Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the outstanding career of Ms. Sonya Lail. This spring, she is retiring from her position as principal of Flower Mound High School, where she has served in multiple leadership positions for the past 17 years.

Ms. Lail grew up in El Paso, Texas, where she was inspired by one of her teachers to become an educator. She went on to pursue her Bachelors of Science degree in education from the University of Texas at El Paso, and achieved master's degrees from Texas Tech University and Sul Ross State University.

In 2002, Ms. Lail joined Flower Mound High School as an assistant principal, a position in which she served for five years, and served as an associate principal for another four years. She has led FMHS as its principal for the last eight years. From day one, Ms. Lail has been a dedicated leader and educator, working to help each student meet his or her full potential.

After nearly two decades of service to Flower Mound High School, Ms. Lail will be sorely missed by the entire Jaguar community. I am grateful for her total of thirty-three years in education and public service, and I wish Ms. Lail every continued success in her well-earned retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Wendy Seeliger-Dietschweiler, who recently was recognized by the DFW World Affairs Council as ``2019 International Educator of the Year.'' Ms. Seeliger-Dietschweiler is the Social Studies Chairwoman at Lewisville High School--Harmon Campus, where she currently teaches Advanced Placement World History, 10th Grade World History, and ESL World Geography. She also serves as the faculty sponsor of the school's Junior World Affairs Council.

Ms. Seeliger-Dietschweiler has been an educator for the past 22 years. She received her Bachelors of Arts degree at the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Arts in Public Administration from Webster University. She also has earned a certification in Education Administration.

This teacher takes great pride in leading her students by example. Ms. Seeliger-Dietschweiler is an active volunteer in her community and encourages her students to do the same. Her community service includes participation in many organizations, including the Lewisville Lions Club, Keep Lewisville Beautiful, and Texas Refugee Services. Previously, she served as a Peace Corps volunteer and taught English in China.

I congratulate Ms. Wendy Seeliger-Dietschweiler for winning this prestigious award, and I am grateful for her dedication to her students and our North Texas community.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the Flower Mound High School Boys Soccer Team for winning the school's first Texas UIL 6A State Soccer Championship. Coach David Doyle led the Jaguars through a remarkable season, and I congratulate all players and coaches for reaching this goal.

In winning the state championship, the students have demonstrated teamwork, dedication, and perseverance. This year, the FMHS Boys Soccer Team has elevated the bar for future student athletes. Its seniors are leaving an impressive legacy for their school and the Flower Mound community.

The team earned the nickname ``Cardiac Jags'' for their hard-fought championship run. The championship game ended only after 100 scoreless minutes, when Brock Clayton delivered the game-winning shot in a 4-1 penalty kick shootout win against San Antonio L.E.E. Goalie Landon Leach was named the state championship game MVP for making a penalty kick save in regulation and a second save in the final shootout.

It is a privilege to represent Flower Mound High School in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am glad to join the students' family, friends, and North Texas community to celebrate the 2019 Flower Mound High School Boys Soccer Team's achievements, and I wish them every continued success.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the cast and crew of Central High School's production of Euripides' Medea, which won the 2019 Texas UIL Class 6A State One-Act Play Championship.

This is the first time that Central High School has won the State One-Act Play Championship, a remarkable artistic accomplishment, in school history. This victory was a team effort, and all members of the cast and crew have rightfully earned this honor.

I also congratulate Ms. Renee Powell for earning a spot on the State All-Star Cast and Mr. Jose Gonzalez for earning an Honorable Mention. This recognition of their talent and dedication is well-deserved.

I am glad to join the entire Keller ISD community in celebrating the success of these students, and I wish them every continued success in their academic and professional endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 987.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Democrats are using bipartisan drug pricing bills to pay for partisan politics.

Look, these bills are proof that we can work together across the aisle and do what is best for constituents. Unfortunately, as The Washington Post so eloquently said yesterday in ``The Health 202,'' ``Democrats are putting a political pothole in the way of bipartisan drug pricing bills.''

The Democrats have decided to use $5 billion in savings to fund State-based ACA marketplaces, the federally facilitated marketplace navigator program.

This morning, a publication called STAT published an article titled, ``In Washington, a partisan approach to lowering drug costs leaves Democrats doubting their own party leadership.''

