we didn't know that before. they can figure out which one will work for you or me or whomever. i hope we lifted the stigma on people needing mental service. we're just a big bag of chemicals and things get out of balance. i hope we've lifted that, as we did, i believe, on addiction. there are a lot of people, over time people evolve their views and get better understandings. i think over time we realized that people with drug addictions, especially this came out through our opioids work, they weren't necessarily criminals. they weren't to be shunned from society. with we learned in the course of our work on opioids, i talked to parents whose kids were high school football injury, the doc gives them a painkiller, and this stuff is so addictive and a few treatments and they're hooked. then they need more and more. i always remember my friend, mr. rush, from the chicago area. when we were talking about treatment for opioids, said that's great. you're doing that. the people i represent, represented had issues in terms of crack cocaine and all you just tchamed drugies and put them in prison. that affected what we wrote and how we legislated. we moved away from calling it treatment for opioids to people with substance abuse because we realize wed needed to think roader as a country and as a congress. now it's a law to deal with opioids and mental health services. mr. chairman, i don't have objection to this amendment. but there's a lot we have done, a lot more we need to do. i'll talk about some of the things we need to do going forward. but i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 116-51. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: i have an amendment at the many areas of the country higher monthly premiums. for example, a 60-year-old company living in grand island, nebraska, making $60,000 a year will need to pay over $3,000 a month for the lowest cost silver plan available. that's almost $38,000 a year for a plan with an $11,100 deductible. now, think about that, mr. chairman. his is a couple that is making $70,000 a year, they're 60 years old, they live in nebraska, $3,000 a month in premium. and -- over $3,000. and $11,000 deductible. that's over $48,000 and they only make $70,000 a year. this is happening in america today. heck, it's happening in nebraska right now. and so what we're saying is, people are walking away. she goes on to say, for millions of americans, coverage this expenseive is not a realistic option, many choose to go without coverage. in fact, after average premiums rose by 21%, $1 -- 1.3 million unsubsidized people walked away from the market in 2017. those are the people we need to be helping, there's a lot more we need to be doing. i'll put the i'll put the rest in the record. everybody knows we're trying to make the most of this amendment, i withdraw it. the chair: is there objection? >> yes. the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i ask to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden sfok clarify, parliamentary standpoint, am i being recognized on the objection to my unanimous consent -- i was going to withdraw the amendment. but if he wants to speak on it, we can do it after he speaks or whatever you want to do. i'll reserve, mr. chairman, at this time. the chair: the gentleman vembs. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. > mr. chairman, i -- you know, us disturbs me that my colleague on the other side who i greatly respect keeps mentioning this letter from the c.m.s. administrator. mr. pallone: nothing she says in her letter is in any way going to change the guidance that she and the trump administration have put forward that would undermine people with pre-existing conditions' ability to get good insurance if this guidance is allowed to continue and states get waivers pursuant to the guidance. because again, the issue of affordability, you see the problem is that the 1332 waiver the way they're set out in the a.c.a. have certain guardrails if you will, to prevent waivers that would allow for junk insurance and other policies that would undermine people with pre-existing conditions from getting good insurance. those guardrails say that any kind of waiver has to guarantee affordability, these guarantee crompe hencive coverage, the essential benefits package rork bust coverage, and also not reduce the number of people that are insured. than guidance that she and the trump administration have put forward does exactly the opposite. because it allows insurance to be sold, a state seeks to do so, that would eliminate, for example, hospitalization. or eliminate mental health coverage. or eliminate coverage for maternity care. now if you're someone with pre-existing conditions and they eliminate coverage for your pre-existing condition that relates to your pre-existing condition, you might as well not even have insurance. that's what i e-- that's why we say it's junk. it lets you drn it lets a waiver be granted that would allow the states to -- or the insurance company in the united states to charge more based on age, based on sex. the list goes on. so she can send out all the let shers wants but it doesn't mean anything. i'd like to say, one of the things that disturbs me most also is, we on the democratic side, myself and some of the other chairmen of some of the other committee we sent a letter and a request because it's been pointed out repeatedly that she's been putting out contracts up to $4 million a year to basically promote herself. that's being investigated right now as we speak. again, i don't like to say bad things about people but the bottom line is, she's in no position to be telling us what's in this guidance. this guidance is going to hurt people with pre-existing conditions and there's no way she's going to get around it. i would reserve myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: well, thank you, mr. chairman. i would just suggest that eit was the head of c.m.s. that issued the guidance so i think she is in a position to have a say about what she believes the guidance allows or doesn't. and to be clear, to quote her letter again, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode ppaca's pre-existing conditions. that's what she's saying. thing letter is important. she put in it writing. she said that repeatedly. and so i take her at her word. i do. now, mr. chairman, i was willing to withdraw the amendment but that takes unanimous consent and i just would attempt to do that again. i don't know if my colleague cares about that or not. mr. pallone: no objection. mr. walden: so we can move on to other amendments i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman yields. the chair understands that amendment number 6 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 116-51. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. holding: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in part a of house report 116-51, offered by mr. holding of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: i believe my amendment speaks for itself. my friends on the other side of the aisle are playing political games with their bill trying to convince the american people that it would accomplish something that it would not. and i have offered a title that accurately reflects the political grandstanding of my democrat friends are effecting today. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: i'd like to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i rise in opposition to the amendment, mr. chairman. you know, just to back up what i said previously about the implications for this trump administration and the guidance that they've put forward with troord 1332. i wanted to read a section from a letter that was sent by 23 patient and consumer advocacy organizations in support of h.r. 986, the bill that's before us. and these organizations, you know, include the heart association, lung association, the epilepsy foundation, etc. and they state -- this goes back to the guardrails. as i said, under 1332 in the a.c.a., there are guardrails that say that any waivers have to guarantee affordability, have to guarantee comprehensiveness of coverage, and have to at the same time not reduce the number of people with insurance. and nothing that saema vena or anything being suggested on the other side is suggesting that those principles wouldn't be violated. in fact they would be violated. that's what these 23 patient and consumer advocate organizations say about the trump guidance waiver. i quote. this gross misinterpretation of the guardrails will have real consequences for patients steering people into substandard coverage such as short-term limited duration plans which often do not cover the full range of benefits and services that patients relie on to manage their conditions. further policies that could be implemented under this new interpretation could fundamentally alter the risk pool for state's individual marketplace, making comprehensive coverage unaffordable for patients who rely on it and jeopardizing the reliability of the state's marketplace. the resulting lack of access to care could have devastating short and long-term consequencers in millions of patients we represent. the bottom line is this is going to dramatically hurt people with pre-existing conditions as they try to buy insurance that will cover the maladies that they want to cover. and they need to have covered. so you know, again, i don't understand, mr. holding and previously mr. walden have these amendments that really have nothing substantive to say. all they do is talking about changing the title because they're trying to ridicule what democrats are trying to do here which is to guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions are protected. and you know, i don't want to get upset but i think that it's kind of inappropriate when here we are trying to guarantee people with pre-existing conditions that they're protected, even the republicans on the other side are saying that's important to them, and instead of having a serious debate about this, they have -- they put forward amendments that change the title to ridicule what we're trying to do. it's just unfortunate that we're at that point now but that's where we are so with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. holding: i yield to the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i thank the gentleman. i just want to say, i too wish we were debating my legislation that i tried to offer the first of the congress, was refused the opportunity to bring it to the floor. that would lock into statute pre-existing protections for people who have pre-existing conditions. this court case is pending. we could get a ruling tomorrow. somewhere in the last couple of months, congress could have acted to put in statute a separate law that would be there irrespective of the decision of the judge or judges, as it goes through its process, that could wipe out all of the a.c.a., could wipe out pre-existing protections, pre-existing condition protections. we could do that except your committee on rules put these amendments in order to debate on the floor, but not the amendment that actually protects people with pre-existing conditions. so it's not my fault, we don't control the rules committee, that my serious amendment about protecting people with pre-existing conditions was not made in order. i don't control the rules committee. the speaker does and others. and when you talk about affordability, remember, the example that is pointed out, grand island, nebraska, a couple making $60,000 a year, 60 years old, $38,000 for the plan and an $11,000 deductible. how is that affordable? it's not. i want our states to innovate. if a state doesn't want to innovate, it doesn't have to. and if they violate the rules, they're not going to get their waiver. but what we do know is when states have innovated, like mine, like yours, wisconsin, alaska, they've seen reductions in premiums and full-throated coverage. i want innovation. i don't want to price people out of the market. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: this bill, madam chairman, before us today, makes no structural changes to improve access to or delivery of care. it would limit health care choices, stifle state-level innovation that has proven to lower premiums. this bill does not help those with pre-existing conditions, but it does attempt to confuse them and encourage more political dysfunction to the detriment of the american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam chair. you know, my colleagues on the other side started out this debate on these amendments by, you know, basically saying they want to substitute the title rather than talking about the substance. now my colleague, the ranking member, starts talking about the lawsuit that would, i think he's talking about the lawsuit that would repeal the affordable care act. again, my colleagues on the other side are not looking to protect people with pre-existing can bes -- conditions. they're not looking to protect anybody because now they're saying that it's a good idea to repeal the affordable care act. so we're back to the basic debate about whether or not we should have the affordable care act, which until president trump came along and started sabotaging the bill, it was up to covering 95% of americans, an all-time high in the history of this country. so, ok. that's fine. now we're going to say that you want to repeal the affordable care act once again. this is what this is all about on their side of the aisle. repeal the act, move to court to try to get the courts to declare the act unconstitutional. no effort to worry about the millions and millions of americans who have gotten coverage because of the affordable care act. so, i really don't know what else i can say at this point. but at least they revealed their true motive, which is to imply repeal the whole bill. once again, i guess there's not much to say here other than to say that i would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and let's get back to talking about the substance of the bill that's before us, which would guarantee that there are protections for people with pre-existing conditions. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. n the opinion of the chair, -- mr. pallone: madam chair, i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new jersey requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in 116-51.f house report for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. porter: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 116-51 offered by ms. porter of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 357, the gentlewoman from california, ms. porter, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. porter: i rise today to offer an amendment to the protecting americans with pre-existing conditions act. this bill would prevent the trump administration from allowing states to use waivers to provide junk health plans that reduce coverage and decrease cost sharing provisions. in the affordable care act, section 1332 waivers were created to provide states flexibility to implement innovative plans that would expand coverage, reduce costs, and provide more comprehensive benefits. our states can be incubators for opportunity and these waivers allow them the opportunity to improve access to affordable, quality services in groundbreaking ways. but last year the trump administration released guidance that would allow states to use these waivers to take care away from the individuals who need it most. and that is unacceptable. because of the affordable care ct, 3,826,000 californians have gained health coverage. and in my home district, the 45th district of california, more than 338,000 people have a pre-existing condition. many of whom gained coverage or received more affordable coverage because of new protections established under the affordable care act. this sunday is mother's day. having given birth, being a mother, is a pre-existing condition. a factor that used to contribute to higher insurance costs for most of the women we will celebrate this weekend. we can't go back to the days when being a woman was enough to let an insurance company charge you more for basic health care. my amendment will prohibit the administration from issuing any waivers that would let states craft health care plans that would reduce the number of individuals enrolled in comprehensive plans that are compliant with our country's current health care laws. this bill preserves waivers that provide states with flexibility. this bill encourages states to provide innovative plans. but what this bill does is just make sure that those waivers can be used for their original intent. expanding care and decreasing costs. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: madam chair, i seek time in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to point out a couple of things. one, i've introduced legislation to protect people with pre-existing conditions. i did that because i knew this lawsuit is pending. so we can argue about the a.c.a. and the lawsuit and all that, but the long and short of it is the court rules and the a.c.a. gets thrown out because it's unconstitutional, which may happen, people with pre-existing conditions would be exposed. i don't want that to happen. that's why introduced legislation -- i introduced legislation. i would be honored if we could take up that in the commerce committee and put it on the house floor. i tried to bring it here as an amendment. it was denied by the democrat majority. so we couldn't even have the debate here about it. if it's not everything it should be, then i'm happy to work with people to try and make it as durable and robust as it needs to be. so that's one. hen we talk about insurance, there's kind of silence on the other side, that 2 1/2 million americans since president trump have gotten health care insurance through their employer. because we have one of the most robust economies most americans have ever seen. 3.2% i think g.d.p. growth in the first quarter. some said, oh, you need fairy dust to do that. that's not true. you need good economic policy. we have that in america. lowest unemployment for african-americans, hispanic americans, all americans. incredible numbers, credible growth. as a result people are getting off the government subsidized health care or fully funded health care onto private health insurance, which democrats want to wipe out. 158 million americans get their health insurance through their employer or through their union. and when it comes to the affordable care act, that's what put in place the big cuts that are coming to our hospitals, the dish cuts that i held off as chairman of the energy and commerce committee. we passed legislation to prevent the dish cuts from hitting our disproportionate share of hospitals, those that deal with more lower income folks. we're going to have to do that again. because obamacare says you got to hit your hospital with a big cost increase, if you will, or take away a subsidy. cadillac tax. i've met with building trade folks in my state. these people bargained away potentially wages for better benefits. and then along comes obamacare, affordable care act, quote-unquote, that says, oh, by the way, if you got too generous a plan, according to the government, you're going to have to pay a 40% tax on that plan. and by the way, it was never indexed for inflation and guess what, health care costs continue to go up, premiums go up, more and more americans' health insurance will fall into this cadillac tax. there will be a 40% tax on those plans that working men and women who are part of a union or in private sector, they have good, generous health care benefits and the federal government, the democrat-driven plan that was totally partisan passed, it's going to say, we're going to whack you with a 40% tax. how fair is that, madam chair? how fair is that? i don't think it is. we've kept that tax from taking effect as republicans. we'll see what this congress does. moreover, we fully funded our community health centers. we, under republicans, fubbleded the children's health insurance -- funded the children's health insurance program, a republican creation, for deafpblgt i led that effort -- for a decade. i led that effort. most democrats voted against funding children's health insurance. time and time again. it had never been funded for more than five years. ever in its history. 122,700 oregonian kids and pregnant moms, kids and pregnant moms, get their health insurance through chip. it's a marvelous program. republicans led the effort. because i did it. we first tried to get it five and then six and then eventually we got 10 years funded. that's locked into law. locked into law. we need to go back and fund our community health centers. if i were chairman, my palms would be getting a little sweaty now at the list of things we need to get done. i'm looking at my friends. in oregon, my district, i think we have 63 delivery sites, 12 community health centers. we fully funded those centers at a record level in the last congress because i believe fully in that network, delivery of health care. it's extraordinarily important. so we should be doing that today. but we're not. we've got national health service corps, special diabetes programs for indians, special diabetes programs for type one diabetes, teaching health centers, personal responsibility education program, sexual risk avoidance information grants, we have demo programs to increase access to dental health care services, we have protection for recipients of spousal impoverishment, we have demonstration of community behavioral health clinics, delayed an effective date for medicaid, dish allotment and money follows the person, all those expired at the end of this fiss -- expire at the end of if this fiscal year. we have real work we need to get done, madam chair. i yield back. ms. porter: i yield one minute to the distinguished speaker. the chair: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank her for her constructive amendment and her leadership as a leading member of an outstanding freshman class. thank you, congresswoman porter, for your exceptional leadership. and you, mr. pallone, chairman of the full committee, thank you forgiving us the opportunity to bring to the floor historic legislation that will make a tremendous difference in the lives of the american people. . today with today with the protecting americans with pre-existing conditions act are honoring a promise to the american people. as you know, mr. chairman, and congresswoman porter, our democratic majority ran on the promise to protect america's families' quality, affordable health care. we have now voted three times to oppose g.o.p. health care lawsuit but every time, with every vote, house republicans reveal their inconsistency and complicity in the administration's assault on people with pre-existing conditions and every american's health care. it's interesting to let the members of the committee express their view the fact is, 2002 years ago, house republicans voted to gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions and take away millions of fam lice health care and then threw a party to celebrate. went down to the white house and celebrated. taking away the pre-existing condition benefit. the american people resoundingly rejected the republican's attack on their health care and the financial security and yet the g.o.p. powered full steam ahead with their monstrous campaign to sabotage the affordable care act and take away health care. just last week, the administration doubled down on its demand that the courts throw out every protection and benefit provided by the affordable care act. again, other and over, we have had bills on the floor to invite the republicans to join us in rejecting that republican attack and overwhelmingly they have rejected that. so today again we can celebrate that we are protecting americans with pre-existing conditions and honoring that promise we need to the american people, as i said. the bill reverses a dangerous part of the trump administration's reckless sabotage of -- sabotage campaign blocking cynical guidance that invites states. here's what they do dismantle protections for people with pre-existing conditions and push families into junk plans that discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions and do not cover essential benefits. you're paying for nothing. the trump guidance puts lives on the line, not only sabotaging the health care laws but the health of millions of americans who rely on it. nearly 30 national groups representing people with pre-existing conditions have spoken out, including the american cancer society, cancer action network, the american heart association, american diabetes association, american lung association, national alliance on mental health. susan g. komen, and many more. they write, dangerous action could take us back to the days when people with pre-existing conditions were openly discriminated against and blatantly denied access to life-saving care. hese organizations , ranking member, they said, just wanted you to hear because you seem to have been driis tracted, all these organizations, cancer, diabetes, heart, lung, mental health, all of that they write of what you're doing this dangerous action could take us back to the days when people with pre-existing conditions were openly discriminated against and blatantly denid access to life-saving care. we thank all the groups and families including the sick little children, the little lobbyists, their courage to speak out and show that this is a fight not just about legislation, about lives. nothing is more eloquent than the stories they tell, and many have told their stories here. they had 10,000 events around the country to stop the republican's sabotage on health care, much of it from people with pre-existing conditions. especially children. born with pre-existing conditions. this bill that we have today is just the beginning. in the coming weeks, house democrats will bring forward more bold legislation to reduce the price of prescription drugs, to empower states to build better exchange, and to block junk plans reand verse the g. pomplet's enrollment sabotage. senator mcconnell says he's the grim reaper he wears that as a badge of honor. these grim reaper. he's going to kill any house legislation for the people. saying he wilburry our bills in the senate graveyard, effectively. that's really not a very hopeful political agenda, the grim reaper. but i have news for him. legislation to protect the me existing conditions benefit mand of the other pieces of this agenda are alive and well among the american people and they will make their voices heard. the american people want action and the special interest g.o.p. senate needs to stop standing in their way, leader mcconnell. i urge a strong vote for the legislation for the people, commend the gentlelady for her very important amendment about -- she said being a mom is a pre-existing condition, as the mother of five and -- in six year, to the day, when i talked to the insurance company about my bad back they said why do we even insure you, you're a poor risk, have had children. i said i thought that was funny, i thought it was a show of strength on my part to have five children and you're calling that something that would be a barrier to getting insurance? i want to emphasize as we approach mother's day how important this particular amendment to help moms and their families is. on this a yes vote important mother's day amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from alifornia is recognized. miss porter: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. o -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number nine eprinted in part a of house report 116-51. