Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize and commend Mr. Sherm Olsrud for his extensive community service and philanthropy efforts in Rogue Valley and the rest of the southern Oregon region over the last 40 years. Sherm passed away in May at the age of 95, survived by his wife, Wanda, and their children. Today, I'd like to pay tribute to Sherm's service to our nation and his commitment and generosity to Oregonians in need.

Sherm's sense of duty and service began early in life when he left North Dakota to serve as a United States Marine in the South Pacific during World War II. Following the war, Sherm settled in Eugene, Oregon and met his wife-to-be, Wanda, while working in his Uncle's restaurant. They immediately fell in love and were happily married in February 1947.

Over the next decade, the couple's love and ambition would bring them great success. Sherm used his GI Bill benefits to train as a meat cutting apprentice and in 1958 he and Wanda would buy Wilson's Sausage Kitchen establishing their first family business in Eugene. After several years of building their small business they opened Eugene's first all-day market in a new 10,000 square foot grocery store named Sherm's 24 Hour Market.

With the resourcefulness, adaptability, and integrity of a United States Marine he kept Sherm's running successfully for nearly ten more years before selling the business in order to expand his business throughout the southern Oregon. Sherm and Wanda built a family store chain purchasing the old Thunderbird Market in Medford in 1967, the Mayfair Market in Klamath Falls in 1974, the Bazaar department store in Medford in 1977, the Food 4 Less franchise in 1985, and Food World in Roseburg in 2000. They often worked more than 12 hours every day of the week to maintain their vision while employing more than 600 people. Sherm would also say ``the customer is still the boss, always has been and always will be because the customer has a lot of options.''

Although his business accomplishments demonstrate a record of success, none of it would have been possible without the distinguished character and value system of the man himself. Sherm believed in sharing the fruits of his success with those less fortunate in the community by supporting programs to help them get back on their feet. For instance, every year Sherm and Wanda donated nearly 50,000 pounds of food and toiletry items to the Jackson County ACCESS community assistance program.

Sherm has also supported fun educational programs for local children and young adults. Sherm and Wanda generously donated to local programs like Future Farmers of America, 4H Club, and Kids Unlimited, as well maintaining Bear Creek Park, building a $20,000 fence for McLoughlin Middle School, and covering ticket costs for all children twelve and under for the Jackson County Fair. Even upon receiving a share of a winning Powerball ticket he sold, he quickly donated the funds to two local elementary schools. Well known as a sports enthusiast, Sherm was able to bring the Portland Trail Blazers to Kids Unlimited to play ball with the children.

Additionally, Sherm always believed that pursuing higher education is foundational for the well-being and success of communities. Sherm would say, ``As time goes by, our society demands educated people. Our country needs educated people.'' Therefore, he and Wanda established a series of scholarship funds to promote education and help students in financial need. These include The Sherm and Wanda Olsrud Scholarship Fund and The Olsrud 4H and FFA Scholarship Fund that offer renewable $5,000 scholarships to graduating high school seniors, as well as the Sherm & Wanda Olsrud Endowed Scholarship that offers up to $5,000 to students attending Southern Oregon University.

Over his long life, Sherm has demonstrated integrity, duty, and true generosity in every community in which he lived. Sherm's business acumen and benevolence are well known across most of the southern Oregon region including Douglas, Lane, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath counties for the past 40 years and his legacy will continue for many years into the future. In fact, the Olsrud family has opened Sherm's memorial service to the broader public due to widespread interest in celebrating Sherm's accomplishments and philanthropy.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in thanking Sherm for his many years of service and generosity throughout southern Oregon, and I give my condolences to Wanda, and the Olsrud family.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise today in strong support of this bipartisan bill that extends several key Medicaid programs, H.R. 3253, the Empowering Beneficiaries, Ensuring Access, and Strengthening Accountability Act of 2019.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that strengthens the healthcare safety net for our communities and provides long-term certainty for patients.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Frank Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for his partnership and willingness to work in good faith on both sides of the aisle to get this done.

We passed a short-term extension of these programs back in March, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that patients were still protected as we ironed out the details. Today, we are delivering the long-term deal that I know we all wanted all along.

A big priority of mine in this package is the 2-year extension of the Excellence in Mental Health demonstration program at CMS. Eight States, including my home State of Oregon, are currently participating in this pilot program, which is designed to increase access to mental health and substance use treatment services.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Oregon AFSCME Council 75.

Oregon AFSCME Council 75,

June 18, 2019.

Members of the Oregon Delegation,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: On behalf of the more than 25,000

Oregon AFSCME Council 75 members, we ask you to approve the

Empowering Beneficiaries, Ensuring Access, and Strengthening

Accountability Act of 2019 (H.R. 3253) when the House of

Representatives considers the bill this week.

We strongly support H.R. 3253 because it extends the

Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHC) program

through December 2021. On June 30, the CCBHCs in our state,

along with those in Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey,

New York, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, face extreme financial

threat. We appreciate that Representative Walden, in his

capacity as Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce

Committee, worked in bipartisan effort to avert the March 30

fiscal cliff in Oregon and Oklahoma and is an original co-

sponsor for H.R. 3253.

At Cascadia Behavioral Health in Portland Oregon, AFSCME

Council 75 members who are therapists, care coordinators,

crisis counselors, residential counselors, support staff and

other workers, deliver whole health care--integrated mental

health and addiction services, primary care and housing--

through the CCBHC program. These health care workers never

stop working to help those who want to get healthy and

recover. It is not just a job; it is a calling.

That core commitment to helping people heal is why

Alexandra Birch, a Qualified Mental Health Associate, cares

deeply about the CCBHC program. It has helped innovate and

improve the delivery of care. She was hired in 2017 as a Care

Coordinator at Cascadia because of an investment Congress

provided to the CCBHC program. In that role she is the glue

that connects primary care with behavioral health care and

makes sure care is focused on the whole patient.

In her work, Ms. Birch treats clients with anxiety and very

high blood pressure but who do not have an established

doctor; she is able to connect them to a doctor. She cares

for clients on certain anti-depressants that experienced

weight gain as a result, which put them at higher risk of

developing diabetes. Because of the investment Congress

provided in establishing CCBHCs, Ms. Birch can direct those

clients to inhouse primary care to monitor and prevent

diabetes.

For practitioners like Ms. Birch, Cascadia's capacity to

bring primary care into the outpatient behavioral health care

clinics is a game-changer. It enhances their delivery of

services and outcomes for their clients. From the frontline

perspective, the integration of behavioral health and primary

care in a CCBHC removes logistical and other obstacles to

consultation between providers. These consultations translate

into improved identification of the best route of care for a

client with complex physical and mental conditions with the

result of getting a client on the road to wellness much

quicker.

Cascadia's capacity to sustain and expand this level of

high-quality coordinated care to a vulnerable population

depends on the dedication and skills of workers like Ms.

Birch and congressional action to continue investing in the

CCBHC fiscal model that covers 100 percent of costs.

With the fiscal investment in CCBHCs, Congress allows

Cascadia staff to reach into the community to expand access

to behavioral health services for individuals with serious

mental illnesses. Cascadia works with Portland's 24-hour

mental health crisis emergency room, Unity Center Behavioral

Health. Cascadia staff establish crisis patients with

Cascadia primary care providers immediately after Unity

hospital care. This enables patients to continue medications

that ensure mental stability until they have fully connected

with Cascadia's mental health providers.

We urge you to pass H.R. 3253 and extend the CCBHC program.

It would be tragic to lose this funding that has sustained

and expanded vital behavioral and medical services to our

community.

Sincerely,

Stacy Chamberlin,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, this is really important legislation.

Last year, my legislation, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, our opioids legislation, the most comprehensive bill to address a single drug crisis in our Nation's history, was signed into law. Our committee has made major strides in addressing the substance use disorder crisis that is plaguing our communities.

The Excellence in Mental Health demonstration continues that good work by increasing Medicaid reimbursement for community-based mental health and addiction treatment services. This 2-year extension for the participating States will give us time for a full evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the program and whether it should be expanded.

Also included in this bill is an extension for the Money Follows the Person program through fiscal year 2024. This provides resources to State Medicaid programs to help individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities transition back into their communities.

We also secured an extension of what is known as the spousal impoverishment provisions in Medicaid. To be

clear, this bill actually helps keep spouses of elderly patients from impoverishment and out of costly nursing home settings. For spouses of patients receiving home or community-based care, the bill will protect them from impractical reductions in their income or resources and ensures that they can live out their lives with independence and dignity.

Finally, we clarified the authority of State Medicaid fraud and abuse control units that investigate and prosecute abuse and neglect of Medicaid beneficiaries. This is simply good government. It is good government oversight, and it protects patients who are some of America's most vulnerable.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friends on the Energy and Commerce Committee for their work on the bill: Dr. Burgess, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Upton, Mr. Walberg, and their counterparts on the Democratic side, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Welch, and, of course, Chairman Pallone.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize one Vietnam veteran, nine World War II veterans and thirteen Korean War veterans from Oregon who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall on Friday, June 14, 2019, through Honor Flight of Oregon. Every time I have the chance to meet one of these heroes, I am reminded of the poignant words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a message to Allied troops just before D-Day, he said, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.''

He was right then, of course, Madam Speaker. But over seventy years later, liberty-loving people everywhere continue to owe these heroes for their extraordinary service and their incredible stories of sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. That's why it is my privilege to include in the Record their names today.

The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: David Bagley, Marine Corps; Willis Bennett, Navy; Mount Blevins, Army; William Cadman, Marine Corps; William Collins, Navy; Marjorie Cook, Army; Lorin Culver, Army; Frederic DeGanna, Air Force; Walter Dye, Navy; Charles Elson, Army; Morris Fruitman, Navy; Ronald Gutekunst, Air Force; Harry Krogman, Air Force; Jack Lakey, Navy; Vernon Lesher, Navy; Harold Mehrten, Air Force and Navy; Charles Nagy Jr., Navy; Henry Nussbaum, Navy; Walter Ridge, Navy; Bobby Ruth, Army; Jack Thompson, Army; Gerald Wellington, Air Force and Navy; and William Wilson, Army.

Madam Speaker, I thank both my friend from California and my friend from Indiana, who really did amazing work on this legislation--not once, but twice, and probably a few times in between-- to get it to this point.

I am delighted to stand on this House floor once again and support PAHPA, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act.

This is really important. I think my colleagues have spoken of the specific reasons that we can talk about here on the House floor. In the classified settings that we have had, we all know how serious this threat is and how important it is for us to work together to address it, and we have done that in the last Congress and now in this Congress.

So, I want to thank my friend Mr. Pallone, who chairs the committee now, for continuing this effort to advance this bill forward, and especially thank Representatives Brooks and Eshoo for their tireless work to really get this across the finish line.

PAHPA does enable critical partnerships between the Federal Government and State and local authorities and the private sector. This will help ensure that our country is responsibly prepared for and able to respond to public health emergencies.

It is not a matter of if, as everyone said already, but when the next pandemic or emergency will strike. From pandemic flu to cybersecurity incidents, our government agencies at all levels must have the tools to respond to these threats, and we must make sure they have them.

In my own State of Oregon, we face a constant threat from wildfires, floods, air quality issues, and other things. But we also have begun to prepare for what we are told will be a devastating earthquake at some point, known as Cascadia, which could take thousands of lives in Oregon and leave behind tens of billions of dollars worth of damage and disable our major airport, take down bridges. Basically, everybody on the west side of the State would have to come over to the east side. This is predicted. Earthquakes have happened before; recorded history shows it; and we are overdue.

So this is the kind of legislation that would help. It would make sure that they can put a pallet load of the right drugs and medicines on a plane and get it right there, and they will have a system all ready to distribute that. That is just one of many things that this legislation accomplishes.

Sending this to the President's desk is long overdue. I am glad we are going to have this vote today. Our government officials need these tools at their disposal, and I thank my colleagues for the terrific work they have done to get us to this point.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to recognize the life of an American hero who I was honored to call my friend, Bob Maxwell of Bend, Oregon, who passed away this weekend at 98 years old.

Bob Maxwell represented the best of what Oregon and America have to offer. Bob was the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient, and his gallantry was well known.

In the early morning hours of September 7, 1944 in France, Bob Maxwell threw his unprotected body on a German hand grenade to protect his comrades in WWII.

This unhesitating selflessness earned Bob Maxwell the highest military honor, his second Silver Star, a second Purple Heart, and a Bronze Star.

For those who had the pleasure of knowing Bob, they know that his bravery and heroism were only matched by his kindness, warmth, sense of humor, and humility.

Bob once said of his Medal of Honor that, ``I'm not wearing the medal for any personal deeds. I'm wearing it because it represents all the casualties we had in the war. It represents those that were killed defending their country and the ideals that they believed in.''

Like his fellow soldiers, Bob's service will forever be cherished in the country that he sacrificed so much to protect.

Bob's legacy will live on in the hearts and minds of everyone he interacted with, especially the community in central Oregon where Bob Maxwell was a pillar.

To the entire Maxwell family: Mylene and I send our heartfelt condolences and prayers during this difficult time.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking Bob Maxwell for his service to the United States on our behalf and on behalf of all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend Colonel Jeffrey S. Smith, United States Air Force, for his outstanding devotion and selfless service to the United States of America. Colonel Smith will retire on June 01, 2019, from his present assignment as the Commander of the 173rd Fighter Wing at Kingsley Field in Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Colonel Smith entered the United States Air Force Academy in 1991 and became a proud graduate in 1995. His first mission took him halfway around the world to Kadena Air Base in Japan, and then Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. During his time in Japan and Alaska, Colonel Smith engaged in Operations Southern and Northern Watch in Iraq and kept the skies safe in the aftermath of regional conflicts. In 2002, after Colonel Smith attended United States Air Force Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, he was deployed to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey to help the United States prepare for a pivotal mission to root out terror from this world: Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2003, he executed the mission to equip the next generation of fighter pilots with the skills and knowledge needed to defend our great nation in the skies. This mission brought Colonel Smith back to Nellis Air Force Base, where he served as an F-15 instructor at the United States Air Force Weapons School, as the 57th Wing Weapons Officer. In 2005, he made his way to what would become his home, Klamath Falls, Oregon, where he joined the 114th Fighter Squadron at Kingsley Field as an F-15 Flight Instructor. Colonel Smith wore many hats at Kingsley. He served as Chief of Academics, Chief of Syllabus Development, Chief of Scheduling, Functional Check Flight Pilot, Assistant Director of Operations, Chief of F-15 Student Training, Director of Operations, 173rd Maintenance Squadron Commander, 173rd Deputy Maintenance Group Commander, and 173rd Maintenance Group Commander. This proven sustained superior performance, seasoned operational knowledge, and superb leadership made him the best choice to serve as the Commander of the 173rd Fighter Wing.

For the community in Klamath Falls, and also the dedicated men and women at Kingsley Field, Colonel Smith is the epitome of leadership, professionalism, and a supportive mentor. He led with both valor and rigor. Under his valued leadership, he directed over 1,050 personnel, from widely varying backgrounds, to ensure that airmen at the base strategically excelled as an elite fighting force. As the only place in the country where pilots still train on the F-15, Kingsley Field has become an incubator for second-to-none (unrivaled) fighter pilots.

For the people in Klamath Falls, Colonel Smith's influence stretches far beyond the expansive skies over Kingsley Field, ensuring the larger community benefits from Kingsley Field's presence. Whether partnering with the local university, providing job opportunities, or staying engaged with the community, he always brought a ``Klamath-first'' mindset to his work. He led the effort to extend the Department of Defense's lease in Klamath Falls through the rest of this century. As one of the largest employers in the region, Kingsley Field remains a strong economic driver. We partnered and hosted both Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mac Thornberry, the first time either an Air Force Secretary or Armed Services Committee Chairman has ever visited Kingsley Field. Colonel Smith has positioned Kingsley Field and Klamath Falls for a bright future.

For a man of his caliber, who demonstrated superb leadership, dedication, and sacrifice throughout his service to our great nation, it seems no amount of recognition is sufficient to say thank you.

Madam Speaker, it has been an honor to know and work alongside him for many years. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today and congratulate Colonel Smith for a lifetime of service to his country. We wish him, his wife, Lindsay, and their two children: Luke, 11, Alex 9, only the best wishes as he retires from the United States Air Force.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate Jenny Forrest, who will be attending Columbia University in New York beginning this August to earn her Master of Business Administration. Jenny has been an invaluable member of Team Walden for more than three years.

Starting as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office, Jenny rose to staff assistant, for a moment, before rapidly rising to the role of scheduler, all without skipping a beat, even as she learned that she would soon be scheduling for a committee chairman.

Anyone who is familiar with the inner workings of Capitol Hill-- whether you're a member of Congress, a staffer, reporter, or advocate-- knows that the title ``scheduler'' simply does not capture the sheer importance and scope of the role.

