Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my experience with the Affordable Care Act actually comes from the State legislature, where, in a bipartisan manner, the Republican governor joined with the minority Democrats and a handful of Republicans in the Senate State House to pass Medicaid expansion.

Why did we do that?

If you looked at what was happening in Arizona, it was some of the Trump areas, as I like to call them, these rural districts where the rural hospitals, which are not only the medically necessary infrastructure of the area but also the economic drivers, the only high-wage employers in the area, they were about to shut down.

There was so much uncompensated cost, because people were using the emergency room as their primary care doctor, that these hospitals were starting to have to charge more and insurance companies were starting to refuse to pay more for their premiums, that they needed to respond to that.

In the end, what we started hearing from these hospitals is that we are going to have to shut down the emergency room, and if you have an emergency, we are going to have to helicopter you either to Tucson or Phoenix.

Now, for many of you guys who are not Southwesterners like us in the Southwest, we have a lot of territory and a lot of land. For you to just drive to Phoenix for emergency care would be pretty insane, let alone the expense of helicoptering into Phoenix was even more so than that.

Because we had the goal of actually increasing and improving our healthcare outcomes, we worked again in a bipartisan manner with Governor Brewer, with Republicans and Democrats to pass one of the most comprehensive Medicaid expansion bills in the country that has actually turned around, lowered costs, created better healthcare outcomes, and has now insured more than 400,000 poor Arizonans that did not have it before, including people in the disability community, as well as children.

To counteract what we saw today, if it wasn't really for the bravery of Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, and Senator McCain, as well as all of the Senate Democrats, what we would have seen would have been a bill that would not only have just rolled back the millions of people who are now covered with health insurance, but it would also have been detrimental to the people who currently have even private health insurance.

Premiums were going to go up for everybody. The estimated amount of people just on the so-called skinny bill that were going to lose health insurance would be 16 million people, and on the House bill it was going to be 23 million people, in addition to the essential gutting of Medicaid, all for giving a tax cut to the top 1 percent.

Now, this is bad policy, but it is worse policy when you don't have an open process to it, when you seek it through the middle of the night, hoping that the American public is just going to accept what comes out.

There is a reason why TrumpCare was polling less than Congress, and trust me, it is very difficult to poll less than Congress. At this point, it is just our families that like us.

I like you, too, Ted. You are a good man.

But the fact that we the American public knew so little, just knew enough, and said this bill is bad and were able to come out and put pressure on our Senators and our Members of Congress with public hearings and townhalls was key to stopping this.

Lastly, before I move back to Ted, if you are so proud of this bill, if you are the Senate Republicans and you are so proud of this bill, if you are Donald Trump and you are so proud of this bill, even our House colleagues, why didn't you have consistent townhalls? Why didn't you go out there and explain to people what you were planning to do and why this is better for America?

Instead, they tried to hide it. They tried to move it as fast as possible, and then tried to schedule a vote in the middle of the night. If you have to vote for something in the middle of the night, it means you are not very confident and you are not very proud of that bill.

So what is the solution now? Nobody in the Democratic Caucus thinks the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare, as some people call it--is the be-all and end-all. We don't think it is perfect. We certainly think that there is a great bipartisan approach we can take to make it better. And what I mean by ``better'' is more coverage, lower premiums, and better healthcare outcomes.

When I use those words, those were almost exactly, word for word, what Donald Trump said he wanted to see happen when he was going to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But, point by point, whether it was the bill that came through the House or the bill that came through the Senate, none of those would have even fit Donald Trump's mandate. Which is why, at the end of the day, that bill was radioactive. Nobody liked it, and they had to hide it.

So what we should do is follow the advice of Senator McCain in Arizona, follow the example of Senators Murkowski and Collins and all of the Senate Democrats: get back to regular order and work out an actual fix to the Affordable Care Act and get Americans more coverage, lower premiums, and better healthcare outcomes.

I say that also as someone who is on an ObamaCare plan. I am not exempt from it, and neither is Mr. Lieu. We are in it just as much as everyone else is, and we want to see it fixed.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to hear some ideas--and I think it is important that instead of just us knocking what was introduced, we could also give some ideas--certainly, for me, and I think I am also speaking for Ted Lieu, we would prefer to have Medicare for all, so people have a stable insurance, a system that we know works, a system that actually brings down costs. But if we can't do that, there are many things we can do in the meantime.

Why not drop the age of Medicare eligibility to 55? If you do that, you are going to also decrease premiums for people who are not on Medicare, people who are just buying private health insurance. You could be on Medicare at 55 and still be working.

What about for those counties that don't have private insurers on the subsidized market? They should be able to buy into the Federal health insurance plans of all of the workers who live in those districts, or buy into the plans that Ted and I have. Why can't we let them do that?

Why not cover every U.S. citizen up until the age of 18 under Medicaid to relieve the parents of that burden?

We can also start looking at community health centers, reinforcing those to make sure that we are taking the poorest of the poor who actually cost the most when it comes to healthcare costs and, instead of forcing them into a hospital or into a primary care situation, they could get consistent care without putting a burden on the overall medical system.