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. pappas: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 116-51, offered by mr. pappas of new hampshire. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. pappas -- mr. pappas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. pappas: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank my colleague from new hampshire, representative kuster, for offering this legislation which will safeguard health care protectioners in 130 million americans with pre-existing conditions. the amendment i'm offering today would ensure we don't take any steps backward now fight against this nation's opioid epidemic. for people in my home state of new hampshire, the affordable care act is a life-saving lausm it's the best tool we have to combat the opioid crisis. as i travel around my district irk hear heartbreaking store roifs those lost and those still fighting hard. i also hear from constituents who, on a regular basis, can't fathom where they'd be without coverage for their substance use disorder. i'm here today on behalf of constituents like phil from laco nambings. as phil fought to recover from substance use disorder, he took comfort in knowing he could rely on coverage that was affordable and accessible to him in the midst of the greatest medical challenge of his life. thanks to the affordable care act, he's gone from jail to treatment and recovery, to serving as a leader in the recovery community, coaching and advocating for these grappling with addiction. new hampshire is incredibly proud of his story and it's all possible because of the a.c.a. and its basic protections. the collective impact has expanded treatment and recovery opportunities in new hampshire and adelose country. unfortunately, far too many still do not access this care. we still lose 130 americans each and every day in their battle with opioid addiction. the scope of this crisis is simply immense. no region no community, no family has been spared. despite the alarming statistics, the administration issued guidance that would allow insurance companies to discriminate against americans with pre-existing conditions, including the 19.7 million americans like phil work a history of substance use. that's why i'm offering this amendment today, to strengthen the underlying legislation and prohibit further actions to reduce availability or affordability for those battling substance use diss order. we should be working together to open the doors to those moast in need, not shutting them because of politics. i urge adoption of this amendment and reserve tpwhreans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: i seek time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. pappas: thank you, madam chair. i'm willing to close the gentleman from oregon, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i believe i get to close, don't i? the chair: the gentleman from yeerg has the right to close. mr. walden: that's what i thought, so i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. pappas: thank you, madam chair. that is a critical issue, this is an important piece olegislation and i for one don't trust this administration to get it right. they tried every trick they can in the book to repeal the affordable care act outright legislatively and they've gone to the courts to take away critical protections from americans who need them most. i for one am not going to stand for it. the people of new hampshire and this country are ensuring that we get this right for them and it's very critical that we ensure that for those suffering from substance use disorder that those important protections remain on the books so that people can access care. there's more -- no more important tool now toolbox than ensuring that people have health insurance to take care of their substance use disorder and that's why i brought forward this amendment today. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume. section 1332 already requires that the state plan will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the essential health benefits. including mental health and substance use disorder services. that's already required. including behavioral health treatment. and will provide coverage to a comparable number of its residents. that's already in the 1332 requirements. i appreciate the gentleman's passion for dealing with the opioid epidemic. i led the effort that brought together republicans and democrats. we passed 60 different pieces of legislation. i think 57 of them by the time we were done working together passed unanimously in this house. we bundled them up into h.r. 6 because we all know the senate can't handle 57 or 60 different pieces of legislation but they could handle one. the work we did here and the work they did there ended up in, i would argue, the nation's most comprehensive legislation to address a drug problem our country has ever faced. and that's now law. the president of the united states that was just disparaged here on the house floor helped lead this effort because he passionately cared about the issue of addiction. he lost a brother, i believe, to alcoholism. and he was a leader and his team were leaders in this effort we put together on opioids. and he invited republicans and democrats to the white house for the bill signing and mrs. trump helped organize all of that. and this legislation is crompe hencive on opioids. it wasn't part of the a.c.a. you see we can work together and improve underlying laws and we can address major problems facing the country when majorities want to do that. we did it last congress under my leadership and it was republicans and democrats and we didn't start out agreing on some of these matters but we ended up there with just a couple of exceptions. and you can -- i sent my friend, madam chair, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee today, a comprehensive list of what we learned in the final phase of our investigation into how america ended up in the place it was with opioids, and there's some additional recommendations i hope and assume we'll get to out of the result -- out of that investigative report we concluded at the end of the year. hopefully we'll get there i believe we need to do oversight on the legislation we passed. i've always felt that about bills we passed. we need to go and take a second look, what's working, what's not. we're not going to get it right the first time, we always know there's more to do and we need to do that on what was h.r. 6 in the last congress, our opioids legislation. i'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. you have to say you are to get the time, i guess, but i'm not. i fully am committed to maker -- making sure that people with substance abuse disorder continue to get the help they need now communities. that's what our thrust was about last congress and will remain there section 1332 already requires that in these plans. again, remember what we're talking about here, states coming to the federal government saying, we have a better idea to fill a gap so people have affordable insurance. and that's what a waiver is under 1332. i guess i have more confidence in my state than others must have in theirs but i think from my own experience republicans, democrats work together in oregon to get health insurance out and coverage out and expand access to care and i always continue to try to do that and i have faith my state would do. this by the way, these plans, we'll hear more about them next week but they're regulated by state insurance commissioners. i'm not in the school that says all those people are bad, we're the only ones with a great idea. i want innovation. i want it from the states. i want to drive down the cost of health care while improving access and delivery of services. i'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. i do hope we can address these issues of fully funding our community health centers, our national health service core and these diabetes program which is we re-authorized and funded in the last congress, we need to do again. they're called the special diabetes program from indians and special diabetes programs for type one diabetes. we have to get after that. got to find the money. i wish we were doing those sorts of things today because these expire in september. we don't have that many legislative days left. hopefully we can move on to the things i know we could agree on and find solutions for and that we do it sooner rather than later. with that, madam chair irk yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 116-51. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rouda: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: can the clerk will designate the amendment -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 offered by mr. rouda of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 357, the gentleman from california, mr. rouda, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rouda: thank you, madam chair. nine years ago our nation took a monumental step forward to address the needs of millions of americans with a pre-existing condition. before the passage of the affordable care act, individuals across the country were denied coverage or charged higher premiums due to their medical history. while i came to washington to protect our health care, the trump administration has continued its assault on the affordable care act. in this case -- in this case, the administration is trying to use an a.c.a. provision designed to give states the ability to test new health insurance reforms that could improve the well-being of their residents, but instead that provision is being used to undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions and the coverage of essential health benefits, all in an effort to prop up junk short-term insurance plans. today we will stand up to that assault on america's health care by passing h.r. 986, to nullify these efforts. we must be clear that any futured a misk actions by this administration -- future administrative actions by this administration or other administrations should not harm vulnerable populations. to that end, my amendment would prohibit any future rule or guidance from diminishing the affordable care act that would result in a reduction in the availability, affordability and comprehensiveness for people with pre-existing conditions, the elderly, and low-income individuals. my amendment would affirm these critical guard rails that protect the care of so many americans across our country and help strengthen and uphold the principles of this landmark law. i would like to thank chairman pallone -- chairman pallone, chairman neal and their respective staffs. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to ensure that this and future administrations do not undermine the health care of vulnerable populations. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: madam chair, i seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, madam chair. i'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. but i'm happy to speak on it. again, section 1332 already requires that the state plan, the one they submit, will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the essential health benefits, including mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, and will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents. with that, madam chair, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. rouda: thank you. i reclaim the balance of my time. we're at a crossroads in our country. when we look at the global stage, there are approximately 200 countries of which 40 are industrialized, developed countries. of those 40, 39 of them have universal health care. only one does not. the wealthiest, greatest country in the history of the world. that's why we have tens of millions of individuals in our country without insurance. and we know that pre-existing conditions has to be covered. because when we look at the fact that this country spends 18.5% of its g.d.p. on health care, almost double what these other industrialized, developed countries spend, you would think the united states of america has the healthiest people in the world. madam chair, that is not the case. it is sad to report that most critical criteria when looking at americans' health care, we are in the bottom, even though we spend 18.5% of our g.d.p. we know that the inability to pay health care costs is a leading cause of involuntary bankruptcy and homelessness. pre-existing conditions is the underlying reason for those two things. that's why we must make sure that we protect affordable health care in the united states through the act, and making sure that pre-existing conditions are covered today and tomorrow for future generations. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you. i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. rouda: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just want to go back to what's going on in america's health care costs. and look at some of what's going on elsewhere around the world. first of all, i would draw the members' attention, madam chair, to the kaiser foundation report that was reported on about people who have health insurance and still can't afford to use it. they talked about just over half of those with employer coverage have some sort of chronic disease. so they have health insurance, but the deductibles at $3,000 or so -- are so high, $3,000 to $5,000, that 3/4 reported skipping or postponing some type of care. half, 49%, said a family member had a problem paying medical bills or difficulty with their premiums, deductibles o'er or co-pays. we're trying to help those people in the individual market, we'd love to help these ople in the market that -- employer-provided health insurance is in as well. and put downward pressure on pricing. and go after the cost of health care. from one end to the other. now the gentleman from california, i believe, you know, has talked about going to an, i guess, government-run, single-payer system. i have two veterans that spend virtually full-time helping veterans in oregon's second district get access to a similar sort of system. you'd know it as the v.a. and you think about the problems we have with that government-run single-sort of-payer operated system. if you get in, i have veterans who say it's great, i have coverage. but it's people who have to wait six months to get eyeglasses or they can't get in to get their surgery done. and we're working -- we've worked with thousands of veterans that have to come to their member of congress to be able to get access to the health care they were promised when they put on the nation's uniform. we have that system in place. and it has increbled -- -- incredible problems in wait times. then i was intrigued by a story bout a woman in nova scotia. 33 years old. she's under one of those systems my friend wants for us, i guess. three trips to the emergency room, they just never would believe her and her problem and see her. she couldn't get access to doctors and when she finally did, her anal cancer had progressed to stage three. and now at 33 she's in menopause, she writes. she had a facebook post recently. wanting to meet with the premier to explain how broken their health care system is. we all know stories about canadians who come across the border, can afford to get their health care done here, because they can get it done sooner. we know stories in other countries where they have global budgets and when they run out, you're done. i've had people tell me, you know, the little secret is, get sick before june. because they're going to run out and you won't get in. and that's what's going on around the world. in many measures, when people are especially sick, if they have the money, they come to the united states for care. they go to m.d. anderson, they go to the mayo clinic. those are the folks that come to america. what i want is the m.d. andersons and the may owe clinics and the oregon health -- mayo clinics and the oregon health sciences to be affordable and available to all americans. we had a hearing today, i think it was pretty good, on drug pricing. we had -- following up on one did i two years ago, looning -- looking at the manufacturers, the p.b.m.'s, the distributors, the insurers. every piece of this, everybody's getting a chunk. and the result is we have a health care system that costs too much. let's go figure that out. and that's what innovation is about. that's what our states can do in their wonderful laboratories and some of them will do really good things and some of them will make mistakes and learn from it. and we should pick the best from among the states and that's what we're looking for here in these 1332 waivers, are some flexibility for our states to go innovate and i believe our states, my colleagues, and by the way, oregon's completely democrat-controlled, but they care about citizens of the state in oregon and so does the insurance commissioner and they're only going to ask for permission for a plan that will be better than what the federal government's trying to jam down their throat in a one-size-fits-all. i don't object to the gentleman's amendment. i think we can do better by harnessing great innovation. we do it in medicine, we do it everywhere else. we have competitive insurance products for a lot of other things we buy. and i'd like to see more options, more choice, more transparency in health care and more consumer involvement. so with that, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 116-51. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. malinowski: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 116-51 offered by mr. malinowski of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 357, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. malinowski, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. malinowski: madam chair, there are many problems in our health care system. we've heard about a number of them today. but we are here for one simple, specific reason. because of the guidance that the administration issued last year that allows states to expand the availability and duration of junk short-term insurance plans. the administration and its defenders will not say this, because it's become politically impossible to do so, but these plans are cheaper precisely because they deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and what anyone would agree are essential benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs. that's what they mean when they use the euphemism flexibility. where these plans take hold, here's what happens in plain language. if you have a pre-existing condition, you have a choice. either stay in your a.c.a. plan and see your premiums rise, as healthy people move to cheaper, junk insurance. or you sign up for a junk plan yourself and risk getting gouged when the services you need aren't covered. you end up with a two-tier health care system in america, one for healthy people, and one for sick people. now, the underlying bill rescinds that guidance. the amendment i have submitted would prohibit the administration from taking any other action that would reduce the affordability of comprehensive coverage for americans with pre-existing conditions. now, this would not in any way prevent states from using section 1332 waivers to make health care better and more affordable. many states, as we've heard, have done so in ways that have lowered health insurance premiums without in any way undermining protections for people with pre-existing conditions. and, yes, section 1332 has a clear directive that states, must minute -- maintain the benefits, affordability and coverage provided by the a.c.a. but it's clear that the administration has disregarded these standards and could do so again to remove protections for vulnerable groups, to promote expansion of health plans that are not compliant with the a.c.a., and to take other steps that would increase costs, especially for women and older adults. this amendment, along with the overall bill, makes sure that we keep our promise to the american people, it makes clear that when we say we are going to protect everyone with a pre-existing condition, that is not an empty slogan that means whatever we want it to mean. those words mean something. that every american deserves quality health insurance, no american should be forced to pay more for good coverage because of a pre-existing health problem. that's what h.r. 986 and my amendment guarantee and i urge my colleagues to support both. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: madam chair, i seek recognition in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. malinowski: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. malinowski: i'll close by saying there's no question whatsoever what the administration intends to do. they have been trying from day one from january of 2017, to repeal the affordable care act and its essential protectioners in american people. the only thing that's changed is that it's become politically impossible for anyone in america to say that you are opposed to protecting people with pre-existing conditions. so the war against health care protections is being covered up by war against the english language. everyone says, we're for pre-existing conditions. yet every single step the administration and its supporters take is designed to weaken those protections. this amendment and the underlying bill say you can't do that anymore. they guarantee going forward that the a.c.a.'s protections are respected and that any experimentation by the states will have to be consistent with those protections. so with that, i urge my colleagues support for the amendment and the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you. i'm not opposed to this amendment because this amendment doesn't do anything the law already, i think, requires. so section 1332 duss not permit states to waive pre-existing conditions protections. it already requires that the state plan will provide coverage that's at least as comprehensive as the essential health benefits and will provide coverage and cost sharing against excessive out of pocket spending. that's what the underlying law already does. we have the assurance from the c.m.s. administrator saying once again to be clear, 2018 guidance does nothing to erode the ppaca's pre-existing conditions, which cannot be waived under section 1332. she's the one ma makes the decision. no state has come to the trump administration under this new authority and that we're aware of and said please approve our plan. junk plans. we'll hear more about that term of art. by the way those junk plans were aloud for under the obama administration and under the a.c.a. at that time they were only allowed for three months. seemed to be a lot of interest in a variety of option options for citizens to take advantage of that covered their needs so the trump administration said well nair good for three months what if we extend home to 12 months and that's what they did. now they were junk plans under trump, they were wonderful options ournedba ma. it's ethe same set of plans. you can always go on the exchange and find other coverage that fits your needs. we're trying to not just have one plan that nobody can afford. that's what you're seeing in his situation that ms. seema verma put forward, the head of c.m.s., the head of the centers for medicare and medicaid services. she uses as an example in nebraska. a 60-year-old couple paying $38,000 for their insurance with n $11,100 deductible, making $60,000. somehow that affordable? anyone think that's a great idea? that's what you're say, don't innovate. we ghot it covered. plan works great. we know from the kaiser foundation study people are saying, i can't afford it. so i jacked up my credit card, i wipe out my savings, all this is going ofpblet the a.c.a. did not solve every problem. it expanded coverage. you can't help but do that, spend that much money. states like mine took full advantage of it. but we're left with these pockets and problems in america that i think states could assist us in if we gave them the authority, expanded authority under the 1332 waivers, to say hey, guess what, washington, we got a better idea here. here it is, take a look at it, make sure it fits the federal guidelines and law, let us innovate. oregon did that under the prior 1332 approval process. nsurance rates went down 6%. p wisconsin down 10.6. new jersey 15. maryland, 43. maine, 9.4. minnesota, 20. alaska, 34.7. using this sort of mother my i -- mother may i approval. that's what you have to do when oregon did the oregon helicopter plan, i was in the state legislature then. we had to plead and beg with the administration at the time to get approval to try and experiment on medicaid coverage to expand coverage and improve access to care. couldn't do it without mother washington, father washington, brother washington, whoever, back here, saying yeah, ok, we'll let you try that we snoub a partnership with our states. by the way, states can pass a law and say we're not going down this path. they have every right to do it. new jersey's done it. california's done it. none of these short-term duration plans, we're not going to be part of it. but dollar lot of states that say -- that look at their citizens, $38,000 a year for insurance, $11,000 for dedubblettable, you're making $70,000, that's not working well either. maybe we can find a product that would work for you an help you out. we're talking about a range of oopingses. choices. america has always done well, markets do better when we have more choices. that's what we're talking about here. so the gentleman's amendment, i don't object to at all. i think it's the underlying law as desgribed thed of the department that would have to approve all these. the 1332 waivers. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the squone the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 116-51. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. wild: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part o of house report 116-51, offered by ms. wild of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, ms. wild, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. ms. wild: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today offer an amendment to h.r. 986, the protecting americans with pre-existing conditions act of 2019. my amendment would put an end to the rising cost of premiums. it's an antidepressant that should be met with overwhelming, bipartisan support and without opposition. specifically, my amendment would prohibit the administration from taking any further action that would result in higher premiums for americans who need comprehensive coverage. this administration has unilaterally made health care more expensive and less accessible for the american people by taking actions that run contrary to the spirit and purpose of the a.c.a. that's resulted in higher premiums reand deuced enrollments. in 2017, the administration stopped cost sharing payments ta helped reduce out of pocket costs for low-income americans. this action alone increased premiums by 20% and raised costs for families not receiving subsidies. in 2018, the administration issued new section 1332 guidance that allowed states to raise health care costs for people with pre-existing conditions. this 2018 guidance also gave a green light to insurance companies to expand junk plans that don't cover essential health benefits. we know that pulling healthy people out of the pool only makes insurance premiums more expensive for those with pre-existing conditions. also in 2018, the administration slashed funding for consumer enrollment assistance and outreach. the goal? reduced health care enrollment. the result? higher premiums. and just last month, the administration finalized a rule that would increase limits on foe tall out of pocket costs for millions. the administration moved forward with this even though the rule itself noted that all comments on this topic express opposition to or concerns about the proposed change. than past monday, the administration released a notice seeking comments on a proposal that would reduce eligibility for medicaid and cut premium tax credits for millions. it is time to say no to future attempts to sabotage working americans' health care. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: i seek recognition and claim time in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. ms. wild: my amendment is about fairness. patients should not face increased pleem yums at the whim of appointed government officials. especially for essential health benefits like emergency services, maternity, newborn, pediatric care a, mental health and substance abuse treatment, laboratory services, preventive services for chronic disease management. from malicious lawsuits aimed at striking down the a.c.a. in its entirety and along wit, the protections for pre-existing conditions, to ending the practice of public advertisement of enrollment periods and educating the people about the complexities of health insurance, it has become clear that congress must reclaim its legislative authority and ensure that this administration faithfully executes the spirit of this law. the a.c.a. is the law. the constitution gives congress the power to make laws and requires the executive branch to faithfully execute the laws that congress passes. we all heard republicans on the campaign trail last year say that they would protect coverage for pre-existing conditions and help drive down premiums. this is their chance to fulfill their campaign promises with concrete actions. actions, not words, is what the american people demand and it's what they deserve. let's make that commitment a reality by passing this amendment, passing this bill, and pushing the senate to take it up so we can get it signed into law. thank you, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. ms. wild: in close, this is about standing up for the dignity of working families in the most basic and fundamental sense. it's about saying that every child, woman, man, and family in this country deserves the same certainty of being able to afford high quality health care. our people deserve bert. we need to stop the political gamesmanship and we need to focus on people across our country who need good, affordable health care right now. this is also our chance to remind this administration and future administrations that congress makes the laws and the executive branch doesn't get to fool around with the implementation just to see it fail for political reasons. thank you, madam speaker. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, madam chair. let's talk about this a minute. i talked about all the things that need to be re-authorized, community health centers, special diabetes programs, all of that which i know the committee is aware of, and i hope we can -- i wish we were dealing with that today. i heard from the gentlelady about republicans and pre-existing conditions, where's your plan? it's sitting up in the rules committee. because your party would not allow my amendment to do that to be brought to the floor for debate today. i don't control the rules committee. it's 2-1 by the majority. it's just the way it works around here. i respect that. but you'd allow my amendments more in jest about the false nature of the title of the bill to be debated but not the substantive amendment i offered which does protect people with pre-existing conditions in case the lawsuit were to prevail and obamacare is thrown out. we scront that debate. i've asked for my bill to be considered in the community of jurisdiction, that hasn't happened either. i've also asked for the democrats' one size fits all takeover of health care, medicare for all a, however you want to describe it, that we have a hearing in energy and commerce, that hasn't happened either. we're the checommoff -- we're the committee of jurisdiction. talk about working people or ba macare puts a 40% tax on plans and employer plans that exceed a a certain level of cost and they don't index it. i don't know where the gentlelady is on the cadillac tax but i want to repeal it. i never voted for it. and so if you you want -- if you want to enshrine the affordable care act and make no changes, you're far a 40% tax on the kind of insurance plans that my building trades people negotiated to get and other unions in the face of -- instead of getting wage increases. we delayed that hospitals, when you look at a the cuts in the affordable care act a coming at hospitals in rural areas that serve lower income air aas, we put off those cuts to our hospitals last cycle under republican leadership. and we're going to face that question in this congress under democrat leadership. delay the vote, delay those cuts again, if you do that you're voting to repeal or delay part of obamacare. i hear all these 60, 70 votes to doo these thing os ba ma -- obamacare, repeal the class act, even president obama signed its repeal. i can go through a whole list of things that got repealed. we're the only ones that get tagged with voting to repeal. and as far as our commitment to pre-existing condition protection it is reel. it is robust. and it always was in everything we did. i know what the political rhetoric was. i've run campaigns, i've been around that. i know how you can go around but we always protected people with pre-existing conditions. always, period, hard stop. protect people with pre-existing conditions in what came out of my committee, came out of this house floor. they were always covered. always. so i hear the political rhetoric. but i know the facts. i'm an old journalism major and i i believe in facts. the facts of the matter are, 1332 waivers have given our states an opportunity to give our citizens an affordable health insurance plan, not one hat i guess you'll defend, $38,000 p in premiums, 11,000 bucks a year in deductibles, out of pocket costs. how is that working for anybody? shouldn't that 60-year-old couple in nebraska have a chance to have a batter plan option? nope, guess not. washington is going to decide it all for you, write your check, 38 grand. $11,000 out-of-pocket costs, deductibles. then maybe you can do something. the kaiser study, people wipe out their savings. they put it on their credit cards. they borrow from their friends. or they simply don't get coverage. that's the world you want to freeze frame and leave in place. that's not what republicans are for. we want innovation. we want choice. we believe in our states having the opportunity to innovate and do it even better, not to go back to the old ways. no. that's not what we're for. i know that's what democrats want to label us being for, but it's not true. and we have proven results with opioids, community health centers, the longest funding for the children's health insurance program in the history of the united states of america under republican leadership for 10 years. we are the ones, republicans, that led the effort to invest in medical research at unprecedented rates under what fred upton put forward and what newt gingrich put forward. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. walden: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. wild: madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 116-51 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. brown of maryland. amendment number 7 by mr. holding of north carolina. amendment number 11 by mr. malinowski of new jersey. amendment number 12 by ms. wild of pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 116-51 by the gentleman from maryland, -- on n, yeas yeas which further proceed prgs postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 116-51 offered by mr. brown of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 351. the nays are 70. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in art a of house report 116-51 by the gentleman from north on which mr. holding, further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 116-51 offered by mr. holding of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184, and the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 116-51 by the gentleman from new on y, mr. malinowski, which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 116-51 offered by mr. malinowski of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 302, and the nays are 117. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 116-51 by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, ms. wild, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 116-51 offered by ms. wild of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has -- sorry -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 308. nays, 112. he amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, the committee rises. the chair: madam chair. the committee on the whole house of the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 986 and pursuant to house resolution 357, i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union the committee has had under consideration h.r. 986 and pursuant to house resolution 357 reports the bill back to the house with sun dry amendments. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee on the whole? if not, the question is engross. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide that certain guidance related to waivers under the patient protection and affordable care act shall have no force or ffect. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman opposed to the bill snl mr. walden: yes, i am, in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. walden of oregon moves to recommit with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendments. page 3, strike lines 3-5 and section one findings, congress finds the following. mr. walden: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. mr. walden: it is important for our members to hear the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: congress finds the following, one, on october 24, 2018, the administration published new guideance to carry out section 1332 of the patient protection and affordable care ct and entitled state relief and empowerment waivers, 83 federal register, two, the new guidance does not amend such section 1332 and does not permit the secretary of health and human services to waive protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions including guaranteed availability and renublet of health insurance. the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums and new prohibition on pre-existing conditions. three, the guidance stipulates that any section 1332 waiver will need to carefully account for any impact on the individual market risk pool and guarantee that access to coverage is at least comprehensive and affordable without the waiver. page 3, line 17, insert before the period the following -- mr. walden: madam speaker, the house is not in order. we have put a lot of work into this. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3, line 17, insert the following, including if such substantially similar guidance or rule, would allow a state to waiver such requirements as depar and teed availability or renublet of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status or the prohibition or pre-existing conditions xclusions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this bill is blatantly political in its title. the misleading title, the bill confirms to score political points instead of governing. they claim the agenda is for the people. this bill is for the politics and the tv ads. this motion to recommit is simple. it strikes the democrats' misleading title and includes findings under title law, health and human services cannot waive protections with individuals with pre-existing conditions. period. they are present protected. the motion to reconsider would prohibit the secretaries of h.h.s. and treasury from re-issuing similar guidance including guidance that allows the state to have health insurance. the prohibition on using health status, the very premiums. madam speaker, the trump administration guidance does not amend section 1332. it does not permit the secretary of health and human services to waive protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions like guaranteed availability and renublet of health insurance, like the prohibition of using health status and the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions. moreover, the president's guidance stipulates that any section of 1332 waivers will need to carefully account for any impact on the individual market risk pool and guarantee, guarantee that access to coverage is at least as comprehensive and affordable of what exists without the waiver. this is fully explained in the letter i have here from the head of c.m.s. and i want to quote directly from it because it is important because facts matter. the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode and say obamacare, affordable care act's pre-existing conditions, nothing, which cannot be waived under section 1332. section 1332 does not permit states to waive health requirements to renublet of health insurance, the prohibition of the prohibition on pre-existing health exclusions. why are we having this discussion? people at home can't afford the health insurance they are being peddled and we want states to innovate and cut costs for consumers. that's why we are here. you don't want that. you are opposed to letting states innovate and let's look what happened. today in grand island, nebraska, -- madam speaker, the house is not in order. this is important work. madam speaker, according to health and human services administrator, grand island, nebraska, a 60-year-old couple aking $70,000 a year is paying about $38,000 for their insurance premiums and that plan under obamacare gets them at $11 deductibles and you call that coverage? i call that unaffordable. we have seven states that used this authority and allowed this 1332 and they have been able to drive down premiums by 19.9%. my state is 6%. other states have been more. alaska, new jersey, other states have taken advantage of this. republicans and democrats agree, we will protect empeople with pre-existing conditions. we will always do that. you can run your ads and mislead people, madam speaker, but we will fight to protect people with pre-existing conditions. our plan last year and you -- madam speaker, the house is not in order. i'll tell you what, madam speaker, we would have a vote on the house floor to do that to enshrine in statute irrespective of the lawsuit, protections for americans with pre-existing conditions, except the democrats in the rules committee refused to allow that amendment to be considered on the house floor. they would not do it. because it's my amendment. i have been pleading to have this bill. they want the argument. they want the politics. they don't want the policy. we are for innovation and we are for lower premiums and more consumer choice and driving down e costs for health care so people can have health care they can afford. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. slotkin: madam speaker, i rise this motion to recommit is another attempt to take away protections for people with pre-existing conditions. madam speaker, at face value, the amendment appears to maintain protections for people with pre-existing conditions, but make no mistake, no matter the language included in this, the goal of the 1332 guidance expands and promotes junk plans that discriminates against people with pre-existing conditions. these plans make comprehensive coverage with people for pre-existing conditions. it is not enough to say you protect pre-existing conditions but what happens on the ground that matters. if my colleagues are serious about protecting americans with pre-existing conditions rgs i urge them to oppose this amendment and support us in what the american people has made it clear. while they say they are ready to work, their actions tell a different story. two years ago this week most house republicans voted overwhelmingly for a bill that would have gutted the a.c.a. and gutted it. my colleagues stood on the white house lawn and celebrated that bill and would have made it more difficult for people with pre-existing conditions. . . some republicans joined us. you can boo john mccain if you want. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ms. slotkin: since then the administration has tried every play in the book to undercut, sabotage, skirt protections in the a.c.a., including protections for people with pre-existing conditions. we currently have an open suit from your side that is meant to invalidate the entirety of the a.c.a., including protections for people with pre-existing conditions. i stand in opposition to this motion because the issue of protecting people with pre-existing conditions is deeply personal to me. as it is to so many people in this room and in our districts. my mom passed away in 2011 from ovarian cancer and when she was diagnosed she did not have health care. she had struggled to afford health care her entire life. she had breast cancer as a 31-year-old mom, leaving her with a pre-existing condition for the rest of her life. when she lost her job in 2002, she lost her insurance, and it was impossible to find coverage that she could afford. she went 5 1/2 years with no insurance. no checkups, no gynecology exam, no one saying you should get tested. in 2009, in 2008 we finally helped her get insurance. because of her pre-existing condition it was $1,000 a month nd a $10,000 deductible. she let it lapse and walked into an e.r. a few months later and was diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer. now, i am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know exactly what it's like to have a loved one get a terminal diagnosis. your life as you know it explodes. and that same week and that same month that my life was exploding was the same week and the same month that i spent filing the paperwork for my mom to declare bankruptcy. so no one should be gouged because they happen to be born with a pre-existing condition. we have evolved as a country, as a nation, to see that. and i urge my colleagues to evolve as well. madam speaker in my district, protecting people with pre-existing conditions is not a democratic or a republican issue. it is what people of all political backgrounds are demanding of us as their representatives. that is our mission, that is our mandate. and to ignore the interests of our constituents at this point is dereliction of duty. plain and simple. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment that would hurt people like my mom, to my colleagues across the aisle, do the right thing. put people before politics. vote against this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. walden: madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. a record vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20rks the chair will reduce to five -- 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time on the electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 182, the nays are 231. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 20 and the nays are 183, with one answering present. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. members are asked to take their conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. adams: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute for a moment of silence. i rise today to honor the victims of the shooting in my district last week, april 30 at the university of north carolina in charlotte. the campus was terrorized by gun violence and two young men lost their lives. before the students were injured, the mother and grandmother and retired professor, my heart goes out to the loved ones and to the entire u.n.c. community. too many people fear their safety in their campuses and places of worship. the charlotte community will never forget last week's tragedy and we will never forget the two men and honor their action to keep our communities safe. i ask all members and guests in the gallery to rise for a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? ms. lesko: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 962 the born alive survivors protection act of 2019, which requires appropriate medical care for babies who survive abortion procedures and imposes strong criminal penalties for failure to provide such care and ask for its -- the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is concxds con trained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by bipartisan floor eadership. [inaudible] the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is not recognized for ebate. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. payne: mental health awareness month -- may is mental health awareness month. i raise the awareness about maternal mental health. each year in the united states, woman mated 1. million suffered from mood and anxiety disorders such asthma ternl depression. know that maternal depression is nothing to be ashamed about. it is the number one complication of pregnancy in the united states and it can affect women regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. do not be afraid to reach out to health care professionals to get treatment. i urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the mothers and survivors of maternal depression and great organizations across the country for supporting women's mental health. by raising awareness we can protect mental health of women and mothers in our communities. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and tend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise this week to celebrate america's hardworking and passionate teachers. national education association team up each year to recognize the chiropractics that our teachers make each day to shape the minds of their students. i'm sure every member of the house who can think of a teacher who had a positive influence on their lives. our teachers push students to achieve their best and realize their full potential. they are the most powerful professionals. they make differences in the lives of our students. so to every teacher in america, thank you for the job you do and the haur hours you work and the impact that you have on so many lives. happy national teachers week. this nation would be lost without you. i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> this coming sunday, millions of americans will celebrate mothers' day and honoring my own home, mothers deserve more. they deserve safe pregnancies and birth and healthy lives. in illinois 14th congressional district we are committed to this cause. this past weekend i joined constituents and employees at the march for babies 5k which raised tens of thousands of dollars. this could not come at a critical time. the mortality rate has doubled over the last 30 years. underlying this crisis. plaque women are four times more likely and twice as likely of other races to die from preventable related complications. adams by alma introducing the healthy mommies act and would expand services to improve out comes for mothers and morbidity and mortality for moms. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my marks. >> without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. madam speaker, i rise today along with my fellow members of the mississippi delegation to express the sorrow and grief within our hearts. this week, the city of biloxi lost a law enforcement officer. mckeefe was killed in the line of duty after helping a map. he was an air force veteran who served our police department for nearly 24 years, he was a family man who leaves behind a wife and children. during his time, he became known for his selfless acts to put those in our community first. he was awarded the medal of honor for his acts during hurning katrina and he saved a family that were trapped in their homes. we have come to expect our law enforcement officers to run to the dangers we civilians run from. they choose to keep our families and neighborhoods safe never knowing they will return home to their own families when their shift ends. mr. palazzo: our community comes together in a time of grief, morning the loss of our fallen hero. madam speaker, i ask the house to join me in a moment of silence to honor the life and service of the officer. if the house would please rise. . thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. engel: thank you. i read from the mueller report, volume two, page 107. and i quote. at some point after the may 17, 2017, appointment of the special counsel, then-attorney general sessions recalled, the president called him at home and asked if sessions would unrecuse himself. according to sessions, the president asked him to reverse his recusal so that sessions could direct the department of justice to investigate and prosecute hillary clinton. and the gist of the conversation was that the president wanted sessions to unrecuse from all of it, including the special counsel's russia investigation. again, the mueller report, volume two, page 107. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent to address the -- mr. carter: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: wegs, the gentleman is recognized for one -- without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the united methodist church men's bible class on the 63rd anniversary of its fifth sunday morning breakfast. occurring on each fifth sunday of the month, the morning breakfast has become an institution since 1956. the bible class sends invitations across the county and neighboring counties and nearly everyone there knows about the breakfast. by inviting guest speakers from a number of different civic organizations, the breakfast is a unique opportunity for the citizens of religious communities in the county to engage directly in government and other types of public issues. just recently the fifth sunday morning breakfast hosted a guest speaker discussing his time deployed as a mevet u.s. army reserves in bosnia and afghanistan as well as his service in the new york state police department. i want to thank the united methodist men's bible class for engaging all the citizens of the county and i am proud to have an organization like this in the first congressional district of georgia. congratulations on your 63rd anniversary. thank you, madam speaker. and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to speak to the members of the house. as a dentist i have a firsthand understanding of the american health care system. and the need to make it both accessible and affordable. i've seen the high cost of health care and how they can be devastating to those who suffer a health emergency. additionally, those with pre-existing conditions should not feel under the constant threat of losing or not being able to obtain coverage. we must protect our families, our small businesses, including those with pre-existing conditions, and work to lower the high cost of health care and prescription drugs. individuals and families lose their homes, their vehicles, literally their entire way of life due to the high cost of health care and prescription drugs. this week we voted to lower prescription prices and to protect those with pre-existing conditions. mr. van drew: we must continue to work together right here in the house in a bipartisan way to do what is right and to make health care more accessible for all the american people. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask to speak to the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to recognize the inauguration of the borealis beroge plant in tailersville, north carolina. it's the first of the company's north american facilities dedicated to automotive materials production and is well positioned to source suppliers and original equipment managers in the southeast united states. it's exciting to see another way that pro-growth policies adopted by the north carolina state legislature and this body last congress are attracting capital and creating new jobs. the investment by borealis also says much about the high caliber people in taylorersville. they're entrepreneurial minded and working hard to grow their business community. beginning with 30 new full-time jobs, borealis aims to expand in the region through local relations and by developing a new generation of talent. i am very proud to represent the taylorersville community and to see new opportunities taking off in its economy. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to stand in solidarity with families suffering from this administration's inhumane policy of separating children from their parents. earlier this week was the one-year anniversary of this administration's family separation policy and today hundreds of families are still separated. that means hundreds of children will not be with their mothers on mother's day. this week i visited a families belong together art installation outside the capitol. it depict administer reaching out in anguish for her child -- depicted a mother reaching out in anguish for her child who was in a cage. native americans know all too well the long-lasting trauma of government-enforced family separation. ms. haaland: our communities still struggle with the impact that cruel assimulation policy has had. this trauma cannot be undone. we cannot let this administration forget the chaos it created in so many people's lives and we must stop the racist policies it continues to push. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, moik. -- madam speaker. i rise today to recognize national small business week. there are over 30 million small businesses across the country and over half the american work force is either employed by a small business or operates one. with april's strong jobs report, the unemployment rate reaching the lowest in 50 years, a truly unprecedented level of 3.6%, it's clear america's small businesses are thriving. there's no bigger job creator, small businesses are the main stay of our economy. a big reason why it's booming. two out of every three jobs created in the u.s. is within a small bills. last month there were 263,000 nonfarm jobs created, surpassing most predictions. indeed, our economy is doing quite well and as a result so are small business owners. i believe the pro-growth policies of the last congress and this administration, such as tax reform and regulatory reform, have quite a lot to do with that. i'll always be a strong supporter of small businesses, and i hope this body will as well. and continues to support the policies that will help them succeed. thank you to those that are hanging in there in the small business community and keep going and keep creating. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> for permission to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize teacher appreciation week and honor all who inspire and motivate our children every day. mr. perlmutter: i want to thank all the wonderful and dedicated teachers across colorado and the country, including my wife, nancy, and my sister, cassie, who are both public school teachers. i have witnessed firsthand their commitment to their students and their schools. being a teacher is a tough job, but one of the most important. we all have teachers who have pushed us, counseled us, or took a friend or family member under their wing and shaped their lives. and nowadays, too often our teachers, in addition to teaching and educating us, have to protect and defend us. we've had that instance recently in colorado. the passion for education shown by teachers in colorado and across the country is amazing. i look forward to working with my colleagues to invest in our schools, reduce class sizes, ensure our teachers have the resources they need to educate the next generation. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise? seek recognition? >> i ask for unanimous conent to address the house -- consent to address the house, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. six years ago yesterday, westland firefighter brian wolke made the ultimate sacrifice when he died courageously battling a blaze at a local strip mall. brian, who was born in detroit, certainly was courageous. and we lost his life in the short years of 29 years that he's been on this earth. ms. tlaib: on the sixth anniversary of his tragic passing, let us remember him and his loving family that survived him, including his wife, jennifer, and his daughter, ava. thank hem for their selflessness, bravery and offer unwavering support for our first responders across the country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, on may 8, 2019, pursuant to section 3307 of title 40, united states code, the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in open session to consider 20 resolutions, including in the general services administration's capital investment and leasing programs. i've enclosed copies of the resolutions adopted. signed, sincerely, peter defazio, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject matter here tonight. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carter: madam chair, thank you for allowing us this time tonight to talk about a very important subject. as many of you know, currently i'm the only pharmacist serving in congress. and that is something i take ery seriously. two of the things that i really wanted to concentrate on when i became a member of congress, among many things, but two of the main things were, first of all, prescription drug pricing. and that's one of the things that we want to talk about here tonight. the other thing that i wanted to concentrate on was the opioid epidemic and we've been very successful here in congress in addressing that issue. but tonight i wanted to talk about prescription drug pricing. because i've witnessed it. i've witnessed what i would describe as truly a crisis. i've witnessed, after 30 years of practicing pharmacy, i've seen families struggle to pay for their medications. i've seen senior citizens at the counter across from me try to make a decision between buying medication and buying groceries. i've seen mothers literally in tears because they couldn't afford the medication for their children. when i came up to washington, that was one of the things i wanted to concentrate on. we're very fortunate we have a president and an administration that's focused on this issue as well. and has done some outstanding things. two of those things that are being proposed by the administration right now i want to talk about tonight. but the main thing i want to talk about is the prescription drug chain. just earlier today we had a hearing in the energy and commerce committee, in the health subcommittee that i serve on. where we had representatives from the pharmaceutical manufacturers and from the p.b.m.'s, the pharmacy benefit managers, pointing fingers at each other, blaming each other for the problem. now, i have to tell you that in full disclosure, i'm a big fan of the pharmaceutical manufacturers. what i have seen over my years of pharmacy practice has been nothing short of phenomenal. when i first started practicing pharmacy in the early 1980's, i can remember a time when if you needed an antibiotic, you had days for 10 g four days. now you can get a shot in one day and be cured of some of the things that we were treating back then in 1980 with a 10-day supply. i've seen i have seen illnesses, hepatitis c was pretty much a death warrant. if you are diagnosed with that, you were probably going to die. i have seen through research and development that the pharmaceutical developers, that we can treat hepatitis c with. that is phenomenal. we can cure it with a pill. and it's because of the research and development that's been done through our pharmaceutical manufacturers and national institutes of health that we have reached this point. however, the price of those medications make it inaccessible for people. a have to pay $85,000 for medication. and if that medication is not accessible and does you know good whatsoever. i have called on the pharmaceutical manufacturers to do their part as well. they are not without response pilt here. and they understand that. ist i want to concentrate on the middleman. if you look at their mission statement, their mission is to lower drug costs. my question to you is how is that working out? if they are achieving their mission, why are we here talking about this? high prescription drug costs. they bring no value whatsoever to the health care system. madam speaker, i'm very blessed tonight to have a number of speakers here with us to share their expertise. and i want to hear from some of those right now. i begin with the gentleman from kansas, a doctor and hospital administrator and understands this. and i want to allow him to consume such time as he may need to make that point. mr. marshall: i rise today in support of the trump administration's rule that will modernize medicare part dmp and reduce out of pocket expenses and make critical fixes. cross kansas there are 506 chain drug stores. these men and women go above and beyond. i have heard the stories and all share the same frustrations, direct and indirect. in many instances in rural america, the only health care professionals are my good friend and colleagues from the pharmacy profession. the increase of fees over the last several years has raced out in ocket fees operating negative margins. pharmacy benefit managers collect fees from pharmacies months and months. it is unpredictable and unfair and it goes to the pocket as the benefit manager. shame on this. but not anymore. this proposed rule will guarantee predictability by standardizing the process and end the disparity. the septemberers for medicaid and medicare services estimate hat seniors will save up to $9 billion over the next 10 years and save the federal government over that same time frame. i appreciate president trump and his administration for addressing this concern and providing commonsense sluges. it is my hope that this rule will be timized quickly so they an go into effect next week. i recognize buddy cartier who may know this issue. and thanks to phil ro emp and phil welch in bringing it forward. thank you. and i yield back. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for his keen insight on this subject and very important and i appreciate his expertise. madam speaker, what the gentleman from kansas are two proposals that are before c.m.s. right now. d.i.r. d do away with fees. and what this is when the p. b.m.'s go back and much later and some cases years later and recoupe or called back reimbursement for that they have already sent to the pharmacies. there is no such sustainable business model out there that can absorb that. i get texts all the time from small pharmacy chains saying i got a bill. my total costs were $500,000. half a million dollars. and that's money already paid taxes on. they are taking it back. c.m.s. has proposed that that end. i'm in support of that. and i appreciate c.m.s. doing that. the other proposed rule that c.m.s. has come out is the rebaits or zoupts, if you will, that are offered by the -- fered to the p.b.m.'s, the p.b.m.'s demand them from the pharmaceutical manufacturers. what c.m.s. is proposing is that ll of those rebaits or disappoints be given at the point of sale. we are trying to make sure those discounts are going to where they are supposed to be going and that is to the patient. keep in mind, everything we are talking about here is about the patient. we are talking about patient care. my next guest speaker is an expert in health care. nd another one of our doctorso caucus, urelingist from florida, representative dunn and has seen it with his patients and yield to him such time as he may consume. did you know did you know i thank representative carter, a colleague, friend and neighbor and has expertise. the administration recently published two rules which tackled the issues faced by our medicare beneficiaries and the farm asees that serve them. addressesn particular pharmacy direct and indirect renew mexico ration. d.a.r. will be negotiated at the point of sale instead of the underhanded and retroactive fashion in which the plans currently operate. farm asees can face these fees after they have already filled and sold a prescription for medicare part d and medicare advantage patients. d.a.r. fees have been a category for benefit managers to collect more overhead after a prescription is sold. farm asees are unaware of what they willow and the standards for these fees can be impossible to meet. many independent farm asees are forced to provide the drugs. imagine d.a.r. fees are causing farm as cyst to operate in the red all while they are providing life saving medication. the fees have led to drastic increases for our patients which doughnutniors into the hole even sooner. to protect seniors and as a medical profession, i urge them to negotiate the price at the point of sale. i thank my colleague and i yield back. mr. carter: i thank dr. dunn for his keen insight and thank him for his comments. madam speaker, swruss a couple of other comments about p.b.m.'s. as i mentioned earlier, if you look at their website and what their mission statement is, is to say they are there to lower drug cost, well, that's not working out very well. now, let me say this, i'm not opposed to making any money. that is capitalism and that's fine. but tell me, three p.b.m.'s control 80% of the market. three companies control that. the largest p.b.m. and the largest p.b.m. in 2016 had gross revenues that exceeded that was rd motor company and mcdonald's. i'm not opposed to making money, but tell me how a company can make more than five pharmaceuticals, mcdonald aand ford motor combined. and make matters even worse, those companies are worldwide. this p.b. mmp is domestic and just here in america. i'm not opposed to anybody making money but tell me the value they are bringing to the system. they are not. that's why i am in support of what c.m.s. is proposing, of doing away with the d.a.r. fees and the discounts, if you will, are given at the point of sale, increasing transparency. madam speaker, the next speaker is a good friend, a member of e georgia delegation, rick allen from augusta. he understands the challenges in business and health care costs i'm sure were challenges for him. i would like to recognize him and allow him what time he may consume. alalthank you for yielding the -- mr. allen: thank you for yielding the time and this issue is affecting far too many americans. it's a shame to keep doing things and they don't work. so something has to be done. madam speaker, the rising cost of prescription drugs is causing significant financial burdens for patients, seniors and our businesses. too often americans have to choose between much needed prescriptions and household expenses. president trump made it clear to the american people during his state of the union address that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is one of the top priorities and as we have seen throughout his presidency is promises made are promises kept. of ill create to reduce out pocket spending on prescription drugs potentially becoming the most sweeping change. a much needed change. by delivering discounts directly to patients at the pharmacy counter and bringing perhaps to a broken system we are putting patients and seniors first and that's how it should be. t's high time to end these kickbacks to the pharmaceutical middlemen in dealing with these d.a.r.'s which are putting many of those in the pharmaceutical business in my district out of business. i would like to thank the administration, congressman carter and my fellow colleagues for their commitment to righting this ship and reducing drug prices for all americans and i yield back. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i appreciate his leadership here in the house. madam chair, as you heard earlier, c.m.s. estimates that this change alone doing away with the d.a.r. fees and putting the rebaits if you will at the point of sale, that they will benefit the consumer, benefit the patient and could change and could save, i should say, patients over 9.2 billion. now, let me tell you, that's significant. that is significant for those senior citizens that i was talking about earlier making a decision between buying medicine and buying groceries, that is significant for that mother trying to buy medication for her child. those savings will help. transparency will help. the savings are going to go much arther than this $7 billion to $9 billion. we will get lower drug prices. i'm convinced of that. . my next speak sear a gentleman who understand this is issue, he's been a a champion on this issue. representative austin scott from eorgia has gone to great lengths to study this issue. he's met with small pharmacies in his district. he's discussed with them the problem. and he understands it. and we're very, very fortunate to have him and his input and at this time i want to yield what time he shall consume. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker, i want to thank my colleague, representative carter, for his work on this. he is a -- was a a small pharmacy owner before he got here. prior to my arrival in congress i was actually an insurance breeker for many years, health insurance broker. and it always amazed me, as pharmacy benefit managers tried to explain their business model, that they couldn't explain their business model soism rise today in support of our local pharmacies and the unique role they play in serving patients. i stand here today to commend the center for medicare and medicaid service and the recently proposed rule aimed at addressing direct and a indirect remuneration, dimplet r. fees and drug rebates. rebates that don't go to the consumer but rebates that go to multibillion dollar corporations. i frequently make stops at local pharmacies when i'm back at my noem georgia and i appreciate the services that they provide their constituents. i'm from a small town and local pharmacists are a fixture in the community. they're the first line of defense in preventing and treating customer's needs. they know how much their -- they've known most of their coust hers for many years. i'll give you an example. as an insurance broker we had written a a contract on a a tpwhirks cards had not come in yet. there's a a small town pharmacy and the big chain pharmacy. and one of -- one of the employees' children had gotten sick. guess which pharmacist was willing to work with the family to get them the medicine before the insurance card came in? and guess which pharmacist was blocked out of the plan by the pharmacy benefit managers. it was the same one. the local a, small town pharmacist. i'm troubled on many of these visits, because i know how these community pharmacies are finding it more and more difficult to serve their neighbors while remaining competitive in the larger health care marketplace. i hear from my constituents regularly about the financial burden they face as drug prices continue to climb and the price far drug today, when they go to get it refilled a month from now, may be totally different. and rarely is it lower. plain and simple, we pay too much for drugs in this country. i would hope that it's something we can work together in a bipartisan manner. president trump has said he's willing to sign a piece of legislation to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in this country an it's something we should be able to come together and pass to help the american citizens reand deuce the cost of health care for the american family. most americans assume that probably a pretty simple transaction for the pharmacist when the pharmacist purchases the drugs, even though they know it's a complex transaction for them never knowing what the drug is going to cost prior to going into the pharmacy. but the pharmacy transaction is just as complex. and it's anything but clear and simple. this is because of the pharmacy benefit managers. they have used direct and indirect remuneration fees, dimplet r. fee, claw back money from pharmacies on individual claims long after those claims are believed to have been resolved. it means that a pharmacy doesn't know how the final reimbursement amount will be received for weeks or even months. and anyone who runs any business, health care business or any other business, knows you can't operate when you don't know what your reimbursement is c.m.s. recently proposed drug pricing rules adressing this issue head on by requiring all pharmacy price concessions, a subset of dimplet r., to be included in the negotiated -- of d.i.r., to be included in the negotiated price, the price that will be reimbursed at the point of sale for dispensing the drug. this would move negotiated drug price ps much closer to the cost of the drug with a part d sponsor. essentially eliminating retroactive pharmacy dimplet r. fees. -- d.i.r. fees. patients win when pharmacy price concessions are included in the negotiated price. i want to commend the administration for lowering drug prices, making lower drug prices a priority. i want to challenge my colleagues in the democratic party to work with the administration and the republicans in this house to push forward legislation that would continue to reduce the cost of health care specifically pharmaceuticals, for the american citizen. i, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have advocated for these sorts of reform that bring transparency and accountability to the system. who could be against transparency and account snblet these are bipartisan issues on which we share broad agreement. i call on the leadership of this house to put the partisan politics aside, follow the lead of the administration, or walk with the administration to address the lack of transparency in the pharmaceutical industry, give pharmacies a level playing field to compete and provide americans access to affordable prescription drugs. this is something we should have done for the american citizens long ago and it's something that we can do right now. madam speaker, i yield back to my good friend and fellow georgian, mr. carter, and i want to thank him for hosting this special order this evening and look forward to continuing to resolve this issue for the american citizens. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i thank him for his work. he truly has been a champion for his constituents. father is a doctor, certainly understands health care as he mentioned, an insurance broker, he understands insurance and a lot of what we're talking about here is insurance. and let me try to articulate if you will, exactly what i'm talking about here. some of the folks back home who are watch make be thinking, i don't understand why the farm site call manufacturers have to go through the p.b.m. what happens is that the insurance companies work on formularies. in other words they say if you've got this disease or if you've got this health problem, these are the drugs that we're going to cover. the pharmaceutical manufacturer, in order to get their drug on that formulary, has to go through the p.b.m. the middleman, and has to offer them discounts, rebait, if you will, in order to get their product on that formulary. that's what we're talking about. that's where they have the pharmaceutical manufacturers by the short hairs, if you will. that's where they really put the pressure on them. so that's really what we're talking about: and look, again, as i've said before, i'm not opposed to anybody making money but show me the value. i mentioned the hearing we had earlier today in health and human services, excuse me, in energy and commerce in the health subcommittee. i mentioned that we had some p.b.m.'s there. we had two p.b.m.'s there one is one of the major p.b.m.'s that requires the pharmaceutical manufacturers to give them rebates in order to have their products listed on the formulary. and then another p.b.m. was there and they would just -- they're just a flat fee. in other words they just charge an administrative fee. that's all they charge. and again, p.b.m.'s, that's the way they evolved. all they were to begin with, when they started way back when, were simply processes. -- processors. but enough about what we've done here in washington. let's talk for just a minute about state legislatures and what state legislative actions have been taken. and let me clarify, and let me point out, that i'm not talking about just red states. i'm not talking about just blue states. i'm not talking about big states, i'm not talking about small states, i'm talking about all states. all the states in our union. i'm talking about states like ohio. ohio's department of medicaid published a report in january detailing exactly how p.b.m.'s have been gaming the system. that's right. in ohio. c.v.s. is that cvs -- caremark, they had been using their role as p.b.m. to pay c.v.s. pharmacies as much as 46% more than competing pharmacies. now this is something else we need to talk about. we need to talk about what's referred to as vertical integration. that is, right now, where the insurance company owns the p.b.m. and owns the pharmacy. ethe top three i mentioned earlier that control 80% of the market, that's the case with all of them. c.v.s. is the pharmacy, caremark is the p.b.m., etna is the insurance company. -- aetna is the insurance company. we would ask them, what are you doing with the discounts? what are you doing with the rebates you get? and they tell us, we give them back to the plan sponsors and the plan sponsors decrease premiums. anyone see their premiums decrease recently? oklahoma iffer. -- i don't think i have. but think about it for a moment. if the insurance company owns the p.b.m. and owns the pharmacy, if the p.b.m. is going to give it back to the insurance company, isn't that just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other pocket? i mean, if c.v.s., if caremark is going to give back the money they're saving in the third party with the p.b.m.'s to the insurance company aetna that they also own, and they're not the only one. what about a expressscript. expressscripts recently bought cigna. you've got cigna is the insurance company. expressscripts is the p.b.m. and oh, by the way, expressscripts has their own mail order pharmacy and in terms of volume, they're the third large nest america. again, we have a situation there. same thing goes with united. united health care. owns on tum. and they have their own -- owns optum. they have their own mail ord farmcism you have the top three p.b.m.'s controlling the health care market, they have their own insurance companies and their own pharmacies. ohio discovered that caremark, the third party -- the p.b.m., was paying their pharmacy, c.v.s., 46% more than they were paying competing pharmacies. that's an example of where they were taking money out of one pocket an putting it in another pocket. what about new york state? their state medicaid reported that p.b.m.'s were pocketing 32% markup on generic drugs. 32% markup on generic drugs. the drugs patients traditionally rely on to be more affordable than their branded alternatives. but new york caught them redhanded. i can name state after state, state of arkansas, called a special session to address the situation with p.b.m.'s. just yesterday, my home state of georgia, the governor signed into legislation two bills dealing with p.b.m. one of them that would prohibit p.b.m.'s from steering their patients to their own pharmacy. steering them away from other pharmacies. independent pharmacies. so this is just not the federal government acting on these issues. we've had states who acted on these issues as well. so let's talk about a couple of other things that we've done in congress. one thing that i want to mention because i thought it was such an egregious thing that the p.b.m.'s were doing in the past, we thankfully were able to address this, was called the gag clause. thankfully we had legislation that i was honored to sponsor here in the house that was passed in the house, passed in the senate, signed into law by the president. it addressed gag clauses. what's a gag clause? you want to talk about the audacity of the p.b.m.'s? let me tell you about the audacity of the p.b.m.'s. as i mentioned earlier about the manufacturers being urn pressure to give the p.b.m.'s discount, rebait, you will, in order to get their drugs on the formularies, well, independent pharmacies are the same way. they're under pressure. what the p.b.m.'s did is they told they had a clause in their contract with the pharmacy and it said that if a drug is cheaper if you buy it out of pocket if you pay for it out of pocket if you buy it for cash, then the co-pay, you cannot tell the patient that. you cannot tell the patient that. if you do tell the patient that you run the risk of being kicked out of the network. well, the reality is you can't afford to be kicked out of the network. if you lose thousands of bodies because that p.b.m. controls those e-- that network, then you're out of business. so pharmacies had no other choice. patients were pay manager for their co-pay than what they would have paid if they would have been simply paid out of pocket, simply paid cash. we did away with that. thank you, mr. president, for signing that thank you, mr. pre. we said, no that is not going to happen anymore. and pharmacists can take care of their patients and tell them, look, if you pay for this, you can pay $4 and don't have to pay $20 in co-pay. let me give you one example. we were actually -- we were actually -- we had one of our members who was the primary caregiver for her husband. we have been talking about the gag clause. she knew pharmacists weren't allowed to offer that information. e went into the pharmacy and and the medication was going to be $600. she said what if i pay you cash, how much will it be? $40. $40. this is an extreme example, but an example, thank goodness, we did away with that, and i thank the senate and house for passing it and the president for signing it into law. madam speaker, this is a real problem. i want to conclude by saying that what we are trying to do here is to bring about transparency. just show us what's happening. that's all we're asking for. i want to applaud the administration. i want to thank president donald j. trump for bringing this issue to light. this has been an issue he has worked on. this is a nonpartisan issue. i never, in my years of practicing pharmacy asked someone are you republican or democrat. this impacts everyone. but i thank the president for his leadership on this and i thank the administration for these two proposed rules, making the rebaits at the point of sale so they will go to the patient. these two rules that are being proposed by c.m.s. will help and get us to a point where we will have more transparency. that's what we need. folks, this is a serious subject, a very serious subject. i witnessed it first happened and witnessed in my practice of pharmacy for over 30 years. it's horrible when you see someone suffering who can't afford a medication. i call on the pharmaceutical manufacturers to do their part. they are not without responsibility here. and i think they understand that. madam speaker, we have got to have these two rules proposals passed and i encourage c.-m s. to follow through on this, do away with d.a.r. this will bring about transparency. and i thank the administration for their support. i thank those who spoke here tonight. thank you for giving me this opportunity to pri to light this extremely important subject. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky is recognized for 60 minute as the designee of the majority leader. ms. schakowsky: thank you, madam speaker. the report on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election more commonly known as the mueller report, outlines efforts by the russian government to manipulate the united states' election system and directly attack american democracy. it outlines alleged coordination between individuals associated with one camp and russia to influence our election. it also documents multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice. the report has been miss r mischaracterized and spun in inappropriate ways in the halls of congress and within the media. in reality, the report activities undertaken by many in positions of power that were at best unethical and at worst illegal. you don't have to take my word for it. instead, listen to the following examples taken directly from the report and judge for yourself. so i'm going to begin with a quote from the mueller report and then invite my colleagues to also read from the document which the american people should know can be downloaded from the department of justice website. quote, the evidence we object taped about the president's action and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. at the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would do state. based on the facts ap the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him, volyume two, page eight. the call on susan -- gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. shah that flafseflafse the president called mcdepaun and directed him to have the special counsel removed. in interviews with the special counsel's office, mcgahn that the president called him at home twice and directed him to call rosenstein and say that mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as special counsel. on the first call, mcgahn recalled that the president said something like, you got to do this. unquote. call rod, volume two, page 85. ms. schakowsky: thank you. next is barbara lee. ms. lee: substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the president's decision to fire comey was comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation, despite the president's repeated request hat comey make such an announcement. other evidence indicates that the president wanted to protect himself from an investigation to his campaign, volume two, pages 75 and 76. s. schakowsky: sean. >> this is in response to the attorney germ's claim that the president has constitutional immunity from prosecution. mr. mueller writes we were not persuaded that the president has plampinget constitutional immunity, through the exercise of valid article 2 powers. he goes on to talk about. i read the footnote. a possible remedy for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a president leaves office. impeachment would remove a president from office but would not address the culpability or the usual purposes. i will peefment is a rarely invoked remedy and congress is not relying applicable to a former president. 178. s volume two, page ms. schakowsky: brenda lawrence. mrs. lawrence: on saturday, june , 2017, the president called mcgahn and directed him to have the special counsel removed and interviews with the special counsel's office, mcgahn recalled that the president called him at home twice. and on both occasions, directed him to call rotion bridenstine and say that mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as special counsel. on the first call, mcgahn recalled that the president said something like, you got to do this. you got to call rod. his is from volume two, page 85. ms. schakowsky: joyce beatty. mrs. beatty: reading from volume two, page 8. congress has the authority to prohibit a president's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the authority of the administration of justice. article 2 of the constitution the ot categorically for conduct tcha they have investigated. our analysis led us to conclude that the obstruction of justice statute can prohibit the president's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, to end or to interfere with an investigation. the conclusion that congress may to the president's corrupt exercise accords with the constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. s. schakowsky: congresswoman omar. ms. omar: reading from volume wo, page 157, that, i quote, investigations found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exercise iing undue influence over the law enforcement investigation including the russian interference and obstruction investigation. the incident were often carried out through one-to-one meetings which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. these ranged from efforts tory move the special council and reverse the effects of the attorney germ recusal. the use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation. to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. using the acts clecktively help eliminate those acts, unquote. 157. two, page ms. schakowsky: congressman joe morelley. >> cohen intended. the president accused cohen of making up stories to get himself. taxi cabs, maybe, union quote, called cohen a rate and publicly suggested that cohen's family members have committed crimes. the president used inducements in positive messages in an effort to get cohen not to cooperate and intimidation of the drges of undermining cohen's. volume 2, page 15 . ms. schakowsky: congressman lowenthal. r. lowenthal: mr. lowenthal: the president launched public attacks on the investigation and those vooved in it who could possess facts adverse to the president while in private, the president engaged in a veers of targeted efforts to control the investigation. for instance, the president attempted to remove the special counsel. he sought to have attorney general sessions unrecuse himself. and limit the investigation. he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the june 9, 2016, meeting between russians and campaign officials. and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. olume 2, page 157. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman barbara lee. mrs. lee: neverly 2018, the press reported that the president had directed mcgahn to have the special counsel removed in june, 2017, and that mcgahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. the president reacted to the news stories by directing white house officials to tell mcgahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not beened orered to have the special counsel removed. mcgahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the president had directed mcgahn to have the special counsel removed. volume 2, pages 5 and 6. ms. schakowsky: congressman joe morrelle. mr. morelle: congress can per missably criminalize certain conduct by the president such as su borning perjury, intimidating witnesses or fabricating evidence because those raise no separation of powers questions. the constitution does not authorize the president to engage in such conduct. in those actions transgress the president's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully xecuted, volume 2, page 170. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman joist beatty. -- joyce bay tifment ms. -- bay tifment mrs. beatty: the media released voofs candidate trump speaking in graphic terms about women's -- about women years earlier which was considered damaging to his candidacy. less than an hour later, wiki leaks made its second release. thousands of john podesta's emails had been stolen by the g.r.u. in late march, 2016. the f.b.i. and u.s. government institutions were at that time continuing their investigation of suspected russian governments efforts to interfere with the presidential election that same day, october 7, the department of homeland security and the office of the director of national intelligence issued a joint public statement. that the russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from u.s. persons and institutions including from the u.s. political organization and the disclosures of hacked materials to the online platform such as wikileaks, the statement continued are intended to interfere with the united states lection process. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman hayes. mrs. hayes: further, the office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated, including some associated with the trump campaign, deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. in such cases, the office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparisons to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. volume one, page 10. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman brenda larnse. -- lawrence. mrs. lawrence: reading from olume 2, page 147. cohen also recalled speaking with the president's personal counsel about pardons. after the searches of his home and office had occurred, at a time when the media had reported that pardon discussions were occurring at the white house. cohen understood, based on his conversation and previous conversations, about pardons with the president's personal counsel that as long as he stayed on message, he would be taken care of by the president. either through a pardon or through the investigation being shut down. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman barbara lee. mrs. lee: the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the trump campaign lied to the special counsel's office and to congress about their interactions with russian affiliated individuals and related matters. those lies materially impaired an investigation of russian election interference. the office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. olume 1, page 9. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman ja hambings nna hayes. -- jahana hayes. mrs. hayes: the president and his personal counsel made repeated statements that a pardon was a possibility for manafort while also making it clear that the president did not want manafort to flip and cooperate with the government. volume 2, page 131. ms. schakowsky: congresswoman beatty. mrs. beatty: from volume 1, page 7. immediately after the november election, russian government officials in prominent -- and prominent russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. the most senior levels of russian government encouraged those efforts. the russian embassy made contact hours after the election to con gradge late the president-elect and to arrange a call with president putin. several russian businessmen picked up the effort from there. ms. schakowsky sneck president engaged in a second phase of conduct involving public attacks of the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control and efforts -- inh public and private both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. volume 2, page 7. the president's position as the head of the executive branch provided him with unique powers -- with unique and powerful means to influence official officerngs, subordinate as, and potential witnesses. olume 2, page 7. substantial evidence indicates that the president's efforts to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president and his campaign's conduct. volume 2, page 97. econgresswoman barbara lee. mrs. lee: two days after the president directed mcgahn to have the special counsel removed, the president made another attempt to affect the course of the russian investigation. on june 19, 2017, the president corey lee one with ans doky in the oval office -- lewandoski in the oval office and dictated a a letter to be delivered to attorney general stheags would have the toveget limiting the investigation to future election interference only. volume 2, page 90. ms. schakowsky: i'm going to yield now to congresswoman jayapal to control the rest of the hour. ms. jayapal: thank you for your work on so many issues including bringing truth to the mueller investigation and make sure people understand exactly what is going on. and now this rest of the special order hour which is the congressional progressive caucus' special order hour that a we do each week, we are focusing on the one-year anniversary of the family separation crisis. and any of our members who are here and would like to speak are welcome to do so. but let me start by saying, one year ago a i became the first member of congress to go into a where hundreds of men and women, mothers and fathers, had been separated from their children and were being held in the prison system, in that federal prison just south of my district. i cannot even today, 365 days later irk cannot forget the store -- later, i cannot forget the stories that these mothers and fathers told me. they told me about how immigration sidgets said to them, your families don't exist anymore. that was a a quote. they that -- that they would never see their children again. at the time i saw them, it was already three to four weeks after a when they had been separated and the majority of those parents had no idea where their children were. in fact a, that morning, some of them had been handed slips that supposedly had the names of their children written on those slips of paper. except one woman came over to me, crying, and she said these are not my children. that slip that supposedly had the names of her children did not match her actual children. can you imagine, i just think as a mother, for all the a mothers and fathers out there as a parent, can you imagine being separated from your child, in some case as children as young as 6 months, later, we found out 3 months old barke bys who were torn off the breast of their mothers. these moms described immigration agents tearing them from their children without the opportunity to say good-bye. some of them told me that they were -- they went to go to the bathroom, they were told their children would still be there they came back and their children were gone but they could hear them in the very next room. crying for them. screaming for their parents and these mothers were not able to go. they cold me -- they told me about how immigration agents put them in line with their children and they would send the parents in one direction and the children in other directions. one of the mothers told me how she left guatemala with her 8 and 12-year-old children. her husband is in prison. and she left because -- he was put in prison for raping a young child. around the same age as her daughter. and she was afraid he was just about to come out of prison. she was afraid that he would come out of prison and then go after their child, rape her daughter. another woman from el salvador told me how she got a protection order against her ex-husband who is a police officer but the protection order was meaningless and he continued to antagonize her family and so she left. many of these mothers told me how they had left one or two of their children behind because they just wanted to try to save one and it was too difficult to bring small children on the long journey that they were taking. the incredible sacrifice as a parent of just trying to save one child. one mother told me that she had three children, the first was killed, shot and killed, by gang members. the second was shot and paralyzed by gang members. she took her final child, she left the paralyzed child at home because she knew he would not be able to make the journey and she took the final child and tried to bring that child to safety. after everything they experienced, the trauma in their home countries, the cruel separation from their children, the treatment that they experienced in immigration custody, was just outrageous. immigration agents told them that they were filthy they used that word. they laughed at them when they cried. about losing their children. and these mothers told me how they were detained in cells that were so cold that they called them the icebox. because it was so cold. many of them described being put there after crossing the rio grande river and they were still wet and they were put into these freezer boxes, these iceboxes, without blankets, without sleeping mats. some described how they went without water for five days. after public outcry and pressure from elected officials, the government set up a number for parents to call to get information on their children. but some of the parents that i spoke to in texas said that the number didn't work or that i.c.e. wouldn't allow them to speak to their kids. one mother mentioned that she repeatedly tried to call her child, to try to locate her child, but the number would not go through. one mother told me that when she requested to talk to her child, the i.c.e. agents would get mad and they mentioned that in some instances families would have to pay for these phone calls. and this isn't just anecdotal. the d.h.s. inspector general's september, 2018, report found mixed results among parents attempting to call their children and that important information about how to contact separated children was not always available. just this week two days ago we had hoped to do the special order hour on the day of the anniversary. we had to do it today because this is our scheduled time. but the group, families belong together, a coalition of groups working on this issue, did an installation on our capitol lawn with the shoes of tiny children all throughout and then an incredible 3-d statue of a mother reaching out to her child and the child was in a cage. i cannot imagine that this is the country that we call the greatest country in the world. i cannot imagine that my country that i am proud of, that i serve here as maybe of congress, would do this to children. and this administration has consistently demonized and vilified immigrants. but this policy of cruel family separation is hard to even describe, hard to imagine that it's happening in our borders -- on our borders. i was privileged to lead with ms. roybal-allard, at that time we were co-chairs of the women's working group on immigration reform, and we led a trip to the border. i see my good friend, representative schakowsky, who was on that trip. and i just wanted to ask you, representative schakowsky, if -- you've been so eloquent on this issue i wanted to see if you wanted to say a few word and then i know my friend, barbara lee, is here as well. about this crisis and about our commitment as democrats to refuse to allow this to continue. ms. schakowsky: thank you, congresswoman. you talked but how shocking it is that our country, the united states -- about how shocking it is that our country, the united states of america, which is, despite any effort to change, it is a country of immigrants. i know yourself are an immigrant to the united states of america. my parents, neither was born in the united states of america. but this is a place where my family was able to find refuge pogroms in eastern europe and make a good life here. and yet today we are seeing such horror that if it were another country i think we would want sanctions, we would go to the united nations. how could a country separate families? and it's not just at the border. as you know, inside our country, in my city of chicago, we are finding families that are scared all the time, mixed families where the children might be citizens and the parents undocumented, the kids are afraid to go to school, wondering if their parents will be there. but that trip to the border that you helped organize is something that i will never, ever forget. seeing people in cages, seeing that grandmother, who was inconsoleable because her -- she came with her 7-year-old granddaughter who was taken from her because our country did not recognize a grandmother as family. and that the child was redesignated as an unaccompanied minor and she thought she may never see her again. and maybe that's true. there are thousands, we think, of children and families that are separated. we don't know. nobody knows. the department of homeland security doesn't know. -- doesn't know how many children have been separated from their parents. we saw some moms who were being reunited with their children and one of them was furious and i was curious as to why. and she said, because her 8-year-old daughter was told, your mother abandoned you. someone representing our country said that to a child. who does that? your mother abandoned you and you will be in a shelter until you're 18 years old. and that reunion, mother and daughter, did not go smoothly at first, as you can imagine. i mean, we saw a whole room full of people pleading guilty to crossing the border because it wasn't at a designated border crossing. i mean, it was so painful to see that. and that was the beginning of the zero tolerance policy. and we are still seeing families separated, families suffering one year later. and thank you for calling attention to this and for organizing that visit to the border. which is forever in my mind. jay allen thank you so much, representative -- ms. jayapal: thank you so much, representative schakowsky. i know my colleague, barbara lee, who has been such a champion for families, for children, for people of color, for low income families across this country, and knows the history of this country, this is not the first time that we have separated children from their parents. and so i wanted to invite my colleague, representative lee, to say a few words on this as well. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me thank you, congresswoman jayapal, for your tremendous leadership and for staying steady and focused. and also i just have to cognize you for the input -- input which you provided to the conference committee, to keep the government open, but also it was a conference committee to fund homeland security and your input and what you gave us really was extremely important. to get that done. and we have a lot of work to do. so thank you very much for that also. yes, our nation has yet to recover from the trump administration's cruel zero tolerance, zero humanity prosecution policy that tore and is tearing thousands of children from their parents and guardians, which was announced one year ago this week. since donald trump started his zero humanity policy, and that's exactly what it is, we've learned more and more disturbing evidence. we know that the trump administration piloted family separation on a limited basis and planned to impose a policy of mass separation of children from their moms and dads. a policy. we've seen the administration's memos contemplating how this could be done and the resources needed to separate and detain thousands of children and parents. the government accountability office has investigated, finding that despite the administration's contemplation, at this is a very serious, serious problem that they were unaware that then-attorney general jeff sessions intended to launch this zero humanity policy. they didn't even know this, they said. at least as of february this year, we know that the justice department and their attorneys are still not tracking when they prosecute parents and legal guardians separated from their children. and that brings me to what may be the most disturbing part of it all, the department of health and human services inspector general found that the total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration authorities is unknown. and that thousands of children may have been separated. so the bottom line is that donald trump and his administration, showing horrific cruelty and disregard for the well-being of children, planned for months, this was a plan, to tear children from their parents' arms. key officials were warned about the potentially life-long harm to children and donald trump and his administration still did absolutely nothing to ensure children could be reunited with their parents. yes, congresswoman jayapal, this is not a stain, but this is yet another stain on the united states. i'm reminded that 400 years ago, when the first africans were brought to the shores of this country to begin the horrific, inhumane institution and government-sanctioned slavery, children were separated from their parents. and that was a plan. just as it is a plan now. african families were split and destroyed. we still experience in the black community generational trauma from these crimes against humanity. i couldn't help but be reminded of what my ancestors experienced as i visited mcallen, texas, and brownsville, texas, last year. i saw children sleeping on concrete floors, behind barbed wire, crying for their parents. i spoke with mothers and fathers who did not know where their children were. after several months. and we were -- were after several months. and we were told that they could make these phone calls, and also that these calls cost money. where would they have money? how could they get any money? these children and their parents are no -- had no access to mental health professionals. nye background is psychiatric social work and i know the trauma of separation of children from their parents. just within 24 hours that trauma settles in. they had no access to legal services, and, yes, i couldn't believe it when i saw these detention centers. they were prisons. they reminded me of san quentin. i saw mothers in prison uniforms. these were asylum seekers. they were put behind barbed wire in prison uniforms. this was like something i had never seen in my life. and yet it took me back to what our government sanctioned and promoted and had as this policy 400 years ago. yes, i was born in a border city. el paso, texas. i was just there with congresswoman escobar on monday. el paso, the people of el paso are doing everything they can to help with the children and with the families who are being so ruthlessly treated by our immigration officials. i just have to tell you, these children will grow up with a disdain for america. ok? their trauma will turn into anger. and i know that, professionally, i know what's going to happen to these kids. the long-term impacts will not be good for our country. so this administration better figure this out pretty quick. there's so many dimensions to what they are doing. i don't even think they even get it. you know, the humane and the humanitarian crisis that we're experiencing is first and foremost, but we also have to remind the trump administration they are creating children now who will be adults soon. and this trauma's going to stay with them all their lives. so we better get it right and get it right quickly. so thank you for your leadership. we have done as much work in the appropriations committee, we thank god we're able to pass some of the amendments last year that would not allow the immigration officials to chain pregnant women, get it, chain pregnant women. we got rid of that. hopefully they're implementing that properly. so there's a lot to do. but this is something that cannot last and this is america . should not -- the world an d not see us leading immigration policy or promoting an immigration policy that's central to it -- that central to it destroys families and children and lives. these are human beings. they don't deserve this. and we have to do more to stop it. so thank you again. ms. jayapal: thank you so much, congresswoman lee, for your work, for your leadership. you know, i was thinking about what you said about children and the impact on them, even within 24 hours. and we had the then-director of the office of refugee resettlement, scott lloyd, was in to testify before us in judiciary committee. d we also had other career child welfare experts that were there on the panel. including one who testified to us on the committee that he warned the director and those above him about the increasing family separations and the incredible significant and potentially life-long risks to those children. not only the ones that weren't reunited, because at that point there were still, as there are today, over 300 families today that still aren't reunited. but not only to the ones thap weren't reunited -- that weren't reewe newted, but he said -- reunited, but he said, even the ones who were reunited, most of them spent months separated from their parents, that life-long, and he used that, life-long damage to those children would be intense. and i asked scott lloyd as the director, then-director, did you do anything, did you take that information that you got, that this was going to be life-long, irre-- irreversible, he used the word irreversible, the witness who testified about the damage to children, did you do anything with that information about the life-long irreversible damage to thousands of children that you, this administration, has caused? and he said, no, didn't share it with anybody, didn't do anything with about -- didn't do anything about it. on the same day that the trump administration said that it would reunite thousands of children, because, you know, this is not a democrat or a republican issue. people across this country were outraged by what they saw. i remember first lady laura bush wrote an amazing op-ed talking about how this is not us, this is not america. independents, republicans and democrats knew the policy was wrong, it was cruel, it was un-american. the same day the trump administration said ok, we hear the outrage we'll reunite thousands of children that it had separate through the a central database a government official admitted in an email that the trump administration only had enough information at that point to reconnect 60 parents with their kids. 60. 