Schedulers are the gatekeepers of time, a precious and finite resource on the Hill for any Congressional office, but especially for Team Walden and especially for the Energy and Commerce Committee. Schedulers are constantly asked to ``hold,'' ``make,'' and ``find'' time for people with competing interests and either ignorance or disregard for the fragile house of cards that is a congressional calendar.

One would expect and understand schedulers to be short-tempered, overwhelmed, and perhaps even difficult to work with; but anyone who had the pleasure of interacting with Jenny knows nothing could be further from the truth.

If you walked into 2185 Rayburn House Office Building for the last couple of years, you were always treated warmly with a smile from Jenny. She was the face of the office at the front desk, and thankfully so.

If you ever reached out to Jenny to request time for a meeting, an interview, or a speech, you were always treated with fairness, honesty, and a kind directness. If there was no time to be made, held, or found, there would be no mistake about it if you were talking to Jenny.

And if you were an Oregonian visiting for business or pleasure-- especially from Oregon's Second District--Jenny went out of her way to make sure you felt at home on the Hill and was ready, at the drop of a hat, to be your tour guide, restaurant recommender, or trip advisor in the nation's capital. Jenny respected and understood well that she, along

with our entire team, works first and foremost for the people of the Second District.

Most importantly, Jenny was a team player. Anyone on Team Walden will tell you that if you needed a hand with anything--a meeting memo, Congressional Record, or folded American flag--Jenny was there to jump in, even if it had nothing to do with the schedule. She patiently coordinated our intern program, facilitated thousand-person town hall meetings, and wrote excellent letters of support for grants that brought needed resources to Oregon's communities.

Jenny will be missed but will always be a part of Team Walden. My colleagues, please join me in thanking Jenny Forrest for her service to this House and to the people of Oregon's Second Congressional District. We wish her the best at Columbia University, and know that her future will be a bright one.

Madam Speaker, an unavoidable travel delay caused me to miss votes on Monday, May 20th.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 218; and YEA on Roll Call No. 219.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the life of an American hero who I was honored to call my friend, Bob Maxwell of Bend, Oregon, who passed away last weekend at the age of 98.

Bob Maxwell represented the best of what Oregon and America had to offer. Bob was the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient in our country, and his gallantry was well known.

On the night of September 7, 1944, in France, Bob Maxwell threw his unprotected body on top of a German hand grenade to protect the lives of his comrades in World War II.

This unhesitating selflessness earned Bob Maxwell America's highest military honor. It earned him his second Silver Star, a second Purple Heart, and a Bronze Star.

For those who had the pleasure of knowing Bob, as I did, they know that his bravery and heroism were only matched by his kindness, his warmth, his sense of humor, and his humility.

Bob once said of his Medal of Honor: ``I am not wearing the medal for any personal deeds. I am wearing it because it represents all the casualties we had in the war. It represents those who were killed defending their country and the ideals that they believed in.''

Like his fellow soldiers, Bob's service will forever be cherished in the country that he sacrificed so much to protect.

Bob's legacy will live on in the hearts and minds of everyone he interacted with, and especially in his community in central Oregon, where Bob Maxwell was a pillar.

To the entire Maxwell family, Mylene and I send our heartfelt condolences and prayers during this difficult time of loss.

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

Mr. Chairman, The Washington Post said it best. Allow me to quote this headline from yesterday: ``Democrats Are Putting a Political Pothole in the Way of Bipartisan Drug Pricing Bills.''

It didn't have to be this way. Americans want us to come together, work together, solve problems. This is a big one. I hear about it every time I am home, and I have done more townhalls than anybody in this House--20 of them so far this year.

Drug pricing is a big issue. We actually agreed. We worked it out. We passed these bills out of committee, unanimously. And then somewhere along the path to the House floor, they jammed our bipartisan efforts to lower drug costs with clearly partisan bills. The chairman didn't mention those bills came out of committee on a partisan vote.

To bail out ObamaCare, Democrats are once again putting politics and partisanship over what could have been bipartisan public policy.

Republicans and Democrats have been working together on bipartisan legislation to bring generic drugs to market faster by incentivizing more competition and ensuring patients get the earliest possible access to more affordable prescription drugs.

We agree on that, just as we did in the last Congress when I was chairman. We led the effort to revamp every part of the FDA and how they can get drugs to market sooner.

As a result of our work there and in our bipartisan work before that on 21st Century Cures, we really ramped up the ability of the FDA to get competition and new drugs into the market. They set a record last year in getting generics to market as a result of our bipartisan work. We could have had that, today, on this floor.

The first measure that we do agree upon would ensure branded drug makers do not withhold samples that are needed to get generic drugs approved; the second would ban pay-for-delay agreements; and the third would limit first-approved generic makers' ability to stall another rival's launch. So we put a stop to what I would say are bad behaviors in that process.

Together, these bills would help patients actually get access to more affordable prescription drugs, and those bills are bipartisan. Just how bipartisan? Two of the bills passed the Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote, and the third passed unanimously on a 51-0 vote.

Now, Mr. Chair, this is how the American people expect us to get our work done, but, sadly, House Democrats once again could not pass up a chance to play gotcha politics. So what did they do? They packaged these agreed-to bipartisan drug pricing proposals with a bailout of ObamaCare that passed out of committee on a purely partisan vote.

Now here is what that bill contains:

First, $200 million a year in taxpayer funding for States to establish ObamaCare marketplaces. This funding expired 5 years ago, albeit not before hundreds of millions of Federal taxpayer resources were wasted, including in my own State that finally had to give up on that and go with a national plan.

New Jersey has recently expressed an interest in creating a new State exchange, and they say they can do it without new Federal taxpayer money; they can do it without us. If a State decides to create an exchange, then they shall be allowed to do so, but we don't need to create new Federal grants for things that States say they have the capacity to do themselves.

Second, $100 million a year--$100 million a year--to fund the navigator program. Now, for plan year 2017, navigators received a total of $62.5 million in grants, and they enrolled 81,426 individuals. That means it cost $767 per person that they enrolled, and that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total enrollees.

Now, it is important to understand, by contrast, agents and brokers assisted 42 percent of those in the enrollment year of 2018. Do you know what it cost for them to do it? $2.40. Yet, under this law, you can't use the funds for the navigators to actually pay for those folks, the brokers and agents, to do this work that they do very efficiently. $767 per enrollee versus $2.40.

Third, the bill reverses the administration's efforts to allow more State-regulated insurance plan options for consumers who, frankly, are getting priced out of the market and are looking for choices that fit them and their lives.

I want to set the record straight on these plans.

The plans you heard described earlier were actually legal under ObamaCare and the Obama administration, and they are legal under the Trump administration. They provide choices to people in between jobs or people who can't afford these exploding premiums.

You know, the promise that your premium is going to go down 2,500 bucks kind of evaporated as soon as the bill became law, so people are stuck with ever-increasing premiums, enormous deductibles, and saying: Could we please allow our States to put together options for us that still have to go through a State insurance regulator? And they certainly care about their systems.

CBO projected premiums for these plans could be as much as 60 percent lower than the cheapest Federal mandated plan, 60 percent, and, even more, States can regulate these plans. In fact, in the chairman's home State of New Jersey, they are simply banned. That is New Jersey's choice. They should have that choice.

In my home State of Oregon, they are limited to 90 days. That is what we have chosen. This is kind of federalism at its best.

But in their Washington-knows-best mentality, the bills brought before us today strip away this option for longer term plans, and that is wrong and it is unfair.

Fourth, the bill spends $100,000,000 a year to market the Federal plans. They couldn't stop there. Instead of educating patients on all the plans' options available to them, their legislation actually places a gag order on the promotion of more affordable choices, specifically association health plans, known as AHPs, and the short-term limited duration insurance plans. You can't even tell consumers about that. Oh, no. We are going to have a gag order from Washington.

So there is simply no reason to combine these bills with our bipartisan, I would say unanimously approved, bills to deal with drugs.

Energy and Commerce Republicans put forth an alternative bill that includes all of H.R. 987's bipartisan drug provisions I referenced earlier but removes the partisan, the strictly gotcha provisions.

Our pragmatic plan replaces these partisan provisions with language extending funding for community health centers, the National Health Service Corps, and other public health extenders for a year. Now, these public health extenders should be a top bipartisan priority for the Congress, as they must be done before the end of the fiscal year, the end of September, and they deserve the attention of Congress.

Let me go back to the navigators for a minute. The Wall Street Journal reported: ``One grantee took in $200,000 to enroll a grand total of one person.'' They went on to write: ``The top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million to sign up 314 people.''

If you take that $2.77 million that they want to give to these navigators--they are the most expensive operators on the planet--to sign people up for insurance and gave that to our community health centers, do you know how many people they could cover with $2.77 million? One estimate is 20,000 patients--20,000 patients.

So Republicans are saying let's take that money and actually get it out to help patients through our community health centers rather than spend it on navigators that can take $200,000 and enroll one person, or $767, on average, versus $2.40 when agents and brokers do this enrollment.

We think we have a better way. Our bill, H.R. 2700, is called the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities Act. It is pretty straightforward. It is an honest title.

We should take this bill up now, Mr. Chairman, because the majority, unfortunately, has decided to put politics before us today with our bipartisan efforts to lower drug costs.

The bill before us right now is going nowhere in the Senate. They have said that. The White House has weighed in, so they don't like it either.

We should take up the alternative to move our bipartisan work forward and take care of our responsibilities to ensure our community health centers and other public health priorities are funded. That has always been a bipartisan effort.

Finally, just to further the point on the blatant and unnecessary partisanship on display here today, House Democrats made 26 amendments in order on this bill--26. One of those amendments, just one, was authored by a Republican.

Now, they control everything around here, and they said in the opening days they are going to open up this process. Ninety-two percent of the amendments allowed to be brought to the floor so far this year have been from Democrats. When we were in charge, 45 percent--45 percent--were the minority's amendments that came to the floor.

So, so much for openness. Just one was authored by a Republican. So it is unfortunate we find ourselves here today. It didn't have to be this way.

These are measures, especially on the drug side, we are already all in agreement on. If they were separated out, you would have passage. It would go right to the President from the Senate. I think they would take them up and pass them to become law. So, when the majority is ready to make law, let us know.

In the meantime, we have a better way to take care of our community health centers, our patients, and those seeking more choices and more affordable rates for an insurance product than what the Federal Government is mandating.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a very accomplished member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), our top Republican on the Health Subcommittee, a former chairman of the subcommittee, and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chair, before I recognize our pharmacist, Mr. Carter from Georgia, I just want to say I have been on the floor a lot in the last few weeks on this issue, and we keep getting the same refrain about Republicans voting 60 times to repeal ObamaCare.

What is never said is that 30 of those bills, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for, and President Obama signed them into law-- I'm sorry. Twenty-one of those bills were signed into law by President Obama. So it is 21 of the 30 were signed into law by President Obama.

So my point being is, ObamaCare had problems. We came together and tried to address those problems with this legislation, repealing the unsustainable CLASS Act, the co-ops, the Cadillac and medical device taxes we voted to delay, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and on and on. My friends on the other side of the aisle voted with us and we with them to fix those sorts of things. So don't come down here and tell me it is only Republicans who voted to do things on ObamaCare.

We also support these drug bills. There is no question about that, because we want to get lower-cost drugs and stop bad behaviors that prevent generics from coming to market sooner.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a pharmacist.

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

I want to make a couple of points before I introduce the author of the CREATES Act. The gentleman that just spoke, Mr. Hoyer, voted 21 times, on 21 of the bills that were signed into law to repeal parts of ObamaCare. The gentleman voted for it because those parts were unworkable. So when you hear about 60 times, remember the leader, the distinguished leader, my friend, actually voted for 21 of those, as did

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reinforce what the gentleman from Wisconsin said.

This is from The Washington Post: ``The Health 202: Democrats Are Putting a Political Pothole in the Way of Bipartisan Drug Pricing Bills.''

That is all you need to know. It didn't have to be this way. These bills came out of the committee individually. The Democratic leadership put them together knowing full well they could put a poison pill into a drug reform bill and delay consumers' ability to get more affordable drugs sooner, because this legislation could move through the Senate and down to the President much more quickly if it didn't have these provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Vermont for not only his comments here on the floor, but his comments publicly about what we agree with, which is these issues should have remained separate and not lumped together.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will say that the State of Florida actually allows State-regulated plans to go up to 364 days to give Floridians an opportunity to have choice. When it comes to association health plans that allow small businesses like I used to own to get together and offer more affordable health insurance, they put a gag order on so that you can't tell America's patients they might have that option.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I would fully trust all these navigators. According to The Wall Street Journal, one grantee took in $200,000 of your tax dollars and enrolled one person. The

top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million to sign up 314 people. If you put that $2.77 million into our community health centers, as the Republicans would prefer, to spend that money, then you would cover 20,000 patients, according to one estimate.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my friend from Oregon is right on the drug pieces, and like other Democrats I know, there are a lot of people who think that we should keep these bills separately and they would zoom on through here, but not package them up the way they are.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. Rodgers).

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side, please.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire again about the amount of time on each side.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, as I have no other speakers.

I would just like to point out, make clear for the Record and for all our colleagues, Republicans supported and worked closely with our Democratic colleagues on the drug reform bills here to get lower cost prescriptions and more generics into the market sooner. There is no light between our shoulders on those issues.

If those bills were brought here independently as they came out of committee independently, they would be headed to the Senate and likely to the President, and we would be moving forward. But, instead, Democrats merged in bills they know Republicans oppose.

When it comes to navigators, the actual number is $767 per individual the navigators signed up; agents and brokers cost $240 per enrollee. Mr. Chairman, we would rather take that money and put it into community health centers. That would take care of 20,000 patients, just at $2.7 million.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

So let's talk about the navigator program. They enroll less than 1 percent today, less than 1 percent.

Wall Street Journal reported an investigation that one grantee took in $200,000 to enroll a grand total of 1 person; and they found the top 10 most expensive navigators collected 2.77 million taxpayer dollars, 2.77, Mr. Chairman.

Do you know how many people they signed up? 314.

They want to add $25 million more on top of the $62,500,000 in grants. We are talking about less than 1 percent.

Meanwhile, while they are talking about oh, we have got to educate people about all their options, then they put a gag rule in here that says, can't talk to you about short-term duration plans. Oh, no, we can't educate about that choice. No, you can't know about that. No, we are going to stop that. Oh, and you can't know about association health plan options either. It might be better for you and your family and actually be more affordable. No, no, no, because that is not our Federal decision here. They decide, and they don't want you to even know. So navigators can't talk about those things. That is gagged in this law.

The amazing thing we never hear about is the good work of the Trump administration and the economy as it has taken off. And I say that in the context that we have seen the lowest unemployment rates for virtually every American and group of Americans; whether it is African Americans, Hispanic Americans, you name it, we are seeing, the lowest rates, in some cases, since they began keeping track of unemployment.

So the economy is doing really well. Over 3 percent GDP growth the first quarter.

So what has that meant for insurance?

We have heard the constant, unrelenting attacks; you might as well use impeachment here at some point probably today.

Look, the number of Americans in employer health coverage has increased by more than 2.5 million since President Trump took office. Two-and-one-half million more Americans aren't having to get their healthcare through the government and taxpayers. They are getting it through a job and their employer.

In fact, today, there is a greater percentage of Americans in employer health coverage since Trump took office than any time since 2000, any time since 2000.

See, there is another way to provide healthcare and that is through a job.

Now, I know those who support a full Federal takeover of everybody's health insurance don't like to hear that because, see, they don't think that employers should offer health insurance. They think only the government knows best. And so their Medicare for All plan, which would cause great delays in access to care, drive up costs, you would pay more; but it would take away your health insurance. If you get it from your employer, or if you get it from your union, or if you are a senior on Medicare and you have a Medicare advantage policy, that goes away too. Veterans with TRICARE? Democrats' Medicare for All program, that is gone, too.

It is kind of ironic to talk about how wonderful the Affordable Care Act is working for Americans, who, by the way, tell me: ``Look, I am getting stuck with the highest deductibles and premiums I have ever seen. I can't afford it.''

We had an example from Grand Island, Nebraska, last week. A 60-year- old couple makes $70,000 a year. They were paying $38,000 in premiums and $11,000 in deductibles.

That is affordable insurance? I don't think so.

That is why we think States should have the ability to experiment and regulate plans at the State level, as they did under ObamaCare.

All that talk about junk plans and all that, by the way, those were approved under ObamaCare. Those were allowed under ObamaCare. Trump just allowed them to be there longer. But because he changed something, there is this automatic partisan response.

I think we all ought to come together here. I have fought my entire legislative career in Oregon and here to make healthcare more affordable.

The underlying drug bills, there is no light between us, none, between Republicans and Democrats. Those bills came out of committee unanimously.

The only reason we are having this fight on the floor today is because somewhere along the way, the political operatives, Mr. Chairman, decided to bolt these two unrelated sets of bills together. They knew it would be kind of a poison pill and kind of fun to watch Republicans squirm on the floor. That is why we are here.

