Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recently, we learned the Trump administration has diverted taxpayer funds allocated for the enrollment in the Affordable Care Act activities to create social media videos and content claiming that the Affordable Care Act is failing, a deliberate act of sabotage. Instead of making sure Americans remain healthy and improve the risk pool, the HHS is peddling online propaganda to discourage enrollment and health insurance.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the ACA markets are stabilized, and there is simply no evidence of death spirals or collapsing markets. According to reliable polls, over 50 percent of the American people are in support of the Affordable Care Act. That is real news.

The President has repeatedly declared that he would let the ACA fail just to score political points. It is unbelievable that a sitting President would wish catastrophic harm on his own people, but, unfortunately, that is what is happening.

Colleagues, the ACA is not failing on its own. It is being actively sabotaged by the President and our Republican Congress. The administration has repeatedly wavered in its responsibility to administer cost-sharing reduction payments, relaxed enforcement of the insurance mandate, and refused to help State governments shore up their own healthcare exchanges.

The majority and the Trump administration should quit playing politics with our healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA.

As the President said: Healthcare is hard.

As Democrats, we didn't receive Republican votes to pass the ACA, but it is the law of the land.

Our job as Members of Congress is to fix laws that are not effective. Let's work as Members of Congress not to do a Republican fix or a Democratic fix. Let's work together as Americans to find the American solution to our healthcare problems. That is what our Founding Fathers and our constituents expect from us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for yielding.

We are proud to accept the Speaker's trophy for winning the golf tournament. The most important thing--and you said it--is that we raised $144,000 to go to wounded warrior and warfighter programs. Over the last 10 years, Members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, raised over $1 million.

Jimmy, I am just glad we were able to take this trophy home. We will see you next year.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding me the time.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.

The Presidential permitting process dates back through many administrations, beginning with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. The executive branch has taken the necessary steps to ensure our cross- border infrastructure with Canada and Mexico was constructed.

These past administrations, and even the current administration, were

forced to issue executive orders because Congress failed to act. Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of the United States, and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall well within that space.

Opponents of this bill argue the executive permitting process has worked well in the past. It is true that in the past the process has been proven effective. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now fallen victim to election year-cycle politics.

We cannot build infrastructure in this country or on the continent based on who sits in the White House, whether they be Democrat or Republican. It is Congress' responsibility to create regulatory rules by which infrastructure is constructed.

This bill will create a regulatory process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of State, and the Department of Energy to permit cross-border infrastructure. It is not different than building roads, bridges, or railways. The Department of Transportation coordinates with the Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure projects are completed and the environment is protected. We will do the same thing for pipes and wires. We need to build electric transmission lines and pipelines to move resources from where they are to where they are needed.

The bill complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and requires a full environmental review of any cross-border facility including analysis of climate change impacts. More so, the entire length of the pipeline or electric transmission line will be reviewed for environmental impacts not just for the cross-border pipeline.

While there is some confusion on this issue, opponents of the bill talk about how we will gut the NEPA process--the National Environmental Policy Act. This is simply not the case. My colleague from Texas (Mr. Veasey) will offer a bipartisan amendment to the bill clarifying that the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act review shall not be limited in any way by this act.

The bill is about the future and how to meet energy demands for the 21st century. We should embrace the changes taking place in North America and harmonize our policies with those of our neighbors both to the north with Canada and to the south with Mexico, and this bill, if it becomes law, will do that.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Mullin for partnering together.

Like he said, Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of things in common. We both are energy States. But believe me, the Red River does divide us on football.

Mr. Chair, there seems to be some confusion here that this bill takes away National Environmental Policy Act enforcement. That is just not true. In fact, during a committee hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we produced a Congressional Research Service report that said that nothing in this bill will take away the responsibility for the NEPA process, the National Environmental Policy Act.

To make sure that every inch of those pipelines will be studied for environmental issues is not our intention. Our intention is just to move product. We will go through all the efforts.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a report from the Congressional Research Service that we got in committee.

