Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business  CSPAN  September 27, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT

2:00 pm
9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of h. ress 893, ordering the previous question on h. ress 92, adoption of h. ress 892 if ordered. this is 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.]
2:01 pm
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
2:04 pm
2:05 pm
2:06 pm
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
2:10 pm
2:11 pm
2:12 pm
2:13 pm
2:14 pm
2:15 pm
2:16 pm
2:17 pm
2:18 pm
2:19 pm
2:20 pm
2:21 pm
2:22 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244. the nays are 176. the previous question is ordered.
2:23 pm
the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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.]
2:24 pm
2:25 pm
2:26 pm
2:27 pm
2:28 pm
2:29 pm
2:30 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 176. he resolution --
2:31 pm
on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays 177. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 892 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 50. house resolution 892.
2:32 pm
house resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 5303 to provide for improvement to the rivers and harbors of the united states. to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules and waiving a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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.]
2:33 pm
2:34 pm
2:35 pm
are
2:36 pm
2:37 pm
2:38 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 178. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pr hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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
2:39 pm
commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:40 pm
2:41 pm
2:42 pm
2:43 pm
2:44 pm
2:45 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241 and the nays are 180. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order.
2:46 pm
the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table s. 253 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. he house will be in order. the clerk will report the title
2:47 pm
of the bill. the clerk: senate 253, an act to amend the communications act of 1934 to conconsolidate the reporting obligations of the federal communications commission in order to improve congressional oversight and reduce reporting burdens. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? the clerk will report the amendment. mr. walden: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: delorpt amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. walden of oregon. mr. walden: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. walden: mr. speaker, i move -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. walden: -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment is agreed to. the bill is read a third time, passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.
2:48 pm
he house will be in order. the clerk will report the title of the bill. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. walden: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee of commers be discharged from s. 1878 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1878, an act to extend the pediatric priority review voucher program. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the
2:49 pm
bill s. 2683 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2683, an act to include disabled veteran leave in the personnel management system of the federal aviation administration. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 1004 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1004, an act to amend title 36 united states code to encourage the
2:50 pm
nationwide of servants of two minutes of silence each veterans day. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. miller: mr. speaker, i ask that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on s. 1004. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign affairs be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 851 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution
2:51 pm
851, resolution expressing profound concern about the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis in venezuela, urging the release of political prisoners and calling for respect of constitutional and democratic processes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, i rise to reserve the right to object although i do not intend to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized on her reservation. ms. wasserman schultz i am proud to the sponsor of the shameful and rampant corruption of president maduro's government and the plight of the venezuelan people. the efforts to silence political opposition leaders, including jailing mr. lopez are on conscionable. just last week the national electoral council announced a high barrier for the referendum on his government that millions of venezuelans are demanding.
2:52 pm
he has brought devastating crises to venezuela. families all across their country are starving. many grocery stores are barron and maduro still refuses to listen to their people. they are crying out for their rights to be respected and we need to make sure they are not crying out in vain. i'm proud to co-sponsor this legislation with my colleague, the gentlewoman from florida, and i withdraw my reservation. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman withdraws her reservation. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i have an amendment to the text of the resolution at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment to the text. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. strike all after the clause and insert the following -- that the house of representatives, one -- ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore:
2:53 pm
without objection. without objection, the amendment to the text is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek? ms. ros-lehtinen: i have an amendment to the preamble at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. strike the preamble and insert he following -- wraffer -- ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment to the preamble is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20.
