Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend--and he is my friend--from Ohio that his vote will result in 39,500 people losing their healthcare coverage if this legislation prevails. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who was a substantive and major player in the development of the ACA when it was passed. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 50,000 people in his congressional district in Nebraska losing their health coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a giant in terms of the morality of our time and a good friend and individual who helped write the Affordable Care Act, as well.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Recently, President Trump said: Who knew that health care could be so complicated? Well, 70 years ago, Harry Truman knew how complicated it could be when he first proposed national health insurance. Lyndon Johnson knew more than 50 years ago when he proposed, successfully, Medicare and Medicaid. Richard Nixon knew when he proposed the individual mandate. Bob Dole knew when he proposed the individual mandate. In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney knew when he proposed the individual mandate. Mr. Speaker, recently, within the last week, the great on-the-street writer, Jimmy Breslin, died. Amongst the great columns and the great books he wrote, one of them that he wrote that will be with us in a timeless manner was ``The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.'' That is what this institution has been like for the last 10 days. There were caucuses and there were conferences. People were running back and forth with new CBO scores and coming back to the floor with new proposals. Members are put in the position of being offered special arrangements so that they might be brought over the goal line--that, after 61 times they have voted in this House to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Well, here is what we have in front of us this afternoon: a CBO score says that 24 million Americans will see either an increase in premiums or they will lose their insurance, there will be an imposition of an age tax on older Americans, and a tax cut of $1 trillion. This bill has gone from bad to worse. If that wasn't enough, to get the votes to pass the bill, they want to cut prescription drug benefits, mental health benefits, hospital benefits, and maternity care; and, yes, every one of us in this institution knows a family who is struggling with a loved one's addiction, and they want to roll back that benefit. Recently, the conservative columnist Bill Kristol tweeted: The healthcare bill doesn't, A, lower costs that they have; B, it doesn't improve insurance; C, it doesn't increase liberty; D, it doesn't make health care better. So what is the point? Here is the point: it is a $1 trillion tax cut so that they can change the baseline for their tax cuts that are coming down the road. That is what this is about. Now, the President said he wanted an insurance plan that covered all members of the American family. What they are offering up today is a plan that cuts health insurance for 24 million American family members. It does not increase coverage, it does not lower costs, and it does not strengthen consumer protections. So what does it do? Sadly enough, back to the old argument that we have had in this institution for years: a $1 trillion tax cut for the people at the top and special interests. The former speaker here a minute ago, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, spoke about perfection. I was here when this legislation was authored, and I helped to write it. I can tell you this right now: we knew it was not about perfection, but we subscribed to the idea, as was the case with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, that we would improve it as time went on. We would fix it so that all members of the American family might benefit from the basic notion of access and affordability as it relates to health care. So what do we have here? $839 billion of cuts to Medicaid, which is now long-term care for members of the American family. Do you know why? Sixty percent of Medicaid dollars go to nursing home care, and they want to cut $839 billion to provide a $1 trillion tax cut. Let me tell you, members of the American family can understand that. In Massachusetts, where proudly I can say 100 percent of the children in our State are covered, 97 percent of the adults in Massachusetts are covered. And guess what? It polls regularly in the high seventies as to consumer satisfaction. A Republican Governor of Massachusetts has advised them to go slowly and to go carefully, that this is not the path that they want to travel down, as well as other Governors across the country who happen to be a Republican. The hard truth here today is they are asking the American family to pay more to get less. Dozens of Republicans have said so today. Secretary Mnuchin recently said that ``there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.'' I hope that the Republican Conference confers with Secretary Mnuchin so that they might get their facts straight on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 49,200 people in his congressional district in Minnesota losing their healthcare coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts that relates to the debate we are having today. Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State House, Boston, MA, March 21, 2017. Dear Delegation Member: Health care is once again at the forefront of national and state policy discussions; I know we all share the goal of ensuring access to quality, affordable health care coverage for the people of Massachusetts. With Congress set to take up the American Health Care Act (AHCA) imminently, I wanted to share with you my administration's analysis of the potential effects this bill would have on our state. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its score of the AHCA on March 13. This analysis is broadly consistent with concerns we have raised, with you and others, regarding the bill's impact on the state and its residents' access to affordable healthcare. Applying CBO's assumptions to Massachusetts results in at least $1 billion of reduced federal revenue beginning in 2020, and we estimate reduced revenue of $1.3 billion in 2021, and $1.5 billion in 2022, with likely a greater annual impact in the years that follow. Specifically, our estimate extrapolated from the CBO analysis of a $1.5 billion impact for FY 2022 includes $1.3 billion of annual MassHealth federal revenue losses and $200 million in annual reduced federal subsidies for private insurance through the Connector. Several key areas of concern for Massachusetts were not included in the CBO analysis and could further impact the Commonwealth's budget. For example, the CBO estimate does not address 1115 waiver payments that we believe this bill would put at risk. By FY22, the Commonwealth estimates an additional $425-475 million per year of reduced federal revenue in potential elimination of 1115 payments not captured under the per capita targets, including federal matching funds for a state-run ConnectorCare Wrap subsidy. The actual experience for these and other factors is significantly dependent on how the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services implements the legislation and unpredictable factors in the future (e.g., pharmaceutical growth). In addition to reduced federal revenue for Medicaid, the CBO also projects a reduction in employer-sponsored health insurance of 7 million people nationwide as a result of the repeal of the federal Employer Mandate. This would exacerbate a trend that Massachusetts has seen over the last several years. Massachusetts repealed the Chapter 58 Fair Share Contribution in 2013 in order to comport with the ACA. My administration has proposed reinstating an employers' shared responsibility for the costs of health care. This would be increasingly important if the federal Employer Mandate were repealed, as the AHCA proposes. The Commonwealth does have certain protections in place that could mitigate the impact of some of these changes. Massachusetts retains its individual health insurance mandate, reducing the likelihood that many people would drop out of the insurance market due to the repeal of the federal mandate. Massachusetts also has protective insurance coverage laws that would not be superseded by the federal legislation. The AHCA includes a provision that would prevent Medicaid from reimbursing Planned Parenthood for providing important health services such as cancer screenings. My administration opposes this provision, and has already committed to funding these services with state dollars if it should pass. During conversations with governors across the country, the Trump Administration has expressed a general openness to providing greater state flexibility with respect to health care, including through a letter issued by HHS Secretary Price on March 14 to states. Our administration will pursue additional flexibilities to stabilize our markets and ensure continued coverage for residents and we urge you to support these efforts by leading discussions in Congress to ensure the people of Massachusetts continue to have access to a quality health care system. Overall, our analysis indicates that the AHCA would increasingly strain the fiscal resources necessary to support the Commonwealth's continued commitment to universal health care coverage. I hope this information is helpful to you as Congress takes up the American Health Care Act. My administration and I will continue to stay in touch with you as we work together to ensure access to quality, affordable health coverage for all Massachusetts residents. Sincerely, Charles D. Baker, Governor.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who played a major role in the substantive contribution he made to writing the ACA.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill today will result in 68,300 people from his congressional district losing their health coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very thoughtful member of the Committee on Ways and Means who also helped to write the ACA.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague and my friend that with his vote for this bill, 41,400 people from his congressional district in Pennsylvania will lose their healthcare coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is from an adjacent district and a close friend and a long-time member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an individual who also contributed mightily to the development and writing of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Colonel James J. Keefe on his promotion to the rank of Brigadier General and his assignment as Assistant Adjutant General for Air at the Massachusetts Air National Guard at the Joint Force Headquarters at Hansom Air Force Base. He has dedicated his life to the defense of our country and I would like to take the time to express my gratitude to him. Jim Keefe has been a constituent of mine throughout my tenure in Congress as a resident of Northampton and Southampton, Massachusetts. He graduated from Norwich University in Vermont and was commissioned into the United States Air Force in 1987. During his time in the active Air Force, Colonel Keefe proved to be an effective F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot and instructor at bases in Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC. In May of 1999, Colonel Keefe returned home and joined the Massachusetts Air National Guard at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield, Massachusetts. In the course of his service, Colonel Keefe has flown in over 3400 flying hours, as well as 330 hours of combat in missions Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Noble Eagle. In addition to his pilot duties, Colonel Keefe has served as Flight Commander, Squadron Commander, and Vice Commander at the 104th Fighter Wing. Since 2013, he has faithfully served as Wing Commander of the 104th, where he is charged with directing over a thousand military and civilian personnel in support of the wing's mission to defend against any air threat to the homeland. Throughout his career, Colonel Keefe has been recognized many times for outstanding service to this nation. These awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Combat Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon, and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal to just name a few. Needless to say, Colonel Keefe has been an asset to the Air Force and the Air National Guard for decades. Mr. Speaker, as Colonel Keefe moves onto the next step in his career and continues to serve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and his country, I want to thank him for his service. Barnes Air National Guard Base has been the example all Air National Guard bases look to in terms of excellence. That is partly in part to the exemplary leadership that Colonel Keefe has brought to Barnes. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the doctor for that Webster's dictionary. That dictionary was published in Springfield, Massachusetts, and I am glad that the doctor from Tennessee sees it as the last word. Mr. Speaker, let me rise in opposition to the CRA resolutions we are debating today that would block Department of Labor regulations on State-run retirement programs. Our country is in the midst of a retirement savings crisis, as duly noted. To address this issue, we should be working together to help people get into a responsible retirement savings plan. Half the people who get up to go to work every single day in America are not in a qualified savings plan for retirement. This opportunity here is to begin a history lesson. In July of 2007, a decade ago, I introduced the Automatic IRA Act with my Republican Ways and Means colleague, Phil English. That same year, Senators Bingaman and Smith introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate. The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation scholars jointly developed my auto IRA concept. So conservatives and liberals came together on a commonsense proposal to make it easier for working families to save. However, fast forward to 2017. I can't find a Republican to join me in sponsoring the auto IRA legislation. Remember, The Heritage Foundation worked with me to construct this initiative. If we can just keep it amongst ourselves here, being a Democrat from Massachusetts and having a plan that is endorsed by The Heritage Foundation is not one of our easier endeavors. But between Brookings, a liberal think tank, and Heritage, a conservative think tank, we came up with a pretty good plan. Today American families struggle to prepare for retirement. To make matters worse, 55 million Americans work for employers who don't offer a retirement plan. As I noted earlier, that is half the workers between 18 and 64. Because of Congress' failure to act on any legislation and address the retirement savings crisis, many States implemented their own auto IRA plans based upon the Neal-English bill. In fact, 30 States have moved to implement or are considering a State-facilitated retirement plan. Credit unions would love this, community bankers would love this, and insurance agents would like to sell these plans, but here we can't find a Republican to sign on. So today they are trying to block the guidance that provides clarity and flexibility to States that want to launch their own initiative. This is troubling. If these resolutions become law, it would have a chilling effect on State efforts. The States are the laboratories of experimenting on these retirement plans because the Federal Government doesn't get it done. If Republicans are looking for a single national effort, let's work together to develop a Federal auto IRA legislation piece that would work in the interim and work in the future and help people set up, Mr. Speaker, a responsible retirement savings plan.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 42, a measure disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor regarding drug testing unemployment compensation applicants. This legislation would overturn a Department of Labor regulation which, as directed by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, defines the occupations in which States may require unemployed workers to take drug tests as a condition of collecting earned unemployment benefits. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against searches without reasonable cause, the regulation limits drug testing to occupations where drug testing is required, like pipeline safety, some transportation operators, and jobs that require carrying a gun. Many communities are facing a rising rate of drug use, including my hometown of Springfield. Congress could and should do more to help people struggling with addiction, but the legislation that we are debating today has nothing to do with fighting drug abuse. It is about allowing States to put one more time-consuming, humiliating obstacle in the way of Americans who work hard and were laid off from their jobs and need unemployment insurance to pay the bills while they look for new jobs. As a reminder, in the aftermath of the recession, the unemployment rate in America went to 10 percent. There is no evidence that unemployed workers have higher rates of drug abuse than the general population. In fact, logic suggests that rates of serious drug abuse are lower. To be eligible to collect unemployment, a worker must have substantial, recent work experience. He or she must not have been fired for cause. And workers can only collect unemployment insurance if they demonstrate they are actively searching for work. Instead, it appears that some States may be trying to limit the number of workers who collect unemployment insurance when they are laid off as a way to reduce pressure on underfunded unemployment trust funds. More than half of the State unemployment trust funds are still insolvent, years after the Great Recession. Dozens of States have changed their eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, imposed administrative hurdles to filing for unemployment, or cut the number of weeks benefits can be received while individuals search for a job. Partly because of those changes, only about one in four unemployed workers in the United States receive unemployment