[From the Congressional Research Service, May 2, 2017]

Memorandum

To: The Honorable Gene Green; Attention: Justin Ackley

From: Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, ext. 7-

6852

Subject: Scope of NEPA Review Required for Federal Agency

Approvals

This memorandum responds to your request asking CRS to

clarify the scope of an environmental review prepared by

federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). More specifically, you asked CRS to identify the

scope of environmental impacts that a federal agency would be

likely to evaluate before making a final decision on a

request to approve certain energy infrastructure projects

that would cross a United States border, such as the issuance

of a ``certificate of crossing'' that would be required in

the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act

(discussion draft released April 25, 2017). This memorandum

identifies the range of environmental impacts that federal

agencies currently evaluate when demonstrating compliance

with NEPA. It also discusses current agency practices, for

similar projects, that generally involve the evaluation of

the environmental impacts of any new facilities constructed

in the United States (i.e., impacts that may occur as a

result of approving a cross-border energy infrastructure

project). Information in this memorandum may be used or may

have been used in other CRS products.

Before a federal agency can make a final decision on a

proposed federal action, NEPA requires that agency to

identify the proposal's effects on the ``quality of the human

environment.'' The scope and level of review required under

NEPA depends on whether those effects will be

``significant.'' To make that determination, each agency must

identify and evaluate the proposal's--

Direct effects--impacts caused by the project and occurring

at the same time and place, including impacts directly

associated with the construction and operation of the

facilities;.

Indirect effects--impacts that are later in time or farther

removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable; and

Cumulative effects--impacts on the environment that result

from the incremental impacts of the action when added to

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future

actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)

or person undertakes that other action.

If an agency is authorized to approve a cross-border

facility (e.g., issue a certificate of crossing for certain

energy infrastructure projects as in the proposed bill), that

agency's decision must be informed by appropriate

environmental review required under NEPA. As federal agencies

currently implement NEPA, the requirement to identify and

consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts has meant

that the agency evaluates the effects of siting, building and

operating the entire structure in the United States (not just

the cross-border segment they are authorized to approve).

That is, if a federal agency is authorized to approve a

cross-border project, that agency's existing NEPA practices

would likely continue to involve analysis of impacts

associated with the approval of the facility that physically

crosses the border, as well as any new facilities constructed

in the United States.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please feel free

to contact me if you have additional questions.

Mr. Chair, the other issue, though, is we are going to do belts and suspenders. That is an old saying I heard. We already had a belt, but now we are going to deal with an amendment from Congressman Veasey. We will make sure it is belts and suspenders and that the National Environmental Policy Act is applied to these pipelines, because that is not our intent.

So we not only have the Congressional Research Service saying it is, we are going to put language into this bill, and I understand it will be accepted by our side, to make sure that is there.

What we need to do is make sure that our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico--right now, Mexico needs the natural gas that we are producing in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; but 20 years from now, our wells may be dry for natural gas, and

we will need that natural gas that Mexico will be producing when they work in northern Mexico.

So that is why we need to structuralize this, if we are really going to have a North American energy market for electric transmission like they do up in the New England States or electric transmissions even along the border in Texas. I know they do the same thing in southern California. We need to have some certainty with our closest neighbors.

We have a free trade agreement with these two countries. It is already decided it is in our national interest. Why would we set aside energy as something different? That is why this bill is so important.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote for this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In the United States today, there is 150 million acres of protected land set aside in the National Wildlife Refuge System for protected designation for America's fish, wildlife, and plants.

Conservation efforts like the National Wildlife Refuge System build up America's great conservation legacy that began with Teddy Roosevelt. Ensuring that future generations of Americans have access to these great traditions must be our priority as a body going forward.

In this 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge System land, though, there currently stretches 1,339 miles of pipeline already. Protecting our natural resources and building much-needed infrastructure are not mutually exclusive goals.