2:54 pm
record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1698, the treatment of certain payments in eugenics compensation act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1698, an act to exclude payments from state eugenics compensation programs for consideration in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, federal public benefits. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, and the gentlewoman from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore:
2:55 pm
without objection. mr. mchenry: i rise in support of senate bill 1698, the treatment of certain payments in eugenics compensation act. senator tillis has been working to get this bill passed through the united states senate and it's a bipartisan bill. it would help victims of state government eugenics campaigns by excluding one-time eugenics related compensation payments when calculating federal benefits. in essence, this would ensure the victims of state-based and state-mandated eugenics programs in the early part of the 20th century which states had, it ensures those victims are not further victimized by being kicked off the social safety net which many are still -- that are alive still depend upon. many of these victims are still alive today, as i mentioned. in north carolina at least 220
2:56 pm
out of the reported 7,600 victims were still living as of september of last year. my home state has worked to make amends to those that the state victimized. our state legislators now led by senator tillis passed and the governor signed legislation that provided large one-time compensation payments to victims of eugenics programs that are still alive and still in our owe site today. in north carolina, victims can receive payments from the state government ranging from $20,000 to $45,000. and our state is not alone. virginia has a similar program rewarding $25,000 in compensation to each victim of the state's eugenics programs. these one-time compensation payments count as normal gross income under current federal law and could have the unintended effect of increasing some of the victim's reported income. thereby, costing them access to
2:57 pm
some federal income-based benefits. mr. speaker, such an outcome is unfair. these individuals have suffered great pain at the hands of their state government and must not be further victimized by losing their important benefits they're receiving today. the takeaway is this was a state-created problem and the state owed them compensation and we should ensure that these individuals are able to get the benefits they need and deserve. mr. speaker, this is important legislation that is bipartisan. i'm happy to have the support of my colleague, g.k. butterfield, democrat of north carolina, representing eastern north carolina as a co-sponsor of this important bill. and with that, i would like to retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new jersey
2:58 pm
is recognized. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of s. 1698, the treatment of certain payments in eugenics compensation act. in the early 20th century, over 30 states enacted eugenics and come pulseary sterilization law resulting in the involuntary sterilization of over 60,000 americans. these horrendous and discriminatory laws targeted low-income individuals, particularly single mothers, african-americans, children from large families and people with disabilities. recently two states with the most aggressive eugenics programs, virginia and north carolina, passed state legislation to provide compensation to the living victims of these programs. in 2013, north carolina set aside $10 million for compensation payments, and as of january, 2015, the state had
2:59 pm
awarded approximately $20,000 to each of the 220 victims. last year, virginia passed a bill awarding $25,000 to each of its eugenics victims surviving. while these payments are intended to compensate individuals for past wrongs, they may have the unintended effect of causing victims to lose eligibility for federal benefits determined by income thresholds. under current law, victims who receive eugenics compensation could be denied medicaid, supplemental nutrition sistance, unemployment or assistance, unemployment or disability benefits should the payments raise their incomes above program eligibility levels. most eugenics victims were poor and disadvantaged in the early 20th century, and many remain so today. as such, they rely on these important federal benefits programs to make ends meet.
3:00 pm
s. 1698 would ensure that state eugenics payments are treated like other medical compensation payments and not included in eligibility determination for federal benefits. this would guarantee that eugenics victims receive all benefits they rightfully deserve. we cannot undo the mistakes of the past, but we can do everything in our power to ensure that eugenics victims are not subjected to unfair treatment yet again. i urge my colleagues to support s. 1698, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i yield to mr. walker, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: jarninged. mr. walker: thank you, mr. speaker. rise in support of s. 19 , treatment of payments in eugenics compensation act. i commend my flend from north
3:01 pm
carolina on this important bipartisan issue. today, we address a dark chapter of earlier 20th century in america. dozens of state governments unjustly operated a eugenics programs to sterilize by force or coercion individuals they deemed unfit to have children. it targeted undereducated, the needy, the disabled and even african-americans. thankfully, this shameful practice ended many years ago but many of its victims are still with us today. while no apology or amount of money or benefit can ever return what was lost, virginia and our state of north carolina recently began restitution payments to victims of this injustice. unfortunately, this program resulted in unintended burdens for eugenics' victims. the restitution payments count
3:02 pm
as income against federal benefits and may result in the denial of these benefits. counting these payments as federal income when this is compensation for this gin justice is not right. we are closing the loophole and ensure the federal government does not undermine the efforts of states to provide some amount of restitution to those who are victims of this grave crime of eugenics. this bill should remind us that every life is precious. i support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. watson coleman: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would like to close with this,
3:03 pm
to my colleagues, i would like to thank my democratic colleagues being in support of this legislation. i would like to commend the north carolina senators for their work in getting this important legislation through the united states senate. the fact of the matter is we tate-based programs that victimized our programs. and that victimization should be righted for those that are living. that was important work of the state legislators in north carolina that originated this . ctim's compensation fund it is important to do our part to ensure that those victims are not further victimized by losing their important social safety net programs that are lifesaving to them. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and urge its adoption and i yield back.