The ObamaCare bills we are voting on today just dump more money into programs that investigations have shown are filled with fraud and abuse. How can you justify putting another $25 million into a program where the top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million and signed up a grand total of 314 people? Who in their right mind in private business, Mr. Chairman, would make that kind of investment?

The Las Vegas Review-Journal said, after reading that, ``The navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists.''

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), America's only pharmacist in the U.S. House of Representatives and a distinguished gentleman from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Georgia, a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We really have come to rely upon Mr. Carter for his guidance, especially on areas related to pharmacies and trying to get the costs of prescription drugs down for consumers. We are all about that.

We worked together in the last Congress to empower the FDA to get more generics to market sooner so we have more competition. That was a bipartisan bill.

That is the way we operated in the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, as Republicans and Democrats. I led the committee, and we revamped everything at the FDA in generics, on medical device approvals, and on pharmaceuticals so we could benefit the patient first.

We brought those bills to the floor unanimously. We didn't mess around with them and package them up with poison pills. We said: Let's go legislate, and let's get this done. And they did. They got done. They got into law, signed by President Trump.

And guess what? Last year, the FDA approved more generics in one year than at any time in its history. So we did do things, led by Republicans in the House, the Republican leader of the Senate, and President Trump, joining with Democrats, just as we have attempted to do on the drug bills before us today.

We are in full agreement. Stop the bad behaviors, get competition into the market, and bring down costs of drugs. But we also believe we should make sure Americans have choices that are

more affordable when it comes to their insurance.

Democrats voted for ObamaCare. They blocked every amendment we had as Republicans at the time that was legislated. Remember, the former Speaker, now Speaker again, said you have to pass it so you can find out what is in it. It is kind of an odd way to legislate, but, anyway, here we are.

By the way, the short-term plans they call junk plans on that side, Mr. Chairman, those short-term plans are the same ones we are debating today, except all President Trump did is say you can have them a little longer, because guess what? For some people, it is the only affordable health insurance they have access to in their States.

They are regulated by the States. They are not unregulated. States can do all kinds of things. We should empower them to do things to make insurance more affordable.

Unlike my friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, they want to gag the navigators so they can't even tell them about alternatives that may actually benefit them and be more affordable.

The plans that the other side of the aisle is railing against today, Mr. Chairman, are plans that are very much like the ones that were approved under President Obama and ObamaCare. It is just that President Trump said you can have them for longer if they work for you. But the States can come in and say, no, no.

My State says just 3 months. That is it. Boom. Other States say 30 days. Some States say none at all.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her amendment. We are not going to object to the amendment. The exchanges already do a lot of this reporting, and more information is better than less.

Now, I want to talk about these short-term, State-regulated, limited duration insurance policies because I think I have got a chart here, and we

will put it in the Record that there are 27 of our States, Mr. Chairman--27--that have decided that short-term plans are good for their people to be able to take advantage of. There are States from Alaska to Wyoming, from Kansas to Iowa, to Idaho and Pennsylvania where you can go up to 364 days.

Now, there are 12 other States that have said, you know: We want to limit these to 6 months. That includes places like Colorado and Arizona and Nevada and Oklahoma, North Dakota.

Then there are eight States, Mr. Chairman, that said: No, we want 3 months. We think that is all we need in places like Oregon, Hawaii, or New Mexico.

Then there are four States--California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York--that said: No, we are just not going to allow any of these options in our State.

Guess what. That is federalism. They get that right.

Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to take away that ability for these short-term duration, State-regulated plans and remove options from consumers, and I don't think that is the way to go. It is an honest disagreement here that we have, Mr. Chairman, between the parties.

I have seen a lot of innovation come out of my home State of Oregon. I was meeting with one of our former Governors, John Kitzhaber, this morning, talking about the effect of the coordinated care organizations, and they have been able to actually bend the cost curve and improve access to delivery of care by having the flexibility, in some cases through waivers, to bring providers together, match them up with patients, and deliver care more efficiently and more effectively and with better outcomes. That should be what we are debating today: How do we get to better outcomes?

We should also be debating how we get healthcare costs down, Mr. Chairman. We are doing a bit of that with the drug bills.

It is unfortunate. It didn't have to be this way that they got made into partisan issues, because there is no partisan divide on those bills. It is the fact that, you know, bailing out some of these programs in ObamaCare that are so expensive.

When it costs $2.40 per enrollee for agents and brokers to assist in enrollment and $767 if you spent $62.5 million in grants and they enrolled 81,000 individuals, it averages out, just a rough average, to over $700, why would we pour more money into the navigators that cost 700 bucks and then say: Oh, by the way, these agents and brokers can't do anything to keep them out of this?

The Trump administration actually expanded the authority for the agents and brokers to be involved, leveraging that private-sector help, and do you know what? They support 3,660,000 health plan enrollments. That is 42 percent of the plan enrollments in 2018 on the Federal platform exchanges--42 percent. Mr. Chairman, navigators do 1 percent. And my friends on the other side of the aisle want to keep dumping more and more money into the navigator program that, as I pointed out earlier, we found all kinds of wasteful spending in.

So there is really an issue about spending. We know the results. We know there is a much better way to do this.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to oppose this particular amendment. It is fine, and more information is better than less.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting; the prior amendment that passed added $25 million more to this navigator program. For the plan year 2017, navigators received a total of $62.5 million in grants and yet only enrolled 81,426 individuals. That is less than 1 percent of the total enrollees.

You see, the issue here isn't whether we should or shouldn't enroll more people. The issue is who is most efficient with the taxpayer or private-sector dollar to do that.

We keep pouring more and more money into this navigator program and we know there is all this, well, I guess I am going to call it waste. I don't know if it is fraud.

But holy smokes, as I have said before, one grantee, according to The Wall Street Journal, took in $200,000 and enrolled one person--one person. You want to have a Government Accountability Office report and investigation, let's look at the underlying program and how in the heck that could happen.

And then they also found the top 10 expensive navigators collected $2.77 million and signed up 314.

These aren't my numbers. These are The Wall Street Journal investigative reporters. You know, in the press, these are facts, which caused the Las Vegas Review-Journal to editorialize that: ``The navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists. It's a slush fund for progressive constituent groups.''

Not my words, that is the press. I have a journalism degree. I have a great respect for the press and what they write. I don't always agree with them.

But, look, when you take these independent reviews and you look at what is happening there, CMS reported that 17 of those navigators enrolled fewer than 100 people at an average cost of $5,000 per enrollee--$5,000. $5,000. And my friends on the other side of the aisle want to shovel more money into that program. I think that is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

See, for $2.7 million, if we put that into community health centers, Mr. Chairman, do you know how many people we could cover? We could take care of 20,000 patients, according to one estimate--20,000.

Health centers are really, really important to me and my constituents. We have 63 different places in my district, which is bigger than eight States east of the Mississippi, Mr. Chairman, where people get their healthcare in our communities. We have to reauthorize this year, by the end of September, our community health centers.

Now, when I was chairman, we did that at a record level because they deliver record good healthcare. We have had no plan yet to figure out how to pay for that, but you are going dump $25 million more into this navigator program. Why don't we put it into actual healthcare?

We reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program under Republicans and fully funded it for a decade. The longest that had ever been done was 5 years, and, unfortunately, most of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted repeatedly against doing that for a whole host of reasons, but they voted ``no.'' In Oregon, we have 122,700 children and expectant moms that rely on CHIP, SCHIP, partnership with the State for their health insurance.

So there are a lot of things we can invest in with the proceeds from the savings from the drug bills, but investing in the navigator program? $5,000 per enrollee?

There are 100 navigators, that is all they did? One for 200,000, enrolled one person? I mean, come on. There has got to be a better way to not spend the taxpayers' money than that.

And so I think you look at the incredible growth in men and women working in America, getting better paying jobs, bigger paychecks and healthcare, 2.5 million since President Trump took office, and Republicans put progrowth policies into the Tax Code, progrowth regulatory policies into the bureaucracy.

Jobs are coming up. The biggest issue I run into with employers now is not overregulation; it is: Where do I find more people to work?

So we need to look at job training. We need to work at available workforce. But this, this amendment, I think, is, frankly, from my perspective--with all due respect, GAO doesn't need to waste their time on this nor the taxpayer's money, and especially after $25 million more was just signed up in addition to--what?--$63 million, roughly, an enormous amount of money into a program that I think has a lot of problems. And the editorial writers at the Review-Journal said, ``highly susceptible to scam artists,'' ``slush fund for progressive constituent groups.'' So I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment, but I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment.

I find it a bit interesting, though, that under the navigator program, on the one hand, my friends on the other side of the aisle say, Look, you can't talk about--in fact, you can't tell anybody about association health plans and those as options.

You can't educate the public, the consumers about an opportunity to save money by having a state-regulated plan. No, not under the navigator. You can't do that.

And yet, with this amendment, they want to expand that knowledge, so they can get training on the other government plans, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. I am not saying that is a bad thing.

But what I am saying is, why wouldn't we want full education? Why would we want, basically, a gag order here that prevents the navigators from telling the consumers, Here are some other options you may want to look at. Now, they have limitations; they are regulated by your State; you need to be fully informed--in fact, really informed, because some of them don't cover everything--as we have heard--because that was how it was designed under President Obama's plan, that there would be these options and they wouldn't be the fully covering plans, but they were okay because they would fill a gap.

And those are the same plans we have heard a lot about today that States regulate. And I would go back to the fact that in some States it is 3 months.

Well, in 27 States they go up to almost 1 year, including States such as Rhode Island and Tennessee, even Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Idaho.

In 12 States, they go up to 6 months. In eight States, including mine, we said--in Oregon--just 3 months, that is all we are going to do in short-term duration plans.

California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, said no. Zero. We are not going to allow them.

That is okay. That is federalism.

But why, in the navigator program, would we say, You can't talk about things.

I got a degree in journalism a long time ago at the University of Oregon, and I believe in the facts. And I believe marketplaces and consumers are better served when they have complete information to make choices.

And I know that these insurance products are on the market. Some are fine, people like them.

And I get these letters--I got one from Tom in Medford--that talked about how his premium, I think, went from 400-and-some dollars to $800 in 1 year. And he is not sure what he is going to do. That was in October when the new numbers came out.

And meanwhile, when we put all this reliance on these navigators. We know from the Wall Street Journal, one grantee took $200,000, enrolled one person.

I guess, if you are the grantee, that is a pretty good deal. All you have to do is find one person to enroll, and you get 200 grand. To me, that sounds like a big waste of taxpayer dollars.

The ten most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million, signed up 314 people.

Now, we heard about how the government needs to borrow and spend more than taxpayer dollars--or at least spend more taxpayer dollars--and do more education because the enrollment in the government plans has gone down by, I think, the figure is about $1 million or so. I guess, that is what is bandied about.

What isn't mentioned, however, Mr. Chairman, is that under President Trump and the policies Republicans put into law, the economy took off. The economy took off. Thank goodness the economy took off.

And 2.5 million Americans now get their insurance, more get their insurance through an employer.

So, see, they got a job, they got a paycheck, they got insurance through their employer.

And my guess is that accounts for some of that downturn. They don't have to come to the government to get their insurance. They are getting it through their employer.

So you might have had like $1 million roll off on the exchanges, but you have got a 2.5 million pickup in the private insurance side. And I think that is pretty cool. I mean, that is important.

And I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle with their national takeover of health insurance want to abolish ObamaCare and replace it with a single-payer system, which sounds sort of simple on its face, but we know that means you would have to double the personal income tax, double the corporate tax, and our doctors and hospitals, they would have to take like a 40-percent reduction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my friend, the doctor, the former chairman of the Health Subcommittee, to make some comments.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this section provides $200 million for States to establish State-based marketplaces. The Federal law provided States with the option of building their own State-based marketplace or utilizing the Federal marketplace.

I know my own State blew through close to $300 million trying to create its own exchange. It was a terrible financial disaster, a total waste of money. They couldn't get it going. They finally closed the thing up, but not before they blew through hundreds of millions of dollars, and then they went to the Federal exchange.

Every State except Alaska applied for these grants. Florida and Georgia were awarded planning grants but later returned their entire grants. Other States returned some of the grant money they received but also kept some.

This would have been under the Obama administration when they were enacting ObamaCare. No funding was awarded after December 31, 2014, in accordance with the law.

From the 2018 plan year, 34 States had federally facilitated marketplaces; 12 States had State-based marketplaces; and 5 States had State-based marketplaces using the Federal platform.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a majority staff report entitled: Implementing ObamaCare Review of CMS' Management of the State-Based Exchanges, September 13, 2016.

I think it is important to share with my colleagues, among the report's key findings in 2016 were: CMS was not confident that the remaining State-based exchanges would be sustainable in the

long term, and as of September 2016, every State-based exchange still relies upon Federal establishment grant funds 20 months after the State-based exchanges were supposed to be self-sustaining by law.

CMS eased the transition for these failed State-based exchanges so that they could join healthcare.gov by allowing them to keep the user fees collected by insurance carriers intended to pay for the use of healthcare.gov.

Now, here we are, 5 years after the funding has expired considering a bill to reopen grants for States to establish State-based marketplaces. We have seen kind of a spotty record here. Maybe it is just a coincidence that $200 million is being made available now, because my friends on the other side set the agenda and they want to continue pushing out this idea.

On Friday, Politico reported that New Jersey is proposing to create a State-based health exchange. Now, I think they have told us they actually don't need Federal money for that.

But anyway, I don't think we are dealing with earmarks here; but earmarking money to help States create their own marketplaces is not what we should be about, and I am not sure we are. I don't think this is a Garden State giveaway, but it is kind of interesting.

That is all I have got to say on this, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This amendment is pretty straightforward in asking the GAO to do this evaluation, and I think it is important to have cost-benefit analyses of State-administered health insurance plans for States that may want to offer a public option.

Again, here we have a situation where States are experimenting, and our States are great laboratories for reform. The gentleman comes from a State where Republican Governors helped lead that effort, Governor Romney and others, and now Senator Romney from a different State.

But my State did a lot of reform work as well, and we are all trying to figure out: How do we get healthcare to people in a timely way that is affordable? And we share that goal.

Unfortunately, some of the promise of ObamaCare turned out not to be the case. People's insurance premiums did not go down $2,500. I still hear in my town meetings and in correspondence with my constituents that some were well-served, but I have a lot of them who were left behind, and they are out in the cold.

At one of my townhalls, I had a middle age couple come up and say: We have decided we can't afford health insurance, so we have decided to go without.

They looked at the premiums. They looked at the deductibles that are in these markets, and said: We can't pencil it out.

None of us want that to be the case. That is why I think some of these options are really important to look at. And States can do that.

And that is what President Trump tried to do is take what President Obama had agreed to with the short-term plans regulated by States to fill gaps to make health insurance options more available and health insurance more affordable. He just said: Well, if it is good for 3 months, what is wrong with 364 days.

So as a result, you have got 27 States that go up to nearly a year; 12 are 6 months; 8 at 3 months; and 4 say, no, not in our State at all. So I think the report is probably going to give us some valuable information.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I have actually convinced myself I am going to support this amendment despite my initial reservations, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it should come as no surprise that I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing his amendment as well. He is a distinguished Member of our U.S. House of Representatives and an engineer, and we appreciate his intellectual horsepower on this issue.

I was thinking, as he was talking about having the GAO have to do an audit to figure out the best time for routine maintenance to provide the least disruption to consumers, this is what happens when you have a government-run system. You have to have your independent auditors figure out how the system can keep current and not disrupt consumers.

I was thinking that we don't have too many amendments that say let's have GAO audit Amazon's website to find out the best times to deal with consumers or your local whatever you go to for your hotels or your rental cars. Nobody is saying, hey, you have to have GAO, a government entity, figure out the best time or worst time to disrupt consumers on the Avis website or Enterprise or whatever. But we have to here, which is a government-run system with basically one website.

We all know and we all lived through what happened with the initial rollout with this website, so, Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Illinois' point, it is important that we give the consumers the best possible experience when they are trying to sign up because we have all had to deal with it.

In its initial days, man, it was a mess. I remember all those problems. We did hearings and oversight hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee on it.

Mr. Chairman, this is probably a good idea to do, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, I know there were a lot of amendments that came through the system. I am trying to figure out what the issue is here, but I know we offered 16 amendments and got one. The Democrats got 25 amendments and had one technical amendment through the Rules Committee.

Could the Parliamentarian or somebody explain what the problem is here and why we have to correct it here on the floor?

That is my question.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chair, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment, especially on mental health and substance abuse. He has done a lot of work in this area.

I know, Mr. Chairman, when we in the last Congress worked together in a bipartisan way, we passed 60 different bills related to the deadly scourge of opioid addiction and overdose. The prior Congress to that I believe is when we rewrote America's mental health laws for the first time in decades.

We all have friends, family, and people in our communities who need help, especially with mental health and, as we know, substance use disorder. We did a lot of good work, I would say. We have to make sure, to the gentleman's point, that the efforts we have put forward, the programs we have initiated, and the funding we put behind these programs actually get to the people who need the help.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who was chairman of our subcommittee when we were in the majority and now is the top Republican of the Health Subcommittee, to talk a little bit about these issues.

Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude that I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

As I look at a bunch of amendments coming up, to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Burgess), there are a whole bunch of these that they are saying, oh, we have to order the navigators do this, do this, and do that.

You wonder what their current training is that we have to pass laws telling them to learn about these things and then go talk to people.

This is part of my argument that we are pumping a lot of money into a program that we know there has been--I don't know if I can say fraud, but if you got $200,000 to enroll one person or $2.7 million to enroll 314, some of the Nation's leading editorial writers have had some pretty strong words to say about corruption and scam artists and that sort of thing.

We are having to pass laws that tell them, oh, by the way, talk about mental health, talk about substance abuse, talk about referrals to community-based organizations, the navigator system, vulnerable populations, all these things. Holy smokes, what don't they know and what is left out?

We should have a hearing on this issue in the committee as well as the Medicare for All proposal.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say a couple of things. One, I represent a very rural district in Oregon. It is two-thirds of the landmass of the State. We suffer a lot of these same issues: low income, high levels of poverty, and the need for basic services.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I worry a lot about making sure our community health centers get funded. I think you know this. They run out of funding in just a matter of months. The National Health Service Corps, same thing. By the end of September, I think they run out of money. I have a number of Indian reservations. Native Americans. Their Special Diabetes Program runs out of money. The teaching health centers run out of money.

Yes, today we are pouring money into a program that some of our Nation's leading editorial writers have called susceptible to scam artists and corruption and that spends $2.7 million to sign up 314 people. That doesn't seem like a very good expenditure to me. I would rather put that money into our community health centers and into some of these other proven programs that work.

I think it is fine to do outreach, certainly, and to expand education. I do wish it were more fulsome. I wish there weren't a gag restriction on our navigators so that they can't talk about other insurance alternatives that our States have pioneered and regulate, that even the Obama administration approved these short-term plans; yet derided today, these were approved, in many cases, under the last administration.

This one said: If they work good for 3 months, let's see if States want them for 6 or 9 or pretty close to 12.

That is what the President did.

President Trump, too, if you think about the economy--all we ever hear on the other side is kind of all the negative. It is sort of Debbie Downer day here.

Actually, the economy is doing really well, and, as a result, people are getting jobs. When they are getting jobs, they are getting bigger paychecks. They are also getting insurance. And 2.5 million people now have insurance who didn't have it before, through their employer, during the Trump administration.

I realize they are not going to go bragging on the Trump administration, my friends to the left, but I do think it is important to get the facts out there because facts matter, and I believe in facts.

Mr. Chair, 2.5 million more people now have insurance who didn't have it before, and they have it through their employer. That is the direction we should go: jobs, income, insurance through your employer.

Then what we really should focus on--and I think there is bipartisan support for this--is how do we get at the costs for healthcare.

By the way, who knows what anything costs, right? We are paying more and more out of pocket through our deductibles and our copays, yet what does an MRI cost here versus there versus there?

I was at the White House with the President on Thursday, Mr. Chair, and he is going after surprise billing. My friend from New Jersey and I are joined on this effort to pass bipartisan legislation so that the consumer doesn't get stuck with a bill because somebody showed up to care for him at a hospital that, it turns out, wasn't in their plan. They played by the rules, the consumer did.

We had one example there of a doctor whose daughter got care and then was asked to do a urine test because of some medication. They wanted to do just a quick test. The doctor said: Hey, will you do it? She did it on the way out.

It turned out the lab, I think it was, was not in the network of her insurance plan. She didn't know that. She just followed the doctor's orders. Do you know what that bill was? Over $17,000.

He brought a copy of the bill. I don't have it here, but he brought it to the White House.

And President Trump is full-throat ready to solve this. Just as he and his administration--I don't think we have ever had a President, not in my lifetime, that has leaned in more to get prescription drug prices down for consumers.

That is what is going on there in the real world. And the President and Secretary Azar and the team at CMS, they are leading on this now.

There are things you might like or dislike in terms of their proposals, but we have never had a President and an administration do more to try and drive out the unnecessary costs that consumers are being forced to pay.

That is where they are making the decision of whether they can afford to actually take the drugs from the pharmacist and go home or leave them on the counter.

So we have got a lot of issues, and some of them we are going to work out. I just so regret that we are here today with these for funding the navigator program with another $25 million on top of the 68 so they can spend $2.7 million and sign up 314 people. We can do that much more efficiently. We have proven that.

CMS says that others can do it for much less money, much less money. Not $767 per enrollee, but $2.40. Who wouldn't take that deal, $2.40 per enrollee or $767?

So I just think there is a better way to operate. This amendment is fine in the end, I guess, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I seek the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I will try and make this fairly quick.

I actually am going to oppose this amendment for this reason. Here we are going through trying to say to the health navigators, in amendment after amendment: Your job is to enroll people in health insurance. That is your job. And, by the way, we are going to have to pass a law that tells you to be sure and include a discussion about mental health, be sure and include and get educated on substance use disorder benefits.

One after another, we are going through and putting in the statute all the things that ought to be, A, common sense and, B, ought to be part of an overall educational program for the navigators.

And now recognizing, well, first of all, they are very expensive; second, there has been at least some level of questionable activity in the use of the taxpayer dollars; and, third, they don't know what they are doing, so we have got to instruct them via statute; now we are going to say: By the way, go do all these other things, too, that have nothing to do directly with enrolling people in the Affordable Care Act.

So you are going to say, on the one hand: We don't think you are getting it right; we have got to give you more money. Now we are going to give you new duties that are kind of loosely described, if you ask me, to provide referrals to community-based organizations and address social needs related to health outcomes.

That is all going to be in law now? Really?

I think this whole program, the more I sit and listen to all the amendments that need to be put into law to change it--this was an ObamaCare creation, so I guess we are--I don't know. I wouldn't say you are sabotaging ObamaCare with this, but, certainly, you are changing ObamaCare and the navigators.

We are looking at the costs, and, gosh, there is a lot we could do.

I think the gentleman has 40 health centers in his district. And I assume he knows that I have got about 63 locations; and I assume the gentleman knows the money for those health centers runs out at the end of the fiscal year, and we have got to find a way to pay for that. I would rather put the money into that than into this program.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, I guess this is the second time we have had to edit amendments on the House floor, if I understand what is happening.

There were a lot of amendments offered in the Rules Committee. We were promised by the Democrats at the beginning of this legislative session that this would be an open House where our amendments would be considered. I know 92 percent of the amendments the Democrats have allowed to come to the floor have been Democrat amendments. Imagine that.

We had 16 Republican amendments on this bill alone. We got one amendment. Democrats got 25, and two of them we have had to edit here on the floor. And then we had one that was a bipartisan, just technical change amendment.

I sure hope we are not going to see that for the rest of this Congress under Democratic control, that we are shut out of the amendment process.

When Republicans were in charge and had the Rules Committee, 45 percent, something like that, of the amendments were minority amendments, Democrat amendments. We opened the floor to that, and now it has been shut down.

Mr. Chairman, I won't object to this change. It needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I know it has been a long day here on the floor, and we are covering a lot of ground. We have got a few more amendments to go.

Again, I think as we go through these amendments, and the gentlewoman is spot on, we have got to make sure people are trying to help people get access to insurance; can speak the language, can assist in each one of our districts.

But it is kind of an indictment to the existing program, if you think about it, that you have got to come here and legislate this. To me, whether it is about mental health, or substance abuse, or this, or the one before, this should be commonsense management of a program, and it tells me we have got a problem with the underlying navigator program.

We know that it is very, very expensive. We know that they enroll less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent. Everything we are arguing about this afternoon with all the amendments on the navigator program, both, are shining the light on the shortcomings of the program itself, which I think the administration has pointed to and said, This thing isn't working very well, and it is at the least very expensive; $767 per enrollee, it appears. In the private sector they do it for much, much, much, much less.

So it is not that this amendment is bad or misguided. I don't think it is. But I think, once again, it is like a bright light on the underlying program that must be fraught with all kinds of problems, because we have got 16--no, wait. We have got 25 amendments from my friends on the other side of the aisle, most of which are to tell the navigator how to do a better job and to put in Federal statute how to, basically have common sense.

I have never thought, by the way, you could legislate common sense. I don't know what my colleagues think of that. I never thought you could.

But I do know we need to fund community health centers, and the National Health Service Corps, and special diabetes programs, and teaching hospitals. And we have got this issue of the--this will be one that will be interesting.

If you don't want to change ObamaCare, are you going to let the Cadillac tax hit insurance plans of union workers and people working in business?

Or are you going to put off the big cuts that are coming right at our hospitals?

I had my hospitals in the other day, and they are saying, Boy, I sure hope you are going to turn off those DSH cuts that are headed our way. We did that last Congress. I helped lead the effort on that.

But that is actually called for in the underlying ObamaCare which, by the way, a disproportionate share of hospitals are those in our rural areas, in many cases, have a high portion of Medicaid, and they were supposed to, as part of the grand bargain with the Obama administration and Democrats, take these cuts. And now they are coming back to us saying, We can't afford to take these cuts.

So I don't know if you will describe that as sabotaging ObamaCare, but I will bet you are going to join us in trying to hold off those DSH cuts that are coming at our community hospitals.

So it just strikes me, again, that this navigator program must be a mini-disaster in the making if everybody has to come to the floor with an amendment to tell them how to do their job, and to reach out and serve the people this whole thing was intended to serve.

So it is not that I am opposed to the amendment. I just think the underlying program is pretty darn expensive. But you have heard me say that before today, Mr. Chairman, a time or two.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentlewoman's amendment--and it is a serious amendment, we appreciate it being offered. But in her State of Virginia, the State of Virginia said it is okay to offer these plans up to 364 days duration, short-term, limited-duration insurance policies. These fill a gap that are regulated by her State.

These kinds of plans, Mr. Chairman, were first approved by the Obama administration, because they must have recognized that there would be a need for a short-term plan to fill a gap here and there, and obviously a lot of Americans have taken advantage of those plans.

Now, because of that, the Trump administration said, well, maybe if they are good for 3 months, we should let States decide up to a year, and then they could go up to a couple of years, I guess. Four states have already said no way, no how; three have said 8 months, that is as long as you can go; 12 have said that you can go to 6 months; and 27 States, including the State of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, has said 364 days.

Now, look, the important thing here, and I think we would have to agree on this if this were the amendment, there should be full and complete disclosure of what these plans cover or do not cover, full and complete, completely transparent, because the last thing any of us wants is someone with a preexisting condition or some other issue or complex medical situation, like the gentlewoman described, from getting a plan that basically they are told covers those things when it doesn't.

Now, it is interesting, I know Dr. Burgess is not only a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but one of the rare individuals in our body that also serves on the Rules Committee.

If memory serves me right, Dr. Burgess, I believe one of our colleagues, the chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, had an amendment in the Rules Committee that would require full disclosure and transparency, right?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, back to the issue of the gentlewoman's amendment, the chair of the Subcommittee on Health, her amendment, the short summary here says:

Require short-term, limited-duration insurance plans to

prominently carry a disclosure the plan provides coverage for

limited medical conditions and benefits.

That amendment was not made in order. It should have been made in order, because then we could get to the other question here, which I think we all agree on, is that there needs to be complete transparency of these things, because they don't cover everything. We all buy lots of insurance products for cars, houses, life insurance, disability, and all these things, and I want it to be easy to understand, full disclosure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I am all about setting targets and holding people accountable for their goals, it turns out the navigators already tried that, and it didn't work very well. So I don't know that having Secretary Azar set a goal for each of the exchanges and all is going to work any better.

Navigators enrolled less than 1 percent of total enrollees. And according to one report, in fact, the navigator's program had an enrollment goal of 2,000, but, well, he kind of fell short. He only enrolled one person. So that is a bit of a problem.

I think goals are a good thing, but I don't know that that is going to help here. We know how many people get enrolled. We know information around this.

I don't know. Once again, here we are trying to micromanage a program that clearly has a lot of flaws, or we wouldn't be putting all these things into statute.

I mean, I don't think we are giving these amendments to 25 Democrats just because they are freshmen. I think they have substantive issues they are trying to bring to the floor here. But it seems to me that this is really odd to micromanage a program to this level, and so I am going to end up opposing this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me that 17 navigators, according to CMS, during the grant year 2016 to 2017, 17 of these navigators that my friends on the other side of the aisle are such big fans of enrolled fewer than 100 people at an average cost of $5,000 per enrollee. That doesn't seem to be very cost efficient to me.

As I have said before, today, The Wall Street Journal investigation found one grantee got 200 grand and enrolled one person. This is a great program.

You can't understand why the Trump administration wants to cut back and put some boundaries around? I can't imagine why you would embrace that. I just don't get it.

The top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million, and they signed up 314 people. Let that one sink in. I mean, if you all want to embrace that, that is up to you. Not the way I would do business.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized: ``The navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists. It's a slush fund for progressive constituent groups.''

That is a respected newspaper. The journalist is writing this, Wall Street Journal's investigation.

We figure out $62.5 million in grants enrolled 81,426 individuals. That is less than 1 percent. That is your navigators, Mr. Chairman, that some are so enthralled with; that is their body of work: $62.5 million, 1 percent.

Now, if you just run a simple calculation, that means about $767 was spent

per individual that was enrolled. That is a lot of money.

By contrast, agents and brokers assisted with 42 percent of the federally facilitated exchange enrollment for plan year 2018, which cost the FFE only $2.40, $2.40 per enrollee to provide training and technical assistance.

So we have before us this opportunity to either fund a program that appears to be susceptible to scam, according to one paper: One person gets enrolled, and one person gets paid $200,000 to enroll that one person. That is the outcome. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

So I would say to my colleague from California that where we really need the transparency and accountability is on the navigators themselves. That is where we ought to be investigating.

And on the short-term duration plans, it is unfortunate that Ms. Eshoo's amendment was not made in order, because I agree that we need more transparency on those plans so people know what they are buying. I don't want anybody to get a plan that doesn't cover what they need. I don't think any of us do.

So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and unless any other Member requests time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points.

First of all, of course we want navigators to work in areas where there is high unemployment. My district, over the years, has had some of the highest unemployment in the State of Oregon.

Then I go down the list of future amendments here, and it is like, oh, we have got another one coming up that ensures rural areas are included in the navigator outreach. Well, that is a good idea.

And then there is another one that ensures that State healthcare exchange outreach activities also target our veteran population. Yes, that is a good idea.

Why are we having to put all this in statute? Who the heck is running this program, and why is it such a mess that it requires amendment after amendment after amendment? My point is: Where does this stop?

Of course we want them to work with veterans. Of course we want them to work with seniors and the young. Are we going to go to age segments here, 18 to 29, 31 to--I mean, come on. Really? We are going to put all this in statute?

How do they not have common sense? Who are these navigators that we have to direct them from the floor of the House into statute? Oh, by the way, be sure and work in an unemployed area. Be sure to mention that there are services for mental health and substance abuse. Oh, don't forget this, that, and the other thing.

I mean, I think we only ran out of amendments because we ran out of ideas of things to put into the statute, but that is no way to run a program.

And if it costs $767 for everyone they sign up for the government to run its navigator program but the private sector can do it for $2.40, that is not a very economical way. You don't make it up in volume.

And of course we want people to get access to insurance and information. I was in the radio business for 20 years. Our job was to get information out to consumers, so I am all about that.

It is just amazing, though, when you see the inefficiency of a Federal system versus the efficiency of a private-sector initiative.

And here we just passed an amendment, $25 million more into this program, and yet we know in some cases there is enormous cost, and there appears to be, you know--I don't know--malfeasance. I don't know what it is.

But if the top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million to sign up 314 people, I think we are in the wrong business. We ought to go be navigators at that rate. That is a pretty good rate of return for them, but not for the people and the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the Republican leader of the U.S. House for not only his leadership on this issue but on so many others, and for giving us clarity on what is really going on here.

It is unfortunate. As The Washington Post and other news media organizations reported, it didn't have to be this way. It didn't have to be this way.

We did pass the three drug reform bills unanimously out of the committee. I was a big supporter of them. Every Republican was. I think every Republican on the floor will be if they get a chance to vote for those.

In the past, when I was chairman of the committee, we moved over 143 bills out of the committee. Ninety-three percent of them had bipartisan votes on the House floor. Fifty-seven became law. One of those 57 contained about 60 different opioid bills we rolled into just one.

I agree with the leader. This is going to delay passage in the Senate because they are going to have to sort this out, rip it apart. The added spending and the navigator piece probably don't survive. But it didn't have to be that way.

I found that if you have big bipartisan support out of the House, you are likely to get quicker action in the Senate, and it goes down to the President.

If you want to do something quickly about high-cost drugs and stop bad behavior that denies access for new generics, then you want to move quickly, not slowly. You want to move in a bipartisan way, not a partisan way. Unfortunately, that is not our way today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am outraged to find out that these navigators are not reaching out to people in rural areas. What we have learned today on the House floor is that apparently this program doesn't reach people in rural areas. That is why the gentlewoman from Oklahoma has this amendment, apparently. These navigators, what the heck do they do?

