections of the Affordable Care Act, which have prevented financial ruin for so many people and assured access to healthcare for so many people.

Under the provisions of this bill, employers can form association health plans to skirt some of the requirements of the ACA like the essential health benefits. State and Federal regulators will be hamstrung in their ability to protect small businesses and workers in self-funded plans.

Utilizing these icky ICHRA plans, employers can also push those with preexisting conditions, women, and older workers into the individual market with vouchers while keeping their younger and healthier employees on employee-sponsored insurance. Therefore, the sick get treated differently.

Those who have disabilities, who have had long-term chronic conditions, could be treated very differently and put at great risk.

I think for all these reasons that this legislation should be soundly rejected. This is an opportunity to defend all that the Affordable Care Act has meant to Americans and offer that opportunity to more people rather than deception that is the hallmark of this bill and following the Trump approach that junk insurance is what would be most available to Americans.

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

Madam Chair, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan, I am sure there are many Republicans who want to assure good healthcare to all people. The problem is with this specific bill.

The one-page amendment that I offered could have guaranteed these ICHRA employees that they would face no discrimination among classes of employees and no barrier of preexisting conditions.

That clarification would have solved this problem, and their failure repeatedly to accept that one-page amendment, with no explanation other than that they wanted to do the same thing, or that it was duplicative, betrays the promise of this bill and suggests that discrimination and denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions is what Americans in these plans will face.

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, our colleague from Missouri (Mr. Smith) closed by saying that his goal is to cut red tape. Well, that is a goal that I think all of us can share, but I am afraid that this bill, as written, will only throw more Americans into the red and into medical debt, which is already high despite the protections that we have provided to date.

There are so many families overwhelmed by medical debt, and some who will be denied the opportunity to get the protection they need from their healthcare providers because they simply cannot afford it.

Madam Chair, I would say at the appropriate time I will offer a motion to recommit to this bill and send it back to committee. If the House rules permit it, I would have offered this motion with an appropriate amendment to the bill.

My amendment would ensure that this bill does not take effect unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that this bill will not result in anyone losing access to coverage of essential health benefits or see their healthcare costs rise, the very objective that the gentleman from Virginia has been discussing.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record the text of this amendment.

Mr. Doggett moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3799 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:

Add at the end the following new title:

Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting it, recommitting this, pursuing the objective of better healthcare for all, and protecting all Americans from preexisting condition barriers, and ensuring they are not the subject of discrimination.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment has a rather nominal effect in not improving what is a very bad and deceptive bill.

It is appealing to talk about rural areas. I am concerned about those rural areas, about the chicken pluckers, about the meatpackers, about the field workers, and the way they will be discriminated against under this bill.

I will elaborate on that. While this is mainly a Republican caucus that follows the seditious pied piper who was our President, in this case, even under the Trump administration, when they considered this kind of proposal, the Treasury Department, the Labor Department, and the Health and Human Services Department came together and recognized the danger of discriminating against different classes of employees.

Ultimately, unfortunately, the Trump administration did not provide the protection against discrimination, so that people who are working in rural areas under this bill may be discriminated against by their employer as a result of this legislation.

It is the failure to have clear language in this bill to prevent such discrimination against rural workers, in favor of those who are in the office towers managing everything, that is at the heart of our opposition, as well as the refusal to provide protection and guarantees against people being denied as a result of their preexisting conditions.

Rural Americans are more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, stroke, unintentional injury, and respiratory disease. Yet, we would take our sickest workers, our most vulnerable low-income workers, and deny them a comprehensive employer plan with many protections and allow them to be the subject of discrimination.

There has already been too much discrimination against rural areas and rural workers. We ought to prevent it, not make it worse.

There are no guarantees that these people can find any coverage with their ICHRA plan, let alone affordable and quality coverage.

I think rural Americans deserve far better than this amendment to try to put a patch on a very sorry bill that undermines the protections of the Affordable Care Act that has offered great benefit to so many Americans, and I urge everyone to vote ``no.''

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I would say that the only education that would be really helpful on this bill would be to educate both employers and employees about all the shortcomings of this bill.

