Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment that is of great consequence and urgency, and that amendment would require that before the President initiated any military action against Iran, he has to come to Congress and get approval through an Authorization for Use of Military Force. And make no mistake about it. That amendment is essential for our security. What the President did on May 8 was that he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement, with no alternative in place. He says now his objective is a nonnuclear Iran. That is what we had. Our intelligence agencies confirmed that Iran was in compliance with that agreement. Instead, he has embarked on a policy that is bellicose in rhetoric and ineffective in outcome. He has torn up the agreement that was supported, not just by this Congress, but it was supported by our allies, including our frenemies Russia and China, and our good friends Britain, Germany, and France. Instead, he substituted it with the maximum pressure that has met maximum resistance, and what we see now is an enormous escalation in danger and in rhetoric. Madam Speaker, the most important decision that a President can make is to recommend whether we use the awesome force of our military, and the most important decision that Congress can make is whether to authorize the use of military force. Regrettably, we are operating on a stale authorization from 2001 that has nothing to do with present circumstances. It is on Congress if we, as Republicans and Democrats, given that awesome power, fail to be accountable by having that vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the authorization. The President's policy right now is escalating the likelihood of military confrontation with Iran. We must make certain that that cannot be done without a vote of this Congress and every Member in it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, there is a crisis at the southern border. That is true. This past month, 140,000 people showed up seeking asylum: 84,000 families, 11,000 children. But everything--every single thing--that the Trump administration is doing, led by President Trump himself, is making a very dire situation worse. First, start with the definition that our President gives for what is going on. It is the arrival of rapists, of criminals, of gang members, when every single one of us who has been on that heartbreaking trip to the southern border knows it is children, women, and families who are fleeing violence, who are fleeing gang members, and who are fleeing destitution and grinding poverty. Those are the people arriving at the border. Their crime, made criminal by the administration, is to seek help, to knock on America's door and ask for help. We may not be able to do all that we would like, but is it a crime for a person to ask for assistance? Second, by defining the crisis as an invasion of criminals--the Trump definition--the Trump policy is to treat these people worse than criminals, first starting with the family separation policy where children, literally, were yanked out of the arms of their parents. Many of those children still don't know where their father or their mother is. That is being done in your name and mine, with the full authority of the American Government and the widespread opposition of the American people. Then, when these people are in our custody, it is the imposition of cruel and brutal conditions on children and innocent people whose crime is to seek some assistance. We had a Trump attorney, in Federal court, arguing that when it came to fulfilling the duty that we had of holding in custody children, it was okay to deny them toothbrushes, soap, access to showers, and sanitary conditions, and to have them sleeping on cement floors in frigid conditions. This is shocking. It is unnecessary. It is inhumane. In short, it is a policy of calculated cruelty, family separation, and affliction of wholesale suffering. It must end. We must immediately return all children to their parents and provide humane, sanitary, and safe conditions for those seeking asylum. We must work with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to improve conditions in those countries to address humanitarian conditions.

Mr. WELCH. We must not withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, as the President decrees. Mr. President, the response to this crisis must not be cruelty. Enforce our laws, yes. Work with Central American governments, yes. But treat all who seek America's help with respect and dignity.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this is a bright day in the history of the House. We are going to provide relief to people who are innocent. We have the debate about immigration, no question about it. But we are talking about children, infants, in some cases, who were brought here through no decision of their own. They then went to school here, began a career here, built a family here. In many cases, they served in the military here and served as first responders. This is finally an opportunity for those Dreamers to have legal status, 2.5 million of them. We are also going to provide temporary protected status to other law- abiding people living and contributing here. This is a big deal in Vermont. First, for the people, for those affected, it is relief. It is about time. Second, they are contributing to the economy with the jobs that they perform and the taxes that they pay, about $3.5 million in Federal taxes and $2 million in State and local taxes. One, in particular, is a student at the University of Vermont Medical School, Juan Conde. He was brought here from Mexico when he was 9 years old. His mom later died of cancer. His goal in life is to help cancer victims. First, he got a master's degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. in molecular biology, doing research to advance a cure for cancer. Now he is a student at the University of Vermont Medical School, and he is dedicating his life to cancer research and cancer treatment. What a win it is for this country to have the services of this bright, idealistic young man. This legislation is going to allow him to have the security that we all need in order to be the best that we can possibly be as a contributing member of society. A confident nation welcomes people who are law-abiding citizens. Pass this legislation overwhelmingly.