We have had amendments to say you have got to have navigators reach out to people on Medicaid. You have got to have navigators reach out to people on the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have to tell them that? What have they been doing?

We are going to have an amendment coming up saying, Navigators, we are going to put into Federal law that you have to reach out to the veterans' community. They don't do that today? Are you serious?

And we are going to have navigators that have to be educated. When you are reaching out, you better talk about mental health services and substance abuse. Have they been ignoring that all along? I guess so.

Because my friends on the other side of the aisle have been bringing amendment after amendment to correct these obvious omissions and problems with the navigator program. What has been going on in the navigator program?

This is outrageous to learn that rural areas--and I represent an area that would stretch from the Atlantic Ocean to Ohio, 69,000 square miles--and you are talking about rural. I am going to find out why the heck those navigators aren't talking to people in my district, and why we have to put in law that they have to now.

How many years has this been going on under ObamaCare, and at what cost to taxpayers? And you are going to give them another $25 million. Who are they talking to? Are they talking to people in suburban areas only, or urban areas only?

But if they are not talking about Medicaid and CHIP, and apparently not to veterans, who are they counseling and what are they telling them? What a disaster of a program. We ought to halt right now and figure out who are these people and what are they getting paid to do.

We know they cost $767 for every enrollee, compared to $2.40 in the private sector. So we are paying them a lot. We know that investigations have shown that one grantee took $200,000 and enrolled one person, and, apparently, that person was not a veteran, not on Medicaid, not in a rural area, and not on CHIP. Who knows. Right?

I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, but I am astonished to learn of the fact that we have to put it in law that they have to talk to people in rural areas. This demands investigation to figure out what in the heck is going on.

Now, let's talk about what else is facing us. What really takes care of people in rural areas are our community health centers, 27 million people, 1 in 12 in every State. The District of Columbia and the territories rely on community health centers for their care, and of the patients treated at these centers, one in three are living in poverty; one in five are rural residents; and one in nine are children.

If you want to put the taxpayer money to good purpose, it would be to fund our community health centers, like Republicans led the way on last time at record levels because we know they deliver for people in rural areas. They deliver for people in urban areas. They deliver quality care.

That is where our money should go, not into a program like this, apparently, that we have to have these amendments from Democrat Members. I think we had 25 amendments from Democrat Members telling navigators we are going to go to rural areas, we are going to go to veterans. Who are they serving today? It is a mess.

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in the last amendment debate, it is astonishing to me that apparently these navigators aren't serving people in rural areas, and now I find out that they are apparently not serving our veteran population effectively as well.

I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his service to the country and all of our veterans, men and women, who wear our uniform and deserve our undying appreciation and thanks.

But it is astonishing, once again, it is appalling that these navigators apparently aren't serving our veterans. We have to come to the floor with amendments to Federal law to order them to take care of our veterans. What kind of program is this?

We know it is expensive. We know some in the news media, some of the editorial writers in our country said it is open to fraud and--let me read it.

An editorial paper out West said, ``In reality, the navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists. It's a slush fund for progressive constituent groups.''

That is how one editorial came out. I am sure there are good people in there somewhere doing good work, but we know that according to CMS, 17 navigators enrolled less than 100 people at an average cost of $5,000 per enrollee. What kind of program is this? We know it is expensive.

One grantee took in $200,000 and enrolled one person. The top ten most expensive collected $2.77 million and signed up 314 people. So it is inefficient, but at least it is really expensive. What a waste.

I am sure they enroll people, but only 1 percent of those enrolled in the exchange are helped by navigators. And then today, we find out that we have to tell them what to do, which makes you wonder, what have they been doing? Because we have had amendments to say, you have got to have them educate people about Medicaid, or CHIP, or veterans, rural areas, mental health, substance abuse--one thing after another. I think we ought to investigate them and the whole program stem to stern.

If there is waste and fraud, we ought to go after it. If there is all of this expense, we ought to knock it down. And if they are not serving people--I am glad we had the rural amendment. Do we need one for urban, and suburban, and semi-frontier counties? It makes me wonder who they do serve. We know it is expensive.

Obviously, we are going to tell them to serve the veterans. You know that makes sense.

I am glad your amendment got made in order. We had 16 Republican amendments. They only made one in order. There were 25 Democratic amendments made in order. Two of those we had to edit on the floor, and one technical amendment.

It seems an odd way to run the House. We were promised in the opening days by the chairman of the Rules Committee that it was all going to be different. Boy, he was right. It is just a different way.

I think that our Member on the Rules Committee could probably tell us 92 percent of the amendments that have been allowed on the House floor have been from Democrats. When Republicans were in the majority, 45 percent of the amendments came from Democrats. We tried to have an open process. Now we are being shut out, and that is unfortunate.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have had a long day here. I think we all care deeply about making sure people have access to affordable healthcare. Republicans believe we need to reform how our systems work. We need to drive down the cost of drugs, and nobody has led more on this in my history around here than the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

From day one, he has told the drug companies: You need to get your prices down. I was with him in the White House when he said that in about February of 2017, and he has never relented. And he is a partner in this progress to go after surprise billing, to go after high drug costs. He is leading through his administration, and he will sign the drug bills that we worked out in committee.

The travesty is the pothole created by the Democrat politicos that said we have got to link the drug bills we all have agreement on that the President would sign, to bills that we know are bailing out ObamaCare. And worse, we are now funding huge money, and even more authorized today, into a program that apparently wasn't taking care of veterans, nor people in rural areas.

It is astonishing. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fine. It makes sense. It is just outrageous we have to put in Federal law that these navigators have to actually help veterans because they ought to be doing that day in and day out. Veterans are the ones who give us our freedom. We need to investigate the navigators.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Oh, my gosh, Mr. Speaker, in its current form, absolutely, yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats worked together on provisions to bring generic drugs to market faster and to stop abusive practices. We did that on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we brought this House multiple bills to achieve that goal, and we did it unanimously.

We believe our bipartisan work will increase competition and ultimately help lower the cost of prescription drugs.

These policies passed unanimously out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. They help consumers, and they have the added benefit of helping the Federal Government by producing $4 billion in savings.

Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle, Democrats, decided to pair these bipartisan bills to lower drug costs with what they knew were very partisan bills that I, frankly, think waste taxpayer money in many cases.

We ought to be working together on this, not descending ``into partisan politics on a seemingly bipartisan issue.'' Those are the words of STAT News as reported today.

The fact is, when we do work together, we can achieve real results. In the last Congress, we reauthorized the Food and Drug Administration, and we gave that agency the tools and resources to get generic drugs into market faster.

It is already working. Our work produced, with the FDA's efforts, a record number of generic drugs coming to market, driving competition, and giving consumers more choices.

We did the same thing in the prior Congress when Fred Upton and Diana DeGette led the effort on 21st Century Cures so we could invest in medical research. That was bipartisan.

Unfortunately, today you have partisan bills coupled with bipartisan bills, a poison pill, if you will. And the Democrats have decided to use the money, in part generated by our work on generic drugs, to fund more navigators.

Let me just talk briefly about navigators.

They cost you an average of $767 every time they sign up an individual. In the private sector, it is $2.40. And they just added another $25 million to that.

The Wall Street Journal reported one grantee took in $200,000 to enroll a grand total of one person.

The top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million in contracts from the Federal Government. They signed up 314 people. That is how they spent the money.

One newspaper editorialized: ``The navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists.''

Today on the House floor, you will have a choice with this motion to recommit, and the choice is to spend it that way and add more money into that navigator program, that, by the way, we just approved a bunch of amendments to tell navigators to go work with people in rural areas, to work with people on CHIP, veterans. Apparently, they weren't working with any of those folks.

So the motion to recommit says this: same drug bills that we passed out of committee, so you will be able to vote ``yes'' on those, and then the money that is generated, rather than going to this flawed navigator program will go to the NIH innovation fund to support childhood cancer research. That is your choice.

By using the savings from the drug pricing provisions to pay for childhood cancer research, this amendment makes clear the bipartisan drug pricing offsets should be used to pay for bipartisan healthcare priorities.

So, if you support lowering the cost of prescription drugs and you support the work of the NIH and its efforts to save countless lives of children with cancer, then you vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call out the mischaracterization of H.R. 986. The misleading title of this bill confirms the Democratic majority's position to score political points instead of governing. They claim their agenda is ``for the people.'' Well, this bill is ``for the politics.''

So let me be clear. This bill has nothing to do with protecting Americans with preexisting conditions. This bill has everything to do with eliminating healthcare options that would be affordable for Americans who can't afford health insurance today and choices for States.

Section 1332 waivers were first enacted under ObamaCare to provide States the opportunity to innovate and to provide their residents with affordable health insurance options. The Trump administration has simply updated the guidance for these 1332 ObamaCare waivers to make it easier for a State's plan to be approved.

This guidance does not--I repeat, does not--permit the Secretary to waive preexisting condition protections.

But, don't take my word for it alone. CMS Administrator Seema Verma confirmed it yesterday, in writing. ``To be very clear, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode PPACA's preexisting condition provisions, which cannot be waived under section 1332,'' wrote Administrator Verma.

She went on to explain: ``Section 1332 does not permit States to waive Public Health Service Act requirements such as guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions. Furthermore, a section 1332 waiver cannot

be approved that might otherwise undermine these requirements. This administration stands committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions.'' Seema Verma, she is the Administrator.

It is not just Administrator Verma. I want to quote from the Trump administration statement of policy. ``If H.R. 986 were presented to the President, his advisers would recommend that he veto it,'' wrote the Trump administration in its ``Statement of Administration Policy.''

It goes on to say: ``The President has repeatedly made clear that this administration will protect people with preexisting conditions. The 2018 guidance in no way alters the guardrails in place for those with preexisting conditions, and it would not allow the administration to waive the requirements in place around preexisting conditions. The title of this legislation gives the misleading impression that it will enhance healthcare protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.''

Put simply, Mr. Chair, this cynically titled messaging bill is all about scoring political points and not legislating, which is what we should be doing.

You see, if Democratic Members actually cared about protecting individuals living with preexisting conditions, they would govern and lock in these important safeguards. Since Democratic leaders chose to put politics first, I offered an amendment to protect patients with preexisting conditions, to lock that into law.

Mr. Chair, this amendment wasn't presented to the House for a vote. In fact, it was never allowed out of the Rules Committee. That is a shame because we could be voting on it today. I have tried to bring that vote to the floor on numerous occasions, and I have been denied by the Democratic majority.

My bill is simple. It provides guaranteed issue and renewability, a ban on health status underwriting, and a ban on benefits exclusions, real preexisting condition protections Democratic Members say they support.

Guess what? It is titled the ``Pre-existing Conditions Protection Act.'' How ironic, except my bill does what the title says.

Let's vote on that bill, Mr. Chair.

Here is what it comes down to. The status quo is not working for many Americans. Healthcare costs are out of control. Patients and families are struggling to pay ever-increasing premiums, deductibles, and out- of-pocket costs.

There is work that we are doing. I just came from a meeting with the President of the United States in the Roosevelt Room talking about surprise billing. We are going to work together, Mr. Pallone and I and others, to draft legislation to prevent that, to protect consumers.

We could do more here today than what this bill alleges to do. Republicans want to work toward healthcare solutions that will decrease costs, increase access, protect individuals with preexisting conditions, make the healthcare system work better for families and for patients, and actually be affordable.

We want to let our States innovate. These section 1332 waivers-- originally, again, put forward under President Obama--known as State innovation waivers, they are working, Mr. Chair. Premiums have gone down in seven States by an average of 20 percent, down 20 percent.

In my home State of Oregon, we have been a real innovator for decades in the space of healthcare coverage and access and trying to get prices down. Our premiums, under this 1332 waiver that Oregon has, have gone down 6 percent in 2018, down 6 percent thanks to a State innovation waiver.

These waivers could work. States want to innovate. They care about their people and want to bring down costs. Instead of allowing more and more States to innovate and lower their healthcare costs, unfortunately, Democrats are of the mindset that Washington knows best, not our States. States can't be trusted, apparently. They want to limit the ability of States to innovate on behalf of their citizens.

This type of top-down, command-and-control, government-knows-best approach is what leads to policies like the Democrats' ultimate goal of a one-size-fits-all government takeover of healthcare.

A vote in support of their bill is a vote against innovation, lowering costs, my colleagues' constituents, State legislatures, Governors, State insurance commissioners, on and on and on. That is what my colleagues are doing if they vote for this.

A vote against the bill is actually a vote for the people.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this partisan gimmick, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a very important member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), our pharmacist on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) to speak on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make a couple of comments to my friend from Maryland, and he is my friend. He is always quite poignant and eloquent in his remarks.

What we are debating here today is a bill that is misnamed that doesn't do what it says it is going to do. What we do know is that 1332 waivers work. My State took advantage of that 1332 waiver and reduced insurance premiums by 6 percent. The great State of Maryland--I was just looking at some data, Mr. Chairman--has about 181,500 in the enrollment year. They used a 1332 waiver. This year in the individual market their costs for premiums in the individual market percent decreased 43.4 percent.

Mr. Chair, I bet he would. But we know, overall, 19.9 percent across the country, because we are able to take some of this money, put it together, and have a reinsurance program. Maine has done it, Maryland has done it, and Oregon has done it. These are things that work.

The complaint I get, Mr. Chairman, is people at home say, I may have access to coverage now, but I can't afford the premium, or, if I can afford the premium, I can't afford to get sick because the out-of- pocket costs are so high. They are now falling off. Later in the debate, I will share some data that has been published this week showing people who literally walk away from healthcare because they can't afford it. That should be our common mission and goal.

When it comes to protecting people with preexisting conditions, I introduced legislation--and tried to get a vote on it every chance I have had--that would lock into law preexisting condition protections, regardless of what this Federal lawsuit's outcome is in Texas. We should do that. That would be an easy vote. We could all vote for it. But Democrats won't let us bring it to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend, the biggest assault on Medicare is the Democrats' proposal to do Medicare for All.

We know it will cost $32 trillion, double personal and corporate income taxes. I met with our hospitals yesterday: 40 percent reduction in their payments. They are not sure how they would survive. They told me most hospitals in America will go bankrupt under the Democrats' proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me address a few issues. First of all, my friend my New Jersey--and he is my friend--referenced my amendment.

It is unfortunate that we can't debate my amendment on the floor, because the Democrats who control the Rules Committee wouldn't allow my amendment to be considered, nor would they allow us to bring a bill to the floor that I have authored that has more than 100 cosponsors that would make sure that preexisting conditions are protected in case the court decision in Texas goes against the ACA and wipes out those protections.

This would be an insurance policy in public law for people with a preexisting condition. We can do that today. If it has some shortcomings, then let's have a markup on this bill and work that out.

I care deeply about preexisting condition protection. I fought for it as a legislator. I helped create the high-risk pools in Oregon back in the late eighties and early nineties. I have supported it every step of the way.

Let me again quote from the Department of Health and Human Services. We asked them, and they wrote back to me, about protection for preexisting conditions. Seema Verma, the Administrator, said in her letter to me: ``To be very clear, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode PPACA's preexisting condition provisions, which cannot be waived under section 1332.''

So they cannot do that. They cannot waive those protections under 1332.

``Section 1332 does not permit States to waive Public Health Service Act requirements, such as guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions. Furthermore, a section 1332 waiver cannot be approved that might otherwise undermine these requirements. This administration stands committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions.''

That is the head of CMS. It is her agency that approves 1332 waivers.

There have been no waivers so far approved under this guidance, and that is what she tells us in writing, period, because of the information that is being sent around.

We do know that seven States have taken advantage of the prior 1332 process, and it has yielded more affordable insurance premiums for American citizens.

Now, I find it curious. My State has been very progressive in these areas. When I was in the State legislature, I helped try to expand access to affordable healthcare. We had to come to Washington to get a waiver for the Oregon health plan and Medicaid, and we looked at all kinds of different ways to get access to affordable healthcare, and I have never let up on that.

I believe strongly in helping people with preexisting conditions. Like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my wife and I had a son who did not survive because of a heart condition. We dealt with all of these issues leading up to his birth and eventual death. So I am fully committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions.

What we are arguing about here is: Is health insurance affordable for Americans and are there better ways, using States as laboratories, to innovate and bring down costs of care and costs of insurance, because more of us are paying more out of our pocket than at any time in our history.

There was a very interesting story which I will put in the Record for everyone to read, data from the Kaiser Foundation this week that ran in a publication called Axios. I just want to share some of what they found about what is really going on if you get outside of the beltway here in Washington and talk to real people.

They evaluated people who had coverage under their employer, in this case, and had a chronic condition of some sort. It is not a small group.

About half of Americans who have employer coverage--so that is half of 158 million--report that 6 in 10 in that group report they or a family member skipped or postponed medical care or prescription drugs they needed because of the costs, or, in some cases, they tried a home remedy.

