Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 451 provides for a structured rule to consider a bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee pertaining to the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone standards. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and the minority on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The rule further makes in order six Democratic amendments for consideration. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit.

Under the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, the EPA is tasked with setting standards and regulations for certain defined pollutants, including ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog. The Environmental Protection Agency has set these standards and adjusted when necessary in 1971, 1979, 1997, and 2008.

Since 1980, ozone levels have declined by 33 percent, according to the EPA, thanks in large part to diligent State oversight of industries and planning, along with weather patterns and outside temperatures, which all contribute to ozone levels.

Ozone has been a particular issue in the north Texas area that I represent, where hot summer days and prevailing southerly breezes cause air quality issues that affect outdoor activities and may create health concerns.

In 2015, the EPA proposed changing the 2008 ozone standards that had not yet been fully implemented, despite nearly 700 national, State, and local organizations and stakeholders requesting that the EPA allow the 2008 standards to be adopted before moving the goalposts on these regulated parties. In fact, the EPA did not publish its implementation regulations for the 2008 standards until March of 2015, nearly 7 years after the standards had been issued, and then promptly that same year decided to change the rules entirely.

The EPA ignored the request from stakeholders and moved ahead with lowering the ozone standard, manipulating scientific findings in order to justify the move. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the so-called benefits that the EPA claimed would result from this new standard are not based on ozone reductions at all, but instead on reductions from an entirely different pollutant regulated under a different set of rules.

H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, is an important step toward focusing the EPA's efforts at science-based regulating of the environment and a rejection of the politically motivated actions of the previous 8 years.

The legislation phases in implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, extending the date for final designation for the 2015 standard to 2025, aligning the permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act with the implementation schedule set by the EPA. This allows for a thoughtful and methodical implementation process to proceed at the State level to address the varied needs and nuances that exist in the States based upon industry and based upon weather patterns.

The measured approach contained in H.R. 806 will allow States to pursue cost-effective and practical implementation plans to enforce the EPA's ozone standards. Further, it utilizes a process that will benefit from the States' practical experiences at implementing previous ozone standards.

Nothing in the legislation before the House today changes any existing air quality standards or regulations. Let me say that again. Nothing in the legislation before the House today changes any existing air quality standards or regulations.

This legislation is focused solely on providing States and businesses the proper tools, time, and flexibility to implement the EPA's regulations most effectively. This is a goal we should all support.

According to the EPA's own analysis in 2015, the vast majority of U.S. counties will meet the 2015 standards by 2025, the same timeframe that the bill before us contemplates implementation.

H.R. 806 is important, however, because it gives States the flexibility to focus on the most pressing environmental issues in each individual State, rather than having the EPA dictate where resources must be used regardless of need.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has been reviewing the issue of finding the correct balance for ozone implementation for years and has crafted legislation that reflects that measured approach.

In 2015, I wrote to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee expressing my concern over the EPA's expedited implementation of the 2015 standards despite concerns on how the ozone rules could affect other pollutants, namely nitrogen oxide, which has been found to actually increase inversely when ozone levels decrease. This increase of nitrogen oxide is especially present in urban environments where many at-risk populations live.

Given the many implementation questions surrounding EPA's political decision to move forward with the 2015 standards, H.R. 806 is a prudent and justified course that this government should be taking.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support today's rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reference a letter that I sent on May 23, 2014, to Dr. Christopher Frey, who was then the chairman of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

The letter reads:

``I understand that, due in part to recommendations by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, EPA's new draft Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone concludes that''--I am quoting from the EPA here-- `` `mortality from short- and long-term ozone exposures and respiratory hospitalization risk is not greatly affected by meeting lower standards.' ''

Again, that is from the EPA draft of the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, from May of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

May 23, 2014.