These pipelines are already there. They are not destroying the lands or their ecosystem or prohibiting the American people from enjoying access to this public land. Companies must pay the government for use of the land for pipelines. That money, in turn, goes into acquiring more land for conservation efforts and recreational use.

The Department of Transportation's review of safety accidents conducted under President Obama's administration showed that in addition to providing a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than either road or rail.

As coal-fired power plants continue to shut down, the demand for natural gas, a lower emission alternative, is going to keep going up. Whether the gas is produced in Canada, Alaska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, or the Gulf of Mexico, it will be used all over the country, and we need to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place that allows us to get this supply to where it is needed.

The amendment is a backhanded way to prevent any pipelines or electrical transmission infrastructure from being built.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Veasey, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chair, again, this is Congressman Veasey's idea, and I am doing it for him because he couldn't be here.

Our intent when crafting the bill was never to reduce or limit the National Environmental Policy Act applicability when considering whether to approve a cross-border project.

Before a Federal agency can make a final determination on a proposed Federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that the agency identify the proposal's effects on the quality of human environment and whether these effects will be significant.

To make this determination, Federal agencies identify and evaluate the direct and indirect cumulation of effects of the proposal. Direct effects are the impacts caused by the project occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are the impacts that are later in time or further removed but still reasonably foreseeable. And cumulative effects are impacts on the environment that result with incremental

impacts on the action, regardless of what person or agency undertakes that action.

The Federal agencies currently implement NEPA. The requirement to identify all three of these impacts has required the analysis of impacts to include not just the cross-border section of the project, but any new facility or structure constructed within the United States.

Our office had the bill analyzed by the experts at the Congressional Research Office, who confirmed that the underlying bill did not in any way limit the scope of future National Environmental Policy Act reviews under it. Under our language, they will continue to involve reviews of the entire project, not just that part that crosses the border section.

With that said, I have heard concerns from Members who are worried that the bill will limit the NEPA in some way. I am happy to support this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, Mr. Veasey, which unequivocally states that nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall affect the scope of any review required to be conducted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

I support this good faith amendment--and like I said earlier, it is belts and suspenders, but sometimes we need them to pass legislation-- and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we wait for a vote on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I want to remind my colleagues that 51 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is more than the support for Congress or the President.

More importantly, a recent study from Kaiser found that the ACA markets are stabilizing and insurers are regaining profitability. Yet we continue to hear false arguments saying that markets are collapsing or in a death spiral. That is not true.

If the majority Republican is serious about fixing our healthcare system and cutting costs to healthcare, they should give up plans to repeal and start putting solutions over politics.

I have said for years that the ACA is not perfect. No bill this Congress ever passed is. But in order to fix it, we need to work together on a bipartisan basis.

The bill that the Senate and House GOP has proposed will undermine protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Now we are hearing there is an amendment on the Senate side that will essentially allow for the sale of policies with skimpier benefits, so long as insurers offer an option that covers all ACA-mandated benefits. We know where that goes. We will not be able to afford those benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2430, the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017.

For many months, we have worked on a bipartisan basis to negotiate and prepare for the four FDA user fee agreements for reauthorization, across party lines, and you are seeing that. That is why I am proud to be a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We will fight when we have to, but we also can work together on things that are really important to our country.

These programs must be reauthorized in a timely manner to avoid a meltdown of the medical product development pipeline. We have had great collaboration and strong bipartisan working relationships throughout the process, from the publication of the goals letters, to the hearings, and the markups in the Health Subcommittee, all the way through the unanimous vote out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last month.

Since the first PDUFA was established in 1992, Congress has created additional user fee programs for medical devices, generic drugs, and biosimilars. In this cycle, we see shortened review timelines and have given the FDA new tools to harness the latest science and streamline the review process.

FDARA would build on previous success by reauthorizing the user fees and make improvements in the review process like advancing the use of biomarkers and patient experience data. The bill includes additional provisions beyond the underlying agreements that are worthy of support.