There are tons of ideas that we could be working on with our colleagues that will, again, fulfill President Trump's goal of lower costs, lower premiums, and better healthcare outcomes. So this doesn't have to be a static situation. This doesn't have to be an either/or.

President Trump is making it sound like, because we did not pass his idea of reform, we must collapse the whole system. That is unnecessary, that is irresponsible, and that is not how adult people that legislate act.

You can fix this. We can fix this so more people can have healthcare coverage, more people can have that security that they are going to always have health insurance so they can go and start a business and know they are going to have health insurance, know that they can send their kid to college and they are still going to have health insurance, know that they can retire knowing that they have been healthy the whole time and they are going to have a good, dignified retirement because we had made sure that we established a good healthcare system from the time they were born until the time they retire.

This is possible. This is possible.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I will close with this. If you were one of those Members of Congress, if you are a Republican Senator or a Republican Member of Congress who voted to gut the Affordable Care Act, there is time. There is a way to come back from that really bad decision. You can turn around and start working for the betterment of this country by trying to fix the Affordable Care Act.

The American public will look kindly upon those legislators who are here to work in a bipartisan manner to, again, lower costs, lower premiums, and provide more coverage and better healthcare outcomes. There is time to do this. But there is not time for more opportunities to gut this, for more time to kick people off Medicaid, or for more time to create some kind of situation that is only go to raise premiums.

If we allow Trump to actually, in his words, make the whole thing fail, it is not ObamaCare that fails, it is not the Affordable Care Act that fails--it is the American people that fail. He is playing a game with the lives of the American people.

What he is going to do is he is going to cause millions of people to either lose their insurance because insurance companies are going to have to start shedding people, or premiums are going to end up going up because, if he creates instability in the market, these insurance companies are going to try to recoup their costs somehow, and it is going to discourage younger individuals from actually coming on and buying into the ObamaCare insurance pool, which, again, will raise premiums. This is unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, for those Members of Congress and those Senators who want to work with us, the first step is to encourage and stop the President from sabotaging the Affordable Care Act and to work diligently in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act and cover more people.

Mr. Speaker, there is a really disturbing story in Politico today.

Speaker Ryan was apparently afraid that he wouldn't be able to pass the defense spending bill, including $1.6 billion for Trump's dumb wall because conservatives wanted to block Medicare for transgender servicemembers, so he called the President asking for help.

What did Donald Trump do to get Speaker Ryan out of this jam? Trump decided to ban brave transgender Americans from serving. That is right, Mr. Speaker, Trump is kicking transgender men and women out of our Armed Services to make sure he can get money to build his stupid, irresponsible, unnecessary wall. He is implementing one bigoted policy in order to achieve another one.

This is hatred in the service of injustice. This is transphobia in the service of racism. This is stupidity in the service of foolishness.

Mr. Speaker, we need to stop doing Trump's dirty work. Not only is President Trump's border wall expensive and unnecessary, Members of this body who care deeply about our national defense shouldn't be forced to decide between voting for this ridiculous proposal and voting to fund our military.

More importantly, on such a momentous issue, the American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand.

Mr. Speaker, let us defeat this rule. Let us stop this wall. Let us enable every American patriot, regardless of their gender identity, to do what I did: to fight for this country with pride, courage, and selflessness.

Mr. Speaker, on July 11, Donald Trump, Jr., released a series of emails regarding his meeting with a Russian Government lawyer and an individual associated with Russian intelligence.

Don Trump, Jr.'s, emails are a smoking gun. They prove that the Trump campaign was not only aware of the Russian Government's efforts to meddle in our elections, they were enthusiastic about accepting Russia's support.

What follows are the contents of those emails. They painted a disturbing picture of a campaign, and now an administration willing to break the law and sell out to an adversary of the United States in order to advance their own petty interests.

Our hope is that the American people will carefully consider the content of these messages and what they say about the fitness of Donald Trump and his senior advisers to hold high office.

We will begin. There was a comment posted by Donald Trump, Jr., on Twitter on July 11, 2017. ``To everyone, in order to be totally transparent''--which we now know he wasn't even in this email--``I am releasing the entire email chain of my emails with Rob Goldstone about the meeting on June 9, 2016. The first email on June 3, 2016 was from Rob, who was relating a request from Emin, a person I knew from the 2013 Ms. Universe Pageant near Moscow. Emin and his father have a very highly respected company in Moscow. The information they suggested they had about Hillary Clinton I thought was Political Opposition Research. I first wanted to just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet. I decided to take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a government official. And, as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky Act. To put this in context, this occurred before the current Russian fever was in vogue. As Rob Goldstone said just today in the press, the entire meeting was `the most inane nonsense I ever heard. And I was actually agitated by it.' ''

End of email.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

On June 3, 2016, at 10:53 a.m., less than 20 minutes after that email, Donald Trump, Jr., wrote back:

``Thanks, Rob, I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time, and if it's what you say, I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

``Best, Don.''

Mr. Speaker, ``I love it.'' His response was: ``I love it.'' I worked in politics for a long time. I have never been approached with information from a foreign government. But if I were, my response would not be: ``I love it.''