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I will describe in a moment, is about improving and preserving the Affordable Care Act. The word ``sabotage'' has been used here. We don't need that word. We have a very straightforward, very transparent difference of view. The Democrats supported and passed the Affordable Care Act. We have been defending it for years. The Republicans opposed it. President Trump made it a campaign pledge to get rid of it, and they came within a vote in the Senate, except for John McCain, of repealing the law altogether. We don't have to use words that are pejorative. We think we should have the Affordable Care Act. We think we should make it stronger, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vote against it and now want to repeal it. One of the ways to make the Affordable Care Act effective is to have automatic reenrollment. If a family is in the Affordable Care Act and the time for reenrollment comes up, if they take no action, then they are automatically reenrolled in the plan that they are already in. If you take away the automatic reenrollment, folks fall off, oftentimes for no particular reason. They were doing other things; they didn't notice it; they didn't have the time; or they didn't get to a navigator. There are lots of things that come between automatic reenrollment and picking your own plan. By the way, studies have shown that automatic reenrollment, like automatic withdrawal to go into your retirement account, is very, very effective. The President has indicated a desire to get rid of the automatic reenrollment program. He hasn't done that yet. This amendment would prohibit him from doing so. There is a reason why the administration would like to get rid of automatic reenrollment. The evidence suggests that that would mean about 2 million Americans would then lose access to their healthcare because they hadn't reenrolled. We don't want that to happen. We want those American families who depend on the healthcare that they have to continue receiving that healthcare next year just like they received it this year. This amendment makes it very clear that that automatic reenrollment program would continue to be part of the Affordable Care Act. Keep in mind, it in no way limits the ability of a family or an individual to decide to get into a different plan or to affirmatively say they don't want to be in any plan. That can still happen. There is total and complete freedom of choice, but it gives security. It is going to be very beneficial to about 2 million American families. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is going to help make healthcare more affordable and more accessible. There are two things: One, we finally are attacking the explosion in the cost of prescription drugs, and I thank my Republican colleagues for participating in that effort. In Vermont, we just had a 16 percent rate increase for requests from Blue Cross Blue Shield, and 9 percent of that is attributable to the increase in pharma costs. This is happening because pharma has been ripping us off for far too long. This bill does two things: One, it ends their abusive, outrageous practice of paying generic companies to delay bringing their lower cost drug to the market. There is no excuse for that. This bill ends it. The second thing it does is deny pharma the opportunity to withhold samples so that generic companies can come up with a competitive product. That is tremendous, it is overdue, and it is just the beginning. Second, this makes healthcare more accessible by funding navigators. My colleagues disregard that, but, in fact, navigators help people make the complicated decision about what is the best healthcare plan for them. It also provides money for outreach. We want folks to know what is available for them, make the best choice, and have the security of healthcare. Finally, there will be protection for the auto enrollment program. Everybody is busy. If the default position is you are back in the plan you had, that is good. There is security in that. People can make options to get out or to change their plan. We want them to shop. This makes healthcare affordable and more accessible.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we just have a difference of opinion. We think the Affordable Care Act is important to preserve and important to improve. My colleagues, when they have had an opportunity, have voted to repeal it. Failing to repeal it, what the Trump administration has done is chip away at it. We don't want the administration to be able to get rid of automatic reenrollment, which would likely result in the loss of 2 million families having access to healthcare. There has been a number of other things that have happened: slashing funding, slashing funding for consumer outreach and enrollment education by 90 percent, cutting back the uninsured rate for 4 years, and 1.1 million Americans losing coverage last year. In the latest ACA marketplace final rule, the administration openly contemplated getting rid of this automatic reenrollment. This amendment protects the automatic reenrollment. It is going to protect continued access to care under the Affordable Care Act for 2 million Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, if