Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I introduce the primary cosponsor of this legislation, I want to respond to something the previous speaker said. Commissioner Koskinen said a number of times in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee that he doesn't write the law. That is the question that is in front of us at this moment. He says that the IRS follows the law, which we expect agencies to do at the behest of those who are duly elected. So in this instance, I would suggest that while we don't like what the IRS has done in these particular examples that have been correctly cited by both sides, we also have the obligation to alter, change, or amend the law so that this doesn't happen to the innocent going forward. So this was not simply about the Commissioner or IRS agents waking up one day and saying: What kind of havoc and peril can we create today? It was instead the prescription for law that we have offered to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is a primary cosponsor of this.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, Navy Yeoman 3rd Class Edmund Ryan of Wilbraham, Massachusetts was killed when the Japanese sank the USS Oklahoma during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. For 75 years, Yeoman Ryan was one of the nearly 400 sailors from that vessel whose identities were deemed ``non-recoverable.'' But thanks to the advancements in DNA testing and the efforts by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Yeoman Ryan's remains have been finally identified. This was possible by matching the mitochondrial DNA to family members of the deceased. This achievement gives hope to the family members of the 26,000 servicemembers from World War II that possibly they too can be identified. Next week, Yeoman Ryan will be interred in his final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery. On behalf of the First District of Massachusetts and the United States, we are eternally grateful for his service and sacrifice to his nation. And on this solemn occasion, I want to extend my best wishes to his family.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said: How could a group be so far off in their analysis? Well, they were that far off with the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Alan Greenspan was certainly off. In his commentary about economic growth, we had the slowest growth since Herbert Hoover was President, based upon $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts. So this is analysis. It is an economic forecast. It is not an algorithm. When you pick up the computer, you push a button, and all of a sudden you get a score. I am in opposition to this amendment because they play a vital role every single day, even when they are not entirely accurate, in keeping a scorecard. Members and staff on both sides, particularly at the Ways and Means Committee, rely much upon their hardworking and nonpartisan analysis for what they do every day. I have never, in 29 years in this House, said to a member of CBO: Are you a Republican or are you a Democrat? When we demean professional achievement from economists who try and strive every single day to come up with an accurate forecast, we do this institution no good. We should have a high regard for what these people do every single day--and let me say this, by the way, more accurate than the Office of Management and Budget, in my recollection, who work for Presidents and who, generally, didn't come up with forecasts that Presidents might or might not like. The CBO is an independent agency and we need to keep it here. Congress could not do its work without the CBO. As Tim Ryan said a few moments ago, this is the equivalent of let's beat up the referee after we don't like the outcome of the soccer game. Let's jump the referee and tell him: You better go back in and change the score so that we might meet, perhaps, popular polling forecasts, which I also might tell you, based on what happened in November, weren't so good, either, for all of us. Regardless of what political party we are Members of, we should have regard for this House of Representatives and the independent role that CBO offers. Chairman Kevin Brady stands with me on this. Leave the CBO alone.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is a coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), whose husband served with great distinction as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 3178, the Medicare Part B Improvement Act of 2017. I am pleased that Chairman Brady, along with Health Subcommittee Chairman Tiberi, Ranking Member Levin, and I worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation. It brings together a number of important measures to improve Medicare part B. I encourage all of our colleagues to support it. As I said during the bipartisan Ways and Means Committee markup of H.R. 3178, I hope the committee will be able to hold more meetings like this. This is what the American people want and expect from their Members: to get things done in a bipartisan manner. The bill before us today is pretty straightforward. It makes important changes to Medicare part B in a number of ways. It includes a commonsense transitional policy for home infusion services, cosponsored by Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Pascrell. Our colleagues Mr. Bishop and Mr. Mike Thompson are cosponsors of language to streamline Medicare rules to improve access to medically necessary prosthetics and orthotics. Mr. John Lewis cosponsored language to help dialysis facilities improve backlogs so they can more efficiently treat end-stage renal disease. Ms. DelBene and Mr. Mike Thompson are cosponsors of a bill that allows telehealth so patients can receive dialysis in the comfort of their own home. Finally, the measure includes clarification language to Stark laws that Mr. Kind led to provide more certainty for Medicare providers. Our colleagues on both sides of the aisle worked hard on these bills, and I am pleased we can move them forward in a bipartisan manner. