Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, and certainly thank Mr. Tonko for their incredible statements about what is really at risk and why it is at risk.

I think it is very important for viewers, and our constituents, and families, to really understand that this is not a healthcare debate. This is not a healthcare reform measure.

Nothing that has occurred and passed in the House or in the Senate has involved serious discussion or debate of any kind of healthcare reform because what this really is, as you stated, is a tax break, not just for the wealthiest of Americans, but for two critical corporations, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, who, I assure you, do not need additional tax breaks, who are still making record profits. And when we look at the pharmaceutical industry, in particular, it has been one of the most profitable industries in America's history.

So this is an effort to provide more benefits to the three groups who do not need these benefits; and the way in which they pay for it is to remove healthcare benefits from millions of Americans. And as the gentleman pointed out, 32 million Americans are at risk of losing their healthcare, and many more who are in jeopardy of having to pay far more for the benefits that are necessary and lifesaving.

I really wanted to weigh in because States like mine, rural, frontier, very poor States, in fact, we have the most to lose of any State in the Nation if this draconian measure, which is one step closer, is passed in the Senate after today's procedural vote.

It means $11.4 billion out of our economy. It is a devastating blow to one of the poorest States in the Nation, who has one of the highest percentages of individuals in Medicaid to the expansion.

For the first time in my lifetime, I am seeing New Mexicans in a position to have access to care, the right care at the right time at the right place. If this country is going to get healthcare right, then we have got to make sure that people have access so we are not the sickest population in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

The only way that you do that is providing access. We provide access in the Affordable Care Act by giving people subsidies and asking insurance companies to treat their beneficiaries and enrollees fairly, right? Subsidies to afford those premiums, by making sure that they have to cover preexisting conditions, by making sure that they are not making women and other populations pay more for their care.

This is a Congress that has an obligation to address the things that both Republicans in Congress and pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies have done to us, not for us. Premiums are still too often too high; copays still too often too high; and deductibles, still too high.

But is that the fault of the Democrats or an administration that worked to make sure that insurance companies got payments to deal with the rising costs of folks with serious catastrophic illnesses and chronic disease? No, it is Republicans who refuse to continue to fund those risk corridors and those cost-sharing mechanisms.

Did we do anything in this Congress to require pharmaceutical companies who sell the very same drugs for 10 cents on a dollar to nations around the world, to make sure that you got a fair drug price, after your tax dollars helped those same pharmaceutical companies do the research required? And then we give them patent protections to make the most possible money, including now protections on generic brand drugs?

No, we did nothing to hold that industry accountable, which would mean lower costs for consumers.

But what I know happens for sure with this bill is, not only do they rip the rug out from under any of those protections by hardworking New Mexicans and hardworking Americans who deserve the protection and the knowledge that their healthcare will be there for them tomorrow, we also close every rural community health center, every rural hospital at risk in the country, which is why no hospitals, no doctors, no insurance companies, no pharmaceutical companies--because who are they going to sell these proceeds to--are supporting this bill.

And the Senate is ignoring every Republican Governor whose State took up Medicaid, who is saying this is a disaster. They want something else.

Yet this is the path we are under because it would be more important to give tax breaks than to do this--to protect Mr. Templeton in my State, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in December 2016. He began treatments in January 2017.

He explained in an email that, without the ACA, he is not able to afford any of his treatments. He said: ``Am I being sentenced to death by Congress? How many more U.S. citizens are out there like me?''

The answer to Mr. Templeton's question is there are at least 32 million.

As I close with what I think is an outrageous effort by Republicans in the House and the Senate, and by that procedural vote in the Senate, is at the same time they are looking at ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans, they are willing to put $1.6 billion into a wall that they promised that Americans would not pay for.

Here is an idea. You have got $1.6 billion to invest; invest that to protect folks with their costs under the ACA. Give more subsidies.

Let's deal with Medicaid fairly. Let's make sure that we drop prescription drug costs. Let's lower copays. Let's invest in rural community health centers more. Let's have a targeted effort to deal, as you said, with opioid and substance abuse problems that were created by pharmaceutical companies. Let's do that.

If you really care, this is money that would hire more nurses. This is money that would hire thousands more teachers. This is money that would put thousands of New Mexicans and Americans back to work in better, safer, more productive infrastructure for our futures--our very future, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Speaker, at stake by the wrong path and the draconian efforts today in the Senate.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to highlight how terrible these efforts are and how important it is for us to encourage our supporters to fight for fairness and justice in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support the Care Corps Demonstration Act. As a caregiver myself, I know how tough a job it is and how critical it is that we support family caregivers and the paid direct care workforce.