My response would be: ``This is completely inappropriate.'' My response would be: ``Don't ever contact me again.'' My response would be: ``I am calling the FBI.''

In this email, Donald Trump, Jr., showed his true colors. This email proves that he lacks basic integrity. The willingness of Jared Kushner to attend that meeting proves that he, too, is no patriot.

On June 6, 2016, at 3:38 p.m., Donald Trump, Jr., wrote back:

``My cell''--we have omitted that cell number. Unlike Donald Trump, we do not give out individual cell numbers.

``Thanks.

``D.''

On June 6, 2016, just a few minutes after receiving this email, Donald Trump, Jr., wrote back:

``Rob, thanks for the help.''

From Moscow thanks for the help, he should have said.

On June 7, 2016, at 5:16 p.m., Donald Trump, Jr., writes:

``How about 3 at our offices? Thanks, Rob, appreciate you helping set it up?''

On June 7, 2016, at 6:14 p.m., Donald Trump, Jr., writes:

``Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort, campaign boss, my brother- in-law''--Jared Kushner--``and me, 725 Fifth Avenue, 25th floor'' which is Trump Tower?

On June 8, 2016, at 11:15, Donald Trump, Jr., writes:

``Yes, Rob, I could do that unless they wanted to do 3 today instead. Just let me know and I will lock it in either way.''

That is some eagerness that this man has for this information.

This email is from Donald Trump, Jr., sent Wednesday, June 8, 2016, at 12:03 p.m., to Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort. Subject, forward, Russia--Clinton--private and confidential.

``Meeting got moved to 4 tomorrow at my offices.

``Best.

``Don.''

The other thing that we have to consider is this: right now, there is a person who is in the White House who has lied on their security clearance--a security clearance that we use to determine whether we shall trust somebody with this top secret information for this country.

Jared Kushner was in a meeting with a foreign agent. Now we know that he was in a meeting not just with a foreign agent but a former-- ``former'' Soviet counterintelligence officer. Let me tell you something. There is no such thing as former counterintelligence officers if you ever work with the Soviets. Once you are in the KGB, you are always in the KGB.

Why was that person in that room? It was not to talk about adoption. He certainly wasn't there to talk about anything else. But, if anything, he was there to pass information. The fact that Jared Kushner lied in his clearance, lied and omitted it until finally revealed today, really calls into question whether that man should be in the White House right now and trusted with this type of sensitive information.

Ted, you and I were in the military. We both had security clearances. If we had this type of omission in our security clearance, what would have been our punishments?

What is the motivation for omitting this meeting? There are clearly emails, there are clearly pointed emails, saying: Why are you going to be attending this meeting?

There is a subject line that says, Clinton emails. There is a subject line that has to do with a Russian agent, a crown prosecutor. Now we know there is a former Soviet counterintelligence agent who just happens to be there, and Jared Kushner omits it from his security clearance. That is not an accident. That is a criminal act, a criminal act that any other citizen in this country, any other soldier, sailor, marine, airman, if we ever did that, we would be quickly prosecuted under the UCMJ.

No.

I am controlling time.

If you start seeing and putting it all together, we now know that there is a clear narrative of Jared Kushner's involvements with the Russians.

First, he tries to set up a back channel. Then he omits his conversations and meetings in a security clearance. He continues to lie even though he is continuously brought forth as being untruthful. Now we find ourselves in the situation where there is basically zero trust that this man in the White House with top secret clearance is not compromised.

In conclusion, let me close with this. You just heard emails after emails. Imagine this conversation happening the opposite way. Imagine a conversation happening with a Democrat or the Clintons saying, I have information, and the word Moscow is said probably four or five times altogether.

Imagine the idea that you are meeting in private, and then imagine all the follow-up lies that happened.

What would be occurring right now? What would be occurring is what we saw last year: consistent oversight. But there is none. There is no oversight right now. Paul Ryan has not taken the helm and has not done any type of oversight. The House Republicans have abdicated their responsibility and have allowed Donald Trump and all those other members of his family and the administration who have been compromised to continue being a threat to our national security in the White House.

This should not be the way. Partisanship should never be above patriotism. But what we are seeing right now is naked partisanship being exposed and pushed as far as possible in the hopes of protecting a faulty President, his administration, and his family.

That is not American. That is not what any of us ever signed up for. We swore--whether it was in the Armed Services Committee, whether it was when we were in the armed services, or whether it is when we came here to Congress--to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect it.

Right now we can honestly say that that is not occurring. There is an absolute abdication happening right now of leadership from House Republicans.

Ted, please close.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, President Obama was speaking to some of his supporters in Minneapolis. They were eager to know how he was planning to make progress on key issues in his second term, given the uncompromising rabid opposition of the majority in this House.

Here is what President Obama said: ``I believe that if we're successful in this election, when we're successful in this election, that the fever may break, because there's a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.''

Five years later, I can say--we can all say--that the fever has not broken. The fever is running as hot as ever. The fever drove this House majority to threaten default on our Nation's debt, to shut down the Federal Government, to indulge racist birther conspiracies, to elevate the very champion of those conspiracies to the Presidency of the United States.