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3178, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff for their hard work on this bill, including Amy Hall, Sarah Levin, Melanie Egorin from the Democratic staff; Emily Murry and Nick Uehlecke from the Republican staff; Jessica Shapiro from the House Legislative Counsel's office; Ira Burney, Jennifer Druckman, and Lisa Yen from CMS; and the staff of the Congressional Budget Office, Tom Bradley, Rebecca Yip, and Lara Robillard. I want to thank them all for their very, very hard work. We have this rare opportunity, this rare moment where we have broad agreement on this legislation, and I hope all Members of the House can find their way to be supportive of this legislation, and I hope the path of bipartisanship that we have chosen here can serve as a reminder of what we can get done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Ambassador Anne Anderson, the Irish Ambassador to the United States, as she retires from her position in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs. Throughout her time in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Anderson has served in assignments of great prestige as well as been the first woman to represent Ireland in all these positions. Her first post was as Ireland's Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) in Geneva in 1995. While there, she chaired the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Policy Review Body in 1996, followed by chairing the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1999. In 2001, she became Ireland's Permanent Representative to the European Union (EU), the first woman from any EU country to represent their nation in the European Parliament. In 2005, Ambassador Anderson became Ireland's Ambassador to France before being appointed as Ireland's Ambassador to the United Nations in New York in 2009. During her time at the UN, Ambassador Anderson focused on human rights, development, and gender equality issues. Furthermore, the Ambassador oversaw a review of the UN Peace-building machinery and facilitated preparations for the 2013 UN Special Event on the Millennium Development Goals. On January 15, 2013, Ambassador Anderson was appointed as Ireland's 17th Ambassador to the United States. Throughout her time in Washington, Ambassador Anderson has focused on further strengthening Ireland-U.S. relations in regards to economics, trade, immigration, and culture. She especially did an exemplary job with all the U.S. events around the centenary of the 1916 Rising. Furthermore, Ambassador Anderson has focused on keeping the U.S. engaged in issues regarding Northern Ireland. Her engagement with the Friends of Ireland Caucus throughout her tenure has been critical in our country's continued involvement with the entire island of Ireland. In recognition of her outstanding service, Ambassador Anderson was presented with the International Leadership Award by the Ireland Funds this past March. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chairman of the Friends of Ireland Caucus, I have gotten to know Ambassador Anderson very well as both a colleague and a friend. Anne has made momentous strides in strengthening Ireland- U.S. relations on numerous fronts and has been a great influence to our country. She will be greatly missed and I wish her all the best with her retirement and future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Lanesborough, Massachusetts as they celebrate their 250th Anniversary on June 25th. The continued dedication of the congregation of St. Luke's was pivotal in the church becoming the oldest active Episcopal parish in Western Massachusetts. The origins of St. Luke's Episcopal Church begin in 1767 when a small group of Church of England members would meet in a private home to worship together. From there they moved to a school house where they continued their worship until they were able to move their small congregation to a wooden church located in the center of town in 1769. During these early years, the church seldom had a pastor and was kept alive by the dedication of its lay members. In 1862, the parish built the ``Old Stone Church,'' an impressive Gothic Revival structure that was added. to the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. Along with many of its original 19th century fixtures, the Old Stone Church also boasts a 450-pipe, hand-pumped organ that was crafted by William Johnson of Westfield, Massachusetts. The organ has gone through several restorations and is currently the fifth-oldest organ in use in Massachusetts. In 1898, the congregation moved into a new structure called the Village Church and temporarily ceased operating out of the Old Stone Church. A major restoration effort in the 1980s, aided by the Massachusetts Historical Society, and returned the church to functional condition. Since then, the Old Stone Church serves as the parish's summer home as a place of worship for parishioners during the summer months, while a second building, the Village Church is the parish's winter home. Mr. Speaker, St. Luke's Episcopal Church serves as a vital link to our region's history and still has much to offer to its parishioners even after all these years. As they celebrate their semiquincentennial, I wish them all the best in continuing to preserve their rich history and community involvement that has been the legacy of St. Luke's.