As this article reported, even House Democrats do not understand why the Speaker of the House and party leadership have decided to politicize bipartisan bills that enjoy widespread support.

The chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee is on record as saying she was ``not a fan of what happened.''

Republicans stand ready to work on solutions. Congressman Mark Meadows, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told STAT that the Democrats' political stunt is a wasted political opportunity.

He continued, ``You have got the chairman of the Freedom Caucus willing to work with Democrats on making real, structural reforms on prescription drug prices. And what do they do? They put a poison pill in, trying to augment a failing healthcare-delivery system.''

I ask my friends on the other side of the dais, why are you intent on tanking good legislation that can deliver real results for real people? You say you want to lower drug prices, but your actions speak loudly otherwise.

Fortunately, I am not just here to complain. I also have a solution to the scenario we are facing on the floor today.

On Tuesday night at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would take these three drug policies and the $5 billion in savings from those policies, and I introduced H.R. 2700, the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities Act.

H.R. 2700 couples the bipartisan drug pricing policies with reauthorization programs, such as Community Health Centers and Special Diabetes Programs.

Look, reauthorizations are tough. I know. I was chairman of the Health Subcommittee in the last Congress. September seems like a long way away. Many of these programs expire at the end of the fiscal year, but the time to get these things done is now.

We have taken no specific action toward reauthorization of these programs. Again, September seems far away, but we have to account for the time it takes to move through regular order.

On the other issues that we are facing today, the short-term, limited duration rule repeal, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the policy to repeal the Trump administration's short-term, limited duration insurance rule would result in 500,000 individuals becoming uninsured.

Is this what you want? Isn't it better that people have some form of insurance than none at all?

I take meetings in my office back home in my district with families that cannot afford the high premium, high deductible plans that they have been forced to buy off the ACA exchange. These individuals need lower cost options, and that is exactly what these limited duration plans provide.

States already regulate these plans and have the authority to disallow them at the State level, if they so choose. This is a case for federalism.

I want to quote from the Congressional Budget Office report: ``CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would result in roughly 1.5 million fewer people'' participating in insurance plans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Of those, more than 500,000 would instead participate in nongroup coverage through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, and 500,000 would become uninsured.

The drug policies contained in both H.R. 987 and my bill, H.R. 2700, are commonsense bipartisan measures to lower drug prices for our constituents. I am disappointed they have been rolled into a partisan package that will be dead on arrival in the Senate.

We were able to work together in the committee and subcommittee to ensure these policies would improve access to generics for American patients. I hope the Democratic leadership would consider the bipartisan nature of the policies when moving the packages to the floor in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

The fact is, there was a hearing on this one-size-fits-all government takeover, top-down, Soviet-style healthcare system that has been proposed by the other side of the aisle.

And yet, that bill was not heard in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It wasn't heard in the Ways and Means Committee. It was heard in the Rules Committee, the Speaker's committee.

This is a high priority for the Speaker. This bill was heard in the Speaker's committee. That tells me that this is something that is highly likely to come forward. Unfortunately, it is just not a very good plan.

And the gentleman is right, doctors would be required to take a significant reduction.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think the kindest thing I can say about this amendment is it should not be necessary.

Just a brief review of the history of mental health parity as it relates to our healthcare system, of course, those of us who were here in Congress the day after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was declared in September 2008 will recall that Patrick Kennedy's bill dealing with mental health parity was used as the vehicle to provide the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which followed in the wake of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

So mental health parity was actually written into law in 2008, signed by George W. Bush. That was 2 years prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

So the Affordable Care Act comes along. The essential health benefits were eventually disclosed in the Affordable Care Act in November 2012, about a week after election day, if I recall correctly.

The mental health parity rules were not written by the Department of Health and Human Services until probably 2 years after that, but they were written under Secretary Sebelius. As a consequence, those have been the rules of the road ever since.

I guess what I don't quite understand is why the navigator system constructed under the Affordable Care Act was not constructed in a way that would have allowed this information to be part of the package of information that is disclosed by the navigators.

Perhaps had we had a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee dealing with this, it might have been instructive when we did the 10- year reauthorization of the State Children's

Health Insurance Program a little over a year ago. The parity language was, in fact, included at the request of a Democratic member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The parity language was included in the rewriting of the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

But my recollection was, in the navigator program, this should have been part of the basic information offered by the navigators.

