Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I seek a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, when a Member of the minority party rises to object to the motion to lay on the table, not to reconsider a resolution, whose discretion is it to recognize that standing Member making the objection?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, that is a parliamentary inquiry. That is absolutely a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, under the rules, when a Member of the minority party rises to object to the motion to lay on the table the reconsideration of a resolution, under the rules, whose obligation is it, or at whose discretion is that Member recognized, under the rules?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, at this stage of House deliberations, what options do we have to reconsider the amendments or to consider the vote on the amendments on this bill?

Mr. HARRIS. No, Mr. Speaker. I am referencing the piece of business that is in front of the House right now.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the amendments.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. What options are available to a Member standing asking for recognition to seek a vote?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. No. I actually seek an answer to my first parliamentary inquiry, and you can have your choice which one the Chair wants to answer.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, it seems when I came to work this week, I was coming to work in Moscow, or Beijing, or Pyongyang, or Havana; not in the Capital of the free world where we treasure fairness. Because what are we doing? We are holding kangaroo courts; Star Chamber, Soviet-style secret trials that are used to depose political opponents. That is what is going on. Mr. Speaker, I went back to my district. I had three townhalls in the last 4 days. I come from a district who voted for this President and wants a chance to vote for him again in 12 months. They asked me: Where is the evidence against this President? So I went downstairs today to try to find it. I went down to the SCIF, and as you heard from the gentleman from Texas, we were told that I could not read the testimony of Mr. Volker. It was refused. I asked: Who refused it? They wouldn't tell me. I asked to go into the hearing today. They have a hearing today. They said to a Member of Congress: You can't go. I said: Who refused? They wouldn't tell me. So, Mr. Speaker, it appears that someone has made a decision, with no rhyme or reason, of who gets invited to these things. We have got to stop this. What are they hiding? Mr. Speaker, I support the censure resolution. Open up the windows.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, a physician, a father, and a grandfather, it has become clear to me that certain provisions under the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, have proven to be completely unaffordable and unsustainable. These stifling regulations have simultaneously forced an increase in insurance premiums and a decrease in patient choice. That is why Representative Budd and I introduced H.R. 4484 yesterday, the Flexibility Through Lower Expenses Healthcare, or FLEX Act. This bill will codify into law the Trump administration's rules on short- term limited duration insurance and association health plans. It will allow small businesses and self-employed workers the opportunity to secure more affordable health insurance by banding together to act as one large employer, and it will open the door for individuals to purchase temporary affordable health insurance for up to 1 year. The FLEX Act will provide the necessary flexibility and affordability that Americans have been seeking in their healthcare, free of the strain and expense that have, unfortunately, become the new normal under ObamaCare.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, I just raise concerns with two of the amendments that are in this en bloc amendment. Amendment No. 5 is one that extends free coverage for pregnancy prevention, and with the amendment, extends to all FDA-approved drugs and methods. Why I find it interesting is that, of course, a couple of years ago, we actually increased the copays on TRICARE for former members. If a former member has diabetes, they have a $28 copay for insulin. So this is kind of strange because what we are doing is selecting one type of drug and saying there are no copays for this, yet we have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members who take an important drug like insulin and have to pay a copay. It just doesn't make sense. With regard to amendment No. 13, amendment No. 13 extends in vitro fertilization coverage which, up until now, has been for members whose problems have been related to their military service. It extends it to all members as well. It is going to greatly increase the number of embryos created. Although I have no disagreement with extending the coverage, the problem is, the amendment and the statute don't deal with what members are going to do with these embryos. It presents serious life concerns, due to the sheer number of embryos created that will often be discarded, now with government payment involved. Many will subsequently be killed or frozen indefinitely, leaving these early lives in limbo. There are no limits within the amendment as to how many cycles of IVF may be covered, how many embryos may be created or frozen. Of course, there are no requirements to protect the embryos that have been formed. It is for that deficiency, it is for creating a permanent statutory entitlement without dealing with what some people object to, which is treating those embryos created in a comprehensive, long-range fashion, for those reasons, I express concerns about amendments No. 5 and No. 13.

Mr. HARRIS

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

Mr. HARRIS

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, here we go again. Obviously, we took a 5- hour break, but now we are back to not making priorities. The bottom line is, now we are up to $27 million out of this basket of money that the Secretary has to manage a Department that is actually increasing in size and increasing in complexity. This is a very worthy cause, and there is no question in anyone's mind, I hope, that colon cancer screening, for instance, is essential. Every American who falls within the guidelines should be encouraged to undergo the screening, but we have to set priorities. If we are going to increase further the funding into that program-- because as we heard from the subcommittee chair, we have already increased the funding--if we are going to increase it further, we have to look somewhere to decrease funding. That is not a magical pot of money that is endless. Literally, it is true that, sooner or later, the Secretary is going to have to take out loans to pay salaries in his Department because we will have drained the entire amount. Again, since the last vote series, which we had 1 a.m. eastern time-- it is now 9:20 eastern time--since then, we have drained that fund by $27 million. A lot of it transferred for good projects, but that is not the way we should be doing business here. When families in my district have a priority, they set a new priority. They say this family needs this a lot right now. They look into their budget and ask what they are not going to spend on. That is what we ought to be doing. If this is so essential, Madam Chair, I would suggest some other program, not a magical pot of money that some people believe has no bottom. Again, the Secretary has to run an increasingly complex Department. The bottom line is that we have now drained, if all the amendments pass that we have discussed since 1 a.m., $27 million out of the fund. This is not the way we ought to do business. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, we are showing the American people right now that we live in fantasy land. The bottom line is, the amendment that I and many of my colleagues voted for last night merely restores this bill to the current state of law. It makes it comply with the Budget Control Act. I didn't vote for the Budget Control Act, but it is the law of the land. We can pretend it is not. That is the difference between us and the people in my district. They don't have Monopoly money to play with. They can't pretend that the law isn't the law. They can't pretend that they can invent money in their families. They have to follow the laws. They have to follow their budgets. But I guess that is just not true. This is why Congress has a 9 percent approval rating. The people watching us today, the millions of people watching us--there are maybe several hundred thousand watching us today--are watching promises being made that can't be kept, promises being made that take money out of not this generation but the next generation and the generation following. Again, this is a worthy cause. But the bottom line is, last year, when the majority was in the minority, every single member in the Appropriations Committee voted against funding this program when it left the committee, every single majority member when they were in the minority. I get how this game is being played. I get it. We have to restore fiscal discipline, the same fiscal discipline every family in our districts has. If you set a priority and you decide this is necessary to spend on, you find something that is not necessary to spend on. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Is any time remaining on the other side because the gentlewoman moved to reserve her time?

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I am a physician. I have taken care of people for 35 years. I am not sure I should be lectured, Madam Chair, on the proper way to take care of people in this country with regard to their health. I understand the attraction of maybe bringing a tax bill into this. I am not sure why the proponents can't leave this as a discussion of funding health. The bottom line is, this is an important subject, no question about it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.