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the town of Conway, Massachusetts as they celebrate their 250th anniversary. Since its establishment in 1767, Conway has continued to flourish as a rich agricultural community located in the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains. The town of Conway was first established as the southwest portion of the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts. After the end of the French and Indian Wars, the area was divided and the town Conway was official established in 1767. Named after General Henry Seymour Conway, a leader in the British House of Commons, the town was known for its sheep farming along with other agricultural pursuits. The first settlers of Conway were able to build gristmills and sawmills to harness the power of the many waterways that flowed through the town. As the Industrial Revolution began in the United States, Conway was no exception to the rise of the manufacturing industry. Factories began to emerge in Conway along the South River, where power could be readily accessible from the mills. Everything from textiles and hats, to washing machines and furniture were manufactured in these factories. As Conway transitioned into the 20th century, their manufacturing industry began to suffer as a result of the high cost of transporting goods from the town. The town has transitioned back to a farming community and the remnants of the old factory buildings serve as reminders of the town's history. Today, Conway is a quiet, beautiful town with much to offer. Bardwell's Ferry Bridge still stands as a treasured historical landmark, stretching across the Deerfield River and connecting Conway to the nearby town of Shelburne Falls. Every fall, the annual Festival of the Hills serves as a way for the community to come together to celebrate the town's long and distinguished history. The events of the festival include a pancake breakfast, live music, as well as various family activities. All the proceeds raised from the festival go towards scholarships for local high school students, as a way for the town to continue its legacy as a hardworking community dedicated to supporting its citizens. Mr. Speaker, the town of Conway is an important piece in Massachusetts history and I am honored to represent it. I wish them all the best as the town continues to preserve their rich history and community involvement that has been the legacy of Conway for these past 250 years.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the previous gentleman's comments, it is helpful for the acknowledgment that there is broad agreement among scientists as to how global warming is occurring. There is a suggestion that it is because of problems that have been generated by man- and womankind. I think that President Obama said clearly all of the above as part of the solution. So the suggestion that we have had on this side as this legislation advances is also to use the pulpit of the Ways and Means Committee to move forward with advancing meaningful job creation in terms of alternative and renewable energy as well, and creating greater energy efficiencies. I would think that there should be an opportunity in this House to find some common agreements on legislation, similar to what we are witnessing today, on the renewable front as well. Greater energy efficiency for all of us should be of paramount concern. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my friend.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1551, a bipartisan bill to modify the section 45J production tax credit for advanced power. This bill is sponsored by two of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon and Mr. Rice from South Carolina. It enjoys bipartisan support of members of the committee as well. Passage of this bill is critical to thousands of jobs in South Carolina and Georgia. As you know, I am committed to passing good, bipartisan legislation that puts and keeps Americans to work in good- paying jobs. However, I must highlight my disappointment that the committee at this moment has not acted on other important priorities in the energy tax space. For example, there is bipartisan interest in this Congress for extending section 48 investment tax credit for non-solar, section 48-eligible technologies. H.R. 1090, the Technology for Energy Security Act, introduced by our colleagues, Mr. Reed from New York and Mr. Thompson from California, is supported by a bipartisan group of 93 Members of Congress. The committee is overdue in considering this important piece of legislation, as well as other provisions vital to renewable energy, renewable fuels, and energy efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles that expired at the end of 2016. As the gentleman from South Carolina noted, all of the above. I hope we can act before the eleventh hour to extend these provisions. