Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

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

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, there are a lot of important issues we can discuss on the floor. This is one of them, clearly. But we should be discussing a much larger issue, the issue of border security and stopping the flow. 144 pounds of fentanyl seized at the border, that could kill the entire population of the United States. This is the amount we seized. It is unbelievable that Congress can't act to control the flow of drugs across our southern border, because we are playing politics with our children's lives now. Madam Chair, we should bring the supplemental bill to the floor as soon as possible. As the gentleman from South Carolina suggested, we are ready to go all night. Let's bring it to the floor. House leadership can bring it to the floor tonight. Let's go ahead. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, the bottom line is this is not the place and this won't do what the offer in support of the amendment says it is going to do, because the fact of the matter is that the DEA is the one that enforced the classification of schedule I. This bill has nothing to do with the DEA. In fact, the problem with research and the problem with the difficulty in doing research does not lie in HHS. The problem lies in the fact that it is a schedule I drug, and the appropriate way to deal with this is through an authorizing committee, as the gentleman from California suggests, with legislation that would allow more research, as has been suggested. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), who is absolutely right. We do need more research. But the current restriction that is struck, section 509, says that this limitation shall not apply where there is significant medical evidence of therapeutic advantage or that federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted. Well, that is what we need. We need federally sponsored clinical trials. The current section 509 does not stop this. Now, look, I get it. There are people who want the legalization of marijuana. I get it. But as a physician, I will tell you I urge the people who suggest that there are broad applicabilities that are proven medical uses of marijuana to go back to the Journal of the American Medical Association, which did a review last year that indicated that, of the over 50 suggested uses for medical marijuana, only 4 are proven through rigorous scientific trials--4, Madam Chair. PTSD is not one of them. It is not. Treatment for opioid abuse is not one of them. In fact, Dr. Nora Volkow, the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who I think knows probably more than anyone in this room about the subject, says that marijuana is an addictive drug that is dangerous, and recent research says that induces psychosis in young people, serious major psychotic conditions. And we want to remove all the restrictions in the health part of the law? Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, the bottom line is that there is scientific evidence about the danger of marijuana. It is largely unstudied, and anyone, Madam Chair, who understands how research is conducted here should realize that the roadblock is not in HHS. It is not in the jurisdiction of this bill. It is with the DEA. This does nothing to remove the scheduling with regard to how the DEA views marijuana. Dr. Volkow, one of the world's experts on addiction, it was brought up that maybe we can treat addiction with marijuana, and she says absolutely not. This drug causes addiction. One-seventh of the people who are addicted to opioids started with marijuana. It is a gateway drug. It is dangerous. This amendment does nothing to deal with promoting research because the problem is not in HHS. The problem is in DEA. Madam Chair, I have tried to deal with this problem. I have cosponsored a bill that promotes research with a broader approach, to involve all the Federal agencies that could hinder research in any way. This amendment does nothing to do that. This sends a bad signal. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania suggested, this isn't about marijuana, it is about every schedule I drug, and there are very dangerous schedule I drugs. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, again, there is no question that everyone knows that we are in a suicide epidemic. We have to do whatever we can, whatever is within our powers--work with our States, work within our local jurisdictions, work with our community agencies--to deal with this horrible epidemic that we are having. My problem with and my opposition to the amendment is not the fact that we need to pay attention to suicide prevention. It is from where we get the funds. We take the funds from that, I guess, bottomless piggybank some people think is the Secretary's office. In the short time we have had since the last vote series, we will have taken $20 million from the Secretary's office if all those amendments pass on final vote. Madam Chair, we increased the Secretary's office by 1 percent in the underlying budget, so we increased it less than inflation. Again, the job of HHS is growing, not shrinking. We increased it only 1 percent. With this amendment, just since the time of the last vote series, we will have decreased the budget by 5 percent in that office. That is not responsible. That implies that the committee didn't do good work in setting how much the Secretary's office needs to administer a huge government agency, a very important government agency, one that, in fact, runs suicide prevention programs and drug addiction programs. Madam Chair, we have to set priorities. It is nice to say we have suicide prevention, but let's find the program--we didn't take it from a program. This amendment doesn't take it from a program. This amendment takes it from something that is not a limitless reserve: the Office of the Secretary. That is why I believe we should oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, we should expect that Members who want to prioritize programs find other programs that have a lower priority and shift those funds. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I support the amendment.