3:04 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1698. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. >> i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5 065. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to direct the secretary of huferte to notify air carriers and security
3:05 pm
screening personnel of the transportation security administration of such administration's guidelines regarding permitting baby formula, breast milk and juice on airplanes and po for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. tko and the gentleman from indiana each will control 20 minutes. mr. katko: i ask that members have five legislative days to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. i yield three minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady is recognized. ms. herrera beutler: thank you, chairman katko, for your support and collaboration on this important piece of legislation. today i'm excited to support a bill that i introduced, bipartisan bill, the bottles and breastfeeding screening act or the babes act to ensure that
3:06 pm
families aren't penalized trying to travel with equipment to take care of their babies. parents, working moms, air travel can present its own unique challenges and to accommodate these challenges, the transportation security sfration has important exemptions in place to allow passengers to bring breast milk, bottles and feeding aquamente on board the equipment. and exempts them from the 311 rule. you can imagine how important it is for moms who have to be away from their infants for steppeded periods of time. i have been in this situation, unfortunately this exemption is in place, we have seen a problem with compliance. there have been too many instances reported by parents that t.s.a. officials didn't know or refused to follow these exemptions. parents who are trying to follow these rules are singled for
3:07 pm
scrutiny by t.s.a. this has led to breast milk being forcibly tossed out and flights missed. r. speaker, a family following t.s.a.'s posted regulations shouldn't have to have their breast milk thrown out or endure the nightmare of missing flights while they are traveling with kids because of the lack of training on the agency's part. this is a commonsense measure to hold t.s.a. accountable in upholding its own current regulations and standards and i urge adoption. and i have a couple of letters to add into the record. one from the academy of pediatrics and one from the march of dimes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. herrera beutler: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. katko: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.
3:08 pm
the bottles and breastfeeding equipment screening act is commonsense legislation introduced by the gentlelady from washington. this bill codifies into law a current policy to allow formula, breast milk and juice through check points. put in liquids' rule was place, we must ensure these restrictions do not interfere with a woman's ability to feed her child. i know that the challenges of providing care to babies and i know this challenge is grave for traveling mothers. this bill would alleviate the restrictions relating to breast milk and allow families to go through check points quickly. this gives parents one less thing to worry about and ensures that the officers at the check points receive the proper training on implementing this important exception to security regulations. i urge my colleagues to join me
3:09 pm
in supporting h.r. 5065. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is ecognized. mr. richmond: i rise in support of h.r. 5065 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. it is important that those caring for young children are allowed to bring formulas, breast milk, juice and other necessary items through security check points. transportation security administration, checkpoint security protocols already allow for this but there is evidence about confusion how the liquids ought to be handled still exist. h.r. 5065 calls for t.s.a. to ensure that air carriers and screening personnel are made
3:10 pm
aware of the guidelines for screening these necessities. i would note that amendments adopted during the full committee markup of these bills made the bill stronger. the committee unanimously accepted amendments offered by ranking member rice to ensure that this legislation is carried out by t.s.a. in a manner so its policies are followed whether a mother is traveling through an airport or with private screening. the committee also adopted an amendment by representative jackson lee to clarify that purified water for infants is also allowed. i urge members to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: i yield two
3:11 pm
minutes to representative jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from louisiana and thank hill for his leadership and my good friend from new york and the author of the legislation as well and let me compliment the homeland security committee with the chairman, mr. mccaul, and the ranking member, mr. thompson, pause we find many opportunities to work together in a bipartisan manner as it relates to the security of this nation. i rise in support of the bottles and breastfeeding screening act as amended, h.r. 5065. and again congratulate those who worked this particular legislation forward. i am very grateful that my amendment regarding deeyeonized water bassed as an additional aspect of what breastfeeding mothers can bring.
3:12 pm
s.a. although we continue to work on challenges, t.s.a. has been on the front lines of this nation's safety and security since 9/11 and its creation under a large umbrellas which is the department of homeland security. our committee has given oversight to this particular agency. and we have worked to make sure that we close the loopholes, if you will, for the traveling public. aviation is still one of the largest and most attractive targets of terrorists. we understand the responsibility of the transportation security administration and our officers. their job is not an easy one. we have placed a lot of rules. we had a moment when there were questions of what could be brought through the checkpoint. in this instance, it is common sense and having this guideline, these provisions, will help
3:13 pm
innocent americans traveling with their young, their babies, their wonderful children or grandchildren, the opportunity to make sure that the items that these children need and we have seen them children on many planes across the nation that they have it. i want to support this legislation on the basis of common sense, aviation security, national security and working together to help our mothers as they travel throughout this nation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: i have no other speakers. if the gentleman from louisiana has no other speakers, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: let me just say that this legislation was unanimously supported during full committee consideration. this is one of those areas where congress, both sides of the