But as our population continues to age, our country faces a critical shortage of caregivers. In 2010, there were seven potential caregivers for every person over the age of 80; by 2030, that ratio is projected to drop by almost half, to about 4 to 1. At the same time, our economy continues to feel the effect of the Great Recession, and many young people are unemployed or underemployed.

That is why I am introducing this bipartisan bill which creates a grant program that would place Care Corps volunteers in communities across the country to provide services that help seniors and individuals with disabilities remain independent. The program would help meet the need for more caregivers and provide opportunity in a growing career field by offering benefits and educational assistance to the volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quickly pass this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

The National Defense Authorization Act has passed Congress 56 years in a row, and that is a testament to the collaborative, bipartisan work the Armed Services Committee has done to support our troops who put themselves in harm's way every single day to defend our country.

This year, the House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment introduced by Congressman Gallego to ensure that none of the funds meant to support our troops and safeguard our Nation's security can be used for building President Trump's border wall.

The amendment was debated, amended, and ultimately adopted without objection by every single member of the Armed Services Committee.

If you ask the people who know the border the best, whether it is companies, lawmakers, border communities, trade groups, economists, or law enforcement officials--both Republicans and Democrats--most agree that building a wall is unnecessary, impractical, ineffective, and, frankly, a complete waste of time and taxpayer money.

Furthermore, the United States already maintains approximately 650 miles of border fence in areas that most effectively stop the unauthorized entry of people, vehicles, drugs, arms, and other illicit items.

Instead of a costly border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, the Armed Services Committee chose to fully fund military healthcare, raise the pay of military personnel, and improve our Nation's cybersecurity.

They agreed that President Trump's ongoing effort to build a wall is wasteful and has absolutely nothing to do with advancing U.S. national security interests.

I want to emphasize that this amendment incorporated both Democratic and Republican ideas, and passed unanimously in a bipartisan manner. But late Tuesday night, House Republican leadership stripped Congressman Gallego's amendment from the NDAA with the use of a glaringly undemocratic, procedural gimmick to help Trump fulfill his campaign promise.

Republican leadership's actions to unilaterally open the door for funding the wall through the use of this defense bill is an insult to every single member of the Armed Services Committee, to our democratic principles, and to the spirit of bipartisanship.

They chose to undermine the unanimous judgment of the Armed Services Committee without the courage to test their proposal with a vote or even a debate on the floor.

You may hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle claim that prohibiting the construction of the wall doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of the Defense Department. However, I am not sure why the 8 members of the Rules Committee believe that they are more qualified to judge what should be included in the NDAA than the 61 members of the Armed Services Committee or the 435 Members of this deliberative body as a whole.

Further, I am not sure why the Rules Committee thought that a discriminatory amendment preventing the Department of Defense from providing medically necessary healthcare services to transgendered military personnel was more appropriate for debate than preventing Trump from usurping funds intended for our troops.

You may also hear that my Republican colleagues claim that President Trump can't use any funds in the NDAA to start construction of the wall anyway. But that is not true. Under title 10, the Secretary of Defense could transfer funding for that purpose this afternoon if he wanted, all without approval of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the only way this body can guarantee that Trump cannot use Department of Defense funds to construct the border wall is to put that prohibition in the bill explicitly. The only way we can do that is by passing my motion to recommit to restore Congressman Gallego's bipartisan amendment in the bill and ensure that our troops are not robbed to pay for a border wall.

But I want to be clear: the adoption of this amendment will not prevent passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will immediately be voted upon.

We all have an opportunity to stand united to support our Nation's servicemembers and to protect hard-earned taxpayer dollars from the President's political pipe dream.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my final amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, which encourages partnerships between the DOD, DOE, and the private sector, to facilitate the licensure, transfer, and commercialization of innovative technologies.

We cannot let groundbreaking research and new technologies in our Nation's Federal laboratories sit idle when they have the potential to reenergize domestic manufacturing, create high-paying jobs, and transform our economy.

It is not government or private sector, it is government and private sector working together to create opportunities that have led to the development of many products in the marketplace today, including batteries powering electric vehicles, internet servers, and GPS.

Both the DOD and DOE have separate programs that support technology transfer to the private sector, but they don't work very well together. My amendment would fix that and ensure that these departments are actively collaborating to support the commercialization of cutting-edge technologies and make them more widely available to American businesses and consumers.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, I am angry.

I am angry that Republicans are trying to fool the American people. The Republican healthcare bill is nothing more than a tax bill disguised as a healthcare bill.

