Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act, not opposition to the gold standard, labor union apprenticeship programs.

Updating our national apprenticeship system is an important discussion to have. However, this bill fails to deliver on the goal of strengthening our registered apprenticeship system and expanding earn- and-learn opportunities for Americans across the Nation.

Our country's workforce is facing a unique crisis, and we must ensure that our apprenticeship programs, the system is expanding in the process. The apprenticeship system is up to the task to meet the needs of our evolving workforce only as we move it forward.

For instance, the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted that connectivity and the digital world are an integral part of our daily lives. Developing a high-skilled workforce is critical as we seek to expand technologies like broadband and 5G to underserved areas across the country, including my own district in Michigan.

New research indicates winning the global race to 5G will create up to 4.6 million jobs and contribute $1.7 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next decade. However, unless the U.S. has a large enough and properly trained workforce, we will not be able to fully reap the economic and technological benefits of 5G.

Apprenticeships are a proven solution for meeting workforce needs, especially in wireless technologies. Congress and the Department of Labor should be laser focused on encouraging and incentivizing apprenticeships for 5G and advanced wireless deployment.

Unfortunately, the bill we are considering would hinder the flexibility of employers to create earn-and-learn programs to teach job seekers the skills they need to build out and deploy the 5G and wireless infrastructure America so desperately needs.

For these reasons, I must oppose and encourage all others to oppose H.R. 447, and urge my colleagues to work on a bipartisan solution that will empower workers and employers to create apprenticeships that are responsive to our modern economy.

Madam Speaker, in the midst of these hard times, we are especially grateful for the healthcare and frontline workers who have bravely answered the call. Thankfully, we see glimmers of hope with the discovery and distribution of multiple vaccines.

Yet, sadly, here in Congress, Democrats are using the pretense of COVID relief to ignore bipartisan consensus and push a $2 trillion liberal wish list of unrelated provisions. Let's not forget the most recent targeted COVID relief bill was signed into law only 1 month ago, and together with previously enacted stimulus laws, over $1 trillion remain unspent.

Back home in Michigan, Governor Whitmer continues to go it alone, imposing punitive and arbitrary restrictions that have harmed too many small businesses and hardworking families.

It is time to work together to end this pandemic and help our constituents get back on their feet. Let's get students back in the classroom, vaccines distributed, and workers back on the job.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amount thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact here of striking the last word. I rise in opposition to amendment 36, which was en bloc.

Despite the description of this amendment, it would actually reduce broadband competition, if adopted, with tremendous negatives for my district and many others.

It also frustrates broadband deployment, an important thing right now.

By requiring network sharing in multi-tenant buildings, there is less of an incentive for network operators to build out or make upgrades to their networks.

More importantly, nothing in the FCC's order that is the subject of this amendment would prevent State and local efforts from increasing access to multi-tenant environments. Rather, the Commission would clarify that those efforts should be consistent with Federal policy.

This amendment also raises safety concerns. Technicians from varying broadband providers would be required to service the same facilities in a shared setting, and this could lead to unknown or unsafe environments for these workers.

This amendment could also disincentivize build-out.

This amendment would prevent the preemption of an outlier San Francisco ordinance which requires the sharing of in-use wiring in apartment complexes, office buildings, and other similar buildings between providers.

For years, the FCC has been promoting facility-based competition to bring broadband to unserved Americans. Meanwhile, the Commission has forborne from the vast majority of the legacy competitive carrier provisions of the Communications Act because they did not work. We shouldn't be trying to re-create them on a local level.

Madam Chair, I rise having an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an important issue: preserving veterans' choices over their prosthetic services.

While I am prepared to withdraw this amendment--we have had discussions about that--I would hope that I can continue to work with the chairwoman as we move to conference on improving the underlaying report language.

Last year, the VA released a draft proposed rule which would have significantly curtailed veterans' choices in how they receive their prosthetic or orthotic care.

While we appreciate the Secretary's efforts to address the concerns of the veterans, I remain concerned that the proposal does not go far enough to protect veterans' ability to select high-quality, convenient, and efficient services from community-based providers of their choice.

This proposal would have upended more than 60 years of successful partnership between the VA and local prosthetists who contract with the VA and have long-term relationships with their patients. This long-term relationship is critical for the unique, patient-centered care needs of prosthetics services.