3:14 pm
aisle came together to decide to pass a commonsense law to ease mothers and fathers, who are traveling with infants let me just say is a stressful task all within itself and to the extent that this body can make sure to protect the traveling public but also enact commonsense rules and laws so we make it a little bit easier for those traveling with infants, i think it's a good thing and i'm glad we came together and i would urge members to support this legislation. and i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: i urge members to support h.r. 5065 and before i yield back the balance of my time, i want to know what ms. jackson lee said earlier and that is the homeland security committee does work very well together and generally, it's a very bipartisan committee working for the common good in
3:15 pm
keeping this country safe. this is a small example of the cooperation we have on a daily basis and proud to be part of it and working with representatives jackson lee and mr. richmond. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5065 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. . without objection the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5391, the gains in
3:16 pm
tpwhrobal nuclear detection architecture act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will port the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5391, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to amend certain duties of the nuclear detection office and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliffe and the gentleman, mr. richmond, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. ratcliffe: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ratcliffe: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm pleased to be considering h r. 5391, the gains in global nuclear detection architecture of 2015. it directs the department of homeland security's domestic uclear detection office, dmdo,
3:17 pm
provide information on how their research investments aline with gaps in the global nuclear detection architecture as well as the research challenges identified by the dmdo director. this bill further directs dmdo to document the rationale for selecting research topics and to develop a systematic approach for evaluating how the outcomes of the offices individual research projects collectively contribute to addressing these research challenges. mr. speaker, as the attacks in paris and brussels and turkey have shown us, isis is accelerating its attack on innocent people throughout the world and individuals in this country have been inspired by isis to commit heinous acts and crimes on our soil, murdering 49 innocent souls in orlando, florida, and 14 more in san bernardino, california. just this summer, six men were
3:18 pm
convicted in georgia of trying to sell uranium 238 and in january, three members of a criminal group we detained for trying to sell seize yum 137, both of which could be used to make dirty bomb. mr. speaker, we must absolute ensure that terrorists never get their hands on radioactive materials and this bill will enhance dmdo's ability to provide radiation detection devices specifically aimed at preventing terrorists from being able to obtain enough radioactive material to construct a dirty bomb. this bill will ensure that the research topics dmdo chooses to invest in, enhance our ability to detect smuggled nuclear materials, are aligned with the gaps identified in the tpwhrobal nuclear detection architecture. a multiaffings framework for detecting, analyzing and reporting on other materials
3:19 pm
that are out of regulatory control. requiring dmdo to document the rationale for choose regular search topics will ensure that the most important gaps in the global nuclear detection architecture are addressed. so mr. speaker, i'm happy to support this measure today. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. richmond, and his team for their terrific work that they've done to bring this legislation to the floor today. i believe that this bill will better enable this country to detect the smaugling of nuclear materials and will support the very critical mission of preventing isis and other terrorists from carrying out a nuclear radiological atk on american soil. so i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: i rise in support of h r. 5391, the gains in global nuclear detection
3:20 pm
architecture act, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: thank you, mr. speaker. my bipartisan bill, h.r. 5391, the gains in global nuclear detection architecture act was approved unanimously by the committee on homeland security on june 8. i appreciate the support of my ranking member, mr. thompson, and my colleagues across the aisle, mr. ratcliffe and chairman mccaul, for my efforts to advance this legislation. in nuclear smuggling detection we rely on the critical triad of intelligence, law enforcement and technology. the department of homeland security deploys detection technologies in maritime and border operations based on intelligence indicators and places them in the hands of well trained d.h.s. personnel. at d.h.s., the domestic nuclear detection office, or dmdo is responsible for the coordination of federal efforts to detect and
3:21 pm
protect against attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport radioactive tefrls that may be used as weapons against our nation. dmdo, with its interagency partners, coordinates the u.s. global nuclear detection architecture, or gnda, a framework for detecting, analyzing and reporting on the smuggling of nuclear and radioactive materials. in april of 2015, the government accountability office issued a report that looked at how dmdo manages its roughly 350 million research and development programs. the g.a.o. concluded that dmdo needed to do a better job of documenting the rationale for selecting the 189 research and development projects that it funds and how these projects aline with the research challenges and identified gaps
3:22 pm
especially gaps or vulnerabilities identified in the gnda. subsequently, i introduced gains in global nuclear detection architecture act to, among other things, help certify that the planning, selection, and future funding of nuclear detection research and development projects are targeted toward identified gaps in the gnda. such documentation is esen torble confirm that dmdo is making the right research investments to keep the nation secure. with that, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas -- how much time do i have remaining?