High deductibles make things worse. Among those with chronic conditions whose deductibles were at least $3,000 for an individual or $5,000 for a family, three-quarters, Mr. Chairman, 75 percent, report skipping or postponing some type of care; and about half, 49 percent, say they or a family member had problems paying medical bills or difficulty affording their premiums, deductibles, or copays in the last year.

So what States--including mine, including New Jersey, including Maryland, and including Maine and Alaska--did was say: Hey, Washington, D.C., give us just a little flexibility here. Let us come with up with plans that may be more affordable.

They did that under the prior rules, and rates went down, on average, 19.9 percent--some States more, some less.

Now, what happens when people can't afford to use their own insurance? Because that is happening with these deductibles and with these high levels, let alone the premiums.

The ripple effect on family budgets, according to the story in Axios, is a substantial share of people reported taking measures such as increasing credit card debt, 28 percent; using up most of their savings, 26 percent; getting an extra job, 19 percent; borrowing money from family or friends, 14 percent.

This is what we are trying to argue could be better taken care of. This is the issue that is being ignored by a Washington one size fits all.

So we protect people with preexisting conditions, 1332 waivers--that law

stays in effect--but we want to give States a little more flexibility to go after this to bring down the cost.

Now, my friend from New Jersey and I, Mr. Chairman, are working together on some of these drug reforms so we can get drug costs down.

I was at the White House today with the President on surprise billing, and I think we are going to work together on that issue, Mr. Chairman, so that no American consumer who follows the rules gets stuck with a surprise bill. What are you supposed to do, wake up in the middle of the operation and say: Hey, is everybody in this room still on my plan? If you play by the rules, you shouldn't get stuck unfairly with a surprise bill. We are going to find a solution.

My State came up with a way to do that already and other States have other ideas, but we are going to protect consumers there as well. We are going to drive down the cost of drugs, and we should continue to go after this issue of the high cost of healthcare because that is what Americans in my 20 townhalls--and I don't think anybody in the House has done more.

I have done 20 townhalls this year. In almost every one of them, they are asking: How do you get the costs down?

Mr. Chairman, 1332 waivers gave my State the opportunity to get costs down, and we should not impede that process.

We are going to debate a lot about these policies going forward, and if there are junk plans, then let's expose them for what they are, and let's pass Ms. Eshoo's bill from, I think, last Congress, which required more transparency and accountability so you don't have fraud and deception. Count me all in on that.

There is a lot more we can do to drive down costs.

My legislation--again, Democrats refused to bring up in committee or have on the floor--would make sure, regardless of any lawsuit, people with preexisting conditions can continue to get covered. So irrespective of the court decisions, they would get covered.

If my bill were allowed to be voted on in the House, I guarantee you, we might have some issues we need to work out. I am happy to do that. If it passed, it would become law. This President is firmly committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions, so we should do that.

We should also have a hearing on the Medicare for All bill that some on the other side are promoting. I have asked for that.

I know there was one in the Rules Committee, but Energy and Commerce is the committee of jurisdiction for most of that. We have not seen that hearing yet. I hope, in the future, we will, because we should know the impact of wiping out Medicare Advantage plans and Medigap plans.

I have been told TRICARE would go away, all private insurance would go away, and it would be a one-size-fits-all, government-run system. I am worried about the delay in access to care. I am worried about the access to the great, new innovative drugs and procedures that we would lose in America.

So, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this underlying legislation. I remain committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions, as do my colleagues on the Republican side. Then we ought to focus together, Mr. Chairman, as a Congress to do the best thing for our constituents, which is to bring the greatest leverage possible to reduce unnecessary costs in the healthcare system in America.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that section 1332 does not permit States to waive preexisting condition protections, period. And I would,

again, cite the guidance from the CMS director, Ms. Seema Verma, where she states that. And that will be in the Record.

Again, I think what we are trying to do here is give States more flexibility to bring down the cost of health insurance, while following these guidelines as outlined.

As I mentioned earlier in the debate, high deductibles are pricing people out of coverage, and by that, I mean they are walking away from getting the care that they need because they can't pay for it; or they are driving up their credit card debt, wiping out their savings, they are having to take another job, they are borrowing money from others.

So, what the Trump administration is trying to do is build on what the Obama administration created, 1332 waivers, that have, frankly, been very successful in many, many States.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily opposed to his amendment, but I do think it is important to talk about the issues that really matter when it comes to affordable healthcare.

Again, when we talked about giving States the authority to innovate and to protect their citizens, we are for that. I come from a State that pioneered the Oregon Health Plan.

I was there. I created a select committee when I was the Republican majority leader of the Oregon House, when we finally got the waiver from the Federal Government after a couple of years to actually implement the Oregon Health Plan. It was very creative about how to hold down healthcare costs and expand coverage and do all those things. We have worked on a lot of different issues over the years.

What we did with the President today, I think, is really important and, that is, looked at this issue of surprise billing: If you follow all the rules, you go to a hospital that is in your network, and let's say some provider gets sick in the night and they substitute somebody else who doesn't turn out to be in your network and then, weeks later, you get an astronomical bill through no fault of your own.

There was a parent down there whose daughter had had, I think, some sort of

surgery, and the physician, on the way out, said: Oh, by the way, I want you to do just a little urine test here. We are going to run an analysis.

So she did, left, and, a period of time later, got a bill for $17,000.

Her dad is a doctor and said: How did this happen?

Well, it turned out whoever did the test was not in the network of her insurance. She didn't know.

What are you going to do? You have had whatever surgery she had, and on the way out the doctor says: Hey, by the way, give us a little sample. I just want to run a test because I have got you on this drug, and I want to make sure it is all working right.

Then a $17,000 bill arrives a couple of months later.

They were there with the President today in the Roosevelt Room at this bipartisan event. And her dad negotiated. He couldn't say what level, but it was certainly not what the insurer would have paid.

Do you know what the insurer would have paid for that, in network? A hundred bucks. He said you can probably get the test done now for $25.

A $17,000 bill arrives.

This is what is happening to Americans who have insurance, and that is why we have got to deal with the surprise billing issue. It is why we have to squeeze the juice out of the middle of the healthcare delivery system.

We do all these great innovations. And Republicans led the effort on the 21st Century Cures Act.

We met with Dr. Francis Collins yesterday, the extraordinary leader of NIH; the longest-serving President-appointed--under Obama--NIH director in the history of our country.

Because of what we put forward to dramatically increase investment in NIH--Republicans led that effort, Fred Upton, but joined with Diana DeGette, a Democrat out of Colorado, and a bunch of us--they are now finding cures.

Dr. Collins said yesterday they have identified now 6,500 genetic diseases where they now can figure out, I'll say, the misspelling of the DNA code.

Some of my colleagues may have seen on ``60 Minutes'' Dr. Collins talking about that they think they found a cure for sickle cell anemia. They found a misspelling--one letter misspelled in that big chain of DNA--that they were able to go in with our new technology--some of it is a result of what we have done collaboratively here--and change, alter, that letter.

And they have these people now that there is no evidence of sickle cell in their blood platelets.

There are 6,500 diseases that they now know the misspelling. Now they have got to figure out how to train your body, using immuno technology, to have your own cells turned on in a little different way and go after these diseases.

These are remarkable advances in lifesaving medicines and treatments.

We, I think, as a country, have to figure out how we pay for that, if each one of these is individualized.

Our system is antiquated and doesn't deal with this effectively. We are going to have to figure that out because a lifesaving cure isn't going to cure a life if people can't afford to get the medicine.

We also need to drill down on telehealth and telemedicine.

One of our colleagues today was talking about mental health services. My district is bigger than any State east of the Mississippi, unless you have to count Lake Michigan with Michigan, which, of course, you do. So telehealth really matters, and we are getting great results for our veterans and for our citizens using telehealth. But our providers don't often get paid for the service they provide over telehealth. Why? That is something we have to address.

You go one thing after another after another here, where we should be spending our valuable legislative time solving the problems that real Americans run into every day of the week: How do I pay the bill? You tell me I have insurance, and I do, and I pay a record--I don't know whose premium under ObamaCare went down $2,500 a month, but I will talk about this more.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not necessarily opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and her amendment. I don't intend to oppose her amendment, but I do want to pick up on something she said that is really important.

The gentlewoman mentioned opioids. In the last Congress, when I chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee, I helped lead the bipartisan effort to produce 60 pieces of legislation dealing with the opioid crisis, to help those who were addicted get the assistance they need, to get resources into our communities to help medical advancements to find non-opioid-related medical treatments, and to stop fentanyl from coming into our country.

I didn't get the opportunity, but I hope the President and his team will continue to raise this issue with the Chinese leadership when they come because a lot of this illicit fentanyl is being produced in China and then coming to the United States.

Dr. Burgess, who was our chair of the Subcommittee on Health and is now the top Republican, I think went up to the chairman's district in New Jersey and viewed one of the international mail processing facilities. At least, it was in New Jersey. I don't know its precise location.

Together we said, working with the Trump administration's FDA Commissioner, we have to do more at these mail processing facilities to stop fentanyl from coming in.

By the way, fentanyl is like 100 times more potent than morphine. If you had a salt shaker and put out, I don't know, 10, 15 grains of salt and ingested that, if it was fentanyl, it would kill you.

We said let's put more resources toward stopping illegal fentanyl from coming into the United States, and we are doing that now. We are beefing that up.

It comes in through Mexico as well. It is both China and Mexico. It is creating pockets of death in our communities. Especially in some of our urban areas, we have seen where it gets mixed in with heroin to give even a higher high or whatever. Then you see groups of people who take this, not knowing it has been jacked up with fentanyl, and you have a whole group that dies.

The most insidious discussion or incident I heard about was a parent who I got to know a little bit, whose daughter, he told me, self- medicated occasionally with heroin, and she died in college.

When they did the autopsy, they figured out she had been given 100 percent fentanyl. It wasn't a mix with heroin, Mr. Chair.

The tragedy of that was, he felt that her supplier knew she was an occasional user so had low tolerance and, basically, probably killed her to prove to his other buyers that he had the most potent stuff on the street.

A colleague of ours, Mr. Katko, who was a prosecutor before he came to the Congress, he and I were having a discussion on this matter. He said he prosecuted a case just like that. That is how evil this stuff is.

As we look at the whole panoply of issues about healthcare, mental health services, addiction services, stopping these things from coming in, we can find a lot of common ground.

Republicans supported protections for preexisting conditions before the ACA, during the ACA, after the ACA today. We did. Same with putting kids on your policies at 26. We agreed with those principles.

But the ObamaCare act was rammed through this House and the Senate, and we weren't even allowed to bring any of the 90-some amendments we offered to the floor. We were completely shut out of that process. It was a horrible process, and it shouldn't be repeated.

I hear a lot about how we voted to repeal it a bazillion times. Well, you know what? If you go through and dissect those votes, there were a whole bunch of Democrats that voted with us. The President at the time, President Obama, signed some of that legislation because even he admitted there were problems in the ACA.

Going forward, I hope we can address the big problem in America, which is high-cost insurance, high deductibles, but, moreover, the high cost of healthcare itself because it is pretty hard to go home and explain why things cost what they do today.

We have to get around the high cost issue. The access issue, that is where earlier I talked about telehealth and telemedicine. There is a lot of work we will do together.

Unfortunately, this is a mislabeled bill today. The laws governing 1332 waivers prohibit what the majority is concerned about. But I don't have opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment.

Look, we all care deeply about getting mental health services into our community. In fact, under Republican leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee a few years ago, we

rewrote America's mental health laws for the first time since John Kennedy signed the last bill into law before he was tragically assassinated in Texas. It was a lot of work, but it was bipartisan work.

Not only did we look at those mental health laws that were on the books, because what happens around here is somebody comes up with a new idea, so you put a new program in place, and you give an authorization. Maybe it gets funded, maybe it doesn't. A year goes by. Somebody has a new idea. Put another one on the books. Nobody ever goes back and looks at what worked and what didn't.

So our colleague, Dr. Murphy, at the time, who is a psychologist and a terrific leader in this area, really drove this review and said, look, we have to help kids with mental illness, and we need to help adults.

We could deal with a lot of the violence in America if you got people care. It is not that everybody with mental illness goes violent, but we do know that mental health services help people in every way and that the programs we had--we had a lot of them--weren't funded, weren't funded properly, or didn't work. Some worked better than others.

We had this comprehensive review in the Energy and Commerce Committee of these different programs the Federal Government has. Then we said, going forward--kind of what you are trying to do with this GAO report in a little different way--let's measure the efficacy of the programs we do have.

Let's find out what is working in our communities, and then let's get aid into our communities directly. Let's cut out the middle bureaucracy and get assistance, financial assistance into our communities.

So we passed that. That is now the law of the land. And I think last year we were able to get money into that, finally, and I hope we can do more going forward, because we know that--I am being a little sarcastic here, but it is an extraordinary finding. Guess what? Your brain and your physical body are connected. Who knew, right? And we have all known that.

So I supported the effort to get the same treatment under insurance for mental health as physical health because they are completely connected. So going forward, we have got to make sure that that bond is strengthened, not weakened, and that people continue to get help for mental health.

I am a big believer in that. I know it works. It is fascinating to see, with the whole genome project, now they can do a genetic test and figure out which mental health drug will work in your body or my body. We didn't know that before, and now they can figure out which one will actually work for you or me or whomever.

I hope we have lifted the stigma on people needing mental health services. We are just a big bag of chemicals, and things get out of balance. So I hope that we have lifted that as we did, I believe, on addiction.

There are a lot of people, and over time people evolve their views and get better understandings, and I think over time we realized that people with drug addictions--especially this came out through our opioids work--weren't necessarily criminals. They weren't to be shunned from society.

What we learned in the course of our work on opioids was, when I talked to parents whose kids had a high school football injury or something and the doctor gave them a painkiller, all of a sudden, this stuff is so addictive, a few treatments and they are hooked, and then they need more and more and more and more.

I always remember my friend Mr. Rush from the Chicago area, when we were talking about treatment for opioids, said: That is great you are doing that. When the people I represented had issues in terms of crack cocaine and all, you just called them druggies and you put them in prison.

That affected what we wrote and how we legislated, and we moved away from calling it treatment for opioids to people with substance abuse because we realized we needed to think broader as a country and as a Congress, and we did that and we changed the law. All that now is law to deal with opioids and mental health services.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don't have an objection to this amendment, but there is a lot we have done and a lot more we need to do, and I will talk about some of the things we need to do going forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I believe it is No. 5, printed in House Report 116-51.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say, in terms of this amendment, it is just trying to make the point that the bill we have before us today is not as described or labeled. In our opinion, it is more about politics and gotcha politics than it is about the underlying issue.

We know from the Department of Health and Human Services, they have made it clear in the letter from the Director who would approve these waivers that she believes that the underlying law protects people with preexisting conditions and all the other things I talked about earlier, that they can't waive that law--they cannot.

So I would enter into the Record again, Mr. Chairman, as part of my remarks, her comments about the guidance, the 2018 guidance, and where she says it does not erode ObamaCare's preexisting condition provisions. She is the one in charge of this. That is what she is saying.

But I want to talk about something else she says in this letter about premiums and the costs to people getting their insurance. She says: ``Under the PPACA''--or ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act, however you want to describe it--``we have seen dramatically higher premiums and decreased options for millions of consumers, in large part due to the law's overly prescriptive mandates and excessive Federal Government takeover of areas traditionally left under State oversight.''

She points out: ``In 2019, the average monthly premium for a benchmark plan for a family of four on HealthCare.gov is now over $1,500, which can easily exceed a family's mortgage.''

Continuing with her letter to me, she said: ``There are many areas of the country with far higher monthly premiums. For example, a of 60- year-old couple living in Grand Island, Nebraska, making $70,000 a year, will need to pay over $3,000 per month for the lowest cost silver plan available. That is almost $38,000 per year for a plan with an $11,100 deductible.''

Now, think about that, Mr. Chair. This is a couple that is making $70,000 a year. They are 60 years old. They live in Nebraska, and $3,000 a month in premiums, over $3,000, and an $11,000 deductible. That is over $48,000, and they only make $70,000 a year.

This is happening in America today. Heck, it is happening in Nebraska right now. So what we are saying is people are walking away.

She goes on to say: ``For millions of Americans, coverage this expensive is not a realistic option, and many choose to go without coverage at all. In fact, after average premiums rose by 21 percent, 1.3 million unsubsidized people walked away from the market in 2017.''

Those are the people we need to be helping. There is a lot more we need to be doing. I will put the rest of this in the Record. But I think everybody knows we are just trying make a point with this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, from a parliamentary standpoint, I was just going to withdraw the amendment, but if the gentleman wants to speak on it, I can ask unanimous consent to withdraw it after he speaks.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that it was Seema Verma who is the head of CMS who issued the guidance, so I think she is in a position to have a say about what she believes the guidance allows or doesn't.