benefits, even though the vast majority of them worked for employers who paid unemployment payroll taxes on their wages. That is the lowest level of benefit receipt among laid-off workers since the Federal-State unemployment insurance program began. Instead, we should be here crafting bipartisan policies to strengthen unemployment insurance protections to help workers who genuinely want to work to pay their bills while they are looking for new jobs. I remind our colleagues to look at the worker participation rate, not encouraging States to create more obstacles. I hope that both sides of the aisle will vote ``no'' on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I have heard this, in the 29 years I have been in Congress, time and again. Till an honorable effort is put forward, you know what the Republicans should be saying to us right now? Let's get on, together, with making it all work, instead of saying repeal and replace. How empty is that rhetoric?

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the last speaker said this was rushed through Congress. It took 2 years to write this legislation. Even by congressional standards, this was not rushed through Congress. We have waited 7 years to hear the alternative, and the gentlewoman from Tennessee has all of these plans over there, and she says: we have got plans right here. How about one plan that we might have a chance to focus on? They have had the luxury of saying: we are going to do a better job without telling us what the better job entails. The Governor of Massachusetts recently wrote to our delegation and to the leadership in the House and said: During the ACA repeal-replace deliberations, it is important that coverage gains, patient protections and market stability be maintained. Let me give you some numbers from Massachusetts. 97.2 percent of the residents of Massachusetts have health care. 100 percent of the children in Massachusetts now have health care. This is an effort at rhetoric. We want to hear what the plan is. We want to understand what the alternative is. We want to know precisely what is going to be included and, just as importantly, what will be excluded from the benefits that this Affordable Care Act has given to the American people. Twenty-two million Americans now have healthcare insurance who didn't have it. Nine percent of the American people are without adequate health care. We should be fixing that.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who has been a leader on this very issue and has helped to design the very product that is in front of us today, and I think that he can take great satisfaction from the bipartisan nature of the legislation that we are about to entertain.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Dr. Boustany, who has been a friend on the Ways and Means Committee. I assume this might be his last time handling legislation on the floor. He was great to work with over the years. I take some satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, that having either been chairman or ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, that I simply wore them all down because, every 2 years, they would send somebody else over to share that responsibility. Dr. Boustany is a real gentleman. He has been a friend, and he has been a very nice guy to work with. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke), another individual who has had a profound influence on this legislation and has had a long-time interest in the topic as well.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I stand in support of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016. This bill offers a pragmatic and bipartisan solution to a real and growing problem: Customs and Border Protection simply has not been able to keep pace, and has not been given the resources to keep pace, with the dramatic growth in travel into the United States. In the last fiscal year, for example, the CBP processed more than 384 million passengers and more than $2.4 trillion of imported goods through our air, land, and sea ports, but the CBP's staffing levels have not kept pace with this growth over the years. The result has been substantial and unnecessary delays as passengers and cargo ships wait to be processed. Not only is this a bipartisan issue, but just as importantly, I think it calls into meaning how we might solve some of the problems that confront America economically. A case in point: it is generally large businesses, medium-sized businesses, and small businesses that tend not to take a position in support of more government but which, in this instance, would ask for more government. There is nothing wrong with that inconsistency. In fact, I think, in this particular instance, it works quite well because they will ask for more agents for the purpose of moving cargo faster. I think that is an entirely reasonable position. This bill will help to address those delays by increasing trade and travel efficiencies and by eliminating unnecessary redtape in the hiring process at no cost to the taxpayer. This approach has already been tested, and it has passed the test. In 2013 and 2014, Congress authorized pilot programs, as Dr. Boustany has noted, to enable the CBP to enter into agreements with private sector, State, and local government entities that would reimburse the CBP for customs-related personnel services at ports of entry. These public- private agreements are believed to have decreased wait times by an average of 30 percent at the ports at which they were implemented. The bill also allows for more of these agreements and for a longer period of time. For these reasons, I support this bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it later on this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the gentleman for his good effort and his thoughtful response to the point that I raised. Of course, thanks to Chairman Brady, this is an example, again, in a small way of how we can do some good things around here in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for his efforts on behalf of this legislation. This is a pleasant responsibility that we have when you consider that its