Ten years ago, I know Republican leaders could not imagine that kind of conspiracy would spread throughout the Republican Party rank and file, but it did and it has.

Five years ago, GOP leaders could not have imagined that their party would nominate Donald Trump and elect him to the Presidency, but they did.

One year ago, I know Republican leaders could not imagine that they would cover for the Trump campaign and Trump administration's collusion with the Russian Government, but they have, and they are.

For far too long, Democrats have wanted to believe that the GOP would come to its senses. We wanted to believe that it was really just a fringe minority within the GOP that was the problem, that sober, sensible leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell wanted to do the right thing, but they couldn't because of the Tea Party. They couldn't unless we helped them.

And that is why Democrats bailed out Boehner time after time, jam after jam. Democrats have to stop deluding themselves. There is only one Republican Party, and it is the party of Trump.

It is the party whose Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, blocked efforts by the Obama administration to stop Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is the party that every day looks the other way in the face of Trump's appeasement of Russia and fails to hold Trump accountable.

Last week, Congressman Ted Lieu and I introduced two amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act that the House is debating currently on the floor.

The first would endorse the intelligence community's assessment regarding the Russian's meddling in our 2016 election. This is critical because Donald Trump has repeatedly cast doubt, as recently as yesterday, on the report that despite unanimous agreement from all of our intelligence agencies, that indeed there was collusion, that indeed there was interference by Russians.

The second amendment would block an outrageous Trump administration initiative to create a new cybersecurity partnership with the Russian Government. Trump's plan would let the fox into the henhouse and pave the way for more election interference in our upcoming elections and others, all at the invitation of Donald Trump.

These would have been two sensible steps that the House of Representatives could have taken this week to counter interference in our elections, but last night, the GOP leadership, under Chairman Sessions and the House Rules Committee, blocked these amendments. They refused to give these amendments a chance to be debated and voted on the floor.

As more and more information comes out about Russia, Americans all over the country keep hoping that the GOP will do the right thing, that they will put country before party and hold Trump accountable, but they have not, and they will not.

Just this past week, Donald Trump, Jr., himself released emails that show unequivocally the Trump campaign's eagerness to collude with the Russian Government, but that hasn't changed a thing.

It hasn't stopped Speaker Ryan from blocking a Russian sanctions bill at the Trump administration's request. It hasn't stopped Chairman Sessions and the Rules Committee from blocking my amendment to set the record straight on Russian interference and help prevent it in the future.

The truth is, they are all complicit. It is time to recognize the GOP majority is not the victim here. They aren't suffering from a fever that Democrats have to help fight.

It is the United States Congress, as a whole, that has a fever, and it is the GOP's grip on the majority that is the cause.

It is time for us to face reality. The problem isn't the Tea Party, it is the Republican Party.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a Marine Corps infantryman. When I was fighting door-to-door in Iraq, some of the bravest marines in my unit, men of valor and patriotism, were Muslims. They stood with the Iraqis to risk their lives and endangered loved ones to help us.

At this very moment, marines are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them are Muslim. They still rely on the steadfast support of our Muslim allies. That is why I find this amendment so troubling.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when American forces are deployed across the Muslim world and depend on the support of Muslim governments, the Franks amendment will send exactly the wrong message to our friends and adversaries alike.

By singling out a faith tradition for a strange and unprecedented study by our military, we are sending a dangerous message and signal that America is at war with Islam. America is not ever going to be at war with a single religion.

It is our task as Members of Congress who care about our military and about the American values that our servicemembers risk their lives for to defend it and to reaffirm those values, and we can do that by defeating this misguided amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have available?

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

Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to remember is there is some commonality here; and I am reminded of this almost every weekend, especially when I stay here in Washington, D.C. I go to section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery to visit my friends that died in the war in Iraq. In every headstone there, you will see a lot of different symbols of religions, whether it is the Jewish star, whether it is the Islamic symbol or the Christian symbol, or the nonbeliever, no symbols whatsoever.

The one thing they all have in common is they are all sharing the same ground. They are all sharing the same sacred ground of Arlington National Cemetery because they all died for the same American values. That American value says that we will not ostracize somebody else for their religion, for who they believe or who they don't believe. Any steps towards that is dangerous.

If we want to continue to reaffirm the values that those men and women have died for that are now sitting in section 60, we need to defeat this amendment and do it because we know it is the right thing to do, and it reaffirms those American values that those men and women have died for.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty. If we vote to approve it, an amendment unanimously supported by the Armed Services Committee--unanimously, all Democrats and all Republicans would compromise language--to prevent President Trump from using our military's money to build his border wall will suddenly vanish. It is a legislative magic trick, a sneaky gimmick designed to disguise their actions.

Once again, Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans are doing President Trump's dirty work. They want to make sure that Trump can build his wall, but they are also desperate to avoid a clean up-or-down vote on this issue. They are hiding from the American voters.

They didn't have the courage to oppose my amendment in committee or even on the House floor. They passed this rule late at night with hardly anyone watching, in typical Republican fashion.