To give some examples, it will promote generic drug development and competition, establish a category of over-the-counter hearing aids, crack down on counterfeit drugs, and foster innovation in medical imaging.

FDA approval is the global gold standard and reauthorizing the user fee programs will ensure the agency has the resources--particularly capable, qualified staffers--to fulfill this mission.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to establish a user fee program for over-the-counter products and reform the monograph systems once we have reauthorized the existing user fee programs that will soon expire.

I want to thank Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Walden, and the chair of the Health Subcommittee, Congressman Burgess, for their work and commitment into timely user fee reauthorization.

I also want to thank the staff, Kim Trzeciak and John Stone, and my own staff, Kristen O'Neill, for the countless hours of work they did to get us to this place.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2430.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our nation's servicemembers, military families, and community colleges in support of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The 2018 NDAA supports our men and women in uniform by providing a much deserved 2.4 percent pay increase and extending special pay and bonuses for servicemembers. This bill further supports military families by prohibiting the proposed reduction in inpatient care for military medical treatment facilities located outside the United States, and will provide up to $500 for a spouse's expense related to obtaining a license or certification in another state because of a military move.

Our nation's military is one of the major economic drivers for the State of Texas. Texas is home to several of America's largest military bases, including Fort Hood in Killeen, Fort Bliss in El Paso, and Joint Base San Antonio. Texas is also home to major defense manufacturing facilities that help our servicemembers protect America and employ thousands of hardworking Texans.

The NDAA includes a provision, Section 3507, that will authorize the U.S. Maritime Administration to designate and provide assistance to certain community colleges and workforce training centers as ``centers of excellence'' that provide valuable skills in the maritime sector.

This language will help community colleges, like San Jacinto College, in our district in Harris County, Texas, that provides a modern, comprehensive training program for working in our maritime industry. San Jacinto College works closely with Houston's maritime community and the Port of Houston, and recently opened a state-of-the-art maritime training center last year.

This provision is modeled after legislation I introduced with Rep. Robert Wittman earlier this year, the Domestic Maritime Centers of Excellence Act (H.R. 2286). I hope our colleagues will support our Centers of Excellence provision and ensure its inclusion when the NDAA reaches the President's desk.

I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1492, the Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act. This legislation will allow physicians, in agreement with the Drug Enforcement Agency, to transport and administer controlled substances to patients in another setting or disaster area.

Under current law, the Controlled Substances Act prohibits the transport

and storage of controlled substances away from the site that is registered with the DEA. This makes it illegal for athletic team doctors to transport a small amount of critical medications that may be needed to treat athletes while on the road.

Athletics are awfully important in Texas, and I think it is by luck of the draw--specifically, football--that you have three Texans today who want to make sure that our teams can have their doctors treat them. For equal time for my colleague from Dallas, I am sure this law would also provide for the Houston Texans, not just for the Dallas Cowboys.

It also complicates care for patients in emergency disaster areas where a doctor may want to offer their services during a crisis.

This bill would allow a physician to transport controlled substances to another practice setting or to a Presidentially declared disaster area if the physician is registered to dispense controlled substances listed on schedules II, III, IV, or V, and they enter into a specific agreement with the DEA.

The agreement would require a physician to provide advance notification to the DEA of any transport, identify the controlled substances to be transported and the locations to and from, the intended dates of transport, and the anticipated travel time. The physician is also required to maintain records in their primary practice setting on the dispensing of transported substances, and the duration of the agreement is limited to 72 hours.

As the Nation grapples with the ongoing prescription drug abuse crisis, these safeguards are important to ensuring appropriate use, while allowing doctors to treat patients where they are.

I want to thank the sponsor, Representative Pete Sessions, and the committee for their work to advance this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1492, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3003. This bill before the Chamber today, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, is another attack on the immigration communities and communities of color in my home State of Texas and communities throughout the country.