corrective action will alone help 175 former military members in the State of Massachusetts and 13,800 across the country. Let me reiterate some of the points that were made by Chairman Brady. The bill before us corrects an issue related to a provision that was designed to alleviate some of the tax burdens of our Nation's combat- injured veterans. Under Federal law, veterans who suffer combat-related injuries and who are separated from the military are not supposed to be taxed on the one-time lump-sum disability severance payment they receive from the Department of Defense. Due to an accounting error at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, approximately $78 million in tax payments were inadvertently taken from combat-disabled servicemembers. Some of this improper withholding has taken place outside the 3-year period in which taxpayers could file an amended tax return. H.R. 5015 would right this wrong by instructing DOD to identify those who were wrongfully taxed so that they can be reimbursed. This bill would allow those veterans identified by the DOD to file amended returns to recoup those unintentionally withheld funds. Mr. Speaker, I am curious with respect to two items in this bill, and I just would like to raise this ever so politely with the majority party. Veterans' issues in the Congress have long had a bipartisan flavor to them. We have been supportive across the board in the efforts that we make as it relates to our veterans, and the differences we have generally are very small; but in this case, it does not appear that a Democrat was asked to cosponsor the bill in its original introduction. So I would hope in the future that even though this bill was largely sponsored by Republican Members, that on this side you could have easily picked up 33 Members as well. So I hope going forward there will be that effort that we would continue with here to ensure that matters of this magnitude are well met by both parties. I would say that I don't want to suggest for a moment that this was done in a partisan atmosphere as much as I would like to think that it was just overlooked. I hope in the future that we would be considered for sponsorship of this sort of legislation as well. Also, I would like to highlight an issue that is akin to the matter that is before us, and it comes from our friends on the committee, Sam Johnson and John Larson. They worked together on legislation that would prevent exonerated felons from facing an undue tax burden with respect to payments they received due to their wrongful conviction--emphasis on ``wrongful conviction.'' Similar to the veterans in the situation before us, these wrongfully convicted individuals should not face an improper tax liability on amounts intended to compensate for the tremendous injustices they faced under our legal system. Legislation to that effect became law in 2015. However, due to the lengthy IRS process in providing guidance on the issue, the statute would only allow less than 5 months for these exonerated individuals to amend their prior year tax returns. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Larson of Connecticut have worked tirelessly to make sure that these individuals are not unfairly burdened further than they already have been and they have proposed extending the statutory deadline for these individuals to file amended returns. So while I think the legislation before us is sound, I do hope that the committee and the Congress will find time to consider similar IRS filing-deadline legislation with respect to these exonerated individuals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Boys & Girls Club of Springfield, Massachusetts as they celebrate their 125th anniversary. The Boys & Girls Clubs of America is an outstanding organization founded to provide after school programs to children, especially in areas most in need. The Springfield Boys & Girls Club opened its doors in 1891 with a mission to provide a safe environment and the resources for the children of Springfield. Their ultimate goal has always been to ensure that these children become respectful members of society. Springfield has changed a great deal since the Boys & Girls Club opened. Through all of the changes and challenges in the community, the Boys & Girls Club has remained a place where kids can gain confidence and make friends where otherwise they couldn't. Today, the Boys & Girls Club offers a wide variety of opportunities such as swim lessons, math- and-literacy tutoring, digital art lessons, and many more. They provide all of these services with the lowest membership rates in Massachusetts for after school programs. They have even started to have programs and events on Saturdays. Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure as Springfield's mayor and representing Springfield in Congress for the past 28 years, I have seen firsthand what the Boys & Girls Club has accomplished for the community. With the continued support of its many benefactors as well as the support of the federal and state governments, I am sure that they will continue to contribute to children's lives for generations to come. Congratulations to the Springfield Boys & Girls Club on reaching this momentous milestone and I wish them all the best with their future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Eastern States Exposition held annually in West Springfield, Massachusetts. Founded in 1916, the Eastern States Exposition, more affectionately known as ``The Big E,'' for a century has been a showcase for what all six New England States have to offer. Starting last Friday and running for a total of 17 days, this celebration will play host to hundreds of agricultural and livestock displays, thousands of food and craft vendors, and will welcome over 1 million visitors through its duration. Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that The Big E is woven into the culture of western Massachusetts. Furthermore, it is a driving force behind the regional tourism economy. I wish to congratulate Eastern States Chairman Donald Chase, President Eugene Cassidy, and the many staff and volunteers on the work done in preparation for this centennial celebration. May this year stand as a testament to the next 100 years. Congratulations from the United States of America.