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

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, we are going to need a lot of volunteers, actually, in a month because the majority, time and time and time again, has voted against taking care of these children when money runs out this month. That is a fact. Yes, we will need volunteers. We need volunteers to do more than the mental health, which is very important. When you talk about toxic stress, wait until a child comes to the border and we can't provide medical services. And we can't provide services because the majority in the House refuses to bring a supplemental appropriation to the floor. Now, the gentlewoman commented on someone--I don't know, maybe it was me--voting against a bill that has $1.3 billion, that spends tens of billions of dollars above the statutory Budget Control Act numbers, and yet the majority voted in committee this week to provide billions of dollars of funds to take care of children at the border. They leave that inconvenient fact out. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry). The fact of the matter is that the majority, last year, when they were in the minority, voted along party lines to not provide funds to take care of children in the Labor-HHS bill in committee. Every single member voted against it in committee, of the now-majority, then- minority. So I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. But we did take votes this year on a motion to recommit, on an amendment in committee this week, and a majority of the majority voted to not fund care for the children. That is where we are going to run out of money. The President, to his credit, has asked and said: Please send money. Please send money to fund the care for these children and to stop the flow of drugs across the border. Madam Chair, 144 pounds of fentanyl. We have to stop that. Yes, certainly, it is important to do these screenings, and I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment, but we have got to go much further than that. And again, Madam Chair, it is still early in the morning. We are ready. Bring the supplemental bill to the floor. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