TrumpCare is an almost $570 billion tax break for health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the extremely wealthy. It is a bill that asks working families to pay more for less: less coverage, less access, and less care.

Recently, a concerned constituent called my office after discovering that his son would need surgery at birth for a heart defect and then subsequent surgeries later on. He wanted to know what he could do to stop TrumpCare and protect his son, who would be born with a preexisting condition and face thousands of dollars of cost throughout his life.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass healthcare legislation that invests in and protects the healthcare of all Americans, holds the healthcare industry accountable, and lowers cost.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize

the 30th anniversary of the Bethel Community Storehouse in Moriarty, New Mexico. Serving the impoverished and the homeless, the Bethel Community Storehouse has been a generous contributor to the Greater Estancia Valley and East Mountain area.

In 1987, a bus dliver noticed students that were not dressed properly for the weather; she quickly began providing food and clothes to some of the children on her route. Eventually, there were so many people who needed help that she reached out to a local church. Shortly afterward, the Bethel United Methodist Church Missions Outreach established the Bethel Community Storehouse. In 1991, the storehouse was incorporated as a non-profit entity and moved into its own building.

The Bethel Community Storehouse has been a place of reassurance for struggling families and now employs 10 staff members.

In 2016, the storehouse helped nearly 8,000 families. It served approximately 440,824 meals and clothed 1,387 families. By the end of 2016, volunteers logged 18,600 hours, and 143 community partners helped the Bethel Community Storehouse. Each year, Bethel provides families in need with food, clothing, school supplies, and much more.

We look forward to many more years of service to the community from the Bethel Community Storehouse. This storehouse has been a lifeline to a community in need and showcases true New Mexican compassion. I am confident that the Bethel Community Storehouse will continue giving hope to the surrounding community for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize June as National Homeownership Month and to introduce three bills to protect homeowners: the Foreclosure Fairness Act, the National Homeowners Bill of Rights Act, and the Keeping Families Home Act.

In 2016, the homeownership rate in the U.S. fell to 62.9 percent, the lowest rate since 1967. Before the Great Recession, it peaked at about nearly 70 percent.

Unfortunately, in the past 8 years, New Mexico, my home State, has not seen economic recovery. In fact, as of April 2017, New Mexico's foreclosure rate is 40 percent higher than the national average.

Owning a home is not only the American Dream, it also increases economic activity as well as wealth for the owners. The average homeowner has a net worth that is 36 times that of the average renter-- $195,400 compared to $5,400.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my bills, which will make the foreclosure process more transparent and fair, prohibit deficiency judgments, help non-English speakers communicate with mortgage servicers, and keep families in their home.

Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit, of course, of hearing my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren, and I appreciate my colleagues on the other side because, agreed, we all want there to be the right sort of national security protections at the border, but we want to make sure that we are maximizing those opportunities and recognize that there has been an issue of being able to address the shortage of officers. But to address a workforce shortage by minimizing the very requirements that not only preserve our national security and protect the men and women at our border, I would agree, is not the way that we should be proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I rise in opposition to the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act. As a Member from a border State that heavily trades with Mexico, I certainly understand the value of having sufficient customs officials manning our ports of entry and agents protecting our border; but eliminating the critical polygraph requirements for certain CBP applicants only undermines our Nation's safety, given this agency's historic connection to organized crime, drug cartels, and corruption.

The DHS inspector general has warned that weakening CBP polygraph requirements would make our southern border more vulnerable and that we should, instead, identify ways to make hiring more efficient without sacrificing integrity and effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I live in a community that the FBI has now identified as one of the most dangerous cities in the country, Albuquerque, New Mexico, primarily because of the drug cartel. The drug trade in our city and in our State is significant, so we understand having sufficient officers.

While I strongly oppose this bill, I am committed to working with my colleagues and CBP to identify solutions that won't jeopardize national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, a national security issue. No other Federal law enforcement agency in the country--not the FBI, DEA, ATF, or Secret Service--makes any exceptions to their polygraph exam.

I understand that the CBP has a staffing shortage, but watering down vetting standards is dangerous and could lead to more corruption at the largest law enforcement agency in the country. In fact, 2,170 CBP personnel were arrested for sexual assault, excessive force, conspiring with international drug trafficking organizations, and other offenses between 2005 and 2012.

In response, Congress enacted legislation to require every applicant to undergo a polygraph exam--no exceptions. DHS' own Integrity Advisory Panel and the GAO have both recommended that the current polygraph testing be expanded, not reduced, given the higher rates of corruption at CBP than any other Federal law enforcement agency.