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Simon Carrillo, a victim of gun violence who never received his moment of silence on the House floor.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize one of Springfield, Massachusetts' most well-known institutions, the Grand Sumner Lodge Number 5 of the Prince Hall Masonic Temple, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary. The Grand Sumner Lodge was founded on June 24, 1866 by eleven Master Masons living in Springfield, who felt it was time for the city's African-American community to host a fraternal organization. The Master Masons chose to name their lodge after Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Senator Sumner dedicated his life to serving his country as a member of the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. He was a long time champion of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. In fact, he was beaten on the floor of the United States Senate for the cause of equality in 1856. The members of Grand Sumner Lodge Number 5 have dedicated themselves to following the example set by their illustrious namesake. The Lodge has been at the forefront of the battle for civil rights in this country. They have broken down many barriers, including in 1955 when the members of the Lodge became the first African-American fraternal organization to erect their own meeting hall in Massachusetts. Sumner Lodge has been a force for good in the Springfield community for 150 years and has shown no signs of slowing down. The group currently donates time and money to causes that include the Martin Luther King Day Center, American Cancer Society, CDC Rehabilitation Springfield, and Jane Doe, Inc. Sumner Lodge provides positive role models for the young men of Springfield to ensure that they do not fall victim to substance abuse. The Lodge also seeks to educate young men on the horrific consequences of sexual assault and domestic violence, so that they learn healthy respect for the women in their lives. Additionally, they serve all of the youth of Springfield by toiling to construct safe areas for after school recreation activities. Organizations such as the Sumner Lodge are vital pillars of the American community and must be commended for their tireless dedication to service. I have full confidence that they will continue to do phenomenal work for the next 150 years. Mr. Speaker, as Springfield celebrates the 150th anniversary of the Grand Sumner Lodge, let us all acknowledge the outstanding work that this group has done on behalf of the people of Springfield, and let us all wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding constituent in the field of health care, Richard Herrick of Lenox, Massachusetts. Mr. Herrick has been selected this year as one of the recipients of the prestigious Joe Warner Patient Advocacy Award. The American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living (AHCA/NCAL) bestows this annual award on Association members who have worked diligently to educate Members of Congress about the needs of long term care patients and residents, and to advance quality in the long term and post-acute care community. Mr. Herrick's commitment to improving long term care continues today as the President and CEO of the New York Health Facilities Association, Inc. (NYSHFA) and the New York State Center for Assisted Living, representing over 350 skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. At the national level, Mr. Herrick serves on the Board of Governors of the American Health Care Association and on their Business Management Committee. He also serves as President of the Affiliated State Health Care Association Executives. Mr. Herrick is past member of AHCA's Council of States and Board of Directors of the National Center for Assisted Living. AHCA/NCAL is the nation's largest association of professional long term health providers. Prior to joining New York Health Facilities Association, Inc., Mr. Herrick spent seven years as President and COO of Wingate Health Care, Inc., which operates seven nursing facilities in Massachusetts and three in New York. Mr. Herrick is active on the Boards of Berkshire Healthcare Systems which operates 19 skilled nursing facilities and Berkshire Place located in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. He is the past chairman of the Board of the Massachusetts Senior Care Association. The award presentation will take place during the AHCA/NCAL Congressional Briefing on May 23rd. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing and thanking Richard Herrick for his years of dedication and care to our nation's frail, elderly and disabled. His career and life accomplishments truly reflect the ideals embodied in the Joe Warner Patient Advocacy Award.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank Congresswomen Clark and Ann Kuster and Congressman Frank Guinta for the good work that they have done in calling attention this evening to this crisis that now threatens to overwhelm rehabilitation centers across the country. What I want to specifically cite in my comments for the next few minutes is a very human story. Her name is Bethany, and she wrote to me on January 18 of this year. Dear Congressman Neal: I am writing to you regarding the heroin prescription pill crisis our State and Nation is currently entrenched in. I am a physician assistant who graduated from Wake Forest Baptist Medical School in their Physician Assistants program in 2003. I have worked in various outpatient clinics, as well as at Bay State Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, and at the Cooley Dickinson emergency room operations in Northampton, Massachusetts. I have treated overdose patients, have been alongside physicians who have pronounced patients deceased from an overdose, as well as having referred patients to crisis support teams, outpatient treatment, and rehabs. After all of this, I never expected that I would become addicted to prescription painkillers after a series of surgeries and