3:23 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 17 1/2 minutes. mr. richmond: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for his courtesies and thank the gentleman for the legislation, very, very porn, the gains in global nuclear detection architecture act that mr. richmond has offered. i thank the chairman of the subcommittee as well, a fell row texan, we meet each other on several committees but we have the opportunity to work together on these important issues. let me just brifely say how important this is. s that fill in the gap initiative, and the gap can be dages, it can be devastating. what it ensure is that we develop and maintain documentation that provides information on how the office of research and investment aligns with gaps in the enhanced global nuclear detection architecture with research challenges idefinite fied by the director
3:24 pm
and defines in detail how they will address such research challenges. i have real life if you will, examples in the community which i come. according to the u.s. department of transportation, while maritime border has 95,000 miles of shoreline in 361 sea points, one of them happens to be the houston sea port. ocean accounts are 95% of cargo onnage with 8,588 commercial vessels in 2015. my community alone, houston, texas, has a 25-mile maritime line. so in the port of houston, as we were ranked one of the first in foreign tonnage with 46% of the market share by tonnage, we know what challenges comes about in the potential of cargo being, if you will, exploited by putting in dangerous elements dealing
3:25 pm
with nuclear equipment. so the idea of homeland security focusing on, as this legislation says, gains in global nuclear detection architecture is crucial to supporting the nation's ports, securing the nation's tonnage, and securing the nation. securing the cities program was legislation that related to the dea of nuclear detection and interdiction of radiological materials. just last year, the city of houston was awarded an initial securing of the city's grant of $3.5 million for the initial installment of $30 million grant over phi years. this is a very important aspect of nuclear detection. so this legislation is a great partner to filling in the gap. the grant that we received in houston was funded through the urban area security initiative grant program which i co-sponsored and truly believe
3:26 pm
is a major element of protection for our cities around the nation. this is, again, a potentially devastating impact for some new clear materials to be able to come into a port, come into an airport, come into our communities. i ask my colleagues to support 5391, gains in global nuclear detection architecture act to be able to provide more security to the united states of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers so i will yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: my bill, h r. 5391, would help verify that the d. -- that d.h.s. carefully prioritizes research and development projects to actually close identified vulnerability
3:27 pm
gaps in the global nuclear detection architecture. across the federal government our goal is to prevent nuclear terrorism by making it an excessively difficult undertaking for our adversaries. getting research and development right at dndo is critical to that effort. with that, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5391 and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: i would once again like to commend and congratulate my friend, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, for this very important national security bill and urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5391 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5391 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended this ebill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid n the table.
3:28 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 893, i call up
3:29 pm
e bill h.r. 954, the co-op consumer protection act of 2016 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 954, a bill to amend the code to exempt under the individual mandate individuals who have health plan through the co-op program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 893rk the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 954, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
3:30 pm
mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i rise in support of h.r. 954, the co-op consumer protection act tsms a simple bill rooted in fairness. if you're a consumer who complied with the federal man tate to obtain hurns krge an your coverage was terminated mid year because the consumer oriented and operated plan or co-op you bought from collapsed you shouldn't be liable for the individual penalty for the remained ore they have calendar year. we don't need to spent a lot of time on the listry of the co-op program, but briefly, nearly $2 billion was dist withouted to the co-ops that received a.c.a. money have closed or in the process of closing with six struggling to remain solvent.
3:31 pm
health republic of new jersey, announced it would be wipeding down prior to the 2017 plan year two weeks ago, just days after we marked up this bill in the ways and means committee. the first co-op to close was co-op opportunity health which sold plans in 2014 before being taken over by the iowa department of insurance late that year. all health providers in nebraska and iowa were made whole to plan holders through the state's guarantee funds. insurers in the two states are now paying back the guarantee funds for those costs. similar situations have played out including states like new york, oregon, ohio and illinois where plan holders lost coverage mid-year. when it collapsed, i heard from 300 constituents with concerns about what this loss of coverage
3:32 pm
meant to them and their finances. the vast majority of these people wanted to have health insurance coverage and did buy new coverage but were concerned a brief lapse would lead to them paying a penalty. others would say this bill is unnecessary because they were provided a special noelment period and could apply for a hardship exemption. most residents of nebraska took advantage and i heard that the likelihood of accidentally incurring a tax penalty was at the front of their mind. there are more than 20 exemptions to the individual mandate in the law. those who lost insurance after no fault of their own and tried to follow the law and unique circumstances led them to not seek new coverage for the remainder of the year should not be forced to file additional paperwork and rely on the opinion of a bureaucrat to ensure they are not subject to a tax penalty and shouldn't have to worry about this additional
3:33 pm
tax while searching among very limited options for a new insurance plan. mr. speaker, i acknowledge that there is broad disagreement about the individual mandate. this bill isn't about that. it's a bill about ensuring a small fraction of consumers who did their very best to comply with the law don't have to worry about the threat of a tax penalty. and it is also about ensuring if any remaining co-ops are terminated that the consumers have one less concern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this bill would be another attempt to undermine the aft plain and simple. it is now 65th such attempt by