Dr. H. Christopher Frey,

Chair, EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,

Distinguished University Professor, Department of Civil,

Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Dear Dr. Frey: In January 2015, pursuant to a court imposed

deadline, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is

expected to propose revisions to the current National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone set in 2008. The

agency's proposed revisions may well represent the most

costly standards the agency has ever sought to impose on the

U.S. economy. The Administrator's judgments about the

adequacy of the standard and any such proposed revisions

accordingly will be subject to close Congressional oversight

and scrutiny. A critical question will concern whether the

Administrator has fully and clearly evaluated the risk

reduction estimates associated with the standard and proposed

alternatives.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) by

statute serves to review the information supporting EPA's

assessment of the existing NAAQS for ozone and to help assure

that EPA conducts a full and objective evaluation of risks

and risk tradeoffs in its proposals. In the context of this

review, given the potential costs and impacts of any revision

to the current standard, I believe it is critically important

that such risks and risk tradeoffs are fully evaluated.

Presently, EPA appears to be moving forward without fully

addressing important risk tradeoff questions regarding the

impact of emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides

(NOX), which CASAC has also been reviewing, on

ozone concentrations. I write today to draw your attention to

concerns that have been raised that EPA has not fully

evaluated the risk reduction outcomes identified in the

agency's risk assessments used for the upcoming proposed

rule.

I understand that, due in part to recommendations by CASAC,

EPA's new draft Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone

(HREA) concludes that ``mortality from short- and long-term

[ozone] exposures and respiratory hospitalization risk is not

greatly affected by meeting lower standards.'' According to

the HREA, this is due in part to the fact that further

reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions will

actually increase ozone levels on low concentration days in

urban areas where at-risk populations live.

For instance, in modeling a 50 percent reduction in

NOX emissions from existing levels, the HREA found

that April-to-October ozone exposures actually increased for

large percentages of exposed populations in several major

urban areas where at-risk populations are likely to live,

including New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In

other words, even though reducing NOX emissions

may yield direct benefits by reducing NOX related

health effects, they may also lead to increased ozone

levels--the issue under review by the CASAC Ozone Review

Panel.

If EPA is correct to assume that all ozone exposures should

be of concern, any increases in ozone exposure throughout the

year are important to assess. However, testimony submitted to

CASAC this past March notes that EPA's analysis likely

underestimates the potential for increases in ozone exposures

because the agency does not evaluate the effect of

NOX emission reductions on ozone levels throughout

the full year. Specifically, EPA's analysis of

epidemiologically-based short-term mortality and morbidity

risks fails to consider the likely increases in ozone levels

during the cooler months of the year when NOX

emissions are reduced. This March testimony reported that

such a full year-round analysis of the impact of

NOX emission reductions in urban Philadelphia

resulted in increases in total ozone exposures.

The EPA's analysis itself notes that wintertime increases

in ozone ``were significant in 11 out of the 15 areas''

evaluated when nationwide NOX emissions were cut

``almost in half,'' but fails to address how increases in

wintertime ozone levels from further NOX

reductions will affect the proposed health benefits of

meeting a lower ozone standard. Potential changes in

wintertime ozone levels also pose a problem for EPA's

assessment of mortality risks from long-term exposure to

ozone.

In light of these shortcomings in analysis, we ask that you

recommend that EPA conduct a full year-round analysis of the

effect of further NOX emission reductions on the

epidemiologically-based, short-term mortality and morbidity

health benefits front meeting a lower ozone standard. This

should be done in a manner that clearly distinguishes between

exposure changes projected for urban, suburban, and rural

portions of each of the Urban Study Areas. In addition, EPA

should provide a discussion of the limitations of projecting

future mortality risks from long-term exposure given that the

epidemiological study used did not account for potential

differences in wintertime ozone levels.

Finally, I understand that transcripts of your public

proceedings may not always be preserved for future public

access and review. If this is the case, I ask that you ensure

that CASAC preserve a full transcript or recording of the

telephone conference and related public deliberations for

future public access and review.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was sent by Representative Joe Barton, who was then the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and myself, as the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, June 11, 2010, asking for the economic data that the EPA was supposed to provide regarding their proposed rule changes back in 2010.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2010.

Hon. Lisa Jackson,

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

Dear Administrator Jackson: While the President has

repeatedly stated that job creation and economic growth are

his top priorities, in the environmental arena it appears the

Administration is allowing ideology to trump objective

science and sound public policy, and is issuing new rules

that will significantly impede economic development and

growth throughout the United States, In particular, we are

concerned that the Administration, through the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), is promulgating a whole host of

unworkable, multi-billion dollar environmental regulations

without fully considering all available scientific

information, and without regard to, the realistic compliance

costs, job impacts, or the ability of states, municipalities

and/or businesses to implement the new regulations.