This misguided legislation would strip critical Federal funding for our local police agencies, such as COPS grants, that do not comply with Federal immigration detainers. Doing so would only undermine the public safety in our communities in Houston and Harris County.

Our local law enforcement officers for Houston Police Department and Harris County sheriffs are responsible for protecting the people of our great city and county and upholding our local laws.

They are not, nor should they be, de facto Federal immigration agents. The U.S. Constitution is clear that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the Federal Government and not the States or local governments. To require local police officers to enforce Federal immigration law would not only violate our 200-year tradition of federalism but will tear apart the local trust our police and sheriffs have built with the immigrant community and communities of color over the years.

I ask my colleagues to let our local law enforcement protect our families and our homes and not be immigration agents.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has come out with their score--or, as we call it, cost--that was released today that further confirms the actions taken by the Senate Republicans are just as mean as the House Republicans.

Protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions will be undermined; hardworking families will be expected to pay more for less coverage; and $772 billion will be cut from Medicaid, a safety net for millions of seniors in nursing homes, pregnant women, children, and people with disabilities.

The Senate Republicans can change the name of the bill, but, as we now know, it is not fundamentally different.

I hope this score raises a red flag for Republicans in both the House and the Senate. I urge that they reconsider in trying to cram their TrumpCare bill through the Senate.

Years ago Senator Dirksen said: ``A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money.''

Mr. Speaker, a million here, a million there, and pretty soon the Senate Republicans will be talking about denying coverage for 22 million people; 15 million will lose coverage next year alone.

How on Earth is this a debate? This is not healthcare. It is a tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans at the cost of low-income and middle class families.

Twenty-two million people will lose healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act.

High school, community college, and trade school students in Houston and Harris County, Texas deserve the opportunity to receive a high- quality career and technical education (CTE). CTE education is the pathway for many in our community and throughout our great country to a good paying job and the middle class.

High-quality CTE programs are critical for our nation's economy. Nearly every sector of our economy, from refiners and shipbuilders along the Houston Ship Channel to medical device manufacturers and information technology firms, rely on skilled STEM-educated workers to innovate and compete in the global marketplace.

For over thirty years, the federal government has provided direct support to CTE programs nationwide through the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. Congress has not successfully reauthorized the Perkins Act in 11 years, delaying the needed reforms and additional resources our CTE students deserve.

Today's legislation delivers the reforms and resources that will help improve our local career and technical education programs. The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act will provide states more flexibility in the use of federal resources in response to changes in education and the economy and reduce administrative burdens and simplify the process for states to apply for federal resources. This legislation will increase federal investment in CTE program by nine percent over the life of the authorization and reward success and innovation in CTE program practices that have been proven to best serve students and employers.

I ask all my colleagues to join in supporting this bipartisan legislation that is broadly supported by job creators and educators from across our great nation.

Mr. Speaker, we have a copy of the Senate bill to repeal ObamaCare, and it is no wonder they didn't want us to see it.

Like the mean-spirited bill passed by the House, it rips insurance away from millions of Americans, rolls back key protections to patients with preexisting conditions, and allows insurers to charge older people five times more than others.

Despite the promises that the Senate bill will moderate the coverage cuts in the House-passed bill, the Senate is not only retaining the House bill's fundamental restructuring of the Medicaid program to a per capita cap on Federal funding, but it is deepening the cuts on Medicaid after a few years. This will inevitably lead to the rationing of healthcare for 70 million Americans who are beneficiaries of Medicaid: pregnant women, people in nursing homes, children, and people with disabilities.

It is not even clear what policy goal this bill is trying to solve, except for making insurance more expensive or unavailable for people who really need it the most. It is almost hard to call this a healthcare bill at all.

There were no hearings, no public debate, and after weeks of backroom deals and operating in secrecy, we now have this terrible product that the Senate plans to vote on next week.