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

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, graduate medical education is absolutely a problem; there is no question about it. The demographics are clear in the United States. We have an aging population that requires more services, and yet we don't have enough graduate medical education to train all the physicians and providers that we need to train. Here is the problem with the amendment: It goes to one of those bottomless wells, I guess. And not only does it go to a bottomless well in the department that the money is spent in, it goes to a bottomless well in another department. Again, there is $10 billion in CHIP's funds unspent, could have come from, but, no, the money is taken from the Secretary of Education's departmental management fund. Now, let's review the budget of the Department of Education, because the budget is increased by 5 percent under the bill passed out by the majority from the House, from the committee. So get it. The Department of Education increased in size by 5 percent, and the bill itself level-funds the Department--management, not Department, but the management. So we are already asking the management to basically do 5 percent more work for the same amount of money, and here comes along this amendment, again, no question we need more graduate medical education. Again, it is a question of priorities. If we need graduate medical education, let's find something in HHS that we don't need much of, and let's transfer that money. But, no, that is not the approach taken here. It is magic. We want magic to happen. We want the Department of Education to do all the wonderful things that we pay for in this budget, and we want them to do it with level funding, even though the budget goes up 5 percent. And, now, this amendment takes 1 percent--that is significant, 1 percent--because this is not the only amendment that has gone after that pot of money. The bottom line is it creates more mouths to feed. This doesn't end well because, next year, this now becomes the baseline and the Department--I don't know what they are going to do in conference because, if all these amendments are passed, the Department can't run on that money. They can't. You can't manage it. Who are we going to fire? Are we going to fire 5 percent of the people, 10 percent of the people expecting to do the same work? This ain't the way to run anything, much less the Government of the United States. Madam Chair, I applaud the author of the amendment for the idea, but for heaven's sake, we need fiscal sanity. We have a $22 trillion debt, a $1 trillion deficit. We spend over $100 billion more than the statutory authority in these appropriations bills. We have got to exert fiscal discipline at some point. Madam Chair, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I agree with the idea behind the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairwoman, there is no question that the rural areas in this country frequently get shortchanged. I know because I represent a rural area. That is why I was surprised because we just heard a lot of lip service to doing great things for the rural areas, but, in fact, rural health is level funded in this bill before us. The Department spending is $10 billion higher and nothing, no increase could go to the rural areas. And now, all of a sudden, we are all fans of rural areas. On the other side of the aisle I guess we are all fans of rural areas. We do need this extra $1 million. Here is the problem. It didn't identify another program to take the money from. It went to the believably bottomless well of department management, the Office of the Secretary, which now is up to $21 million in being raided just since the last vote series. I don't know. I don't think you need an accounting degree to figure out that that doesn't work. We are asking the Department to do more with much less money. And, again, we do these rural health programs. No question. But I wish that rural health programs had gotten a proportionate increase in the base bill that we are talking about, but they didn't. Now, I will tell the gentlewoman about one problem that is very rampant in my rural areas and across the country. If most people were asked: Where is the opioid crisis worse, urban or rural areas? We know what they will respond, but the data shows that it is rural areas. They have a worse problem. And, yet, it is now 2:50 in the morning and we still haven't seen the supplemental bill that would help stop the flow of illegal drugs across our southern border. If we really care for our rural areas, we would ask the leadership to now bring the bill. We can have it here in a half hour. Let's spend all night. Let's protect our rural areas. There was 144 pounds of fentanyl seized. When are we going to be tired about fentanyl crossing our borders and killing our rural citizens? When are we going to stop proving a political point and dealing with the problem? We have been promised we are going to fast-track this. Madam Chairwoman, the President suggested this amount a month ago. No wonder America has an opinion of Congress of 9 percent, because the President identified a problem a month ago and said: We are going to run out of money to take care of children and to secure our border, and Congress does nothing. We want to help our rural areas. This is not the way to do it. Let's stop the flow of illegal drugs across our southern borders. Let's stop playing politics with the lives of our youth in rural areas by allowing that flow of drugs across the border. Madam Chairwoman, bring the supplemental bill to the floor tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, even though I support the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, there is no question that we have shortchanged career and technical education over the last few years because, to be honest, the last administration had a very different attitude about the needs of higher education. Thank goodness this Secretary and this administration have said career and technical education is important. It is an important part of our economy, and we find that those individuals who have career and technical education in those sectors of the economy that are vibrant do have multiple job offers. They have very lucrative job offers. On the other hand, some of the individuals who go to a traditional college leave with liberal arts degrees and leave with huge debts and very limited opportunities for employment. We have to rebalance that. I applaud the gentlewoman from Minnesota for emphasizing the importance because this is long, long overdue. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, the idea is okay. This is all part of the puzzle. The Senior Medicare Patrol is a part of the puzzle. But, again, my problem with this amendment is not that this program doesn't have some value. It is from where it takes the money. It makes the judgment that the other things in that pot of fraud control-- because that is the pot it comes out of. It doesn't say that this fraud control program is so important that we are going to look into some other part of HHS to take those dollars. It says that the other parts of fraud control are not as important. Madam Chair, part of this money goes, for instance, to Department of Justice special attorneys who actually have to prosecute the cases. It is nice to find fraud, but if we don't have money to prosecute the cases, then we have a problem. Again, this is the wishful thinking that we can just create all kinds of programs and that it doesn't make a difference where the money comes from. But it does because this $2 million comes out of some other fraud control somewhere. That is my concern. I don't know that we have the knowledge to know that this fraud control actually yields more in terms of catching fraud and getting fraud moneys back than other uses of this account. That is why, again, I applaud the idea. Let's train everybody to look. We know that fraud in Medicare and Medicaid is huge. The American taxpayer deserves to catch all the fraud. I am just not sure this is the best way to spend our fraud dollars. This account has already been plussed-up in the underlying bill, and that is why I reluctantly oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.