Republicans are resorting to deceptive legislative tactics to do Trump's bidding just for his small, fragile ego.

Mr. Speaker, this self-executing rule, if it comes to fruition, is going to attempt to slip one past Congress and the American people.

Just 6 months into this administration, it is already abundantly clear that Mexico won't pay for Trump's stupid, dumb border wall. We must not allow precious resources to be robbed from our troops simply to score political points for Trump's ego.

Mr. Speaker, with Mexico refusing to entertain this absurd policy and without a direct appropriation from Congress, President Trump is going to get desperate. His administration will inevitably seek to pull money from other sources to make good on his promise to build this wall, including from the Defense budget.

That is why my amendment was so crucial. It would simply ensure that DOD resources aren't siphoned off for a pointless wall that we don't need and cannot afford. It was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, the ranking member and the chairman.

As a Member of Congress, we have a sacred responsibility to ensure that money meant to address real national security challenges isn't diverted to combat imaginary ones that the President has created.

As a Marine Corps veteran, I believe it would be an insult to our members of the military if their resources were reallocated to build a wall that we don't need, that won't bring us more security, when we have tens of thousands of military members that are currently still on food stamps while serving this country.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: a vote for this rule is a vote to build the wall and take precious resources from the Department of Defense budget. Please vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, as a candidate, Donald Trump made some very big promises on healthcare to the American people. GOP leadership in both the House and Senate have echoed those promises. But the Trump- Ryan healthcare bill and the Senate version of the GOP bill fail to deliver on those promises.

Donald Trump promised healthcare for all of the American people. Even though the ACA expanded health coverage to more than 20 million Americans, Donald Trump said he didn't

think it provided enough people with coverage. He said: ``We're going to have insurance for everybody,'' and, ``I'm not going to leave the lower 20 percent that can't afford insurance.''

The Congressional Budget Office says that 14 million people will immediately lose coverage under the Trump-Ryan plan, and 24 million people will lose coverage by 2027. The Senate version of the bill isn't much different.

Trump also promised that Americans would enjoy cheaper health insurance, with ``much lower deductibles.'' His Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price, said that ``nobody will be worse off financially.'' But the GOP healthcare plan would cause an increase in health premiums by 15 to 20 percent in the first 2 years alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

During the Republican Presidential primary, Donald Trump bragged that he was ``the first and only potential GOP candidate to state that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.'' But the GOP health plan guts Medicaid more than ever before. It freezes enrollment and unravels the Medicaid expansion.

Donald Trump and the GOP leadership are breaking their promises to the American people. Their healthcare bills take away coverage from millions. Deductibles will go up. Copays will go up.

TrumpCare would gut essential health benefits, which would mean soaring costs for people with preexisting conditions. It will provide worse coverage to those lucky enough to still be able to afford it. And to what end?

They are stripping healthcare from millions of people in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans who need it the least. They are lining the pockets of the rich while leaving our families out to dry.

The GOP wants to take away healthcare coverage from millions of hardworking Americans who just want to feel secure and know that they and their families will be able to see a doctor and get treated if they get sick, without putting themselves or their families in financial ruin. They are robbing Peter to give Paul Ryan and his cronies a tax cut.

In Arizona, we have seen firsthand the damage that Medicaid cuts can wreak. In 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer cut Arizona's Medicaid funding and froze enrollment. Families who were on Medicaid at the time could only continue to receive benefits if their income remained below the Federal poverty level. A family who worked hard to raise their income even the tiniest amount above the poverty line would lose Medicaid coverage permanently, even if their income went down later.

About 150,000 adults in Arizona lost their Medicaid as a result of those changes. People would get sick and be unable to see a doctor just because they couldn't afford it. In some cases, people were forced to decide between paying for lifesaving care or paying their rent.

If Medicaid expansion goes away under the GOP healthcare plan, around 400,000 Arizonans could lose coverage, according to AHCCCS in Arizona. That includes 26,700 cancer patients and about 47,000 who are working to overcome different levels of substance abuse, including opioid treatment. People in other States across the country would experience similar devastating outcomes.

Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake witnessed the disastrous effect of taking away healthcare coverage for people in Arizona. They know more than anyone else how many lives can be ruined.

Some Republicans have already voiced strong concerns about this bill's impact on their constituents. If they are serious about these concerns, it will only take three Republican Senators to take a stand and grind this process to a halt. Unfortunately, so far, Senators McCain and Flake are not among them.

Senators McCain and Flake face a very stark choice: they can do the bidding of Donald Trump and deprive millions of healthcare coverage, or they can take steps to defend the health and financial security of the Arizonans they were elected to represent.

The people of Arizona haven't been shy about letting our Senators know how they feel and why they feel it, but it is time to dial up the pressure. Senators McCain and Flake must understand that they owe it to Arizona families to vote ``no'' on TrumpCare. If they don't, Arizona will hold them accountable.

It is time for my colleagues in the House to put pressure on the Senators in their own States to do the right thing and vote ``no'' on this bill. We owe it to our constituents to stand up for them and make sure that this catastrophic plan never sees the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, I cast a vote in error. On the rollcall Vote No. 184, I had intended to vote in the follow manner: rollcall Vote No. 184--Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017--``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I am going to cut directly to the chase. The Trump-Ryan healthcare bill betrays every single promise Donald Trump made about health care, and does it all for the sake of an enormous tax cut for those who need it least.