we want to level with the American people, let's acknowledge something: We have a difference of opinion on healthcare. When we passed the Affordable Care Act, it provided, for the first time, protections for people who have a preexisting condition. Every single one of my colleagues on the Republican side voted against that and then spent the next several years--69 times--voting to get rid of the protection for preexisting conditions. Then when they were in the majority, the first opportunity they had, they passed a bill out of the House to take away the protection for preexisting conditions. And thank you to Senator John McCain for protecting the American people. Every single opportunity to stand up and protect people who are sick, who lost their job but were sick and wanted to get insurance, you voted ``no''; we voted ``yes.'' You are talking now about waivers. I like waivers--we have benefited in Vermont--but not this waiver. If you pass this waiver, you are going to wave good-bye to the protection that we fought long and hard for for preexisting conditions. We fought for your families. We fought for our families. We fought for all American families. What kind of world is it if you are sick and you can't get healthcare? That is what is at stake now. That should never be in debate. We will not back down on protecting people from preexisting conditions. We will not back down on assaults on Medicare. We will not back down on assaults on Medicaid. Mr. Chairman, let us pass this bill and continue to protect Americans' healthcare.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to Neighborhood Connections of Londonderry, Vermont which will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on May 17th. I especially want to recognize the vision of its two founding partners, Dr. Dolores Barbeau and Gloria Dawson, who identified a need in their community and had the energy and skills to deliver results that have improved the lives of their neighbors. Today Neighborhood Connections serves nine towns in rural, south- central Vermont. This is an area of my state where many residents are vulnerable to poverty, food and employment insecurity, lack of transportation, mental and physical health issues, disability, isolation and simply not knowing where to turn for basic support. Neighborhood Connections is a vital organization committed to welcoming all people through its doors, regardless of challenge or financial status, to help them navigate a range of personal difficulties by connecting them with all forms of available assistance. Its focus is on the most vulnerable and those who face barriers to care. It offers a myriad of services from connecting people to transportation, housing, heating and employment assistance to helping people access disability and income benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and tax preparation assistance. The small professional staff offers counseling, crisis management assistance and home visits primarily to elderly and disabled residents. They ``walk with'' those they serve, offering support for ``as long as it takes.'' In a given year, Neighborhood Connections delivers over 1,200 services to individuals and families, 90 percent of whom fall below the federal poverty level and 80 percent of whom have significant mental or physical health issues. Neighborhood Connections is committed to the ``total well-being'' of communities to improve health and quality of life for all. In short, it exists to foster hope, particularly for vulnerable individuals and families, by delivering care and connecting everyone who walks through its doors to comprehensive wellbeing support. The motto of Neighborhood Connections is simple: ``Neighbors Helping Neighbors.'' For ten years they have been fulfilling their vital mission and I know they will continue their work for many years to come. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to join me today in paying tribute to Neighborhood Connections, Dolores Barbeau, and Gloria Dawson for the countless ways they have improved the quality of life for people in south-central Vermont. Congratulations on this remarkable milestone and best wishes for many more years of success.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. Climate change is here, and it is worth highlighting some of the impacts that are underway. This year, we have seen record flooding in the Midwest, unprecedented wildfires in the West, and record temperatures across the country. In Vermont--and talk about economic impacts--the ski season is getting shorter. In one study, it has noted that, even under the most optimistic climate change models, all the ski areas in southern New England will no longer be economically viable by 2040. That would be thousands of jobs melting away as a result of climate change. We have had 16 disasters in 2017 with damage exceeding $1 billion, spending $306 billion on weather-related disasters that year. Climate change is a priority for young people and local officials. It now must become a priority for Congress. The Climate Action Now Act takes an important step in this direction by keeping us--or getting us back into the Paris climate agreement and not taken out by the action of a single person. This bill is just the start of fulfilling our obligations and our opportunity to slow climate change. Now, some folks are fearful about the economic consequences of addressing climate change, but a confident nation faces its problems; it doesn't deny them. It is in facing these problems that we are actually going to create jobs, not lose jobs. So, Madam Speaker, I commend Representative Castor for her leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as the beginning of undertaking the opportunity that we have economically to build a stronger and safer environment.