I guess, to sum up, I do not understand why it would now take an act of Congress to get them to do what they were required to do upon the signing of the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, the gentleman is correct. And, in fact, if the gentleman will recall, that in our committee work on these bills dealing with the Affordable Care Act, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health actually had this as a stand-alone bill.

It was not considered when we did the markup on the other four bills. For some reason, it fell off the list that day. I don't know why. I wasn't consulted, and I wasn't advised. But it was offered as one of the amendments up in the Rules Committee, again, by a Democratic member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health, but the amendment was not made in order.

And, again, I don't know why. I was not part of the discussion of the majority that decided which amendments were going to come to the floor.

It was perhaps a little surprising, because a majority of the amendments that were made in order were Democratic amendments. And, again, this was a Democratic amendment.

I think the ranking member of the full committee and I agree, that this is precisely the type of situation where you would want the purchaser to have complete knowledge of what they were buying. And the State Commissioner of Insurance, I know in my State in Texas, is very clear about that. On the website of the State of Texas, you need to know what you are buying.

This would be one of those cases where that disclosure, in fact, would be extremely helpful to the family that is

trying to make a decision. Because, look, why is someone looking at buying a limited-duration plan? They are looking at buying a limited- duration plan because they can't afford what is being sold on healthcare.gov or there perhaps is some temporary situation, a job transition or something that they are trying to cover.

The fact of the matter remains that the child described in the previous discussion would likely be better covered in one of the plans sold at healthcare.gov, but if, for whatever reason, the family decided that they wanted to investigate a less expensive plan and a limited- duration plan, that is certainly their right to do so. Probably not the best advice for them to buy that limited-duration plan, but certainly they should be free to do so, but they should also receive the information.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Madam Speaker, you can imagine my surprise this morning checking the email and the Health 202, an email put out by The Washington Post--The Washington Post, for crying out loud--and here is the headline: ``Democrats Are Putting a Political Pothole in the Way of Bipartisan Drug Pricing Bills.'' They go on to say: ``ObamaCare battles threaten even the most bipartisan healthcare efforts on Capitol Hill.''

What a strange turn of events.

So here we have a rule today that will allow a bill to be brought to the floor where the Democrats are using bipartisan drug pricing bills to pay for partisan politics.

Look, I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Rules Committee, so I am on the oldest and second oldest committees in the United States House of Representatives. We worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the BLOCKING Act, the CREATES Act, and the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act would deliver drug pricing solutions to Americans.

In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that keeps the three drug policies and uses the savings--some $5 billion from those policies--to pay for bipartisan public health priorities.

I also introduced the standalone bill, H.R. 2700, if you are keeping score at home. This is the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities Act. H.R. 2700 couples the bipartisan drug pricing policies with reauthorization of programs such as community health centers, special diabetes programs, and the National Health Service Corps.

Every Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a cosponsor of H.R. 2700, signifying the broad Republican support for both the drug pricing and the public health priorities.

Look, it is pretty clear: You can say that it is more important to have a navigated program that would never pass any cost-benefit analysis; you can say it is more important to have an earmark for the State of New Jersey to set up an ObamaCare exchange; or you can say it is more important to reauthorize Community Health Centers.

Reauthorizations are tough. We did multiple reauthorizations in the last Congress, and they are difficult to get across the line because so many people have so many opinions.

All of these programs are going to expire in September, and we have taken no activity towards reauthorization in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

These reauthorizations, again, take a substantial amount of time. The clock is ticking, and we should act as soon as possible.

Again, unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order, but I do encourage Members to look at H.R. 2700, a good bill. For this morning, I think The Washington Post had it right.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, lives are literally hanging in the balance. I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a bill that appropriates a little over $17 billion for disasters affecting all parts of the United States.

As Members of Congress, we are elected to serve the people, and part of that duty is providing emergency aid when disaster strikes. I am supportive of disaster relief, and we certainly could have provided this crucial aid months ago. At this time, our communities are still in need.

This is the third time that the House will consider a relief bill to address the same set of disasters.

On 20 December 2018, the House of Representatives passed a continuing

resolution to fund the government through February 8 that also included almost $8 billion of disaster relief funding, but this bill did not become law.