In the past we have expressed very serious concerns about

the Administration's global warming regulations and EPA's

process for developing its endangerment finding, the agency's

highly expedited issuance of that finding, and the agency's

reliance on the scientific assessments of outside groups,

including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), without a

careful and critical examination of their conclusions and

findings. Further, we have significant concerns about the

potentially hundreds of billions of dollars or more in

compliance costs that are triggered by the finding, the over

6 million entities that may ultimately be subject to complex

new permitting requirements, potential enforcement actions,

fines and penalties, and threats of citizen suits and other

third-party litigation. EPA itself has acknowledged that the

stationary source permitting requirements triggered by the

endangerment finding are totally unworkable, and that it

would be administratively impossible for EPA and states to

administer those new requirements, or for employers and

businesses to comply.

We write today regarding another set of multi-billion

dollar regulations proposed by the Obama Administration which

also appear to be extraordinarily expensive and unworkable.

Specifically, in January 2010, EPA proposed new National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone,

the main component of smog. NAAQS ozone standards have been

revised a number of times over the past several decades,

including in 1997 when EPA set an 8-hour ``primary'' ozone

standard, as well as an identical ``secondary'' standard, to

a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), or effectively 0.084

ppm. While EPA significantly strengthened that standard in

2008 to a level of 0.075 ppm, in January 2010 this

Administration took the unprecedented step of setting aside

the 2008 standards, and proposing its own alternative

standards based on the prior administrative record and a

``provisional assessment,'' and without conducting a full

review of the currently available scientific and technical

information. EPA is now proposing a new primary ozone

standard within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm, as well as a

distinct cumulative, seasonal secondary standard within the

range of 7-15 ppm-hours. EPA has also proposed an accelerated

implementation schedule.

We are very concerned about the proposed standards, not

only because there appear to be questions about the

development of the proposed standards, but also because EPA

estimates that the costs would range from $19 billion to $90

billion annually, or nearly a trillion dollars over ten

years. Moreover, it appears, based on EPA's own ozone maps

and estimates, that most counties in the country could

violate the standards, particularly if EPA chooses to set the

standard at the lower end of the proposed range. Further, it

also appears many areas of the country, including rural and

remote areas, could never be in attainment because the

standards are so low that they may exceed natural background

ozone levels, or ozone levels due to foreign emissions from

Asian or other sources.

We understand EPA plans to finalize the proposed ozone

standards by August 31, 2010. Before EPA finalizes such

standards, we believe your agency should provide the Congress

with fuller information about the EPA's process for

developing and proposing the new standards, the counties or

municipalities expected to be in violation, whether the new

standards can realistically be implemented by areas that have

higher ozone levels due to natural background ozone levels or

foreign emissions, and the potential restrictions that the

new standards will place on future economic growth and

development for non-attainment areas.

We request your responses to the following questions within

two weeks of the date of this letter:

1. Under Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

EPA is authorized to set NAAQS for certain criteria

pollutants, including ozone, and the Act sets out specific

procedures for revising those standards.

a. In proposing the new standards, why isn't EPA conducting

a full analysis of all available data, including more recent

data?

b. In proposing the standards, why isn't EPA following the

express procedures set forth in Section 109 of the CAA?

2. Under the Clinton Administration's 1997 ozone standards:

a. What types of measures have been required by state and

local governments to come into compliance with those

standards?

b. What were the estimated costs for compliance with the

1997 standards and how do those compare with estimated costs

for the proposed new standards?

c. What analysis, if any, did EPA conduct relating to the

potential impacts on employment of the 1997 standards?

d. What were EPA's projections with regard to attainment of

the 1997 standards, and approximately how many counties in

the United States have still not been able to come into

compliance?

e. What are the primary reasons for the inability of these

counties to come into compliance?

3. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone

standards, we understand that EPA projects, based on 2006-

2008 data, that of the 675 counties that currently monitor

ozone levels, 515 counties (76%) would violate a 0.070 ppm

standard, and 650 counties (96%) would violate a 0.060 ppm

standard.

a. Please identify the 515 counties that would violate a

0.070 ppm standard, and the expected time needed for

attainment.

b. Please identify the additional 135 counties that would

violate a 0.060 ppm standard, and the expected time needed

for attainment.