This bill takes us backward, and some current and former DHS officials have expressed concerns that the bill could expose the agency to corrupt individuals who could undermine the integrity of the workforce.

DHS Inspector General John Roth warned that the proposed legislation ``could put CBP at significant risk and that while it may sound reasonable to say you could waive requirements from former military personnel because they have passed a polygraph, Border Patrol agents work in a different environment that is not as controlled as the military.''

Former CBP head of Internal Affairs has stated that ``very few members of the military take polygraphs or have comprehensive background checks, and the quality of State or local law enforcement polygraphs varies widely.''

My amendment would delay the implementation of the bill until, one, CBP completes its ongoing pilot program of an alternative polygraph test that may help speed up hiring while maintaining vetting standards; and, two, the DHS inspector general determines that the bill would not endanger our national security, undermine workforce integrity, or, in fact, increase corruption.

I recognize that CBP is managing hiring and staffing issues. Passing this bill without knowing its potential risks or consequences is not only shortsighted, but I think it is irresponsible. We shouldn't blindly experiment with our Nation's security given that drugs, weapons, and human trafficking, as well as terrorism, are all threats we are facing at the border.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for my amendment to help safeguard national security and protect the integrity of the CBP and its officers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dynamic and promising New Mexico company, BlueInk Technologies.

Just over two years ago, Faze Sharif and Zach Lovelady founded Bluelnk with the aim to modernize the authenticity of eSignatures. Before computers, documents had to be signed in blue ink to signify authenticity. However, things are not so simple anymore. Sharif and Lovelady understood that the way we execute documents needed to evolve to keep up with the fast-paced business world in which fraud, misunderstanding, and mistakes cost businesses and consumers billions each year. Bluelnk's innovative software ensures that documents are reviewed and executed in a fully customizable and transparent manner.

BlueInk's document review system can be configured to give signatories either a quick overview or detailed step-by-step review of a document's terms in any language and on any device. This guarantees that documents are reviewed according to a signatory's preferences in a manner most convenient to that individual. Additionally, BlueInk provides powerful fraud prevention and security measures that create a detailed audit trail of every event throughout the review and signing and uses cutting edge technologies to verify a signer's identity. These technologies include GPS and IP based geo-location, photo identification, SMS text codes and driver's license scans--all of which are memorialized after execution in a stand-alone document called the BlueInk Certificate of Evidence. The Certificate of Evidence creates almost irrefutable proof of execution to prevent contract disputes before they

begin. This technology has helped a wide range of industries including real estate, multi-family housing; professional services; automotive; business-to-business; human resources, local, state and federal entities; and financial or lending institutions.

BlueInk is currently being used by companies and consumers across the United States and this fast growing, innovative company has offices in New Mexico and Arizona. On May 3, 2017, their technology was approved by the U.S. Patent Office. I applaud the ingenuity, tenacity and forward thinking of the founders and their staff members, and I look forward to seeing how this next generation eSignature software will change the face of business.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic today that we are celebrating the international success and celebration of women when we are also working to repeal affordable quality health care for women and families.

I am reminded, in fact, of my own mother, who fought during a time in the 1960s and 1970s to ensure that my sister, who was very sick and disabled, would have access to a quality public education and also to affordable health care. Quite frankly, it was not available. My mother and father were financially destitute. Today, as a result of trying to provide that health care, I am my mother's caregiver.

Today, I am reminded of all of the women primarily--49 million of us--providing more than $500 billion worth of long-term care and caregiving support to our families, that this is a day to really celebrate that leadership, that support, and the efforts made by women. Congress, as a body, should do much, much more to preserve and protect those rights of women and their families all across America.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to see pharmaceutical companies put profits over people. Even though 33,000 people are dying every year due to the opioid crisis, Kaleo Pharma raised the price of a lifesaving opioid overdose medication from $690 in 2014 to $4,500 this year.

The pharmaceutical industry has not only misled consumers and their providers to create a system where there are more opioid prescriptions than adults in the United States, but they are now jacking up the price of lifesaving drugs and making money on this opioid crisis that they helped, in fact, create.

Meanwhile, the costs of the opioid epidemic fall on States, cities, communities, hospitals, counties, courts, and local communities who, quite frankly, do not have the resources to keep up.

This is why I introduced a bill which would impose a fee on the production of opioids and use the revenue for opioid prevention, treatment, and research programs across the country.

Pharmaceutical companies have to be part of solving the problem that they helped cause and to give back to the communities that opioids have ravaged.