To be clear, to quote her letter again: ``The 2018 guidance does nothing to erode the PPACA's preexisting condition provisions.'' That is what she is saying.

So I think that letter is important. She put it in writing. She has said that repeatedly, and so I take her at her word. I do. I include her letter in the Record.

Centers for Medicare &

Medicaid Services,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2019.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Walden: Thank you for your continued

interest in new state flexibility available under guidance

recently issued interpreting section 1332 of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (the 2018

guidance). Working within the limitations of the PPACA, this

2018 guidance is an important element of the Administration's

actions to expand options and lower costs for patients around

the country. I wanted to take this opportunity to set the

record straight and reaffirm this Administration's commitment

to lowering healthcare costs, increasing consumer choices,

and protecting our most vulnerable citizens, including those

who have pre-existing conditions.

To be very clear, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode

the PPACA's pre-existing condition provisions, which cannot

be waived under section 1332. Section 1332 does not permit

states to waive Public Health Service Act requirements such

as guaranteed availability and renewability of health

insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary

premiums, and the prohibition on pre-existing conditions

exclusions. Furthermore, a section 1332 waiver cannot be

approved that might otherwise undermine these requirements.

This Administration stands committed to protecting people

with pre-existing conditions.

Under the PPACA, we have seen dramatically higher premiums

and decreased options for millions of consumers, in large

part due to the law's overly prescriptive mandates and

excessive Federal government takeover of areas traditionally

under state oversight. In 2019, the average monthly premium

for a benchmark plan for a family of four on HealthCare.gov

is now over $1,500, which can easily exceed a family's

mortgage. There are many areas of the country with far higher

monthly premiums. For example, a 60-year-old couple living in

Grand Island, Nebraska, making $70,000 a year, will need to

pay over $3,000 per month for the lowest cost silver plan

available. That's almost $38,000 per year for a plan with an

$11,100 deductible. That's over half their income.

For millions of Americans, coverage this expensive is not a

realistic option, and many choose to go without coverage at

all. In fact, after average premiums rose by 21 percent, 1.3

million unsubsidized people walked away from the market in

2017, the last year the prior administration oversaw open

enrollment. While these higher premiums force some people to

go uninsured, coverage is generally not optional for people

with a pre-existing condition and so, without a subsidy,

someone with a pre-existing condition must face the full

burden of the PPACA's skyhigh premiums. This Administration

has not forgotten the people facing this hardship.

Section 1332 of the PPACA provides the discretion to

approve a section 1332 state waiver plan if the following

four statutory guardrails are met: affordability,

comprehensiveness, coverage, and federal deficit neutrality.

Section 1332 allows states to develop new healthcare programs

and solutions that would be not permissible without a section

1332 waiver.

Unfortunately, guidance issued under the prior

Administration in December 2015 (the 2015 guidance) regarding

section 1332 waivers had the effect of significantly

restricting the innovation states could pursue. The prior

Administration imposed a one-size-fits-all approach to these

waivers, making it difficult for states to address the

specific needs of their residents.

In October, the Administration issued guidance under

section 1332 of the PPACA to provide states with significant

opportunities to chart a different course for their markets

through expanded flexibility. Section 1332 and the 2018

guidance ensure that consumers who wish to retain coverage

similar to that provided under the PPACA can do so, but they

empower states to take steps to stabilize their markets and

allow more affordable coverage options that may be more

attractive to individuals and families priced out of the

current market, including people with pre-existing

conditions.

Over the past two years, this Administration has approved

seven section 1332 waivers authorizing reinsurance programs

to help fund claims for people with high healthcare costs.

These reinsurance programs provide much needed premium relief

for people in the market and, in particular, for people with

pre-existing conditions without other coverage options. These

section 1332 waivers were all approved under the prior, more

restrictive 2015 guidance. I believe, given the expanded

flexibility discussed in the 2018 guidance, states will be

able to develop additional healthcare programs and solutions

that work for their residents.

As you know, some have criticized the state flexibility

offered under the 2018 guidance, claiming that states will

pursue section 1332 waivers that undermine their own

individual market risk pools and make coverage more expensive

for their own residents with pre-existing conditions. Again,

I want to make clear that a section 1332 waiver cannot

undermine coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Moreover, any section 1332 waiver will need to carefully

account for any impact on the individual market risk pool and

guarantee that access to coverage is at least as

comprehensive and affordable as would exist without the

waiver.

So, if a state seeks to pursue the use of more affordable

options, such as catastrophic plans or short-term limited

duration plans, under a section 1332 state waiver plan, the

state must ensure access to coverage that is overall as

affordable and comprehensive for people who remain in the

individual market risk pool.

Thank you again for your shared interest in bringing down

healthcare costs and protecting our fellow Americans with

pre-existing conditions. We remain focused on improving our

nation's health care system by empowering states to innovate

and develop new solutions to expand access to affordable and

high value coverage options, and we look forward to working

with you to achieve these goals. Should you have questions,

please contact the CMS Office of Legislation.

Sincerely,

Seema Verma.

Now, Mr. Chair, I was willing to withdraw the amendment. That takes unanimous consent, and I just would attempt to do that again. I don't know if my colleague cares about that or not.

Mr. Chairman, so we can move on to the other amendments, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I just want to say that I, too, wish we were debating my legislation that I tried to offer the first of the Congress and was refused the opportunity to bring it to the floor. That would lock into statute preexisting protections for people who have preexisting conditions.

This court case is pending. We could get a ruling tomorrow. Somewhere in the last couple of months, Congress could have acted to put in statute a separate law that would be there, irrespective of the decision of the judge, or judges as it goes through its process, that could wipe out all of the ACA and could wipe out preexisting condition protections. We could do that, except their Committee on Rules put these amendments in order to debate on the floor, but not the amendment that actually protects people with preexisting conditions. So it is not my fault--we don't control of the Rules Committee--that my serious amendment about protecting people with preexisting conditions was not made in order. I don't control the Rules Committee. The Speaker does, and others.

When we talk about affordability, remember the example that Seema Verma points out, in Grand Island, Nebraska, a couple making $60,000 a year, 60 years old, $38,000 for the plan, and $11,000 deductible. How is that affordable? It is not.

I want our States to innovate. Do you know what, if a State doesn't want to innovate, it doesn't have to. And if they violate the rules, they are not going to get their waiver.

But what we do know is that when States have innovated, like mine, like the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Alaska, they have seen reductions in premiums and full-throated coverage. I want innovation. I don't want to price people out of the market.

Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I would like to point out a couple of things.

One, I have introduced legislation to protect people with preexisting conditions. I did that because I knew this lawsuit is pending. We can argue about the ACA and the lawsuit and all that, but the long and short of it is that if the court rules the ACA gets thrown out as unconstitutional, which may happen, people with preexisting conditions would be exposed, and I don't want that to happen. That is why I introduced legislation.

I would be honored if we could take that up in the Energy and Commerce Committee that I used to chair and put it on the House floor. I tried to bring it here as an amendment and it was denied by the Democrat majority, so we can't even have a debate here about it. If it is not everything it should be, then I am happy to work with people to try and make it as durable and robust as it needs to be. So that is one.

When we talk about insurance--and there is kind of silence on the other side--2.5 million Americans since President Trump have gotten healthcare insurance through their employer. We have one of the most robust economies most Americans have ever seen: 3.2 percent, I think, GDP growth the first quarter. Some have said, you need fairy dust to do that. Well, that is not true. You need good economic policy. We have that in America: the lowest unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, all Americans. Incredible numbers, incredible growth. As a result, people are getting off government subsidized healthcare, or fully funded healthcare, onto private health insurance, which Democrats want to wipe out. One hundred and fifty-eight million Americans get their health insurance through their employer or through their union.

And when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, that is what put in place the big cuts that are coming to our hospitals, the DSH cuts, that I held off as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We passed legislation to prevent the DSH cuts from hitting our disproportionate share of hospitals, those that deal with more lower income folks. We are going to have to do that again. Because ObamaCare says you got to hit your hospital with a big cost increase, if you will, or take away a subsidy.

The Cadillac tax. I met with building trade folks in my State. These people bargained away, potentially, wages for better benefits. And then along comes ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, that says: Oh, by the way, if you have got too generous a plan, according to the government, you are going to have to pay a 40 percent tax on that plan. And, by the way, it was never indexed for inflation. And guess what, healthcare costs continue to go up and premiums go up.

More and more Americans' health insurance is going to fall into this so-called Cadillac tax. There will be a 40 percent tax on those plans. The working men and women, who are part of a union or in the private sector and who have good, generous healthcare benefits, the Federal Government, the Democrat-driven plan that is totally partisan passed, it says, we are going to whack you with a 40 percent tax. How fair is that, Madam Chair? I don't think it is. We have kept that tax from taking effect as Republicans. We will see what this Congress does.

But, moreover, we fully funded our community health centers. We, under Republicans, funded the children's health insurance program, a Republican creation, for a decade. I led that

effort. Most Democrats consistently voted against funding children's health insurance time and time again. It had never been funded for more than 5 years ever in its history. One hundred and twenty-two thousand, seven hundred Oregonian kids and pregnant moms get their health insurance through CHIP. It is a marvelous program. Republicans led the effort, because I did it. We first tried to get 5, then 6, and then eventually we got 10 years funded. That is locked into law.

We need to go back and fund our community health centers. I told people that if I were chairman, my palms would be getting a little sweaty now at the list of things we need to get done--I am looking at my friends.

In Oregon, in my district, I think we had 63 delivery sites and 12 community health centers. We fully funded those centers at a record level in the last Congress, because I believe fully in that network of the delivery of healthcare. It is extraordinarily important. We should be doing that today, but we are not.

We have got the National Health Service Corps, special diabetes programs for Indians, special diabetes programs for type I diabetes, teaching health centers, personal responsibility education programs, sexual risk avoidance education grants, and family-to-family health information centers. We have demo programs, increased access to dental healthcare services, and delay in authority to terminate contracts for Medicare Advantage plans. We have protection for recipients of HCBS against spousal impoverishment. We have demonstration of approved community behavioral health clinics, Medicaid funding for territories, delay in effective date for Medicaid amendments related to beneficiary liability settlements, DSH allotment, and money follows the person. All those expire at the end of this fiscal year. We have real work we need to get done, Madam Chair.

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

Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Actually, I believe I get to close, don't I?

That is what I thought.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Section 1332 already requires that the State plan will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the essential health benefits, including mental health and substance use disorder services. That is already required, including behavioral health treatment, and would provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents. That is already in the 1332 requirements.

I appreciate the gentleman's passion for dealing with the opioid epidemic. I led the effort that brought together Republicans and Democrats. We passed 60 different pieces of legislation. I think 57 of them, by the time we were done working together, passed unanimously in this House.

We bundled them up into H.R. 6 because we all know the Senate can't handle 57 or 60 different pieces of legislation, but they could handle one. The work we did here and the work they did there ended up in, I would argue, the Nation's most comprehensive legislation to address a drug problem our country has ever had. And that is our law.

The President of the United States, who was just disparaged here on the House floor, helped lead this effort because he passionately cares about the issue of addiction. He lost a brother, I believe, to alcoholism.

He was a leader, and his team were leaders, in this effort we put together on opioids. He invited Republicans and Democrats to the White House for the bill signing. Mrs. Trump helped organize all of that.

This legislation is comprehensive on opioids. It wasn't part of the ACA. You see, we can work together and improve underlying laws. We can address major problems facing the country when majorities want to do that. We did it last Congress under my leadership, and it was Republicans and Democrats. We didn't start out agreeing on some of these matters, but we ended up there, with just a couple of exceptions.

I sent my friend, Madam Chair, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee today, a comprehensive list of kind of what we learned in the final phase of our investigation into how America ended up in the place it was with opioids. There are some additional recommendations that I hope and assume we will get to out of that investigative report that we concluded at the end of the year. Hopefully, we will get there.

I believe we need to do oversight on the legislation we passed. I have always felt that about bills we passed. We need to go take a second look.

What is working? What is not? We are not going to get it right the first time, and we always know there is more to do, and we need to do more on what was H.R. 6 in the last Congress, our opioids legislation.

Madam Chair, I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and you have to say you are in order to get the time, I guess, but I am not.

I am fully committed to making sure that people with substance abuse disorders continue to get the help they need in our communities. That is what our whole legislative thrust was about last Congress and will remain there. As I say, section 1332 already requires that in these plans.

Again, remember what we are talking about here is States coming to the Federal Government saying: We have a

better idea to fill a gap, so people have affordable insurance. That is what a waiver is under 1332. And, I guess, I have more confidence in my State than others must have in theirs, but I think from my own experience, Republicans and Democrats work together in Oregon to get health insurance out, and coverage out, and expand access to care. I have always continued to try to do that.

I have faith that my State would do this. These plans we will hear more about next week, but they are regulated by State insurance commissioners. I am not in the school that says all of those people are bad and we are the only ones with a great idea. I want innovation. I want it from the States, and I want to drive down costs of healthcare while improving access and delivery of services.

So I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I do hope we can address these issues of fully funding our community health centers, our National Health Service Corps, and these diabetes programs which we reauthorized and funded in the last Congress, and which we need to do again. They are called the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and Special Diabetes Program for type 1 diabetes.

We have got to get after that, too, Madam Chair. We have to find the money to do it. It is not easy. I know we have a lot of other things. I just wish we were doing those sorts of the things today because these programs expire in September, and we don't have that many legislative days left.

Hopefully, we can move on to the things I know we can agree on and find solutions for, and that we do it sooner rather than later.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, but I am happy to speak on it.

Again, section 1332 already requires that the State plan, the one they submit, will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the essential health benefits, including mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, and will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I just want to go back to what is going on in America's healthcare costs and look at some of what is going on elsewhere around the world.

First of all, I would draw the Member's attention to the Kaiser Foundation report that Axios reported on about people who have health insurance and still can't afford to use it. They talked about just over half of those with employer coverage have some sort of chronic disease, so they have health insurance. But the deductibles which are at $3,000 to $5,000 are so high that three-quarters of the people reported skipping or postponing some type of care. Half, 49 percent, said that a family member had a problem paying medical bills or difficulty affording their premiums, deductibles, or copays in the last year.

What we are trying to do is help those people in the individual market, and we would love to help those people in the market that employer-provided health insurance is in as well, and put downward pressure on pricing, and go after the cost of healthcare from one end to the other.

Now, the gentleman from California, I believe, has talked about going to a, I guess, government-run, single-payer system. I have got two veterans that work virtually full time helping veterans in Oregon's Second District get access to a similar sort of system. You know of it as the VA. Think about the problems we have with that government-run, single, sort of, payer-operated system.

If you get in, I have veterans saying: It is great. I have got coverage. But it is people who have to wait 6 months to get eyeglasses at one point, or they can't get in to get their surgery done. And we are working with thousands of veterans that have to come to their Member of Congress to be able to get access to the healthcare they were promised when they put on the Nation's uniform.

We have that system in place, and it has incredible problems in wait time, so I had to create the Choice Program and everything else.

Then I was intrigued by a story about a woman in Nova Scotia who is 33 years old. She is under one of those systems my friend wants for us, I guess. After three trips to the emergency room, they just never would believe her and her problem and see her, and she couldn't get access to doctors. When she finally did, her anal cancer had progressed to stage

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I do not oppose this amendment because this amendment does not do anything the law already, I think, requires.

Section 1332 does not permit States to waive preexisting condition protections. Section 1332 already requires that the State plan will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the essential health benefits and will provide coverage and cost-sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending. That is what the underlying law already does.

We have the assurance from the CMS Administrator saying, once again, to be clear: ``The 2018 guidance does nothing to erode the PPACA's preexisting condition provisions, which cannot be waived under section 1332.''

She is the one who makes the decision.

By the way, I would just point out that no State has come to the Trump administration under this new authority that we are aware of and said: ``Please approve our plan.''

Junk plans--and we will hear more about that term of art. By the way, those junk plans were allowed for under the Obama administration and under the ACA. At that time, they were only allowed for 3 months. There seemed to be a lot of interest in a variety of options for citizens to take advantage of that covered their needs.

So the Trump administration said, well, if they are good for 3 months, what if we extend them to 12 months or just at 12 months? That is what they did. They were junk plans under Trump; they were wonderful options under Obama. It is the same set of plans.

You can always go on the exchange, and you can always find other coverage that fits your need. We are trying to not have just one plan that nobody can afford. That is what you are seeing in this situation that Ms. Seema Verma put forward, Madam Chair, the head of the CMS, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

She uses, as an example, this situation in Grand Island, Nebraska. It is not Oregon; it is Nebraska. A $70,000-a-year, 60-year-old couple are paying $38,000 a year for their insurance with an $11,100 deductible. Now, how is that affordable? Does anybody in here think that is a great idea?

That is what you are saying: Don't innovate. We have got it covered. The ACA has it covered. There is no need for innovation here, nothing to see. The plan works great.

Then we know, from the Kaiser Foundation study, people are saying: I can't afford it. So I will jack up my credit card, and I will wipe out my savings.