Educating employers that they ought not to be discriminating against classes of workers and treating the rural, hardworking employees there at lower wages differently where they get an ICHRA policy that denies them preexisting conditions, that denies them the essential benefits under the Affordable Care Act, while the folks in the city in management get treated differently--they get a concierge kind of treatment that is not available to the rural workers. Just educating about this bill, which allows that discrimination, would not accomplish much of anything.

I think what we are going to see with this kind of legislation is more and more workers in rural areas, as well as urban areas, who face discrimination and who face great medical debt because these plans are so weak. They are junk insurance that will deny the benefits that most people need.

Educating about them, if truthful education, if not the kind of deception that is buried in this bill, educating about them will only tell people the limitations and the shortcomings. Otherwise, it will be a kind of education that covers up, as this bill does, the great harm that is being done in denying folks access to a family physician with the protection that is there.

Remember that in moving to these ICHRA plans, we already know that 95 percent of those that are in ICHRA plans today, that have this icky kind of coverage, are people who once had good group health insurance that I would like to see available to more Americans.

Again, I urge my colleagues to definitely vote ``no'' on this amendment and vote ``no'' on this sorry bill and support our motion to recommit.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Madam Chair, I don't believe that we have noted yet in the course of this debate the great irony, the fact that this is called the CHOICE Arrangement Act, that we have some pro-choice Republicans here who want to give employers the choice and allow them to discriminate against different classes of their own employees. All of this is happening the same horrible anniversary week of the Supreme Court's wrongful decision to overturn decades of reliance upon Roe v. Wade and to eliminate the right to an abortion with an effect on women's healthcare that is so far-reaching that it is affecting our colleges of medicine across the country and delivery of healthcare to women who may never have been involved in the slightest way with an abortion.

They called this healthcare freedom today. I call it the repression and the interference with the basic healthcare rights of women.

By the terms of their own amendment, patients and doctors should make healthcare decisions, not government bureaucrats or insurance companies. The CHOICE Arrangement Act comes at the same time that they interfere with what happens in our bedrooms and our doctors' offices and, most recently, even in our kitchens.

They would sentence patients under this basic legislation with preexisting conditions to a future of very few choices and no freedom. With no choices for adequate and affordable healthcare, this legislation guarantees one kind of prescription and one kind of prescription only, and that is a prescription for personal bankruptcy and unlimited medical debt from policies that do not provide essential healthcare benefits.

It is really a shame that, in a country as wealthy as ours, we still have millions of citizens who go without health coverage. Over 30 million Americans, in fact, lack coverage, and many in our home State of Texas lack coverage because of the fact that our State legislature and Governor were never willing to provide the guarantee we anticipated with the Affordable Care Act of Medicaid expansion as most States have done.

Patients do not have a choice, do not have freedom when they suffer a heart attack or are diagnosed with a dreaded disease or a broken arm, and they lack insurance coverage that provides them the benefits that they need.

Under this amendment, which is a sense of Congress resolution that really doesn't accomplish much of anything, this bill is not improved. Americans would have so much skin in the game they would get burned just as the Republican dirty fossil fuel plan would burn up our planet.

It is not just the Affordable Care Act that is being targeted today. There is reference to socialized medicine of the kind that Newt Gingrich once attacked in this body when he suggested Medicare should ``wither on the vine.''

Contrary to Republican attacks, we have heard about public insurance programs. Seniors on Medicare value their Medicare as do the 16 million people who signed up for the Affordable Care Act this year.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this is the freedom resolution on the week that we have the anniversary of the anti-choice Dobbs decision as part of the CHOICE Arrangement Act.

Well, I am reminded of the lyrics of a famous Janis Joplin song: ``Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.'' No choice is left. No freedom is left. This is our future under Republican plans--so much to lose, nothing left tomorrow.

We need to protect more Americans from the dangers of health debt and bankruptcy. We need to ensure broader coverage. There is a huge coverage gap that is leaving perhaps as many as 2 million Texans without coverage because of the failures and ideological objections of our State Republican government.

Those Americans deserve the same protection that 16 million Americans got when they signed up for the Affordable Care Act this year. They have access to a family physician that is so very important. They have access to the essential benefits of the Affordable Care Act, getting access to the kind of care that they need to ensure their family is secure.

I believe that there are many improvements that are necessary in the Affordable Care Act. We were limited in being able to make those improvements when all we had for more than a decade were 60-plus Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Let us reject this bill and this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.