Mr. Speaker, late last

year, the Bureau of Land Management finalized its methane rule, which will reduce harmful emissions by curbing the wasteful venting, flaring, and leaking of natural gas.

Not only is methane a potent greenhouse gas, but every cubic foot of gas that is wasted cheats New Mexican taxpayers out of precious royalty and tax payments which go toward public education, infrastructure, and community development programs. Considering that the Governor of New Mexico has proposed cutting money from school districts to close an estimated $70 million deficit, we simply cannot afford to let money disappear into thin air.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives is considering legislation that will not only rescind BLM's methane rule, but also prohibit the consideration of any similar rule to curb methane emissions and protect taxpayer interests ever again.

I strongly support efforts to work with all stakeholders, especially small, independent producers who may, in fact, have difficulties implementing BLM's new standards, but taking a sledgehammer to our Nation's energy policy is irresponsible and counterproductive.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and instead work to make this rule work for both producers and taxpayers alike.

Madam Speaker, the people who, in fact, know the border issues the best--whether it is companies or lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, border communities, trade groups, economists, and law enforcement officials--all agree that building a wall is unnecessary, impractical, ineffective, and it is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money.

This wall, in fact, damages New Mexico's economy, and that is without taking into account President Trump's idea to now impose a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports to pay for it. In the end, we know that it is American jobs, American consumers, and American companies that will be hurt.

Given that the United States already maintains approximately 650 miles of border fence, drones, cameras, motion detectors, thermal imaging sensors, ground sensors, and 21,370 Border Patrol agents, the wall is completely unnecessary for the stakeholders who are, in fact, most impacted. The only person it truly benefits is President Trump by furthering his isolationist, divisive, and anti-immigrant agenda.

I agree that this country should be building, and I agree with my colleague from El Paso, Mr. O'Rourke, that there is a wonderful thing, an incredible thing about building bridges, building highways, building buildings, and refocusing our energy on making sure that everyone has a fair shot and that we are looking at those economic values and those economic indicators. That is not what we are doing here. We are diverting our attention for an unnecessary, huge, colossal mistake that hurts the progress that border communities and border States have made.

Madam Speaker, I stand here today to recognize the extraordinary leadership of Xavier Becerra who for the last 24 years proudly served the people of Los Angeles, California, as a Member of the United States House of Representatives.

Xavier's career in public service began as a call to fight for people like his parents, a clerical worker and a construction worker, who were often neglected in the policymaking process.

He was elected to Congress in 1992. He most recently served as the first Hispanic member of the Committee on Ways and Means. During his tenure, he was also the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

He worked with his colleagues to increase opportunities for working families, to improve Social Security, and to strengthen Medicare. He fought for a Tax Code that was fair to hardworking families and small businesses. He stood for immigrants of all communities in his support of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform.

He continues this important work now as the attorney general of California, where he is already using his position, knowledge, and experience to uphold our values by rejecting policies that this administration hopes to exact on the American people.

Representative Becerra, thank you and your family for your service. Your

community, your colleagues, your country, and I thank you for your service.

Mr. Chair, I can tell you who is happy that the budget resolution will likely pass the House today, Big Pharma. Pharmaceutical companies are once again escaping any changes to a system which has repeatedly allowed them to prioritize profits over people and drive increases in out-of-pocket healthcare costs.

Companies like Mylan, Turing, and Valeant are jacking up lifesaving drugs like EpiPen for anaphylactic shock; Daraprim for HIV and cancer patients; and Nitropress for heart failure overnight without any accountability.

While the American people increasingly can't afford their medicine, pharmaceutical companies are the wealthiest they have been in years.

In fact, median healthcare and pharmaceutical executive pay is higher than any other industry in the United States.

And even though taxpayers fund billions of dollars of basic medical research used to develop groundbreaking drugs, pharmaceutical companies often charge Americans many times what the rest of the world pays.

Mr. Chair, Americans can't afford to continue giving pharmaceutical and health insurance executives a pay raise, and many on both sides of the aisle agree.

Just this week, President-elect Donald Trump added his voice to that effort saying: pharma was ``getting away

with murder.'' I agree. They are literally getting away with murder. Because if a mother can't afford her child's EpiPen, or a cancer patient can't afford treatment, people die.

So I offered an amendment to this budget resolution seeking to lower prescription drug costs, but Republicans refuse to even allow debate on my amendment.

Instead of fighting to make sure Americans have access to lifesaving medications, Republicans are protecting the ability of pharmaceutical companies to continue to shake down the American people.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and, instead, address these healthcare costs and access issues that every American knows too well.