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, and 167. I would include in the Record how I would have voted on each had I been present. rollcall 157: ``Aye'', rollcall 158: ``Aye'', rollcall 159: ``Aye'', rollcall 160: ``Aye'', rollcall 161: ``Aye'', rollcall 162: ``Aye'', rollcall 163: ``Aye'', rollcall 164: ``Aye'', rollcall 165: ``Aye'', rollcall 166: ``Nay'', and rollcall 167: ``Aye''.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is in the Mueller report and neither do you. The American people don't know what is in the Mueller report, but they want to know. And I want to know, as you do, and why not? Mr. Speaker, 81 percent of the American people polled say they want to know, and that includes 79 percent of the Republicans. That is good news. Because what we do know, without knowing the details of the Mueller report, is that really bad stuff happened in the last election. Some of it was in a campaign, and some of it was in a foreign country that is our severe adversary; and I speak, of course, of Vladimir Putin's Russia. But the bad stuff: a former campaign foreign policy adviser indicted and convicted, Mr. Papadopoulos; a former campaign manager on his way to jail, Mr. Manafort; a former campaign aide and Manafort's long-time junior business partner indicted; a former foreign policy national security adviser pleaded guilty, Mr. Flynn. This is the high level of a campaign where crimes are not just being discussed; there have been convictions and guilty pleas. What is behind all of that? We need to know. And, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the American people are footing the bill for this--about $25 million, as far as we can tell. They have got a right to know. But, in addition to whatever happened in the campaign, really bad stuff happened in Russia. We know from our own intelligence agencies that Russia made a concerted effort and a determined effort and a well- financed effort to interfere in our election.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, outside interference goes to the heart of our democracy. The most important challenge for our country is that we, the citizens of this country, make the decision on who is our President, who are our Senators, and who are our Representatives. We have to get to the bottom of what Russia did and how they did it so that we can take steps to make certain that that does not happen in the future. It is the American people who decide who is their leader. Release the Mueller report.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member; the chairman; and the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Cartwright, in persistent advocacy. What Mr. Cartwright said really makes sense. It is pretty bad, the condition of many of our schools throughout the country. About 43 percent are in substandard condition. It has a real impact on learning, but it also has an impact on expense. It means that kids are in cold and drafty schools or it is too hot; it is one or the other. Energy efficiency programs can make a huge difference, and there are some that are available. As Mr. Cartwright said, the teachers and the principals want to focus on instruction and taking care of the kids. They don't have time to manage and investigate what are all of the programs out there that may allow them to rehab their schools. This allows the Secretary to essentially provide a blueprint so that, whether you are in a small town like Norwich, Vermont, where I am from, where we have got a population of about 3,000, or you are in an urban district in the middle of Chicago, you are going to be able to get the information you need without absorbing a lot of staff time. And then, by the way, kids are getting involved in this question of climate change. This is a big deal because, at our schools and our high schools, there is a lot of leadership that is saying we have got an obligation to protect our planet. What is going to happen when we embrace energy efficiency on a large scale but start locally is that it is going to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, when we passed the Waxman-Markey bill in the House--it didn't get through the Senate--where the goal was 80 percent carbon reductions by 2050, 40 percent of those carbon reductions were coming from energy efficiency. It is what Mr. Tonko says. It is our fuel of choice. It is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. The other thing is, every time you are doing energy efficiency, it means local tradesmen and -women are doing the work. So it is those kids who are going to have a warmer or a cooler school, and it is their moms and dads who are going to be doing the work to make that happen. So this really makes a lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this legislation and leadership on the committee for their work in bringing it forward.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues who say that Saudi Arabia is an ally and a partner and we have to support them. Saudi Arabia is a questionable ally--we all know that--and it is time to reexamine that relationship. But I have a question that this raises: If we have an ally that is engaged in violent strikes killing innocent civilians, including children, do we turn a blind eye and condone that behavior because it is ``an ally''? Do we condone the bombing of schools, of hospitals, of funerals because it is a partner or an ally? Do we disregard our own responsibility as human beings to oppose violence against innocence because that violence is being perpetrated by an ally? And, yes, it is true, our troops are not there, but our bombs are, our mid-air refuelers are, our targeting folks are. We are allowing ourselves to be complicit in what is the greatest humanitarian tragedy that is on the face of this Earth at this moment. We should not be doing that, and we should stop by voting for this resolution. Mr. Chair, we have a proud tradition in this country that both sides want to honor, and that is to stand up for freedom and for human decency and dignity. This policy of Saudi Arabia to bomb and bomb again and bomb yet again, despite the devastating impact upon innocent people, despite how reckless and ineffective it is, must end. Let's end it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 38. I would have voted ``Nay'' on Roll Call 38 had I been there.