The first promise that Donald Trump made to the American people was that everyone would have health insurance. Although the ACA expanded health coverage to more than 20 million Americans, Donald Trump said repeatedly that he didn't think the ACA provided enough people with coverage. He said: ``We're going to have insurance for everybody,'' and ``I'm not going to leave the lower 20 percent that can't afford health insurance.''

What does the Trump-Ryan bill do?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 14 million people would immediately lose coverage next year, and 24 million people would lose coverage by 2027. That is outrageous. But it gets worse.

According to the White House's own estimate, 26 million people, not 24 million people, will lose coverage under the Trump-Ryan bill.

The second promise that Donald Trump made to the American people was that their health insurance would be cheaper. Donald Trump said that his plans would have ``much lower deductibles.''

Secretary Tom Price said last week that under the Trump-Ryan proposal ``nobody will be worse off financially.''

What does the Trump-Ryan bill actually do?

In my home State, Arizonans will get hit hard, very hard. In 2020, under the Trump-Ryan plan, Arizonans will receive on average $3,500 less in subsidies than ObamaCare, meaning they are going to be forced to spend more money out of pocket to continue getting care.

The Trump-Ryan bill will stick it to older Americans. It peels back an ObamaCare rule that protects older people from higher costs. The Trump-Ryan bill green-lights insurance companies to charge older Americans 66 percent more.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a typical, low-income, 64-year-old's out-of-pocket costs would increase from less than $2,000 a year to almost $15,000 a year by 2026. So if you are an older American and you don't like ObamaCare, let me tell you this right now: You are going to hate TrumpCare.

The third promise that Donald Trump made to the American people was that Americans would enjoy better health care. As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ObamaCare was ``horrible health care.'' He promised that ``everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.''

So what does the Trump-Ryan bill do?

Well, if you are lucky enough to still have health insurance under the Trump-Ryan plan, it will provide you even worse coverage. The bill does nothing to increase the quality of your care. It will cut some of the healthcare services you receive now.

In his speech before Congress less than 3 weeks ago, Donald Trump said that ``we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.''

At a time when opiate overdoses kill more Americans than car accidents, we absolutely should be expanding treatment. But what does the Trump-Ryan bill do?

It does the opposite by cutting addiction services and mental health treatment under Medicaid.

Donald Trump's fourth promise to the American was that he would not cut Medicaid. During the Republican presidential primary, he bragged that he was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

What does the Trump-Ryan bill do?

It cuts Medicaid more than it has ever been cut before. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it cuts Medicaid funding by $370 billion over 10 years.

The Trump-Ryan bill will permanently and radically weaken this critical safety net for the working poor. It freezes enrollment in Medicaid and unravels the Medicaid expansion. If you are worried about what this means for you, your family, and your friends, you should be.

Donald Trump is breaking his promise on Medicaid. Will he break his promise on Medicare, too? Will he break his promise on Social Security? Why is Donald Trump breaking promise after promise he made on health care?

The Trump-Ryan bill takes healthcare coverage away from millions of people, it raises deductibles and copays, and provides worse coverage for those who are lucky enough to still be able to afford it.

So what are Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans up to? This bill does a lot of things poorly, but there is one thing, and really only one thing, that this bill does incredibly well. It cuts a whole lot of taxes for the rich.

This Trump-Ryan ``healthcare bill'' includes a whopping $600 billion in tax cuts, almost all for the wealthy. The single biggest tax cut in the bill repeals a 3.8 percent tax on investors who make more than $250,000.

This tax cut will not put a single dollar back in the pocket of any family who makes less than $250,000. But if you are the top one-tenth of 1 percent, which means that you make at least $3.75 million per year, then you will get on average a $165,000 tax cut. This is outrageous.

The Trump-Ryan bill also repeals a nearly 1 percent tax on families making over $250,000. Again, if you are in the top one-tenth of 1 percent, you are going to do great under the Trump-Ryan bill. You will get an average tax cut of over $30,000.

But, if you are in the bottom 90 percent, if you are an average, hardworking American, you will get nothing from this tax cut.

Who are Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans looking out for? If you are an out-of-work steelworker in Youngstown, it is not you. If you are a struggling farmer in rural Alabama, it is not you. If you are working at Target, Walmart, or McDonald's, you are out of luck, too. Heck, even if you are making a decent living as an auto worker or a truck driver, it is not you.

Two nights ago, Donald Trump even admitted this. In an interview on FOX News, Tucker Carlson pointed out to Donald Trump that the rich do a lot better under the Trump-Ryan healthcare bill than working and middle class people, many of whom supported him in this election.

What did Donald Trump say in response? ``Oh, I know.''

Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans are looking out for the richest of the rich. They are putting the pinch to you, hardworking Americans, to give their rich friends and supporters a giant tax break, and they are willing to wreck our healthcare system and take healthcare insurance away from 24 million Americans to do it.