I would also like to thank my colleague, Representative Rutherford, for working on this issue with me.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) to at least assure me that we can continue to work on this issue together.

Madam Chair, based upon that and, also, an understanding of the chairwoman's willingness to at least look at how we can find an adequate solution to meet the needs of our servicemembers who have given their all for our great country, I am willing to continue working on that.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I am willing to withdraw this amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to support my bipartisan amendment that would help provide critical protections for all Americans and their right to due process under the Constitution.

My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for adoptive seizures. These forfeiture options provide a loophole that helps local law enforcement evade stricter State laws, like my own in Michigan, governing civil asset forfeiture by seizing property and transferring it to Federal authorities in exchange for up to 80 percent of forfeiture proceeds.

For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan way to shine a light on civil asset forfeiture abuses.

In Michigan, Terry Dekho isn't a household name, but his story serves as a cautionary tale. Terry was a small grocer who had tens of thousands of dollars seized by the IRS without any criminal charges filed against him. He was a law-abiding citizen, in fact, and he had to fight in court to get his hard-earned savings back.

The Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund contains proceeds from equitable sharing agreements between the Federal Government and local law enforcement. These arrangements create perverse incentives to seek out forfeiture opportunities, and it is used to circumvent State- enacted civil forfeiture reforms, again, like those that have been enacted in Michigan.

What is worse is that civil asset forfeiture disproportionately affects minorities and individuals who cannot afford to represent themselves.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Raskin, McClintock, Rush, Amash, Cardenas, and Gabbard, for their support on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments of my good friend and colleague from Alabama. We are not attempting to take away civil asset forfeiture as a tool. We are simply saying that due process ought to be carried out in every part of our judicial process and our law enforcement process.

We are talking about people here--for instance, Terry Dekho, who was informed by his insurance company that they would not insure any assets at his grocery beyond $10,000. Each day, he took in his $10,000 or less, whatever it was, and it made a pattern. Ultimately, $35,000 of his hard-earned assets were frozen. For a small grocer, $35,000 is life or death for his business.

All we are asking is for due process to be followed. Attorney General Holder, I think, saw the error of our ways when he reversed and made revisions that, ultimately, Attorney General Sessions reversed as well.

I think we need to go back. We still have the opportunity to use the process but use it with due process. That is all I ask.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3253, which takes several important steps to strengthen the Medicaid program; and I thank my friends and colleagues, Representatives Dingell and Guthrie, for this legislation.

I am especially pleased that the bill includes a piece of bipartisan legislation I authored, along with my colleague from Vermont, Congressman Welch.

Our legislation broadens the authority of Medicaid Fraud Control Units to better protect the most vulnerable and bring bad actors to justice.

Medicaid Fraud Control Units are charged with investigating and prosecuting State Medicaid provider fraud and resident abuse complaints in Medicaid-funded healthcare facilities. Nationally, these units contributed to 2,500 convictions and $1.8 billion in recovered funds in 2017 alone. They are a vital instrument of justice for protecting Medicaid beneficiaries from abuse.

However, current law prevents these units from investigating cases of patient abuse in noninstitutional settings, such as home-based care. It doesn't make sense.

Our committee has heard from States that have had to turn a blind eye to cases of abuse simply because the abuse occurred in a noninstitutional setting. This arbitrary restriction simply does not make sense.

There has been substantial growth in home and community-based services

since the initial statute was enacted decades ago. It is time that we update the law so we are not needlessly tying the hands of those who are charged with protecting the most vulnerable. Our legislation will empower attorneys general to expand the scope of their States' fraud units so they can combat patient abuse wherever it might occur.

This reform has broad bipartisan support from AGs in red States and blue States. It is just common sense, and it will help better serve those in need.

Once again, I thank my colleagues on the great Energy and Commerce Committee for their bipartisan collaboration. I encourage passage of

Madam Chair, I rise today to support my amendment, which would prohibit taxpayer money from going directly to the Taliban.

According to recent news stories, the Defense Department asked Congress for

funding that could be used to reimburse the Taliban for transportation and other expenses. That is quite simply absurd.

For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan way to shine a light on how American tax dollars are being misspent in Afghanistan. There have been a number of oversight reports conducted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that highlight how these programs have been mismanaged and poorly run for years.