All this is going on. The ACA did not solve every problem. It expanded coverage. You can't help but do that, spend that much money. States like mine took full advantage of it. But we are left with these pockets and problems in America that I think States could assist us in if we gave them expanded authority under 1332 waivers to say: Hey, guess what, Washington? We have a better idea here. Here it is. Take a look at it, and make sure it fits the Federal guidelines and law, but let us innovate.

Oregon did that. Under the prior 1332 approval process, insurance rates went down 6 percent; Wisconsin down 10.6; New Jersey, 15; Maryland, 43; Maine, 9.4; Minnesota, 20; Alaska, 34.7. Using this sort of ``Mother May I'' approval, that is what you have to do.

I remember when Oregon did the Oregon health plan. I was in the State legislature then, and we had to plead and beg with the administration at the time to get approval to try and experiment on Medicaid coverage to expand coverage and improve access to care. We couldn't do it without Mother Washington, Father Washington, or Brother Washington, whoever, back here, saying: Yeah, okay. We will let you try that.

We should be in partnerships with our States.

By the way, States can pass a law and say: We are not going down this path. They have every right to do it. New Jersey has done it, and California has done it: None of these short-term duration plans, we are not going to be a part of that.

Every State has that right. But there are a lot of States that look at their citizens and say: $38,000 a year for your insurance and $11,000 for your deductible; you are making $70,000; you are 60 years old. That is not working real well either. So maybe we can find a product that would work for you and help you out.

So we are talking about a range of options and choices. America has always done well and markets do better when we have more choices. That is what we are talking about here.

The gentleman's amendment I don't object to at all. I think it is the underlying law as described by the head of the Department who would have to approve all these 1332 waivers.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, let's talk about this amendment.

I have talked earlier about all the things that need to be reauthorized--community health centers, special diabetes programs, all of that which I know the committee is aware of and I hope we begin marking. I wish we were dealing with that today.

I heard from the gentlewoman about Republicans and preexisting conditions and ``Where is your plan?'' It is sitting up in the Rules Committee because your party would not allow my amendment to do that and to be brought to the floor for debate today. I don't control the Rules Committee. It is 2 to 1 by the majority. It is just the way it works around here, and I respect that.

But you allowed my amendments that were more in jest about the false nature of the title of the bill to be debated but not the substantive amendment I offered which does protect people with preexisting conditions in case the lawsuit were to prevail and ObamaCare is thrown out. But, no, we couldn't have that debate.

I have asked for my bill to be considered in the committee of jurisdiction. That hasn't happened either.

I have also asked for the Democrats' one-size-fits-all takeover of healthcare, Medicare for All, however you want to describe it, that we have a hearing in Energy and Commerce. That hasn't happened either. We are the committee of jurisdiction.

You talk about working people. It is ObamaCare that puts a 40 percent tax on union plans and employer plans that exceed a certain level of costs, and they don't index it. Now, I don't know where the gentlewoman is on the Cadillac tax, but I want to repeal it. I never voted for it.

So, if they want to enshrine the Affordable Care Act in its entirety and make no changes, then I guess they are for a 40 percent tax on the kind of insurance plans that my building tradespeople negotiated to get--and other unions--instead of getting wage increases.

We have delayed that.

And when we look at the cuts in the Affordable Care Act coming at our hospitals in rural areas that serve lower-income areas, the DSH payments, we put off those cuts to our hospitals--last cycle--under Republican leadership. And we are going to face that question in this Congress under Democrat leadership.

So, a vote to delay those DSH cuts again--if one does that--is voting to repeal or delay part of ObamaCare.

I hear 60, 70 votes to do these things to ObamaCare--repeal the CLASS Act, which was a long-term health insurance program that was destined for failure, and even President Obama signed its repeal.

I can go through a whole list of things that got repealed. We are the only ones who ever get tagged with voting to repeal.

As far as our commitment to preexisting conditions protection: It is real, it is robust, and it was always in everything we did.

Yeah, I know what the political rhetoric was. I have run campaigns. I have been around that. I know how you can nuance around. But we always protected people with preexisting conditions--always, period, hard stop. Protected people with preexisting conditions, in what came out of my committee and came across this House floor, they were always covered--always.

So I hear the political rhetoric, but I know the facts. See, I am an old journalism major, and I believe in facts.

The facts of the matter are that 1332 waivers have given our States an opportunity to give our citizens an affordable health insurance plan, not one that I guess they will defend--$38,000 a year in premiums, $11,000 a year in deductibles, copays, out-of-pocket costs.

How is that working for anybody?

And shouldn't that 60-year-old couple in Nebraska have a chance to have a better plan option? Nope, guess not. Washington is going to decide it all for you. Write your check: 38 grand. That is for the premiums. And $11,000 in out-of-pocket costs, your deductibles. Then maybe you can get something covered, right?

Well, what is left? We know from this Kaiser study I have cited earlier that was in Axios: People wipe out their savings. They put it on their credit cards. They borrow from their friends. Or they simply don't get coverage.

That is the world they want to freeze-frame and leave in place. That is not what the Republicans are for. We want innovation. We want choice. We believe in our States having the opportunity to innovate and do it even better, not to go back to the old ways. No. That is not what we are for. I know that is what Democrats want to label us as being for, but it is not true.

And we have proven results in opioids; Community Health Centers; the longest funding for Children's Health Insurance Program in the history of the United States of America, under Republican leadership--10 years.

We are the ones, Republicans, who led the effort to invest in medical research at unprecedented rates under

what Fred Upton put forward and what Newt Gingrich put forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Oh, yes, I am, Madam Speaker, in its current form.

Madam Speaker, this bill is blatantly political in its title. The misleading title of the bill confirms the Democratic majority's passion to score political points instead of governing. Madam Speaker, they claim the agenda is ``for the people.'' This bill is ``for the politics'' and the TV ads.

This motion to recommit is simple, Madam Speaker. First, it strikes the Democrats' misleading title, and it includes findings to make clear that, under current law, Health and Human Services cannot waive protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, period. They are protected.

Second, Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit would prohibit the Secretaries of HHS and Treasury from reissuing substantially similar guidance, including guidance that allows the State to waive guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions.

Madam Speaker, the Trump administration guidance does not amend section 1332. It does not permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, like guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, like the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions.

Moreover, the President's guidance stipulates that any section 1332 waiver will need to carefully account for any impact on the individual market risk pool and guarantee--guarantee--that access to coverage is at least as comprehensive and as affordable as would exist without the waiver.

Now, this is fully explained, Madam Speaker, in the letter I have here from the head of CMS, Seema Verma, and I want to quote directly from it because I think it is important for our Members to understand the facts of the matter here, because facts matter.

``To be very clear, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode,'' I am going to say ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act's ``preexisting condition provisions''--nothing--``which cannot be waived under section 1332. Section 1332 does not permit States to waive Public Health Service Act requirements such as guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions.''

Now why are we here? Why are we having this discussion? Because people at home can't afford the health insurance they are being peddled, and we want States to be able to innovate and cut costs for consumers. That is why we are here. That is what we are for.

Democrats don't want that. Democrats are opposed to letting States innovate, apparently. And let's look at what happens.

Madam Speaker, according to Health and Human Services Administrator Seema Verma, Grand Island, Nebraska, a 60-year-old couple making $70,000 a year is paying about $38,000 for their insurance premiums, and that plan, under ObamaCare, gets them an $11,100 deductible.

$38,000 in premiums, $11,000 in deductibles, and they call that coverage. I call that unaffordable.

Now, meanwhile, we have seven States that have used the authority under the last administration. See, ObamaCare allows this 1332; Trump expands it. They have been able to drive down premiums by 19.9 percent. My State, it is 6 percent; other States have been more. Alaska, New Jersey, other States have taken advantage of this.

Republicans and Democrats agree we will always protect people with preexisting conditions. We will always do that. They can run their ads; they can deceive people; they can mislead people, Madam Speaker; but we will always fight to protect people with preexisting conditions-- always. Our plan last year did it. Our plan this year does it.

I will tell you what, Madam Speaker. We would have a vote today on the House floor to do that, to actually enshrine in statute, irrespective of the lawsuit, protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, except the Democrats and the Rules Committee refuse to allow that amendment to be considered on the House floor. They would not do that, because it was my amendment; it is my bill.

I have been pleading to have this bill considered so we can lock into statute protections for Americans' preexisting conditions. They want the argument. They want the politics. They don't want the policy.

We are for innovation; we are for lower premiums; we are for more consumer choice; and we are for driving down the cost of healthcare in America so people have coverage they can afford, Madam Chair. That is what our motion to recommit will do, and I urge our support.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, clearly, today is, unfortunately, more about the politics of climate change than actually rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on American solutions.

Climate change is real, but addressing climate change should not involve binding ourselves to international agreements that put United States workers and jobs at a disadvantage to our main competitors around the world and with no regard to the cost for American consumers and ratepayers.

We should have a serious, solutions-oriented discussion about how to address climate change risks through

American innovation, American conservation, and preparation.

But we all know that long-term, sustainable policy is best developed through a thoughtful, logical, and strong bipartisan process. That is the approach we have taken over the last several Congresses as Republicans and one I think we should continue in this Congress.

In fact, in the last Congress, Republicans worked with Democrats to remove regulatory barriers to new technological advances in power generation, from hydropower to small modular nuclear, from tax policies that actually encourage carbon capture and storage to reforms of the Nation's electric grid.

There are many bipartisan policies Congress could further pursue to accelerate innovation and to create industrial, electrical, and technological infrastructure that actually will enable cleaner energy systems for the future; such as, furthering advanced nuclear reactor technologies, easing the permitting of clean-energy infrastructure, and modernizing our electric grid.

We need to do all of those, Mr. Chairman.

We can also look to better management of our Federal forests to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which choke the communities, like those in my home State of Oregon, with smoke and fill our atmosphere with untold pollutants.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that sustainably managing our Federal forests--in fact, all forests--will create the longest sustained carbon mitigation benefit. Those are the findings of the U.N. IPCC.

But H.R. 9, it just does not represent that kind of bipartisan policy that we should be considering today. This bill is being considered, frankly, without the benefit of regular order in any committee of jurisdiction. It has no companion in the United States Senate.

H.R. 9 represents the Democrats' reflexive response to the President's June 1, 2017, announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Now, the Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made without a clear plan to even meet those provisions, without a full view of the costs to American consumers, and certainly without a strategy that had broad bipartisan support from Congress.

Further, H.R. 9's unquestioning focus on U.S. domestic action ignores the evidence that the bulk of the future global emissions growth will be in China, it will be in India and the rest of the developing world.

If implemented, it would lock in the United States to expensive commitments that will harm consumers; our communities; and, frankly, our economic security.

Republicans offered a number of amendments to debate these matters, but, unfortunately, most of those amendments were rejected by Democrats.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about reducing emissions and addressing other climate change risks, and doing so quickly, they would acknowledge the reality of global energy needs. They would acknowledge that the United States is reducing greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and through technological development, frankly, better than any country on the planet.

That is what we are doing as Americans. That is what we do. We innovate. We lead. And we are doing that in emissions reduction; we are doing that with new energy technologies; and that is where we should be focused as a Congress to incentivize those going forward.

Now, instead of spending a week of precious legislative time talking about a bill that, frankly, has little teeth, will never move in the Senate, would get vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk, we could be legislating on how to ease the overly burdensome hydropower licensing process.

The Northwest is a great place for hydroelectricity. We know a lot about it, and it has zero carbon emissions.

Or we could be passing bills that support nuclear energy. You look at the small modular nuclear technologies that are on the cusp of an energy future for baseload power, and you understand just what that could be, with no emissions.

We could either do that through licensing reform or through these advanced technologies.

Let's focus on the new technology necessary for future energy systems, for future transportation systems, for advances in manufacturing and industry to emit fewer greenhouse gases. That is what we should be doing.

Let's work together on the bills that are going to lead to ribbon- cutting ceremonies for new energy infrastructure or to an American getting a new, well-paid job in the energy industry.

That infrastructure could be a wind farm. It could be a natural gas pipeline. That new job could be as a solar installer, or it could be a nuclear engineer.

I am not talking about picking winners and losers here when it comes to energy, the environment, or the climate. I am talking about unleashing American innovators to do what they do best, and that is develop new and better technologies that benefit consumers, benefit the environment, and benefit the good, old United States of America.

So we should reject H.R. 9 and focus on realistic solutions to prepare for the future and on policies that work for the American public.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a very important member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) to speak on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I don't believe we have any other speakers on our side, so I will conclude my comments and then be happy to hear from the chairman of the committee.

I think we have had a good debate here, a thorough debate, and at the end of the day, it is important to remember America is actually leading, through new innovation and technology in the energy sector, the reduction in emissions. Again, we are leading as a country.

You look at other countries, competitors of ours like China, wouldn't have to begin making reductions until 2030, so they can keep adding emissions-spewing power plants. They could do all kinds of things until 2030. Meanwhile, we are supposed to shut down our economy in a lot of ways if you go down certain paths.

We don't think we should take that bargain. We don't think we have to take that bargain. Instead, Republicans believe we should continue to rely on our great innovators in America to develop even new technologies to reduce emissions and produce power like we have done in the energy sector, as my friend from Texas described.

And like my friend from Arizona described, there are companies around

the world that are figuring out how to remove carbon from the atmosphere and use it for another purpose. Republicans led the effort on tax credits to say let's incent you to put carbon into other use or into the ground, and we will even give you a bigger incentive to put it in the ground.

We should be doing more in the area of advanced battery research, like is being done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory across the river from Oregon, and get to where we can harness the renewable intermittent power sources to more firm power; and the same with streamlining hydro, with pump storage.

There is a lot we can do working together to make sure we have a safe, secure, reliable grid that is adequate to make all this seamlessly work together because, at the end of the day, we want to make sure we don't have riots in the streets because you have driven up costs too high, like they are having in France today. We want to make sure that we are creating the jobs and technology here, because if somebody is going to lead this effort internationally, it should be us.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is going nowhere after this vote today, and I would urge opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the one World War II veteran and twenty-four Korean War veterans from Oregon who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall on Thursday, May 2, 2019, through Honor Flight of Central Oregon. Every time I have the chance to meet one of these heroes, I am reminded of the poignant words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a message to Allied troops just before D-Day, he said, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.''

He was right then, of course, Madam Speaker. But over seventy years later, liberty-loving people everywhere continue to owe these heroes for their extraordinary service and their incredible stories of sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. That's why it is my privilege to enter their names into the Congressional Record today.

The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: Norman Coffelt, Army; Charles Cole, Navy; Stanley Cunningham, Navy; Ralph Emerson, Jr., Army National Guard; Leonard Glenn, Jr., Navy; Robert Gordon, Air Force; Dean Griffin, Air Force; Robert Hall, Army; Emmitt Hussey, Navy; Glenn Hutchinson, Jr., Navy; Raymond Kjolso, Navy; Melvin Lemmon, Air Force; Harold Marken, Army; Joe Martin, Air Force; Ronald Miller, Navy; Rolf Moller, Coast Guard; Philip Murphy, Army; Barbara Murphy, Army; Vernon Nance, Navy; Richard Reeve, Army; Kenneth Stevens, Army; Gene Todd, Air Force; Donald Van Cleve, Jr., Marine Corp; James Walker, Navy; and Ervin Wesenberg, Navy.

These twenty-five heroes join over 200,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005.

I would also like to recognize the eight guardians traveling on this trip who have also served our country: Gregory Cole, Navy; Clinton McAuliffe, Jr., Navy; Aidan McGowan, Army National Guard; Kelly Nance, Army; Dane Prevatt, Marine Corp; Vaughn Robinson, Army National Guard; Colben Sime, Jr., Marine Corp; and Darrell Walz, Army.

Madam Speaker, at the height of the Civil War in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``Honor to the Soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause.'' Each of us in this chamber and in this nation should be humbled by the courage of these brave veterans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Central Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Rudy Dory who is a great Oregonian and this year's recipient of the National Grocers Association's Clarence G. Adamy Great American Award.

Established in 1982, this award is presented to an individual or a company whose leadership in the food industry best exemplifies active and effective participation in government relations as a citizen and industry representative.

Rudy Dory is the executive chairman of Newport Avenue Market, which is an employee-owned, independent grocery store in Bend, Oregon, in my district, and I had the pleasure to get a full tour from Rudy of Newport Avenue Market in Bend just last August.

He has been in the grocery industry for 40 years. He has helped Newport Avenue Market through its migration from a traditional store to the award-winning, employee-owned, specialty grocery store it is today.

Rudy is a tireless advocate of the independent supermarket industry and advocates in support of a public policy agenda that benefits Main Street grocers throughout the Nation.

Local grocers like Rudy help job growth, support Oregon's producers, and help feed our communities.

So please join me in congratulating Rudy Dory on receiving this prestigious award, and working on behalf of not only Newport Avenue Market, but for all businesses and independent grocers across the country.