Two years ago, Marco Rubio called out Donald Trump as a con artist. The Trump-Ryan healthcare bill is one big con on the American people.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 20, 2017, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1181. As a combat veteran in the Iraq war, the issues we are debating this afternoon are deeply personal to me.

Veteran suicide has reached crisis levels in this country, and our failure to do more to help veterans in desperate need of mental health care is truly shameful. Unfortunately, Republicans have brought forward a bill today that will make this crisis even worse.

Here is the plain truth. If we allow people with serious mental illnesses to purchase dangerous weapons, we are putting their lives and the lives of their loved ones at risk.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when more veterans are taking their own lives, we should be debating how to get them greater resources and support, not easier access to firearms. At least 10--10--esteemed military leaders, including David Petraeus, Michael Hayden, and Stanley McChrystal all agree. Here is what they wrote in a heartfelt letter to Congress:

``Our Nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran suicide. The bill you are debating comes at a time when an average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of whom do so by buying a firearm.

``We know that nondeployed veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans are at a 41 percent higher risk'' than the American civilian population.

``When vulnerable veterans have access to firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to their family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies is felt in communities across our Nation.

``The VA has submitted over 174,000 names of servicemen and -women who require a fiduciary to manage their benefits and have been determined through clear and convincing evidence to meet the Federal standard for gun prohibition.

``Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals that suffer from schizophrenia, and another 15,000 have severe PTSD.

``For these individuals, possession of a firearm could be fatal.''

They conclude by calling the bill before us today ``irresponsible, dangerous, and life threatening to those who need access to care, not weapons,'' and I couldn't agree more with that.

The question for my Republican friends is a simple one: Do you know more about what is best for our veterans than General Hayden? Do you have a better understanding of what would improve their welfare than General McChrystal? Do you appreciate their needs more acutely than General Petraeus? If the answer is no, then you should vote ``no'' on this bill later today.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation is signed into law, more veterans will take their own lives. That is the tragic reality we face. Please side with General Petraeus and General McChrystal. Side with your conscience and your values. Side with our veterans. Please vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence regarding a summary of the effect of H.R. 1181.

Law Center to

Prevent Gun Violence,

March 10, 2017.

Memorandum

To Interested Parties.

From Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Re Effect of H.R. 1181 (2017): Veterans 2nd Amendment

Protection Act.

Summary

H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, would

mandate that veterans determined to be mentally incompetent

or incapacitated by the Veterans Administration (VA) shall

not be considered to have been ``adjudicated as a mental

defective'' for the purposes of federal firearms law without

a finding by a judge or judicial authority that the veteran

is a danger to self or others.

The VA has reported records to the FBI's National Instant

Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regarding more than

170,000 beneficiaries who were adjudicated as mentally

incompetent under a very different standard. The vast

majority of those incompetency adjudications have been made

(1) without a finding of dangerousness and (2) without the

involvement of a judge or judicial officer.

In short, this bill would drastically change the standard

under which veteran beneficiaries may be considered

``adjudicated'' for the purposes of federal firearms law, and

it provides no express time limitation to ensure that this

new standard would not be applied to VA adjudications that

occurred before enactment of this bill. As a result, there is

significant concern about how this legislation would affect

veterans who have previously been adjudicated as mentally

incompetent by the VA, and who are, as a result, currently

considered subject to federal law's firearm prohibition.

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) states

that once a federal department or agency is aware that, when

the basis under which a record was made available to NICS

does not apply, or no longer applies, a federal agency must

``update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any

database that the agency maintains and makes available to the

Attorney General, in accordance with the rules pertaining to

that database; and (ii) notify the Attorney General that such

basis no longer applies so that the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System is kept up to date.'' A strong

argument could be made that, if H.R. 1181 were to become law,

most beneficiaries who have been found to be mentally

incompetent by the VA could no longer be considered subject

to federal law's firearm prohibition.

Relevant Language

The relevant language of the bill states: ``Notwithstanding

any determination made by the Secretary under section 5501A

of this title, in any case arising out of the administration

by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a

person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally

incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of

consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental

defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of

title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate,

or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that

such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.''

The key phrase is ``in any case arising out of the

administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under

this title.'' This phrase determines the scope of the

individuals that would be affected by this bill. It is not

limited to cases that the Secretary administers subsequent to

the enactment of the bill, but rather is unbounded in time.

This language could therefore be interpreted to apply to any

case arising out of the administration of these laws and

benefits by the Secretary, regardless of when the case

occurred. If the NICS Section of the FBI follows this

interpretation, it may remove records of these individuals

from NICS.

This would have far-reaching impact. Currently, few if any

mental incompetency determinations by the VA are made by a

judge, magistrate, or judicial authority. These

determinations are made my VA examiners who determine, in the

course of processing veterans' benefits claims, that as a

result of as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or

mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a

beneficiary ``lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage

his or her own affairs'' and requires a fiduciary to handle

the disbursement of benefits. Because these beneficiaries

require a fiduciary to handle disbursement of their payments

due to mental incompetence, they are considered to ``lack[]

the mental capacity to . . . manage [their] own affairs . . .

as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental

illness, incompetency, condition, or disease,'' and are

therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm under existing

federal law.