On January 16, 2019, the House passed a supplemental appropriations package that would have provided a little over $12 billion in aid. But at the last minute, during Rules Committee debate, Democrats added a short-term, full-government continuing resolution through a manager's amendment that did not include President Trump's request for border security funding. As a result, the government remained closed without providing a resolution to the problem.

It has now been 4 months since the House last considered providing disaster aid, long enough that additional disasters have struck our country, necessitating an increased number.

The bill before us seeks to provide relief funding for Hurricanes Michael and Florence, as well as continued support for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The wildfires in California will be included in this supplemental, as well as the severe storms and flooding in multiple States, including Texas; the Alaska earthquake; Typhoons Yutu and Mangkhut in the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam; Tropical Storm Gita in American Samoa; volcanic eruptions in Hawaii; and devastating floods across the Midwest.

This third iteration of disaster relief legislation is similar to a bill passed by the House in January of this year, with an additional $500 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Conservation Program to rehabilitate damaged farmland; $1.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for projects and flood mitigation; and $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery account for rebuilding houses, businesses, and public infrastructure. The bill also includes $600 million for disaster nutrition benefits in Puerto Rico as that island recovers from Hurricane Maria.

The President has expressed concern about Puerto Rico's management of the billions of disaster aid the island has already received. Senate Republicans are negotiating with the White House on a compromise, but Democrats have decided to continue pushing this legislation forward without engaging the other two parties that would be required in order for the bill to become law.

This bill also includes language prohibiting any funds from being used for the construction of a border wall. The crisis on our southern border is not a natural disaster; it is a humanitarian and security disaster, one that we can stop and take steps to prevent in the future. But the Democrats refuse to accept that our Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are overwhelmed, that our Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities are near capacity, and that our immigration judges are facing years of backlogged cases.

This is a disaster that we can do something about now. Rather than negotiate in good faith, Democrats have chosen once again to bring up a bill that will not pass the Senate.

I am disappointed that these controversial provisions are included in the bill. It does beg the question: When are we going to get back to the business of legislating?

As an aside, I would note that the House adjourned yesterday at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, plenty of time to continue working on some of these problems. For whatever reason, we decided not to do that.

The second bill under consideration, H.R. 986, is supposed to protect Americans with preexisting conditions. It has a very catchy title. Despite that catchy title, the bill does nothing to enhance preexisting condition protections under the Affordable Care Act.

The first vote that Republicans called this Congress was a motion to require legislation protecting individuals with preexisting conditions. Rather surprisingly, the Democrats voted against that previous question, blocking the motion.

In 2017, as part of the proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, Republicans included legislation that would have preserved access for those with preexisting conditions. Again, this was not supported by House Democrats.

H.R. 986 eliminates healthcare choices for States by infringing upon the authority that was given to the Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act established the Waiver for State Innovation. This allowed States to waive certain ACA regulations in order to provide flexible coverage through new State healthcare programs.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was required to promulgate regulations for the granting of these waivers, maintaining that new State health programs stay within the guardrails provided by law.

My constituents of north Texas are consistently concerned about not having access to affordable healthcare. I take meeting after meeting with families who say they are suffering from the high cost of healthcare and prescription drugs, deductibles, and copays. Texans are struggling to afford their health insurance, and I am sure we are not the only ones experiencing these premiums and deductibles.

What good is health insurance if you are afraid to use it because you cannot afford your deductibles and copays? This is an issue that I would like to see us tackle, yet we are here today discussing a bill with a very misleading title that would take flexibility away from States.

During the Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday, we discussed innovative strategies for providing high-quality and affordable health insurance, expanding consumer choice, and some of the positive results for States that have implemented these waivers. In no way did we discuss removing ACA protections for people with preexisting conditions. In fact, I pointed out that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Administrator Seema Verma stated in her remarks at the CMS National Forum on State Relief and Empowerment Waivers that ``a waiver cannot be approved that might otherwise undermine these protections.''

Yet Democrats have titled this bill ``Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019.'' This is clearly an attempt to coerce Members of Congress into voting for a bill that actually scales back the guidance recently issued for the application of State innovation waivers.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden offered an amendment to more appropriately title the bill ``This Bill Has Nothing to do with Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act.'' I hope this amendment will alert Members to the partisan wordplay of the Democrats when we should be focusing on improving the health insurance marketplace.