The SIGAR has identified a disturbing amount of waste, fraud, and abuse totaling in the billions of dollars. This level of wasteful spending is staggering, yet we continued pouring money down the drain anyway. But sending taxpayer dollars straight to the Taliban, despite the price paid by men and women in uniform, is the ultimate insult.

We owe it to the taxpayers to not waste any more of their money.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my friend and colleague from Virginia and his concern about this issue, I have to oppose the amendment because it would prevent the administration from continuing its important work to finalize proposed rules to examine the exposure limits for beryllium in construction and shipyard industries.

Mr. Chairman, regulations to protect worker health are vital and necessary; however, all voices should be heard through proper notice and comment period. Unfortunately, in the last days of the previous administration, OSHA expanded its 2017 final rule without allowing for proper notice and comment from many impacted industries.

The public comment period is an essential part of upholding our democratic values because it ensures that Americans will have their voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process. People need to have the confidence that Federal agencies are open to their insights and constructive criticism and that their concerns will not be circumvented at the last minute.

So I encourage Members to oppose this amendment and allow OSHA to get back to work to issue a regulation that has undergone the proper review and protects the health of workers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Comer.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding, and I thank him for his work.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act.

I would like to thank Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady for their leadership on this important piece of legislation.

For families in my district, putting away enough money for retirement is a constant struggle. Now more than ever, we need policies that empower workers to save more and save earlier for retirement.

I am pleased this legislation includes a provision I coauthored with my colleague from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester). Our bipartisan provision clarifies rules surrounding annuity plans, making it possible for more employers to provide guaranteed lifetime income products as part of their benefits package. Our goal is to remove barriers to saving and give workers a variety of tools so they can choose what option best fits their needs.

Madam Speaker, we have a retirement income crisis in this country, and the SECURE Act will help more Americans retire with dignity and piece of mind. I urge its passage today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 987, and I truly lament the fact that the other side is once again, under their leadership's direction, trying to score political points instead of truly solving problems.

Republicans and Democrats agree on the need to tackle out-of-control prescription drug costs. It is an issue that touches all of our districts. People are struggling and in need of relief.

All of the names mentioned today, the illustrations, from the Speaker of the House on to my colleagues, names that were mentioned of people who are hurting and need relief from drug costs, are being let down by the Democrat leadership today.

Up until today, we have been working together on solutions. On the Energy and Commerce Committee on which I sit, as well, we passed three drug pricing bills with overwhelming bipartisan support: The CREATES Act, the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act, and the Bringing Low-cost Options and Competition while

Keeping Incentives for New Generics Act. These bills would foster greater competition and help bring generic drugs to market as soon as possible and at more affordable prices.

Once again, they all had bipartisan support. They were bills that were good bills.

Unfortunately, the Democrats turned this bipartisan issue into a political football by adding several partisan provisions to this bill package, and they let down everyone that they have talked about today who needs affordable prescription drugs. They are costly provisions that bail out failed ObamaCare programs and strip away affordable healthcare options for families.

The Democrats also rejected a number of commonsense amendments, including one I offered to protect expanded access to association health plans. These association health plans give more affordable options to workers and small businesses to purchase healthcare that fits their needs. We should be encouraging these options, not removing them.

But most of all, today should be a moment of bipartisanship, a moment of meaningful results. We had an opportunity to get something done today on behalf of our constituents who are struggling with skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Instead, politics got in the way and we missed that opportunity.

The American people deserve better than that, and I think most of us are better than that. We stand ready to work on lowering prescription drug costs.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will talk to their leadership and put politics aside and join us in that effort. I believe we and they are better than that and that, by standing up to leadership that wants to make it political, if they do that, we can get this done. I stand ready to work.

I hate to do this, Mr. Chairman. I want to keep talking about this and get a solution, but my time is up.

Mr. Chair, I thank the lead Republican for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 986. I would give its titled name, but it is yet another misleading effort that has nothing to do with the title of the bill.

House Republicans fully support protections--and I will make it clear--for patients with preexisting conditions.

I know that my Democratic colleagues and friends want to continue using the mantra that works so well politically without fact, truth, or reality during the election. We have gone beyond that now.