These incompetency determinations may be appealed to the

VA's administrative Board of Veterans Appeals, and then

eventually to federal court, but the federal judges reviewing

the case would be reviewing the VA's finding that the veteran

is mentally incompetent, and would have no basis for

determining whether or not the veteran was ``a danger to

himself or herself or others.'' Determining whether a person

is a danger to self or others is generally outside the

purview of the Veterans Benefits Administration or cases

arising out of the administration of laws regarding veterans'

claims for benefits.

If an incompetent beneficiary seeks relief specifically

from the NICS firearm prohibition, the VA must determine

whether the beneficiary has proven by clear and convincing

evidence that ``he or she is not likely to act in a manner

dangerous to self or others, and the granting of relief is

not contrary to public safety and/or the public interest.''

Essentially, the VA is tasked in these cases with assessing

whether the beneficiary met a substantial burden of proving

non-dangerousness. This does not involve a finding by a

judge, magistrate, or judicial authority. Though veterans may

then appeal an action by the VA denying NICS relief to a

federal district court judge, that judge would be tasked with

reviewing whether the evidence reasonably justified the VA's

determination that the veteran failed to provide clear and

convincing evidence that he or she was not dangerous. It is

not clear even in these rare cases that a judge upholding the

VA's determination would have occasion to make an affirmative

finding that the person was a danger to self or others.

In short, this bill would drastically change the standard

under which veteran beneficiaries may be considered

``adjudicated'' for the purposes of federal firearms law, and

provides no express time limitation to ensure that this new

standard shall not be applied to previous adjudications by

the VA. It could therefore threaten to implicitly require

that NICS lose nearly every prohibiting mental health record

it has ever received from the VA.

Limiting Amendment

In order to avoid the loss of these records in NICS, we

suggest amending the phrase ``in any case arising out of the

administration . . .'' to refer only to cases arising

subsequent to the enactment of this law.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a proud marine on behalf of countless veterans across America whose healthcare options will vanish if House Republicans succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has provided an invaluable safety net for our Nation's veterans, fulfilling critical gaps in coverage within the VA system.

Mr. Speaker, in the first 2 years after the ACA's implementation, the rate of uninsured veterans dropped by an astonishing 43 percent. This was largely due to the fact that, through the ACA's Medicaid expansion, 7 out of 10 previously uninsured veterans became eligible for coverage.

The Republicans' so-called repeal-and-replace plan would slash veterans' options by abandoning our commitment to a more inclusive Medicaid program. Democrats refuse to compromise on care for our Nation's heroes, and we absolutely refuse to compromise in the fight to preserve the lifesaving Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for two roll call votes on Monday, January 30, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted in this manner:

Roll Call Vote No. 66--Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: To remove the sunset provision of section 203 of Public Law 105-384 and for other purposes--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 67--Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended: Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017--YES

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Michael J. Keenan, who is retiring having served the interests of Arizona's working men and women with distinction since the mid-1970s.

Upon graduating from the University of Arizona, Mike attended Georgetown Law School. Not forgetting his working class roots or union family heritage, Mike returned to Arizona to join the union-side law firm then known as Ward and Contreras. Through the years, Mike provided wise counsel to Arizona unions, enabling them to defend the rights of the Arizona workers to fair wages and safe working conditions. He also has represented well various trust funds which provide health insurance and retirement benefits for Arizona union members.

By advancing the interests and protecting the dignity of Arizona union members--often during challenging times--Mike earned a reputation as not only a zealous and highly effective advocate, but also as a highly ethical lawyer. Through his hard work and dedication, Mike immeasurably improved the lives of Arizona working men and women.

It is now time for Mike to enjoy a long retirement with his wife, Becky, his sons Jimmy and Joey, his daughter Katie and his granddaughter Avery. On behalf of our great state's workers, I thank him and wish him all the best.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House owing to the birth of my son and missed roll call votes on Wednesday, January 4th and Thursday, January 5th. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Roll Call Vote No. 7--Motion to Recommit: Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 8--Final Passage: Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017--NO

Roll Call Vote No. 9--Ordering the Previous Question--NO

Roll Call Vote No. No. 10--H. Res. 22, rule providing for consideration of HR 26 and H. Res. 11--NO

Roll Call Vote No. 11--Final Passage: Objecting to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 12--Messer of Indiana Amendment No. 2--NO

Roll Call Vote No. 13--Grijalva of Arizona Amendment No. 3--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 14--Castor of Florida Amendment No. 4--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 15--Cicilline of Rhode Island Amendment No. 5--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 16--Conyers of Michigan Amendment No. 6--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 17--Johnson of Georgia Amendment No. 7--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 18--Nadler of New York Amendment No. 9--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 19--McNerney of California Amendment No. 10--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 20--Scott of Virginia Amendment No. 11--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 21--King of Iowa Amendment No. 12--NO

Roll Call Vote No. 22--Motion to Recommit: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017--YES

Roll Call Vote No. 23--Final Passage: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017--NO