Taking flexibility away from States is one step closer to a single- payer, government-run healthcare system. This single-payer, government- run healthcare system would only further deteriorate our Nation's healthcare.

The Affordable Care Act was one step in that direction. While it is clear that the Affordable Care Act has proven to be nothing like affordable for Americans, section 1332 waivers would have allowed States the flexibility to employ innovation that works for their citizens.

To date, eight States--Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin--have approved State innovation waivers, and seven have created their own reinsurance programs. Premiums in these States--and this is important--premiums in these seven States were almost 20 percent lower, on average, in the first year of enactment. Maryland saw the greatest percent change, with the average individual market premium coming down by more than 40 percent, 43.4 percent, to be precise.

Again, section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act explicitly gives the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to provide guidance surrounding these innovation waivers. As more States submit applications, the administration has learned more about what hurdles States must traverse in order to obtain these waivers.

One limit to a State's ability to apply for an innovation waiver is that the State must have already enacted a State law establishing authority to pursue and implement the waiver. For a State like Texas, where the State legislature meets only every 2 years, this can be a substantial barrier.

The recent Trump administration guidance provides clarity, stating that,

in certain circumstances, existing State legislation coupled with a duly enacted State regulation or executive order could satisfy this requirement.

This guidance, the 1332 guidance, removes some hurdles while maintaining the integrity of the coverage guardrails established by law. Those statutory requirements maintain that coverage must be as comprehensive as coverage would have been absent the waiver, provide cost-sharing to protect against excessive out-of-pocket spending, cover a comparable number of residents, and not increase the Federal deficit.

I would like to reiterate that this is a misleading bill title and that H.R. 986 will restrict healthcare choices for States.

Once again, we are using the valuable time on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to debate something that will not solve the issues of affordability in our Nation's healthcare system and really has no chance of becoming law. It is unfair to patients who are not going to the doctor because, on top of their monthly premiums, their deductible is so high that they cannot afford the visit.

We need a comprehensive solution to address the high patient out-of- pocket costs in our system. This bill moves us in the wrong direction. It will inhibit innovation and much-needed flexibility in our State insurance markets.

As a physician, I cannot support such a piece of legislation, so I will urge opposition to the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification. While our last vote was just after 2 p.m. yesterday, the House actually adjourned a little after 3 p.m. I did want to make that correction.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond before I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Madam Speaker, last Congress passed the first comprehensive, stand- alone sickle cell bill for as long as I can remember. There was a partial reauthorization in 2004, signed by President Bush, that was part of a tax bill.

But Danny Davis' bill passed through our committee, passed through the Senate, and passed on the floor of the House in the previous Congress last year; and as a consequence, for the first time in four decades, new sickle cell therapies are coming through the National Institutes of Health.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purposes of a response.

First of all, I am grateful that the Texas Department of Insurance does provide that disclosure and transparency. That is a good thing. In fact, Chairwoman Eshoo, the chairwoman of the Health Subcommittee, when we were hearing bills on limited-duration plans, actually had a bill that would require such disclosure. For whatever reason, it was pulled from the markup that we had that day. I was perfectly prepared to support it, but, again, for whatever reason, the chairman of the committee pulled the bill and we did not get to have that debate or markup.

I also need to point out that our discussion today is not on limited- duration plans. I rather expect that there will be an opportunity to debate limited-duration plans. It may come up as early as next week, and I look forward to that debate. But it is also important to point out that these plans in Texas were permitted under the previous administration for the duration of 1 year.

So, again, the State commissioner of insurance is exactly right. He put those caveats up there so people can know what they are purchasing. I do believe

that is important. I think that is an important aspect of the job of the Texas Commission of Insurance. I wish other State commissioners of insurance would behave in a similar fashion.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I want everyone to be clear here. This bill today is actually repealing part of the Affordable Care Act.

Look, I didn't vote for the Affordable Healthcare Act. I argued against it, passionately--articulately, I might add--but what does the Affordable Care Act say?

Well, it describes the object of today's legislation, the so-called section 1332 waiver.

Section 1332 is a section of the Affordable Care Act. And section 1332 is titled ``Waiver for State Innovation. In general, a state may apply to the secretary for the waiver of all or any requirements described.''