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by reminding my colleagues that the United States Government invests a tremendous amount of money on energy policy through our Tax Code. These investments have helped to grow our economy and create good-paying jobs nationwide. Therefore, as we continue the discussions on tax reform, I hope and anticipate Chairman Brady will consider focusing on comprehensive, fully integrated energy strategy reform as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader and my friend.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2847, the Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act, which would help to ensure that all the congressional resources that would be provided for foster youth will indeed be utilized and make sure they are used to help them in the furtherance of their education and becoming independent. My colleague, Karen Bass, who visited me just a few weeks ago, has been a leader on this legislation and on foster youth issues for a number of years, and our committee has worked closely with her to move it forward today. I want to note that this is one of five bills the House is considering today to help at-risk families and children in foster care. All of these bills passed the House last year as part of the Family First Prevention Services Act, which also provided significant new investment in substance abuse, mental health, and parenting skills services to help kids and families avoid foster care when possible. We continue to work on a bipartisan basis with our leadership and our colleagues in the Senate to find a way to move forward on broader foster care improvements, but today's action provides a good opportunity to once again highlight the sharp rise of children in foster care in the United States and, indeed, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, fueled in part by the opiate crisis. In Massachusetts, between 2011 and 2015, the number of petitions to remove children from their homes grew 38 percent. Today, Massachusetts is home to nearly 10,000 kids in foster care. Over 1,000 of them are considered at risk of reaching adulthood without being adopted or safely reunified with their birth families. That is why it is so important that we do everything we can to help them finish their education and develop mentoring relationships with supportive adults. While I am pleased that our committee and the full House are working together to help these young people, we can't ignore the bigger picture, which is the President's attempt to overturn the Affordable Care Act, because it will have real and measurable negative effects on these kids. Republican Medicaid cuts jeopardize health coverage for older foster youth, the same youth we are trying to help with this bill. By cutting the essential health benefits and Medicaid, there will be a consequence. In turn, this endangers access to substance abuse treatment and, by extension, many of the treatment centers themselves. Republican proposals to end the Social Services Block Grant would reduce States' abilities to provide substance abuse, mental healthcare, and supportive services to foster parents. While these larger issues are deeply troubling, today's five children welfare bills, including the one before us now, represent an improvement over the status quo, and it is refreshing to note the bipartisan collaboration that is involved. In addition to Congresswoman Bass' leadership on this bill to help foster youth, let me also recognize my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee who are providing great leadership on these very issues--Mr. Davis, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Sewell--for their work on behalf of foster children as reflected in these bills that they have coauthored and that we are considering today. I urge our colleagues to support this bill and the other bipartisan child welfare improvements being considered today and to work with us to even do more to help foster youth succeed. I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Mr. NEAL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to send my deepest thoughts and prayers to our colleague Whip Scalise, the Capitol Police officers, and the staff members that were injured in yesterday's shooting. Although my Republican colleagues and I have robust policy discussions, ultimately, we desire the same goals. Today is no different, and our institution is based on the respect and thoughtful debate that remain important pillars of our democracy. Mr. Speaker, this discussion and debate that we are about to have here is an honest disagreement. There is no suggestion here that there is anybody on this side of the aisle that is any less enthusiastic or less sincere in their support of what it is that our veterans need and desire. This is an honest policy dispute. And I must tell you, based on long service in this institution, this is an unusual manner in which to proceed. We are actually being asked today to amend a piece of legislation that a month ago left this institution. I have not been witness to this, I believe, in the past; and I hope that, as we go on for the next hour, we will have a chance to connect the dots for our colleagues about why this underlying bill is less than desirable. Last month, the Republicans brought TrumpCare to the House floor and every Democrat in this institution opposed it. This was the Republican leadership's second attempt to pass the repeal, and it seems that their first attempt was not harmful enough to the American people. The measure, as passed, takes health insurance from millions