I think the American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, in the last month, Republican Senators have worked in secrecy on a bill that will repeal the Affordable Care Act. Now they are preparing to vote on that bill next week without any public hearings, no debates, no open forums. Instead, the Senate Republican majority have failed to be transparent with their constituents and the American people. No one knows what is in the bill.

Based on the last CBO score, we know that TrumpCare will lead to 23 million more Americans uninsured and gut protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and force hardworking Americans to pay higher costs for less care.

Mr. Speaker, in the words of President Trump, this bill is a mean bill. Even our former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, has said to slow down.

Why must this bill be so secretive? Because our colleagues across the aisle know that the more light that is shed on their true intentions, the more people will realize this is not a healthcare bill at all, but a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, and it will be paid for by our elderly and our poorest constituents.

Mr. Speaker, that bill is a bad bill.

Mr. Chair, in the 9 year's since the 2008 financial crisis, there's a consensus that the crisis was caused by too much risk and lax regulation. Because of banks' overinvestment in risky financial products, our country was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Housing prices, where middle-class Americans for decades have focused their investment, fell by more than 30 percent and an estimated 5.5 million more American jobs were lost to slow growth during the crisis. My hometown of Houston, Texas, was further hit by the sudden fall of oil prices in 2014 and the attendant layoffs and slowdown in the local economy, making it hard for my constituents to save, provide for their families, and plan for the future.

Seven years after Dodd-Frank was enacted, our country is just now beginning to recover. Dodd-Frank was put in place to make sure that the conditions that led to the crisis cannot occur again. If the hardship suffered by the

millions of Americans who saw the value of their home and their retirement funds disappear fails to convince my Republican colleagues of the need to make sure that banks cannot gamble with the money of middle-class Americans, it's difficult to imagine what would.

The CHOICE Act recreates the conditions that led to the 2008 crisis by allowing banks to again engage in risky investment behavior with their clients' money, and limiting oversight of banks by the federal government. If a key financial institution like the Lehmann Brothers, whose collapse contributed to the severity of the crisis in 2008, again collapses, the CHOICE Act then limits the ability of the government to intervene to guard against a total collapse of the financial system.

The assault that the CHOICE Act represents on the livelihood of middle and working class Americans isn't limited to this. Although consumer protection should be the most basic goal of all lawmakers, this bill subjugates consumer protection and welfare to the banking and finance industry in two additional ways. First, it will gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency created by Dodd-Frank and tasked with protecting Americans from irresponsible or predatory behavior by financial institutions. The CHOICE Act thus nearly eradicates the ability of the U.S. government to monitor the safety of financial products for everyday Americans, thus leaving a massive void in consumers' daily lives, as financial product offerings continue to expand and grow more and more complex and sometimes difficult to understand.

The Wrong CHOICE Act will also nullify the much-needed fiduciary rule, allowing investment advisors to make decisions with the money of their clients that aren't in their clients' best interest. This is shameful, and will allow bad apple investment advisors to take advantage of often elderly clients who, understandably, assume that those investment advisors will help them save for their retirement rather than put their own fees first.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to stand with our nation's retirees and working families and vote down this irresponsible bill.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Secretary Price refused to say whether the administration would fulfill its obligation to make cost-sharing reduction payments. This is the latest in a string of actions to sabotage the individual health insurance markets and ultimately leave people paying more for their insurance premiums.

President Trump and the Republican majority have said that the Affordable Care Act is collapsing as a justification of taking away insurance from 23 million Americans, but the truth is they are taking active measures to drive uncertainty and undermine the law.

Insurers have little time left to finalize their rate filings for 2018, and without certainty as to whether or not cost-sharing subsidies will be paid, they will significantly raise their rates or exit the marketplaces altogether.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cut out the games and make the cost-sharing reduction payments, and to stop actively trying to undermine Americans' access to affordable, quality health insurance.

Even my friend from Texas (Mr. Brady), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called for the funding of insurer payments in order to help stabilize the insurance market and help lower premiums for Americans who rely on these subsidies.

There is simply no excuse for delay.