And this is interesting. ``With respect to health insurance coverage within that State for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.''

The way the law was written, none of these waivers were given during the years that President Obama was President.

They only became eligible--the Secretary only became able to provide these waivers January 1, 2017, which was the last 3 weeks of President Obama's administration.

So when people say, the comparison between the waivers given in the Obama years and the waivers given in the Trump years are vastly different, well, it is true because no waivers were available prior to January 1, 2017.

Look, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has heard the angst that people have trying to deal with the high premiums--premiums, $600, $700, $800 a month for an individual, a deductible of $6,000 to $7,000, and the coinsurance, which runs the bills up so that their annual out- of-pocket costs may be somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000.

Many people point out to me, they spend more for health insurance-- not using anything, but just for the insurance--than they spend for their mortgage payment--not their mortgage insurance, but their mortgage payment.

But, please, let's do remember, 1332 is part of current law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for purpose of a response.

Look, it is not the Trump Administration that is taking money out of the Affordable Care Act and putting it to other purposes. It is clearly written into the law.

And, again, I didn't vote for this law. I voted against it. I argued against it, but the taking of advanced premium tax credits, cost- sharing reductions and small business tax credits under Section 36(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 under subpart (1)--blah, blah, blah--an alternative means by which the aggregate amount of such credits or reductions that would have been paid on behalf of participants in the exchanges established under this title had the State not received such a waiver, that amount shall be paid to the State for the purposes of implementing the State plan under the waiver.

So it is really pretty clear in the existing language of law. It is not the Trump Administration deviating funds, it was congressional intent. It was passed by this House of Representatives.

Again, I didn't vote for it. I wouldn't have defended it at the time. I didn't think it was a good idea then, probably not the greatest idea now. But the Secretary has this tool to use and he is responding to requests from people's constituents, do something about the high cost of my insurance, the high costs that I am required to spend in order to protect myself against the health catastrophe.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Speaker, I do have one additional speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is a valuable member of the Rules Committee, and gave us a stirring history lesson on the ERISA plans and how the protection from preexisting conditions actually goes back to 1996.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to move a resolution that reinforces the Republican's long-held views that every American should have preexisting condition protections.

On the opening day of the 116th Congress, House Republicans brought a measure to the floor that called on lawmakers to legislate on locking in protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, in a fit of partisanship, House Democrats blocked that effort. If Democrats were serious, they would not object to making a statement on behalf of the House of Representatives that we want to work together with the administration to protect patients with preexisting conditions.

Our position is simple and clear. Republicans stand ready to protect those with preexisting conditions in a manner that will withstand judicial scrutiny, and I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in that effort.

Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, House Republicans will move to immediately consider a resolution that maintains that no American should have their health insurance taken away or lose protections for preexisting conditions due to the Democrats in Congress enacting an unconstitutional law.

It would instruct Congress and the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court for a stay in the Texas v. United States decision, should the Affordable Care Act be found unconstitutional.

It would instruct Congress to develop bipartisan legislation that guarantees that no American citizen can be denied health insurance coverage or charged more due to a previous illness or health status.

It includes commonsense consumer protections, provides more choice and affordable coverage than the Affordable Care Act, lowers prescription drug prices for patients, strengthens Medicare for current and future beneficiaries, and rejects the Democrats' radical one-size- fits-all, government-run, Soviet-style, top-down healthcare scheme that would only outlaw the employer-based coverage of more than 180 million Americans.

Madam Speaker, I suspect our Democratic colleagues will vote against considering this resolution, so I must ask: Why are Democrats opposed to making a statement that the goal of the House of Representatives of the United States is to work together to protect coverage for patients with preexisting conditions? If that is not the goal, then what might it be?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, again, I would reiterate that neither bill under consideration today has a chance of becoming law.

While I support funding for disaster relief, the Democrats chose not to negotiate with the Senate and included controversial positions.

As a result, we would likely be considering a disaster relief bill yet another time, and our hard-hit communities will continue to struggle without relief.

Once again, despite the title of H.R. 986, this bill will have no impact on protections for preexisting conditions for Americans with those conditions. It will simply overturn a regulation--overturns part of ObamaCare--it overturns a regulation that allows States to innovate in the Affordable Care Act marketplace, and that provides flexibility and consumer choice to healthcare consumers.