3:34 pm
republicans since the a.c.a. was signed into law. there is no denying that the a.c.a. has provided quality affordable health coverage to more than 20 million previously uninsured americans. importantly individuals can no longer be denied coverage as they could in the past for pre-existing conditions by high blood pressure or diabetes. and thanks to the a.c.a., a new survey for the centers for disease control and prevention found that the number of uninsured americans has fallen 8.6%, the lowest level ever recorded. let's not forget over the last few years, health care costs have been growing at the slowest rate according to the council of economic advisers and the a.c.a. improved medicare's coverage for
3:35 pm
prescription measures and preventive care for seniors. this bill undermines the individual responsibility provision of the a.c.a., which is important in making many of its benefits possible including no one being denied coverage, no pre-depissing conditions and no gender discrimination. there are provisions in the a.c.a. to provide when coverage is interrupted in the middle of a policy in cases of co-op closures during a policy year. a.c.a. has a provision for the special enrollment period to allow individuals to continue to have coverage. the department of health and human services indicates that each individual affected by a mid year co-op closure was contacted at least 20 times
3:36 pm
providing individuals with additional plan choices they could enroll in during the special enrollment period. all individuals and states with mid-year co-op closures had additional choices available to them. and in instances where a purchasing plan needed to be undertaken and would be financially difficult, these individuals could also apply for a hardship exemption from the individual mandate penalty. h.h.s. has a number of avenues for individuals to apply for an exemption for a variety of circumstances where premiums are a financial burden. the joint committee on taxation scored this bill using a generic model since there was no available data on a number of individuals potentially impacted. every step of the way, every step of the way republicans have
3:37 pm
worked to undermine co-ops and ensure their failure. republicans were responsible for the severe reductions in the amount of money available to the co-ops from federal loans and strict limits to risk payments. co-ops in this estimated risk pool should have been available to help weather the early years of an unknown market. but the republicans made sure those stabilizing funds would not be available as part of their effort to kill the a.c.a. with 1,000 cuts. he american academy of actuaries noted that weakening the individual mandate would lead to both higher premium costs for patients and higher costs to the federal government. blue cross and blue shield, one
3:38 pm
of the largest insurers in the nation agrees that exemptions from the mandate will drive higher. we know that this bill will not be signed into law. this morning, the white house released its statement of administration policy higher. we know on this egislation stating, and i read
3:39 pm
this is unnecessary. it would create a bad precedent for using the provision to address unrelated concerns above the affordable care act. the individual responsibility
3:40 pm
ofvision is a necessary part a system that prohibits discrimination. it requires guaranteed issuance. the provision helps prevent people from waiting until they get sick to buy health insurance or dropping health insurance when they believe they do not need it. weakening the individual responsibility provision would increase health insurance premiums and decrease the number f americans with coverage. end of that quote, and i quote, continuing, the administration is always willing to work with the congress on fiscally responsible ways to further improve health care affordability and the affordable care act. the president's budget offers a number of proposals to do so.
3:41 pm
however, h.r. 954 would be a step in the wrong direction because it would create a precedent that undermine ascii part of the law and will do nothing to help middle class families obtain affordable health care. 23 the president were presented with h.r. 954, he would veto the bill. end of quote. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kansas is recognized. -- smith: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska. mr. smith: thank you, kansas is a nice state but nebraska. i reflect briefly on my colleague across the aisle , he said all the provisions have been met and anyone who lost their coverage through no fault of their own would find an
3:42 pm
exemption or a consideration from the bureaucracy. i just want to say that american who was lost their coverage certainly deserve certainty that they won't be subject to the penalties. when they lost their coverage. and not just promises that the federal government might take into consideration their situation. there have been many characterizations of how easy enrollment would be. some time ago. it hasn't worked out that way. i would now like to yield two minutes to my colleague, dr. boustany from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. smith for yielding time to me. since obamacare passed, we have seen nothing but major problems. higher costs, higher premium costs, higher out of pocket costs, network disruptions, coverage disruptions, and just two years after the implementation of obamacare the louisiana health cooperative losed its doors.
3:43 pm
-- actual 2014 enrollment in the co-op was lower. by december, 2014, those numbers had dropped significantly. the highest percentage loss among the nation's 23 co-ops in that period. over 7,000 louisianans complied with the mandate by purchasing health insurance through one of the co-ops created under the law but their plan was terminated, mid year, by by the failure of that co-op. let's just have some common sense here. this was no fault of the good men and women who put their faith and put their hard earned premium dollars into this. into the co-op. they enrolled as brired law. it's just wrong, it's wrong, to hold these working families financially responsible for the cost of a co-op's failure
3:44 pm
because it went other due to factors out of their control. mr. smith's bill is very narrowly crafted to provide this kind of relief. it's a common sense bill. it helps people who are struggling with these costs, many of whom lost employment and everything else. that's why i support the co-op consumer protection act. this is really important legislation that will help americans across this country who have been harmed, harmed by obamacare's closing these co-ops. it's not their fault. we should provide them with some relief under difficult economic conditions. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. it's common sense, it's narrowly crafted, it's the right thing to do. it's the moral thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield as much time as he shall consume to the house member on ways and means, dr.