4. According to the attached map from EPA's Clean Air

Status Trends Network (CASTNET) 2008 Annual Report, it

appears many areas of the country that do not currently have

ozone monitors would also be likely to violate the new smog

standards, including in very rural and remote areas.

a. How many counties don't currently have ozone monitors?

b. Based on CASTNET data and any other data EPA may have

regarding ozone levels in non-monitored counties, how many

additional counties could be in violation of EPA's proposed

ozone standards if a monitor were present? Please identify

those counties using the CASTNET data and any other data

available, and the expected time needed for attainment.

c. Would there be areas with monitored air quality that

attain the proposed standards but that might nevertheless be

considered to be in ``nonattainment'' because they are in a

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) in which

one monitor or more exceeds the proposed standards?

5. According to the EPA Fact Sheet for the Obama

Administration's proposed ozone standards, the implementation

costs range from $19 to $90 billion annually while EPA

projects the value of the health benefits would range from

$13 to $100 billion per year.

a. What are the primary studies EPA is relying upon in the

development of its health benefits estimates? What are the

major uncertainties in those studies that could affect the

estimates?

b. How many of the health-based studies included in the

criteria document for the proposed ozone standards were based

on statistically significant evidence compared to those

studies that were not?

c. How many of the new health-based studies included in the

provisional assessment for the proposed ozone standards were

based on statistically significant evidence compared to those

studies that were not?

d. Can EPA provide any assurances that the value of the

health benefits will outweigh the implementation costs?

6. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone

standards, what control requirements, including offsets,

transportation planning measure or other measures, may apply

to nonattainment areas?

a. It appears the proposed standards would create a

significant number of new nonattainment areas in the Western

United States. How would nonattainment in rural or remote

Western states and tribal lands be addressed?

b. In the event that an area fails to attain any new

standards by the applicable date, what would be the potential

consequences, including any sanctions or penalties?

c. What will happen to states or localities that cannot

come into compliance with the proposed standards because of a

lack of economically or technically feasible technology

necessary to attain compliance?

d. What will happen to states or localities that have

natural background ozone levels, and/or ozone levels due to

transport from outside the United States, that are currently

close to or exceed the new standards?

i. Will such areas be designated as being in nonattainment?

ii. Will EPA require states or localities to attain

standards lower than concentrations below the non-

controllable background levels?

7. Given, as EPA recognizes, that there would be many new

nonattainment areas, does EPA believe it is realistic to

require states to provide recommendations to EPA by January

7, 2011? Is it reasonable to require State Implementation

Plans by December 2013?

a. If EPA believes these deadlines are realistic, please

explain the basis for that conclusion.

8. Does EPA anticipate requiring separate planning

requirements for a seasonable secondary standard if one is

adopted as proposed? How does EPA plan to implement this type

of secondary standard?

9. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential

employment impacts of the proposed standards on specific

sectors of the economy, including the manufacturing and

construction sectors? If yes, please provide copies of such

analyses.

10. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential

relocation of production facilities outside the United States

as a result of implementation of the proposed standards? If

yes, please provide copies of such analyses.

11. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential impacts

of the proposed standards on small businesses? If yes, please

provide copies of such analyses.

If the EPA withholds any documents or information in

response to this letter, please provide a Vaughn Index or log

of the withheld items. The index should list the applicable

question number, a description of the withheld item

(including date of the item), the nature of the privilege or

legal basis for the withholding, and a legal citation for the

withholding claim.

Should you have any questions, please contact Minority

Committee staff.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Ranking Member.

Michael Burgess,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and

Investigations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the gentleman would reference the cost of asthma inhalers. It was, after all, two Congresses ago where the Environmental Protection Agency actually outlawed the manufacture and sale of over-the-counter asthma inhalers and took them away from those of us who suffer from that disease. And, indeed, losing that over-the- counter option for an over-the-counter epinephrine inhaler for the treatment of asthma as a rescue inhaler, we have, indeed, seen the cost of prescription inhalers quadruple over that time frame.