60 parents out of nearly 3,000 children. that we know of. because later we also found out that there were more children children we didn't know about in a, quote, pilot project, that was even before the scrutiny came. let me remind people that at the time this was happen, d.h.s. secretary, then-d.h.s. secretary kristen nielsen and other trump officials claim red petedly, not just once, not just twice but repeatedly, in testimony, in hearings, that they were keeping track of separations. and that claim had simply no basis in reality. the truth is, d.h.s. has better systems in place to track the property that people left in -- people who were in custody left but not the children. trump's department of homeland security did not see a fit to track children, include aing infants and toddlers. a federal judge recently ordered the trump administration to locate the children that were still remaining, potentially d -- potentially numbering in the thousands, over the next six months, as opposed to the two dwhreers trump administration requested. the trump administration said give us two years try to to reunite these kids with their parents. the truth is, congresswoman lee, and everybody that's wamping, we may never know the number of children that were separated by the trump administration and there are children who may never , ever be reunited with their parents. and we are of course trying to get to the bottom of. this we're trying to get accountability on this. but we know that the d.h.s. is still separating families and we see the relentless efforts of this administration to cut people a off from seeking asylum which is, by the way, a lawful act. not only by our own domestic laws, we are signatory to human rights treaties, international treaties, that require a us to allow people to seek assay lum. so last week, i reintroduced my dignity for detained immigrants act with my colleague, congressman adam smith and senator booker introduced it in the senate, last cycle this bill had a significant, over half of the democratic caucus. i think it was like 167 co-sponsors. we intend to get more of our democratic caucus, my office spent eight months working on this bill in the last congress with stake holders across the country and i'm proud to say that as we reintroduce it we have also made sure and frankly it would have addressed the humanitarian crisis we saw through family separation. last year, already made it extremely difficult to detain children and families. this year, what we did is we added explicit language that bars immigration and customs enforcement officials from detaining children under 18 years: we actually have the provision of not allowing for pregnant women to be shackled why do we need provisions saying pregnant women can't be shackled? what this bill is about is denying this administration and any administration in the future, democratic or republican, from using detention to facilitate the cruel separation of families and i am hoping, i know you are either on the bill or going to be on the bill, but i am hoping that every single one of my colleagues joins me in transforming a cruel, abusive system a detention system that takes these children and puts them, we should call them jails because that's what they are. they are not detention facilities. most of the actual facilities as you saw are just like jails. in fact, they are using more and more jails. but that system is now detaining 52,000 people a day. which is why we need to make sure that we address this in appropriations, we need to make sure we address this through legislation. i am still astounded by the profound cruelty of this administration and this policy of family separation, of zero humanity, that was imposed on children and families seeking asylum. mrs. lee: can i -- your bill is extremely important, congresswoman jayapal. i hope republicans join us in this effort because this is a concern that should be bipartisan. or nonpartisan. let me mention a couple of things. everyone who is a parent, a grarne, or has ever baby-sat children or who has been around children, if a child walks off, or you can't locate the child that you're caring for, and i know you have felt the panic, i know when my children were small, and i would furn around and they were gone, it was like, oh my god what has happened? and the anxiety and the fear and the just going -- getting very emotionally distraught behind not knowing where my children were. will always be with me. so i think everyone our country should understand what these parents are going through. and what a lost child is feeling. if they've had that experience before. we had a hearing on the family separation policy in the appropriations committee, labor, health, and human services, and we had a panel of individuals, some were meantal health professionals, and we were told in no uncertain terms that a day or two of counseling is not going to get it. ok. these parents and these children need a specific form of psychotherapy and it's got to be the same, it's got to be professional and it's got to be the type of therapy that address specifically trauma. so i'm not sure the d.h.s. even understands this. so it's on the record and we've been trying now to make sure that we can provide the funding for the proper type of mental health services so we can begin to deal with this trauma that has to be addressed early on because otherwise this, again, it's not going to be only these kids. this will be generational because there are d.n.a. changes through the generations as a result of family separation and children being separated from their parents at an early age. ms. jayapal: thank you for pointing that out. thed of the american academy of pediatrics has come. we've had a number of forums where people have been able to ask questions, our members have been able to ask questions, i'm grateful to many of our member who was taken it upon themselves to go and visit these detention facilities, go to the border with us and on other trips as well and see exactly what is happening. because i don't think you can really imagine it unless you see it. i don't think you can imagine what it's like to go into a giant facility where children are being held, 6, 7, 8 years old, being held in cages with no place to sleep. mrs. lee: begging for help. ms. jayapal: begging for help. i think about the children, the parent us talked to, some of the reunify quation saw when i led that trip -- reunifications we saw when i led that trip to the border. thinking about these parents who have to experience their children not wanting to come to them. representative schakowsky talked about one mom we met who had -- who was reunited with her 8-year-old daughter, the daughter had been told that the mother had abandoned her. and for month she is thought that the mother had abandoned her and she was going to go into a shelter. or foster home. because her mother had abandoned her. so you can imagine when the mother came to be reunited with the child, the mother was so happy that she finally was getting to see her child, the child did not want to go to her mother. she didn't want to go to her mother. and it took some time for them to actually be reunited and for the mother to say no, i did not abandon you. but if you're a child, an -year-old child, how do you understand the e-- how do you thauns? how do you process it? and i think that in the end, i continue to think about the ways in which we are criminalizing migrants. criminalizing people who are fleeing violence, tremendous violence in their countries. just the other day there was an article in the "new york times" i think that talked about in honduras which is where many of the parents i met with that were in that federal prison, separated from their children, many of them were from honduras. and this article describes how you have two choices. you either get kill wid the gangs or you leave. that is the only choice you have. we went to one -- i also went to tijuana. i think i was the first member to go to tijuana. and i met with a 15-year-old boy who had been shot in both knees. and he had -- his mother -- he had a message on his cell phone from his mother who said please do not come back here. just go. just go. get to the united states. get to a place of safety. seek asylum. i will be devastated to have you leave me but i just want you to stay alive. what parent doesn't want their child to stay alive? and this young man as he talked to me was a strong, strong young man. but he started weeping. you know. talking about how he had to leave his mother and come to the ited states as an unacamp -- unaccompanied child. it was devastating to hear, absolutely devastating to hear. as we celebrate this one-year anniversary, not celebrate, memorialize, i should say, this one-year anniversary of this uel, zero humanity policy of family separation, i urge all of my colleagues to sign on to my dignity for detained immigrants bill. to work in appropriations and every committee that we have to remember that we still have children who are separated from their parents. still to this day. and we still have families that are being separated from their parents as we speak. and we still do not know how many thousands more children were separated from their parents. as a result of this administration's cruel policies that undermine who we are. and i see i've been joined by an incredible colleague, a lead thorne judiciary committee, a leader -- on the judiciary committee, a leader on the caucus, somebody who was on our trip to texas, to the border, but also is from texas. so i want to recognize my colleague, sheila jackson lee, for her comments on. this ms. jackson lee: i thank you, i'm glad to join both you and congresswoman lee on just reinforcing the devastation and the dastardliness of child separation, separation from their parents. i'd just like to very briefly say that this sad commemoration should equate to a commitment of zero tolerance for separating children from their families. and we should end the migrant policy thaincludes child separation, the position of remaining in mexico as you seek asylum, the losing of your space if you have to be, if you're in a shelter and have to be sent back, or bed, you have to be sent back to mexico when you apply for asylum. all these migrant policies which included child separation clearly can devastate the families. so i want to emphasize just one point that included my many trips to the border, incluing the time we had the opportunity to travel together. i want to focus on the psychological and maybe irreparable damage that is being done, particularly to children in the understandable period, that's not a technical term, i'm not a sociologist or psychologist, but in that period where the child may be somewhere between 4 and 15 or 4 and 12, those are really years when, whether it's a boy or girl, they're bonding with mom and people must realize that those children traveled thousands of miles or thousand -- or a thousand-plus miles with that parent and mostly that mother and it had been a dad. when that mother made a sacrifice either out of lack of understanding the language or signing a painer that they did not understand or thinking that they needed to separate because of the housing situation and many of us saw the housing sitchtwharkse metallic blankets and lack of space. let me say this, for the personnel on the border, we have some very empathetic personnel on the border, men and women who do their job. but the resources of the facilities are absolutely inadequate and disgraceful and they've been like that on the board over texas for a very long time. so i'm grateful for congresswoman lee and congresswoman lucille roybal-allard, those who realize we have to really overhaul those facilities that will include health care facilities and otherwise. but in that reunion if you might say, and there were good staff people, thought they were doing the right thing, they were excited with the expectation, they brought the children, i remember two little boys. first of all, there wasn't a dry eye in the room of those of us who had come. it was just unspeakable, it was overwhelming, it was -- it brought back memory you thought about your children or your extend fad -- extended family members. two little boys, crisp little white shirts on, over at a table playing with the best red fire truck they could find and in walked mothers who went to different corners but in walks this mother with her belongings as i recollect like in a pillow case. not even a suitcase. obviously youfl traveled a thousand miles plus and then you've been detained somewhere and this child went off some other place. and she comes with those welled up eyes, expectation. and she stood by that table for the longest period of time and we all know there's no way that you don't know someone is standing behind you or there's no way you don't recognize your mom even in the side of your eye that was walking in an we know how mom and children are, mom and dad, they break that big grin and run like they've never run before to get into the arms of that mom and dad. this mom stood there with her pillow case belongings for the longest period of time and those two little boys continued to play and ignore and play and ignore and play and ignore. i moan, i almost wanted to reach out and turn their little face back here but there was no way they did not know that mom was standing there. but the detachment was so devastating and when that mom put her arms around precious little boy he was so stiff. . that i knew this was going to take a very long time. what i was fearful of is where they were destined, there would be no resources for his treatment, for his ability to nderstand what happened. how callous this policy is to the date that there are still some unseparated children and with the leadership we have now , we don't know whether they will do it again. so i thank the gentlelady for doing this because even now my eyes well up because children are children and we will never repair the damage. but we must stop this policy, it must be zero tolerance. we must not have this policy ever again. it is truly inhumane. and it is not representative of the values of this nation. in spite of some of the history that we have had as a country. this is a nation where people believe in that sense of dignity and equality, our values say that we need to act upon that, and certainly humanity, which is so very important. so i yield back to the gentlelady. ms. jayapal: i thank the gentlelady from texas for her leadership for her words, for her work on this issue. and i would just say that, as we get ready to close here, this special order hour, we are thinking, keeping in our minds, in our hearts, the thousands of families across this country and across the world that have been separated from their children and we will do everything we can to continue to fight for justice. thank you, madam chair. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. under the speaker's announced licy of january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, for 30 minutes. mr. grothman: thank you. i rise today to talk about the crisis at our southern border. obviously we have a big problem on the southern border. if you've been paying attention to what's on tv. at the beginning of the year, 50,000 people were arriving here every month. we're now, we believe, at 100,000 people illegally entering this country. it is not surprising that people from other countries, well, one of the reasons this is happening, it's not surprising that people from other countries think the united states does not enforce our immigration laws. many local governments are sanctuary cities, sanctuary counties, or even sanctuary states, sending the clear message to people in other parts of the country, the united states does not enforce our immigration laws. sadly, even in my home state of wisconsin, the governor of wisconsin pulled the national air -- guard off the border. sending the message the governor of the state doesn't believe we should be sending -- spending money enforcing our immigration laws. the chief executives of the biggest state -- biggest city in the country, and biggest state in the country have both made it clear that they will provide or want to provide free medical care to people coming here. and by the way, i should point out that right now, at a time when so many americans have huge deductibles, you're almost better off being here illegally and getting the free medical care than our citizens are. in any event, it is not surprising that we are flooded with people who want to come here. another evidence of that is this body's refusal to appropriate enough money to build a wall. and now, in the last week, at least it's been put out there, we have the majority party's suggestion or guidance for where we're going to spend money in the next budget. now, given the crisis at the border, you would think the biggest increase in the next budget compared to the 2020 budget would be in homeland security. but no. so the people back home understand, when we pass our annual appropriations, when we fund the budget, we break it into 12 different subcommittees. ok. subcommittees like agriculture. subcommittees like state and foreign operations. subcommittees like defense. and the subcommittee in charge of protecting our southern border, homeland security. of the 12 groups that this body is going to vote on, which classification is getting the smallest increase in this budget? homeland security. one more time, the congress itself sending the message that we do not take our immigration laws seriously. it is time for us to send a message to people abroad that we -- that they should be taking our immigration laws seriously. after all, given the complete irresponsibility from so many politicians up here, it doesn't surprise me people think that we don't take our immigration laws seriously. what can we do? well, recently a report came out in which it was guessed that maybe over half the people who are in this country illegally are getting some sort of public benefit. when i went down to the border in arizona a while back, and talked to customs people who went through people's walt wallets, people's -- wallets, people's purses, they found evidence of people receiving public benefits that were not citizens here. i am glad our h.u.d. secretary is beginning to look into the, i believe, large number of people who are here illegally taking advantage of low-income housing. i want to point out, we have nothing wrong with legal immigrants coming here. neither myself nor donald trump who ran on this issue want to decrease the 700,000 people who are sworn in every year as legal immigrants. and we do not want to decrease the four million people who are here on legal work visas. as a matter of fact, we've said if need be we would even increase that. but to have so many people come here illegally is no question a huge problem. and i would suggest to president trump, because you can't wait for congress to do anything around here, i would suggest he send the message that when secretary carson finds people in low-income housing that are here illegally, they should be deported. i think we should look at -- i've certainly had the anecdotal evidence from back home that people are here illegally and are benefiting from snap benefits. and people who are, again, here illegally taking -- not deporting everybody, but if they are taking advantage of our public benefits, again, they should return home and try to make a living in their home country or get benefits available at our home country. the next thing i would like to see happen, i know it's something that president trump ran on, i think it's time he rings the bell, is ending birth right citizenship. birth right citizenship is something that can cause somebody to become legal here whose parents are illegal. we should not reward illegal behavior by having people who come here illegally have a child in the country. not to mention it is not right to encourage people to just fly here, quite pregnant people, and have a baby in this country. and wind up having their family stay here legally by that way as well. one thing that intrigues me is that apparently canada is looking to get rid of their birth right citizenship law, one of the few other western countries that have it. t would be very embarrassing if canada, justin trudeau's canada, gets rid of the antiquated birth right citizenship law ahead of donald trump's united states. in any event. i strongly encourage president trump to counteract the message being sent by so many other elected officials and make it clear that our immigration laws are to be taken seriously. please, mr. trump, send the . ssage, congress is paralyzed stand up, not only to the people overtly he discouraging -- overtly discouraging, ignoring our immigration laws, but stand up to the chamber of commerce lobby and say that in the future, we want our immigrants that we pick, merit-based immigrants, not whoever decides to break the law. i yield the remainder of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced licy of january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. adams, for 30 minutes. ms. adams: thank you, madam chair, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of my special order . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. adams: thank you, madam chair much i rise today as the founder and co-chair -- madam chair. i rise today as the founder and co-chair of the black in term health caucus. i want to take this time to briefly talk about the importance of black maternal health. our country is in the midst of a national public crisis. black mothers are dying. across the country black women from all walks of life are dying from preventable pregnancy-related complications at three to four times the rate of non-hispanic white women. 60% of maternal deaths are preventable. their infants are twice as likely to die by their first birthday as infants born to white mothers. black women are 50% more likely than non-hispanic white women to give birth preterm. accounting for more than half of the disparity in infant mortality rates among black and non-hispanic white women. reducing this gap through interventions like better medical care and increased social support can improve maternal outcomes for african-american women, while also reducing racial disparities in infant mortality. research suggests that the cumulative stress of racism and sexism undermines black women's health, making them more vulnerable to complications that endanger their lives and the lives of their infants. unfortunately current health care practices are inadequate in addressing the health consequences of living with this stress. as a black mother, as a grandmother, this issue is very personal to me. that's why representative underwood and i founded the black maternal health caucus, with the goal of closing the racial disparities gap. the caucus aims to raise awareness about this crisis, to educate members of congress, and to find meaningful lelingtive -- legislative solutions to improve maternal health outcomes. we intend to amplify the voices and needs of mothers and families all across this nation. i've been working closely with health care providers, with stakeholders, and policymakers, to begin identifying a comprehensive path forward for eliminating these disparities. on average african-american women receive lower quality health care than their non-hispanic white peers. this disparity in care, quality starts as early as birth. african-american infants and neonatal intensive care -- in neonatal intensive care units receiving lower quality care. this continues throughout adulthood, with three or four -- three out of four black women giving birth at low-quality hospitals where their risk of poor maternal health outcomes is the highest. more than 1/3 of black women undergo cesarean sections, c-sections, even for low-risk pregnancies. this is 4ers had higher than the u.s. average -- 4% higher than the u.s. average, higher than any other racial or ethnic group. although a c-section can save lives when a pregnancy is high-risk, it's nevertheless a major surgical procedure accompanied by risk, including surgical injury to either the mother or infant, infection, and heavy bleeding. here we have a few areas that we need to focus on. we must improve access to critical services, we must improve the quality of care provided to pregnant women, and we must address maternal and infant mental health. may is mental health month. too often, however, maternal and infant mental health problems go unrecognized or unaddressed, particularly for women and infants of color with devastating consequences. we should also enhance services for families before and after birth. all families need support to thrive but not only they must have the support they need. adjusting to parenthood can be especially difficult for families experiencing economic insecurity. as a consequence of structural racism, many families experience insecurity in low-income communities of color. programs that help families meet their basic needs, including nutrition assistance, housing assistance and other social support are underfunded and the application and enrollment process can be difficult and time consuming. we must also improve data collection and oversight. collecting and share reliable, consistent data on maternal and infant mortality is esen torble developing solutions. though some progress has been made such as h.r. 1318 which helped to provide states with resources for ma ternle -- if maternal mortality review committees, there's still more work we need to do to address these problems, federal policymakers should help states standardize and improve the quality of the data being collected and ensure diversity among those who serve on mortality review committees. there's no easy fix for this