3:45 pm
mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i'd like to offer a piece of advice to my republican colleagues. be careful what you wish for. because you may get it. because despite this newfound compassion for consumers, you listen to these tears of crocodile tears flowing out here, you think they really cared. the truth is, the republicans wanted the co-ops to fail from the very start. for years they have systematically undermined the program and made it virtually impossible for co-ops across this country to succeed. let's look exactly at what they did. that's a pretty hard thing i'm saying. back in 2013, under republican leadership, congress slashed the funding for loans and grants to
3:46 pm
co-ops by nearly 2/3. the president said -- set it at one level and the republicans said no, we'll give you a third of it. so they cut it from the very start. that de-stated program during the early days and denied consumers access to dozens of new plan choices in the marketplace that didn't stop there. they were determined they were going to get those ocop -- those co-ops. in 2014, the republicans inserted a rider in the krom knee bus bill. -- in the cromnibus bill. this blocked the administration from shifting discretionary funding into the a.c.a.'s risk corridor program which they disingenuously, the republicans, called an insurance company bailout. the truth is that this rider was a deliberate effort to destabilize co-ops who were taking on new populations under the a.c.a. it isn't only the co-ops but
3:47 pm
also the small insurers. it cut risk payments, corridor payments, to one eighth. the president put in $1. the republicans put in 12 cents. and that's devastated co-ops, it created unpredictability -- unpredictability, and small insurers have their problems and are raising rates. with the decks stacked against them it's no wonder co-ops struggled and they were a victim of a partisan political attack that they simply couldn't withstand. they didn't have the money. now, my republicans out of ignorance. they did it out of malice. because they knew the importance of risk mitigation. they knew exactly what they were doing. in fact, when they wanted to make their own insurance program work, a few years before, part k of medicare, the republicans embraced risk management with open arms.
3:48 pm
in 2003, when president bush's medicare part d bill incorporated risk management measures, they were nearly identical, nearly identical to the ones in the a.c.a. unlike the a.c.a., they funded those measures very generously. in fact, as the part d market, the drug market, fully stabilized, many experts have been saying the risk management measures could now be scaled back or revised, yet once the republicans give money to somebody they continue to fund it generously, funneling millions, billions actually, into part d plan sponsors. even if they don't need it. they're giving it to the drug companies but wouldn't give it to the co-op. the drug companies they love but the co-ops they hate sod they took it away. talk about an insurance company bailout. of course the affordable care act hasn't resooved the same
3:49 pm
treatment. instead we're prepare today to vote, again, to undermine the law weakening the individual mandate with yet another carveout. republicans somehow believe you can put together a health care system and only take in the sick, i guess. you can't have an individual mandate this everybody has to be a part of it. and so, this bill raises many questions. we never even had a hearing on it. they didn't want anybody to come in and testify about the -- what this bill was going to do or what it might do or has done or will do. they simply rammed it through the ways and means committee. one member wanted it and one member had one story from one place in this country and said, his is a bill we need. we don't know how many people might have enrolled fol throwing collapse. but this bill will weaken the individual mandate. it seems like a small change. i admit it's a small change.
3:50 pm
if you go down this road, the chinese say death by a thousand cuts. this is the first cut or the second cut or whichever one you want. they're threatening the sustainability of the entire health insurance industry. we know this because in washington state we've seen it. when we try -- when you try to provide universal kverage but don't have a mandate the system simply doesn't work. we tried it in washington state in 1993. we had an individual mandate, everybody had to have insurance and so forth, and then the republicans in washington state decided, let's take out the individual mandate. the result was a disaster. healthy people couldn't get covered and premiums spiked oout of control, creating a death spiral that devastated the individual insurance market. by 1989, no, not one single insurer in the united states of america, was selling individual policies in the state of washington. because of taking away that
3:51 pm
individual mandate this was a catastrophe for everyone. doctors, hospitals, insurers, and most importantly, for consumers like the person that we heard the story about that we all feel, you know, it's too bad it happened, but they created it. they created the facts that made it happen. so when my republican colleagues put forward a bill to weaken the mandate under the guise of helping consumers, i have a hard time believing them. because their record is clear. after more than 60 votes to deny americans health coverage, they tried to repeal obamacare over and over and over and over and so on. years systematic sabotage in the co-ops today's crocodile tears about the plight of co-ops, it's down right impossible to take them seriously. members of this body should vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the
3:52 pm
gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. smith: i would like to have the record reflect that hearings have taken place that include the subject matter of co-ops. the chief of staff of h.h.s. came before the ways and means committee and we had an extensive discussion on co-ops and cooperative health and numerous others that have failed. more importantly, it is crucial to establish the record on the risk corridor. the gentleman from washington stated that it's republicans who designed this to fail. number one, that republicans are not response initial design of any part of this. interestingly enough, we were told by the administration, in fact the administration is on record that the risk corridor program was intended to be operated on a revenue neutral basis. that is risk corridor payments would be offset by payments