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to read part of a letter from Charles from Vermont: I am a Marine Corps veteran and have spent the last 15 years guarding the national borders as a CPB officer. The government shutdown is unacceptable. January in Vermont is pretty cold. As a furloughed government worker, I have to choose whether to pay for fuel oil to heat my home or to make child support payments to support my ex-wife and my children. And without work and without pay, I am unable to do that. He is one of 1,300 Vermont employees of the Federal Government who is working without pay. These include 900 employees at the Department of Homeland Security, 300 employees at the Department of Agriculture, and 100 employees of the Interior Department. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, I went to the shift change at the Burlington International Airport and met with our TSA personnel. They asked me a question. They had missed a paycheck. They had been showing up for work every single day. They had been doing, in their professional and cheerful way, processing all of us through security, keeping us safe, and they are very proud of their work. But they asked me a question that I couldn't answer: Do you know of any other situation where an employer can require a person to work even when the employer has told that employee you are not getting paid? That is what is happening. That happens nowhere. Where in your experience can an employer, whatever kind, tell the worker to show up, but we are not going to pay you? That is what is going on, and it is having a ripple effect throughout our economy. It is the Federal workers, but it is also everyday citizens who depend on routine functioning of government in order to meet their obligations. Let me read a letter from Karle, a small business owner from the Northeast Kingdom. He talks about how this government shutdown has affected his business. As the owner of Kingdom Construction, we employ nearly 30 full-time, year-round construction workers. They were recently awarded a $2 million construction contract, but they can't get the permits signed because the permit signers are on furlough. Those folks are not going to work. That is real and unacceptable and inevitable when we have this government shutdown. Now, every one of us has these stories, whether it is somebody who has a microbrewery and can't get the FDA inspection, it is that construction company where they can't get the sign-off on the permit, or it is a closing that can't occur because the paperwork won't be signed. This is going on, costing our economy about a billion dollars a week, and it is all because we are having this dispute that is quite resolvable. Now, Mr. Speaker, the issue of border security is incredibly important and we all know that, but at the eleventh hour, because we have a dispute about one element of it, is that a reason to shut down the government, when not only does it do collateral damage to lots of innocent people, but it makes it more difficult for us to resolve the underlying issue about border security? Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is it is time for us to have a cooling-off period. Turn the lights back on in government. We can have a temporary, short-term extension of the Homeland Security bill, get people paid, and then convene all of the relevant parties to have a negotiation about border security and about all of our immigration policies, including the Dreamers, including undocumented workers, and including the challenge we have about legal immigration and having people who can come here vetted to our country and contribute to our economy. There is a price that is paid by individual workers not getting a paycheck; there is a price that is paid by individuals who are not getting the functioning of government; but there is also a price that we are paying in the trust that is required to sustain a democracy. We have to make off-limits the tactic of shutting down government in order to get your way. Our democracy depends on mutual trust; it depends on accepting certain norms that, as vigorous as we will be in advocating our point of view, we will not cause collateral damage to others to get our way.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this legislation legalizes industrial hemp production, something that Vermonters have been advocating for for decades. This is going to be a boost for local agriculture in Vermont and other parts of our country. And beyond these, there are a number of additional positive changes contained in the bill. While no one got everything they wanted and many of the urgent reforms that are needed on the commodity side are not part of this, this will be a positive contribution to the well-being of Vermont agriculture.