House Republicans continue to support preexisting conditions protections and have offered solutions to give patients this assurance. Republicans stand ready to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to pass these protections into law and also provide desperately needed disaster relief.

I look forward to when we can all gather around the negotiating table. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 1520, the Purple Book Continuity Act. This bill has moved through regular order in the Energy and Commerce Committee and does, in fact, have broad bipartisan support. This may be only a small part of solving the problems of drug pricing, however, it is an important part of that question.

Through the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, Congress established a pathway for biosimilars to enter the therapeutic market so that patients would have more treatment options, more access to lifesaving medications, and lower healthcare costs.

As the Food and Drug Administrator, at the time, Scott Gottlieb announced, there is a four-point plan to increase biosimilar availability. The plan would focus on increasing market competition by reducing delays to entry; improving the efficiency of biosimilar development; maximize the clarity of the regulatory process; and develop a communications strategy to promote biosimilars.

The Purple Book plays an important role in biosimilar development. It lists the licensed biologic products, including any biosimilar or interchangeable biologic product, and any relevant exclusivity information. The Purple Book is not currently required by law and takes the form of two separate and sometimes cumbersome PDF files.

H.R. 1520 codifies the Purple Book and requires the Food and Drug Administration to publish the information in a searchable format, similar to the Orange Book. This bill will make the Purple Book a more useful tool for developers of biosimilars, in addition to providers, payors, and patients.

The Food and Drug Administration provided us with some important feedback that would ensure that the agency will be able to effectively implement this legislation should it become law. Enhancing the Purple Book is critical to the transparency of the relevant intellectual property protections, as well as other factors considered by the developers of biosimilars.

So I certainly want to thank the chairwoman for her willingness to work with us and the agency on this important issue. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, and I urge other Members to support it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I urge support of this bill upon passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1503, the Orange Book Transparency Act of 2019. This is a bipartisan product that moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I would like to thank Representative Robin Kelly for introducing this legislation.

The publication of the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, known as the Orange Book, lists drug products that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration on the basis of safety and effectiveness. Importantly, the Orange Book lists therapeutic equivalence evaluations for approved multisource prescription drug products in addition to relevant patent and exclusivity information.

This publication provides information to State health agencies, prescribers, and to others to inform decisionmaking, and allow for the containment of healthcare costs, as well as educate the public.

A preliminary version of the Orange Book was produced in 1979. It was not until 1984, with the enactment of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, more commonly known as the Hatch- Waxman Act, that Congress codified the Orange Book.

This bill amends existing statute to make the Orange Book more useful, particularly for manufacturers of generic drugs. Enactment of this bill will allow these manufacturers to know which branded products face competition and when those products will no longer be protected by patents. Insurance companies, doctors, and patients will be able to determine when a generic alternative is available for a more expensive branded product.

The Food and Drug Administration is already performing the practices contained in this bill, but the legislation would codify current practices and ensure that certain patents are listed in the Orange Book. Additionally, patents that are found invalid would have to be removed following the conclusion of any appeals process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the Republican ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

H.R. 1503 would support the work that the Food and Drug Administration is already conducting and facilitate competition in the marketplace. Therefore, I urge my fellow Members to support this important legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Christian Alvarado, a 2019 recipient of the North Texas in DC Internship Program Legacy Award. As a fellow University of North Texas alum, it is my privilege to recognize this outstanding Texan for his many achievements.

Currently, Christian is the co-founder of CBTX Capital, an investment and real estate development firm based in Austin, Texas. Prior to co- founding CBTX Capital, Christian served as the chief of staff and counsel to the chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission.

Previously, he worked as an attorney at Jackson Walker, LLP where he advised corporate clients on various business transactions including securities, mergers and acquisitions, business formation and governance. He also has served as a special assistant to then-Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams.

Governor Perry appointed Christian to the One Call Board of Texas, and Governor Abbott appointed him to serve as a board member of the Department of Information Resources. Additionally, he is the board president of Austin Angels, a non-profit organization that provides assistance to local foster children.

As evidenced by his distinguished track record of accomplishments, Christian has spent much of his career in service to his fellow Texans. I congratulate him on this honor, and wish the entire Alvarado family every continued success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nathan Edgerton as he receives the North Texas in DC Internship Program Legacy Award.