Republicans support protections for patients with preexisting conditions. These patients deserve peace of mind and safeguards from being treated unfairly. That has always been a priority of ours, and it will continue to be, but that is not what the bill before us today would do.

H.R. 986 can be summed up in 3 words: Washington knows best. The bill eliminates flexibility at the State level, taking away options for States

to innovate and bring down healthcare premiums.

The high and rising cost of healthcare is a significant concern for patients and families in my district. We need to focus on solutions, not politics. We need to focus on solutions to provide relief from increasing costs, encourage choice and competition, expand access to quality care, and maintain--and I will make it very clear here again-- important protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

We have the ideas to do that. We have the amendments that would put that forward and make this bill something important to people with preexisting conditions, but that is not being allowed today.

Let's stop playing political games with a bill title and a title like this and, instead, focus on patient-centered solutions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. David L. McKenna, a legendary leader in Christian higher education, as he celebrates his 90th birthday during the month of May 2019.

Born in Michigan, Dr. McKenna received an education at Spring Arbor College, Western Michigan University, and Asbury Theological Seminary, culminating with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.

Dr. McKenna served as the President of Spring Arbor College (now university), a respected Christian college in my district, from 1961 to 1968. He led the transformation of Spring Arbor from a two-year college to a baccalaureate institution and years later served as the Chairman of the Board when it became Spring Arbor University.

He went on from Spring Arbor to serve as President of Seattle Pacific University from 1968 to 1982 and as President of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky from 1982 to 1994, completing a remarkable 33 years of presidential leadership in higher education.

Dr. McKenna and his wife, Janet, now live in Kirkland, Washington, where they remain active and continue to positively impact people's lives. For many years, he has been a prolific author, continuing to publish at least one book per year.

I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in wishing Dr. David L. McKenna a happy 90th birthday, and in expressing best wishes for future blessings.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 9, more appropriately named the U.S. energy disadvantage act.

The bill attempts to lock us into a bad deal. While the United States is continuing to lower its emissions and to lead the world through technological innovation, other countries around the world are not meeting even their targets. Some aren't making targets. Those countries came up with targets on their own, and they still aren't living up to them.

Staying in the Paris Agreement would raise energy prices and slow economic growth without curbing emissions in a meaningful, global fashion.

Mr. Chair, we are not the ones who are polluting the air and the water. We are cleaning it up. We are doing it as a result of doing the right thing. Yet, Mr. Chair, today, the ones that are polluting greatest are doing nothing other than just being told to think up something by 2030.

Mr. Chair, our President did the right thing. We should do the same. We need

to get to work on legislating, not political messaging.

The American people sent us here to work on solutions to healthcare, infrastructure, education, the economy, and much more. Let's get to work on that, and let's encourage the nations of the world to do the right thing and get involved in doing what the United States has done already and, by the way, will continue to do.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill. We all should.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1644. I believe, if we use words appropriately, that should be named the ``Regain Big Government Control of the Internet Act.''

Thankfully, after 2015, we only had a short time of what was so- called net neutrality, which are words that sound good but aren't true. It was Big Government takeover of net neutrality, and this bill opens the door to disastrous effects like that on getting broadband into rural America, where I live.

I still don't have broadband. In 2015, under the so-called net neutrality, we saw that broadband build-out stop. I am still looking forward to it someday. So this bill would take us backwards, not forwards.

It is clear that the bill also could have several unintended consequences which are completely at odds with the authors' intended outcomes.

Instead of doubling down on the light-touch framework which has resulted in the widespread success of the internet, Mr. Chair, my colleagues seem more interested in imposing more and bigger government regulation.

The bill only forbears from what the FCC claims it forbore from, not what it can forbear from through the backdoor of sections 201 and 202.

Instead of letting the markets work under a framework which still robustly protects consumers, this bill would inject even more uncertainty into the market. It seems that, instead of locking in protections for consumers, the only thing it is really locking in is more partisanship.

I urge my colleagues to work with Republicans on bipartisan legislation that protects consumers and promotes broadband deployment in rural America, the place I live and the place I lack broadband now and, with the continued effort to have Big Government control, I probably will still lack.

It is time to change that, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1644, the ``Regain Big Government Control of the Internet Act.''