issue. going to require many steps to begin closing the gaps soy look forward to working with my colleagues to begin implementing some of these important strategies through save or -- to save our mothers. at this time i'd like to yield to my good friend from michigan, congresswoman lawrence who is co-chair of the democratic caucus and the democratic women's issues caucus. mrs. lawrence: madam speaker, i'm proud to be here today and i want to thank my colleagues, representative adams and also representative underwood, for establishing the black maternal health caucus, which i'm a proud member of. i also want to recognize my lleagues rork bin kelly, her continuous leadership and health care when it comes to maternal health. i'm also theer let the public know that this issue of maternal health is a priority for the women's caucus here in congress. mays colleague has said in her leadership, alma adams, that we in america, we have a crisis. maternal mortality is not only a public health crisis, it is an american crisis. it's an american crisis because we are the largest in any developed country in the world when it comes to deaths from maternal mortality. the c.d.c. reported this week that most of the maternal mortality deaths in our country are preventable. it saddens me that the maternal mortality rate in the united states again is the highest among developed countries in the world. we have women and mostly black women and women of color dying for no reason. and it is unacceptable. it is heartbreaking. in my home state of michigan, 80 to 90 maternal deaths occur every year. these are women who are losing their lives to give birth. we must do all that we can to thend crisis and as a leader on this issue, in joining my other colleagues and their leadership, i look forward to working on both sides of the he'll to address this issue. ladies and gentlemen, when we elected a record number of women to congress, this congress, this issue which has been escalating year after year, has finally been brought to the forefront and i'm proud to say when a woman sits at the table, the conversation changes and we will fight for the lives of women giving birth and for every woman who has given birth who has been a parent, i want to say happy mother's day and we are fighting to make sure that every woman coming forward to be a mother can live. thank you. e ms. adams: thank you. i want to thank the congresswoman from michigan not only for her work with the women's caucus but all of her work in this area and of course when we can improve the quality of health for women, we are going to make our families much more stable. it is my pleasure now to yield to someone who has been a leader in the issue of health and chairs the c.b.c. brain trust, health brain trust, who has continued to lift her voice in the areas of -- in the area of health. she is a member as well of the energy and commerce committee. she's the -- also the founder of black women and girls caucus and i'm just pleased to have my colleague from the state of illinois join us this evening to speak on this issue rork bin kelly. ms. kelly: thank you to my colleague from the great state of north carolina and thank you to my colleague from the great state of michigan. madam speaker, i rise today because american moms are dying tragically. the majority of these deaths are entirely preventable, as we've heard. this weekend is mother's day. the day when we celebrate our mothers, grandmothers, aunts, stepmothers, and all the women who love and nurture us. there will be brunches andmy moe is as, cards and now -- and mimosas, cards and flowers, backyard parties and fancy dinners, it miling just be a phone call that says mom i love you. but each year severn million kids begin their lives without moms. these kids will never know their moms or celebrate a mother's day with her because of america's embarrassing maternal mortality crisis. perhaps most shocking of all, a recent c.d.c. report shows that 60% of these deaths are entirely preventable. while hundreds die, thousands suffer severe health complications that can endanger their lives and limit mother's ability to care for their families. recently, serena williams and beyonce have boldly spoken out about their personal experiences with these terrifying complications. as the mother and stepmother of adult daughters, it worries me that it will be more dangerous for them to have a baby today than it was for me to have them 20 years ago. or nearly -- on nearly every health issue death rates have declined except for pregnancy and birth related deaths. america is the only developed nation where the number of women dying continues to grow. we can and must do better because all mamas deserve the chance to be mamas. so what can be done? last year congress came together in a moment of bipartisanship to pass the preventing ma tern deaths act. thanks to the leadership of -- maternal deaths act. thanks to the leadership of congresswoman herrera beutler nd congress won hite camp. i propose a comprehensive multiprong approach called the mothers and offspring mortality d morbidity act or the mamas act. it builds on last year's work to further standardize data and reporting and it takes a highly successful alliance for innovative -- innovation on maternal health program called the aim program developed by our nation's obstetricians and gynecologists and grows it. aim's emergency protocols and best shared practices are already saving lives in houvens u.s. hospitals. the mama is -- the mamas act would leverage federal resources and publications to grow this proven program. it also uses another proven strategy to prevent future deaths. mortality review committees. these committees examine every tragic death in great detail to prevent further ones. when the city of philadelphia established one, it cut the number of deaths by 75% in just one year. imagine what we could do with nationwide committee. the mamas act also addresses a bizarre gap in current law that prevents many mothers from seeing their doctor. we know that one third of deaths occur after giving birth. right now moms on medicaid lose their coverage at 60 days after giving birth. but it takes a woman's body a full year to recover. more than 70% of moms will have some complecailingses within a year of giving birth. these mothers should be able to see their doctors and get the care they need. while we are seeing approximately the same rate of maternal deaths regardless of women's income, education level orr other demographic the recent c.d.c. report shows that black mothers and indian american and native alaskan mothers are dying at more than three times the rate of white mothers. in my home state of illinois, that disparity climbs to six times more likely to die for black moms. my bill directly addresses this disparity by pushing for culturally competent care through the care continuum. as you celebrate mother's day, i hope my colleagues will join me in working to ensure thatern gets a chance to know a mother's warm love and affection. we can prevent mothers from dying, we know how, the question is, do we have the will? thank you and i yield back. ms. day adams: i want to thank my -- ms. adams: i want to thank my colleague from illinois not only for her commentings tonight but for all the work she's done in this area. it is a preventable issue. and we -- it's something we can do something about. so that's why we're here tonight, to shed some more light on this. madam speaker. and to try to make sure that we're all educated so that we will know. this comes right on the heels of mother's day. so as we think about our mothers and our grandmothers and all of those who have been mentors to us, this is an issue that we want to try to make right. m pleased at this point to have the congresswoman from california who is a senior member on the appropriations committee, she's been a champion of reproductive rights, she sits on the judicial -- no, she doesn't sit on the judicial on the budget committee. that's real important. i'm happen foy now recognize my colleague from california, barbara lee. mrs. lee: thank you very much. thank you, representative adams. first i have to thank you for your tremendous leadership on so many issues. our young people at our historically black colleges and universities owe you a debt of gratitude. also i want to thank you and congresswoman underwood for forming the black maternal health caucus and also to congresswoman robin kelly who has been such a tremendous leader in health care and also her mama act which i am proud to co-sponsor is really, truly making a huge difference already. you know, the horror of health disparities for african-american women, in many ways is very personal to me and let me just share a quick story. about my birth. when my mother, congresswoman adams, went into labor, this was in el paso, texas. she went to the hospital. and she needed a cesarean section. they refused her admission. and chenierly died as a result. -- she nearly died as a result. the times were very racist, it was a hospital that did not allow african-americans into the hospital, by the time they allowed her in, though, after my grandmother had to fight to get r in, they -- as she told me the story over and over again as a child they put her on a gurney in the hall and they just left her there. again she needed a c-section. she became delirs, became unconscious, somebody finally -- delirs, became unconscious -- delirious, became unconscious, somebody finally saw her and by then it was too late to do a c-section. they pulled her in and the doctors -- they really didn't know quite what to do but they finally decided to deliver me using forceps. so my mother almost died, i almost didn't get here. my bore those scars on -- thee sor accept scars foreaccept scars on my eyes for many years, they just went away a few years ago actually. here we are in 2019, we are talking about sm of the same issues my mother had to face. maternal death. infant mortality with african-american women now. here in this country. we've gone backwards. the united nations did a report indicating that we've gone back 25 years in this country. this is unacceptable. it is totally unacceptable. as a member of the labor health and human services appropriations subcommittee, though, we are working every day to address the crisis swiftly and with a firm resolve to turn the tide on these unexpected -- unacceptable disparities in health plaguing the african-american community and african-american women. t's utterly unacceptable that unacceptable that black women are four times to die -- and i have to think of my mother, four times to die from complications than white women. we do have a black maternal health crisis in america. as we celebrate mothers' day and honor our aunts and mothers for depiffing us life, let us recommit to proven ma term black outcomes and as congresswoman adams remind us, we must address the structural racism that is at the core of this deadly issue and it is a deadly issue. let us remind us tonight that black lives do matter. ms. adams: black lives matter and black mommas' lives matter nd your mother giving birth to you, i was reminded of 13 years to my daughter giving birth her daughter. she had a difficult pregnancy right at the end. and ad to have a c-section she had to get all things starting going wrong at the last minute. and once she did return home, of course the baby was premature and two months' early and once she did go home, probably less than 10 days, she had to go back, because she was having complications. the problems that our women have don't always occur while you are in the hospital, so they need to have that support not only before the baby is born but even after. and i thought about that. and it was a very difficult time for us, but now you wouldn't believe my granddaughter is taller than i am and really healthy and beautiful young lady. but we have to think about that that it does not matter. i may have heard you or one of our speakers stay, all of those things don't mat are. sometimes doctors don't listen to women-t ms. lee: race is a factor in everything in this country and especially in terms of ma term deg and mortality rates. ms. adams: thank you so much for your leadership. we appreciate that and thank you for being here as we kick off this not thers' day and i'm missing my mom and i know you are missing your mom. ms. lee: very difficult. but we have to thank them ap honor them for giving us life. ms. adams: thank you for being here and for your support of what we are trying to do collectively here. it's my pleasure at this point to introduce another warrior, a champion here in the u.s. house, a member of the judiciary committee, homeland security committee, who has continued to lift her voice over and over and over again. and i'm pleased to now turn the mic over tore congresswoman from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, ow much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: 6 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. first of all, let me thank ngresswoman alma adams for gathering us a couple of weeks ago to stand and be counted as members of the plaque maternal mortality caucus and to continue her recognition if we don't become problem solvers, the problems will continue. so i want to join with my colleagues, and in particular, congresswoman adams and congresswoman lee, both of whom i knew the time they were going through in the loss of their moms and a mom and mother, always a mom and a mother, so let me in the name of my late mother, who i continue to jackson, ennett indicate that we stand here in your name and in the names of young mothers around the nation and young mothers-to-be. i don't believe we could be doing a more important task to not only bring relevance and substance to this question of why black women, african-american women suffer we with mortality, because know what happens when that bopped is broken by death or sickness, particularly in the infant stages of a young child's life. i want to remind us of the beauty of pregnancy and probably those pregnancies that these young women are evidence densing, the softness of their faces and the contours of their body, excitement. f you have been a pregnant mother, you understand, should they not live, should they not live and should their babies not live. plaque women are three to four times are likely to die. a plaque baby born toid is twice as likely in the same california city and california has made great strides before she can take the first steps. with up in seff yep babies are born too soon or too small and there is a ma term health care crisis. congresswoman adams know we have been on the floor discussing health care. ap this is a pre-existing condition, women could not access. we need to make greater efforts with the robustness and righteousness that we are igfer indignant that we live in the greatest nation of the world talking about the death of mothers and death of their infant child. and representative adams talking about her grand child and the health care that her daughter had, just think if she did not or no one had listened to her. and that is one of the things that we find with black women, that, in fact, they are not paid attention to as relates to the pain and medical symptoms that are represented by them. they are dismissed or taken less seriously. i have had the privilege of knowing that crime impacts humanity in many different ways. so i introduced legislation h.r. 5130. and i'm very demrade of glad that i was able to include this act in the 115th act but it was passed in h.r. 1585. for pregnant offenders, many of whom who are african-american and critical stage in federal prince for children born to inmates. it helps to increase high current mortality rates by allowing inmate mothers to provide gestation for their unborn and a space for bonding in the first 30 months of life. it is important to add ssissippi ser services for incarcerated women and continuing sheltering the live. babies born to women in prison. in 2014, the number of female prisoners was 154. i use this example to simply say, we found a problem in incarcerated women, many of them incarcerated african-american women and we are helping those mothers to have a healthy pregnancy. let me just simply say that i'm glad to be on the floor to be with my sisters. i'm unhappy to be on the floor because some african-america cap mother is loseing her mother in birg or lose ip the life of her ild, that is how devastating infant mortality is. and i fight with you and this caucus will see saudi arabia lives and i yield back. ms. adams: thank you very much. do we have additional time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. adams: i thank all my colleagues for being here. and i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands business today, democrats read excerpts from the redacted report that they received from the justice department. they are expected to read more in the coming days. next, a preview of the disaster relief bill members plan to go on tomorrow. will -- really fox really flexible grants to repair anything from a broken water with localelping community facilities or something like that. million to the department of agriculture for farm rehabilitation. they got hit hard, especially with the influx of midwest flooding and other weather events we have seen recently. they kicked up the price tag to what is now $17.4 billion. >> you mentioned the senate, but even in the house in january, on the six house republicans voted for the package then. what are you hearing from leadership and members about their support for this new version? ofhas representative oklahoma, a leadership republican indicated that he was likely to support the bill in the house rules committee earlier this week. at the same time, a limitation on funding for constructing donald trump's highly desired border wall between the u.s. and has been a key limitation in congress being in to pass legislation. blocks funding for the border wall, so it doesn't contain much immigration related provisions that are as obvious as the previous iteration of the bill. was seen on the house floor with the motion to recommit, where house republicans want to do at the billiont's recent $4.5 supplemental request related to border security, he wants more for the office, due to having to house more migrants. they tried to enter that into the bill using a procedural maneuver. they failed. problembecome a broader of how lawmakers can threat this needle on the border issue. i am expecting that there will be wide democratic support for it. and some republicans as well. if you think about it, republicans from florida who are suffering and a lot of their constituents are suffering, still trying to repair hurricane damage. it would be a very hard vote to vote against $17 billion of disaster funding. vote.ms to be a strong i do know how strongly bipartisan it can be. there is continuing disagreement on some of the core issues on a separate debate in the senate. goodell was introduced in the house by the appropriations committee chair of new york. there are several amendments, including one from her that you describe as a self-executing amendment. what does that mean and what we do to this bill? i tried to explain this as a bit of procedural magic that is ushered in by the house rules committee. once the house adopts the rules for consideration, that amendment from house selfpriations chairwoman executed, which means it is inserted directly into the text of the bill. essentially, the amendment is pretty simple. it makes some technical corrections to be bill's extension of national flood insurance, which would currently expire at the end of may. technical.ust more substantive things it does is provide $91 million to repair federal buildings and other federal infrastructure from the federal building fund. it kind of cracks open disaster eligibility when it comes to how a local government decides whether to repair or replace some kind of damaged infrastructure facility. once that amendment is added, that corresponds with the vote. then they get into demand -- they are pretty noncontroversial. there are some interesting ones, funding the military and other provisions related to housing improvements and those types of issues. >> finally, swinging back to the senate, the house working this week on the disaster bill at the senate, continuing talks on their end. you write with your colleague 's borderpresident demand is slowing the talks. who are some of the key players involved in the negotiations and the main issues that remain? senator patrick leahy of vermont, the top democrat on the appropriations committee. senator shelby of alabama. they have been talking for weeks on how to thread this needle between the border issue, the puerto rico issue, and some other issues that are popping up just today. just today, my colleagues reported on how senator shelby is finding issue with white .ouse resistance that is an obscure provision. it demonstrates how many kind of hanging nagging things are remaining on the disaster debate. shelby directly pointed at the white house and said their opposition to this provision is holding things up and when he talks about that, that is mainly white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, but others in the office are probably discussing and debating this as well. again, it is not just the border, not just puerto rico, .ot just a trust fund issue democrats don't like that, because they want to roll it into a transportation bill. there are all kinds of -- there is all kinds of poking and prodding going on and it seems that congress has not had that, sot time to deal they are continuing to debate these provisions. have allgues and i experienced in the past few weeks every day the reason why the disaster package changes -- is it come together changes. whether it is puerto rico, the border, or the latest disney -- scuttlebutt on the harvard trust fund. >> thank you. you can find your reporting out -- at cq.com. announcer 1: the president treated out a message saying the republicans should not vote for the bill, which hurts our state and border security. we want to do much better than this. all sides keep working and send a good bill for immediate signing. once, tv was three giant networks and a government supported service called tbs. then, in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what is important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, wringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. ofs nonpartisan coverage washington is funded as a public service through your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. next, a homeland security subcommittee meeting on the president's 2020 budget request for several agencies, including customs and border protection. this is just under two hours. >> the subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the 2020 budget request for u.s. customs. border protection, u.s. immigration and customs enforcement and u.s. citizenship and immigration services. i want to thank the administration officials who came here this morning to testify and provide additional details about their priorities and programs for the coming fiscal year. we're going to be frank with everyone here today this. -- here today. this budget request is deeply flawed. and seems to double down on a number of highly questionable policies that have been patently and repeatedly rejected by

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Honduras , Alabama , Methodist Church , Mississippi , Alaska , Minnesota , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Reunion , Mexico , Charlotte , North Carolina , Arizona , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Georgia , New Hampshire , Texas , Washington , Florida , Wisconsin , Togo , Russian Embassy , Canada , Guatemala , Oregon , Michigan , Puerto Rico , Jersey , Maine , New Jersey , Nebraska , Upton , Pennsylvania , Colorado , Tijuana , Baja California , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Kansas , Ohio , Americans , Saudi , Russian , Alaskan , Russians , American , Jay Allen , Adam Smith , Gee Noem , Susan G Komen , Statesof America , Barbara Lee , Austin Scott , Wein America , Patrick Leahy , Scott Lloyd , Mick Mulvaney , Serena Williams , Robin Kelly , Ba Ma , Jackson Lee , El Paso , Sheila Jackson Lee , John Podesta , Hillary Clinton , John Mccain ,