of Americans, raises premiums for working families, and places an age tax on older Americans. Middle class Americans would end up on the losing end, while millionaires would receive a handsome, nearly $1 trillion tax cut. Perhaps most concerning is that Members voted in favor of this legislation without understanding its impact on the American people. There were no hearings on TrumpCare. Amendments were rushed to the floor without committee consideration, and the CBO score was not available at the time the House considered it. CBO, based on nonpartisan career professionals, provides important context and independent advice for Members of Congress. It provides an opportunity for us to look at the long-term results and ramifications of policies we are considering. Clearly, our Republican friends don't care about the jarring consequences CBO foretold. The House has ignored certain procedures when considering these important measures. First, since the Republican repeal bill passed, the CBO confirmed that the measure would leave 23 million Americans without health insurance. It would cut Medicaid by $800 billion, discriminate against individuals with preexisting conditions, and drastically raise premiums for older Americans. Earlier this week, the CMS actuary confirmed that out-of-pocket costs will rise by 61 percent, and premiums will be 5 percent higher than under current law. Simply put, TrumpCare would force Americans to pay more for lower quality healthcare coverage. Second, this bill is not appropriate to consider now because it amends the TrumpCare bill, as I noted a moment ago, that has not passed the Senate. And our Senate colleagues have stated they are rewriting a House bill that the President called ``mean.'' Now I would like to turn to my substantive concerns with this bill. H.R. 2372 would amend the AHCA to allow veterans not enrolled in military-related coverage to receive tax credits. It does nothing to fix the issues in the TrumpCare bill. Whether or not you initially supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--and I was one of the few in this institution that voted and spoke against the war in Iraq those years ago--these wars have created 1 million more veterans, and we need to do what we can to provide them with the support that we promised them. Let me remind my colleagues that the TrumpCare bill would shift costs onto veterans through per capita caps, roll back Medicaid expansion for veterans, and erode essential health benefits and preexisting conditions protections. The Republican health plan would dramatically cut Medicaid, a program that provides healthcare for nearly 2 million veterans. And the President's recently released budget takes it a step further by cutting veterans' programs, including disability benefits. Even if this bill is incorporated into TrumpCare legislation, it would not undo the terrible cuts in the bill: enormous coverage losses, more than $800 billion worth of cuts to Medicaid, unravel important consumer protections or cuts to programs designed to help address the opioid addiction crisis in my State of Massachusetts and throughout the Nation. I am quite sure everyone in this institution at this moment and those who are viewing know somebody close to them who is addicted to opioids. In addition, Medicaid is now a program that many middle class Americans rely on for long-term care. Thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, your parents are not living in your attic. This bill does nothing to fix the Republican healthcare plan and could create new problems. If Republicans are serious about addressing middle class American healthcare needs, they should go back to the drawing board and start over and work with us. This exercise is a distraction from the real issue, which is the harm caused by the underlying TrumpCare bill. Instead, we should be considering issues that help hardworking Americans and their families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to make sure that the American people understand the impact of the underlying bill that H.R. 2372 intends to amend. The bill purports to make a fix to the Republicans' harmful healthcare bill, but the fix is inadequate for the harm the underlying legislation would cause. We have independent verification from both the CMS actuary and the Congressional Budget Office to reinforce our position. The Republican healthcare bill would cause millions to lose health insurance, face higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and jeopardize the health security that Americans with preexisting conditions have today. We should be working to improve our healthcare system, not making it more difficult and unaffordable for America's families. If this is such a great policy, let's not tie it to a bill that is doomed in the Senate. In fact, if anybody can find out where it is even being discussed or authored in the Senate, they should inform us. It clearly is not being done in the open. Let's not tie it to that simple provision, and pass it as it stands alone today. Middle class Americans can't afford this recipe. I urge my colleagues to work over the next few months to educate the American people about the Republican health plan and how harmful it is to our Nation's health. Hospitals oppose it, doctors oppose it, and patient groups oppose it. The bill needs to be scrapped. We should instead be helping the middle class, not giving giant tax cuts to the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).