illness. I suffered in silence, alone in fear, shame, and guilt. I was a functioning professional who referred my addicted patients to various resources, but when I tried to reach out for help, I hit roadblocks. For instance, the emergency room I worked in was outsourced so that when I went to the emergency room director on two separate occasions to ask to go to the Employee Assistance Program, I was told that those resources were only available to hospital employees. I tried outpatient therapy and 12-step programs, but I kept sliding backwards. After years of struggling, I couldn't keep silent any longer. I confessed my addiction to a coworker. I felt that, finally, help would come. Instead, I was fired for cause and without benefits. The fear that had kept me silent for all of those years was now my reality. My husband was a stay-at-home dad. And now how could we support our three children? I felt like my life was falling apart. Little did I know that what I was doing was actually falling into place. With family support, I found a rehab program for 6 months where I could go with two young children. I saw my oldest on the weekends. After graduating rehab, I interviewed and signed up with the Massachusetts professional reporting system. For 5 years, I have called in daily. I am subjected to at least 15 random drug tests a year. I go to 2 to 4 hours of recovery meetings every week and attend a professionals in recovery meeting weekly. It was in the professionals meetings that I finally found a sense of belonging. It was the vital piece of the puzzle that had been lacking as I searched for recovery but kept backsliding. She writes in this letter to me of her strong faith and how it helped to get her through this very difficult time in her life, but she also points out that the system is broken, that the emergency room funding for reaching individuals is inadequate, that pain management is inadequate, that pain scales, treatments are inadequate. She writes: I found myself overtreating pain at times because I was taught that we could get sanctioned from not treating pain. I felt obligated to treat someone's subjective pain without objective findings or reason. She writes of all of the challenges that she faced, all having started because of surgeries and illnesses that she had that required medication that, in fact, in the end, she could not successfully escape. She testified in a forum that I held. She was courageous enough to get up and talk about the problems that she had. Do you know what? She is doing better. So we call attention to those tonight who might find a path forward from the grim reality of heroin that sells on the streets of Springfield and Hartford for $3 a bag. This was an individual who had a normal working relationship with colleagues. This was an individual who went to work faithfully, had a professional designation, and found herself caught up in the opioid crisis because of the prescriptions that had been given to her early on. I know of the maintenance plan that is being proposed and of the suggestions that are being offered for more physicians to secure training and how opioids might be extended to those who need them, but I would implore this Congress to act favorably upon that proposal and that legislation. We all regularly go to caucus meetings, we go to a host of get- togethers, at which we always attempt to upgrade our skills. There is nothing that will upgrade your skills like the coarseness of a campaign--I can tell you that--but we all find that professional opportunity to challenge ourselves to do better in this institution. That should not be unlike those who are outside of the institution. Where you regularly require courses for attorneys, CPAs, and others, why not for physicians so they may receive the training that today would be readily available with the assistance of this Congress, hopefully after the vigorous activity that we will take this week? I close as I opened. I thank Congresswoman Clark for her leadership, Congresswoman Kuster for her leadership, and Congressman Guinta for his leadership on this issue. I am telling you, across western and central Massachusetts, this is devastating families. There is an opportunity here for the Congress to respond.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize one of Springfield's most famous residents, Olympic athlete and scholar Howard P. Drew. Howard was born on June 28, 1890 in Lexington, Virginia but was raised in Springfield, Massachusetts. As a high school student at Springfield High School, Howard tied the world record for the 100 meter dash to qualify for the 1912 Olympics in Stockholm, Sweden. Later, as a student at the University of Southern California, he broke the record for the 100 meter and 200 meter dash. Despite having many personal problems, he persevered and was able to travel to participate in an array of competitions. Howard won numerous medals throughout the Northeast, especially in Massachusetts. His triumphs in track and field were covered by every major newspaper including the Boston Globe and the New York Times. During his time at University of Southern California, Howard was the first African-American man to write for USC's newspaper, titled the Daily Southern Californian, as well as being the first African-American man inducted into the Skull and Dagger Society, an exclusive academic club at USC. Before finishing his education, Howard enlisted and became a Sergeant in the Supply Company, 809th Pioneer Infantry Regiment, and the Eighty-Eighth Division of the United States Army during World War I, and during that time, he ran and coached the Army track teams in Neil, France. Once leaving the Army and finishing law school, he became a judge in Hartford, Connecticut and was elected to Justice of the Peace several times during the 1940s. Each of these positions was the first to be held by an African American in the State of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as Springfield celebrates his legacy, let us remember all of Howard P. Drew's outstanding achievements, as we recall his legacy as a role model for today's high school athletes and students all over the country.