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. It is absolutely no secret that rural America, our farming communities, from Franklin County and Addison County in Vermont to the plains of Kansas and Iowa, to the Central Valley in California, are facing a crisis. This conference report contains a number of positive changes that will help in Vermont. First, nutrition: Thankfully, we are acceding to the Senate position. We have an economy where profits are up, record incomes for many people, and increased poverty and nutrition challenges for children. This makes certain that our kids are going to get the nutrition they need. Second, dairy: This farm bill revamps the existing dairy insurance program, known as Margin Protection, for a more effective and affordable insurance tool that is going to help our family farmers hang on. I still believe we need supply management. It is the only sustainable way to go, but this will help, and no one in Vermont needs more help and is deserving of more help than our dairy farmers who have done so much for our State. Third, maple: Maple syrup is really an important component, including for our dairy farmers. This bill halts a misguided FDA effort to require an ``added sugar'' label to pure maple syrup. This is a pretty stupid FDA regulation. It is now dead, gone forever, and it is really helpful to our maple industry. Fourth, organics: This farm bill doubles funding for Federal research into organic protection methods, improves oversight of the global organic trade, and funds the organic certification cost-share program. More organics, better nutrition, more local agriculture, that is a very good thing. Fifth, hemp: This legislation legalizes industrial hemp production.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations as well to Mr. Barton. It has been a pleasure working with you, sir. Thank you. Also, to Mr. Green, thank you very much for all your service. What an incredible career both of you have had. My colleagues have talked about the underlying bill, and I am in agreement with what everyone has said. I wanted to focus attention on an aspect of the bill that was sponsored by my colleague Kurt Schrader and me, and that is a provision that addresses abusive practices of drug manufacturers who intentionally misrepresent their brand drugs as a generic in order to avoid providing a larger discount to the Medicaid program. My colleagues, whatever our position on the best way to deliver healthcare, one thing we know is the case: It is too expensive. Whether it is taxpayers footing the bill, consumers, or employer-sponsored healthcare plans, it is too expensive. And one of the reasons is rip- off pharma practices. This is a situation where, oftentimes, brand-name drugs try to keep generics off the market. But this is a case where a brand name tried to pretend they were a generic in order to get a lower price. I will give an example. In 2016, Mylan misclassified the EpiPen as a generic drug instead of a brand drug, and that allowed them to charge Medicaid a higher price for the drug. Mylan ended up paying $465 million in a settlement to Health and Human Services, but the estimated malfeasance cost Medicaid--which is to say, taxpayers--more than $1 billion. Simultaneously, Mylan was raising its list price on EpiPen, which parents have to have for their kids who have an allergic reaction, from $103 to $608 over 7 years, a 500 percent increase. Mylan is not alone. This practice of unrelenting drug price hikes is tried and true for manufacturers. So I am very pleased that we have included in this bill an end to this abusive practice. We have to make healthcare affordable. Representative Schrader and I, with this provision, are taking a small step. With the help of our Congress and the passage of this very good bill, we will be taking one more step in dealing with the cost crisis in our healthcare system.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the question for us is: Will we accept the minimal responsibility that we have in our job to have a debate and say no more, no more will this be done in our name?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We know what is going on in Yemen, so none of us can escape the responsibility we have to either endorse or ignore the suffering that is occurring there. Thousands of victims in Yemen--hundreds of thousands--are dying of starvation. It is happening, in some cases, quickly. People living in their homes under a bomb die instantly. In other cases, the suffering is prolonged--badly injured and no medical help to ease the suffering, let alone save the life. But in the case of most, it is prolonged through starvation. Children do not have access to their mother's milk, do not have access to the aid that is in the port but is getting bombed and can't be delivered. That is happening every single day. The U.N. report said that, of the 28 million people in Yemen, about 20 million are in danger of humanitarian disaster. That is happening. There is no dispute that it is happening. Here is the question: Right now, that is being done with the authority of the executive branch of the United States Government. It means that that suffering that is avoidable and hardly inevitable is being done in your name and in mine. Mr. Khanna has brought forth a resolution that allows us to have a debate on this floor as to whether we will condone the continuation of that policy of inflicting the loss of innocent life: women, children, and citizens of Yemen. This rule prohibits us from accepting responsibility as to whether we will condone or condemn or oppose that policy. We have no justification for failing to do our job. Let us debate. This policy of Saudi Arabia of inflicting massive civilian casualty and suffering is for what? What national interest of this country is at stake by allowing that to continue? Some, including me, may say that this threatens our national interest because our national interest is to defend innocent life; it is not to kill innocent life. It is to stand with allies who are going to be honest and transparent with us as well as their own citizens. This blank check that our administration has given to Saudi Arabia for massive killing that is occurring in Yemen or individual assassination that is occurring in Turkey is wrong.