The NTDC Program connects University of North Texas students with internship opportunities in our nation's capital. Nathan began his long career in public service as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office. Since then, he has spent more than a decade helping government and nonprofit organizations with strategic planning, grants, and community resource management.

Currently, Nathan serves as a Bureau Planner for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State. In this role, he manages the foreign assistance budget planning and justification process for the department's $7 billion budget that includes economic, multilateral, law enforcement, and security assistance programs that support U.S. foreign policy objectives and interests throughout the Middle East and North Africa. He previously served as a Grants Management Officer supporting economic and public diplomacy programs in NEA and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

Additionally, Nathan served North Texans as the Director of Health Grants at the United Way of Metropolitan Dallas, supporting community organizations striving to improve health outcomes for children and families in Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, and southern Denton counties. He earned his B.A. in political science and M.P.A. with a focus in nonprofit management from UNT.

Throughout his career, Nathan has been known for his expertise, dedication, and hard work. I am grateful that the NTDC Program connected him with my office years ago, and I congratulate my fellow UNT alum on his many achievements.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Kim Garza Turner, an outstanding North Texan. A dedicated advocate for civic participation, Kim selflessly serves her community in all that she does.

As a young student at the University of North Texas, Kim interned in my Washington, D.C. office in 2004. This opportunity, facilitated by UNT's North Texas in DC Internship Program, commenced Kim's longstanding career in public service. From the U.S. Capitol, Kim was chosen as the sole intern for the West Wing of the White House during President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election.

After returning to Texas to continue her studies at UNT, she kept pursuing a career in politics. For more than a decade, I have relied on Kim as a leader, collaborator, and trusted advisor. She has a proven track record of success as a consultant and strategist.

In addition to her work in politics, Kim is active member of her North Texas community. She teaches Sunday school, volunteers as a member of the Junior League of Dallas, and recently completed her term on the Board of Trustees for the Dallas Historical Society.

This evening, Kim will receive the NTDC Program's Legacy Award in recognition of her many achievements. I am thankful that NTDC connected Kim with my office 15 years ago, and tonight I am glad to add my voice to this well-deserved praise.

From Capitol Hill to the White House and beyond, Kim has dedicated much of her life to serving her fellow North Texans and the American people. I congratulate my fellow UNT alum on this honor, and look ahead to many more years of excellence.

Madam Speaker, I rise alongside Rep. Van Taylor and Rep. Ben Cline to honor Kim Frankson, Jess Johnson, and Laurie Ortel of Ashley Elementary School in the Frisco Independent School District. At the end of last year, these North Texas school administrators used quick thinking and teamwork to help save a life 1,200 miles away.

In December 2018, Ashley Elementary School principal Kim Frankson, assistant principal Laurie Ortel, and counselor Jess Johnson received a concerning message from a student via the STOPit app, an online platform designed to allow students and parents to send anonymous reports of bullying to school officials.

The North Texas educators soon discovered that the student was in Waynesboro, Virginia--more than 1,000 miles from Frisco--and sprang into action. As Laurie Ortel said in an interview with the Dallas Morning News: ``We didn't know her, but in that moment, she became ours.''

In spite of the distance, Jess Johnson began communicating with the student, who was threatening suicide, on the STOPit app. At the same time, Kim Frankson and Laurie Ortel attempted to contact the Waynesboro Police Department and administrators at the student's school, which already had closed for winter break. Thanks to the efforts of the North Texas teachers, local authorities in Virginia were able to locate the endangered teenager and provide lifesaving assistance.

Thankfully, the student's message for help reached the right people.

On February 14, 2019, the Dallas Morning News published an article telling their story. In recognition of their lifesaving efforts, Kim Frankson, Laurie Ortel, and Jess Johnson were honored at the Frisco ISD board meeting on April 8, 2019. They were presented the inaugural Helping Hands Life Saver Award from the makers of the STOPit mobile app, and have received well-earned praise from Americans in North Texas, Virginia, and around the country.

As Members of Congress representing Frisco, Texas and Waynesboro, Virginia, we extend our sincere gratitude to these North Texas educators for their extraordinary work and dedication. There is no doubt that they have touched the lives of students in Frisco, Waynesboro, and beyond.