3:53 pm
collected by other insurers. congress simply acted and i would add on a bipartisan basis, to codify that very statement. in fact, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record an april, 2014, memo from c.m.f. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: for medicare and medicaid services explaining how risk corridor funds would be rovated -- prorated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dold: it's interesting as we talk about crocodile tears there's nothing of the sort on this side of the aisle. i find it fascinating because when i talk to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle they recognize that there are issues and problems with the affordable care act. premiums have gone through the roof, deductibles are sky high and families are paying more and more each and every day in order
3:54 pm
to be table provide health insurance for their families. this is, you know, people say i want to help fix, let's try to help fix. this is a very narrow tailored bill, mr. speaker. let me tell you what this bill is not. this bill is not something that will abolish the individual mandate. far from it. far from abolishing the individual mandate. rising health care costs and uncertainty are plaguing communities and families across our country. in illinois alone, the land of lincoln co-op, collapsed in july, resulting in 49,000 people across the state losing coverage. now these families need to switch plans. and risk losing access to their doctors. or pay a tax penalty at the end of the year which will put affordability of quality care even further out of reach. mr. speaker, here's just one example that i've heard from one of my constituents. they were paying nearly $2,500 a
3:55 pm
month in premiums through the land of lincoln plan. their family paid $2,700 in their deductible and put $5,000 toward their out of pocket maximum and now they're being forced, because it has gone away, to start back at zero. the plan ends on october 1. and so what this narrowly tai alreadied bill would do, mr. speaker, is basically say, if you can't find a plan if for some reason you don't get the memo back from the bureaucrat that you're not going to get a tax bill it still requires that same family, come january 1, to go get insurance. but what we want to do is we want to say to these families that if indeed you have not gotten your insurance in those two month that you will not be given a tax penalty by the i.r.s. here's -- here's the bottom line, mr. speaker. families like the one that i just mentioned, all across illinois are already losing their health care coverage.
3:56 pm
the absolute least we can do is help them get through this year by providing release -- relief from a costly tax penalty. the insurance that they lost, they lost through no fault of their own. they were doing the right things. they were -- they want coverage for their families. the least we can do for these next couple of months or should another co-op in the future fail mid year, is not give them a tax penalty from the i.r.s. moving forward, i remain focused on working with everyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work needed to drive down costs, increase access to quality care, and make our health care system work for everyone. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i want to say to the gentleman from illinois, the last thing the republicans have wanted to do is to work with us
3:57 pm
to make a.c.a. work better. the last thing. instead, they have time and time again tried to destroy a.c.a.. in illinois, there are nine carriers providing health insurance. if there is an interruption, whether it's a co-op or another plan, under a.c.a., there's a special period available for people to obtain a different insurance. nine different carriers. essentially, what this is is an effort to destroy a provision that's so important to making health care reform viable. that's my answer to the gentleman from illinois. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the majority leader, mr. mccarthy.
3:58 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and before i speak, mr. speaker, i want to congratulate the gentleman. he has seen a problem, he's listened to his constituents, and he's doing something about it. exactly what we expect from our statesmen. now mr. speaker, obamacare is collapsing all around us. insurers are backing out. people can't afford the premiums. and even heavily subsidized co-ops are crashing. more than $2 billion, that was $2 billion, were funneled into 23 co-ops across the country. 16 have gone under or are about to go under. the other seven are just treading water. now what does that mean? that means people who had insurance, who purchased it just as obamacare forced them to do, were left in the lurch.
3:59 pm
hen the co-op they got the insurance, was failed. that's bad enough. this is just another way the promise that all of us were told if you like your plan, you can keep it. was broken. so these people are left without insurance, through no fault of their own. insurance they were forced to buy and what is the response? what does obamacare say? tax them. tax them for not having insurance. now i don't know about you, mr. speaker, but isn't that a little crazy? how can you punish people for not having insurance when the co-op they bought their insurance from goes under. it's bad enough people are left without insurance because of the failures of obamacare, but why should we have the i.r.s. punish them on top of that? frankly, you don't solve
4:00 pm
problems by kicking people when they're down. now representative adrian smith's bill would stop this. government shouldn't be in the business of taxing people when they lose their insurance especially when the co-op they use failed. nothing less than replacing obamacare will stop all the havoc. -- in the meantime we have the obligation to offer relief to the people hurt by this law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to my colleague from the energy and commerce committee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on this issue. i think we have to go back in history a little bit on this. obamacare was passed i

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on