So, in many ways, as an asthma patient, I hold the EPA directly responsible for my inability to get an inexpensive over-the-counter rescue inhaler. And for many asthma patients, who may find themselves caught short, that means a trip to the emergency room and, probably, a $1,200 or $1,500 event that otherwise could have been solved by a Primatene inhaler that sold two for $16.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The reason is because the manufacture of over-the- counter epinephrine inhalers has been prohibited by the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration.

Will the gentleman yield?

Number one, it is not germane, and it is more complicated now because the Food and Drug Administration has gotten involved in the process. I wish it were straightforward. It is something I continue to work on.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of an important piece of environmental legislation to protect the lives and health of all Americans while providing smart tools to the States to implement the EPA's standards.

I thank my fellow Texan, Pete Olson, for his work on this legislation, which I know affects his district in the Houston area as much as it does mine in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's rule and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

It is significant today to be here and be supporting H.R. 2430, the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017.

The passage of this bill provides certainly the security to the scientists who are working even now in pursuit of better cures and, of course, hope for patients across the country who are awaiting better treatments of the diseases that are afflicting them.

By reauthorizing the Food and Drug Administration user fee program, we are ensuring that the Food and Drug Administration can continue to officially operate and approve new drugs for the market.

Upon becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Health this year, I had the privilege of convening four separate legislative hearings on the policies that are included in H.R. 2430. In each of those hearings, we heard about the tremendous success of the user fee programs in expanding access to affordable medications, supporting biomedical innovation, and maintaining high standards at the FDA for safety, efficacy, and quality.

H.R. 2430 will build upon these successes and will also build upon the achievements that we achieved in the last Congress, in the 21st Century Cures Act. And now we can ensure that the FDA has resources necessary to get medical treatments and cures to patients and healthcare providers as quickly as possible.

This bill is an important step forward for our committee and for this Congress, and we continue to pursue meaningful improvements to the healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Gene Green, Ranking Member Pallone of the full committee, all members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, both subcommittee and full committee, who worked hard to improve the substance of this bill as it came through.

Clearly, I wish to thank the majority and minority staffs who worked so hard to bring this to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul Voertman, the former owner of the iconic Voertman's Bookstore on Fry Street in Denton, Texas. In addition to his business interests, Mr. Voertman also was a patron of the arts, a humanitarian, and a philanthropist.

Mr. Voertman grew up near the University of North Texas and attended the UNT Demonstration School from kindergarten through twelfth grade. He received his undergraduate degree in economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Upon graduation, he entered the U.S. Air Force. While on active duty in Germany, his father passed away and he returned to Denton to take over his father's general store. Over time, Voertman transformed the store into a well-known cultural landmark renowned for its high-quality wares, reasonable prices, and excellent customer service. Countless students at UNT and Texas Woman's University purchased their textbooks, spirit wear, and more at Voertman's.

Mr. Voertman generously contributed to the arts for more than 60 years and was one of UNT's most generous benefactors. In Denton, he sponsored prizes for Texas art organizations, commissioned locally- produced art works, and established juried art competitions at UNT and TWU, which still continue today. The Voertman-Ardoin Memorial Scholarship assists first-generation college students at UNT, and the Ardoin-Voertman Endowment Fund supports the College of Visual Arts and Design, the College of Music, and the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences.

Mr. Voertman also gave significant financial backing to TWU's Chancellor's Circle, scholarships, and athletics. He was a patron of community organizations, including the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Horne, the Monsignor King Homeless Outreach Center, and the Denton Community Health Clinic.

I would like to express my sincere condolences to Mr. Voertman's family and friends. He will be remembered for his business acumen, cultural contributions, and selfless generosity to the Denton community

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1492) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to direct the Attorney General to register practitioners to transport controlled substances to States in which the practitioner is not registered under the Act for the purpose of administering the substances (under applicable State law) at locations other than principal places of business or professional practice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who is the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1492, the Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act of 2017, authored by my good friend from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Representative Pete Sessions.

Whether it is emergency medical service providers traveling to a disaster area to provide care or a team physician at an away game, certain medical practitioners often need to travel with and administer antiseizure or pain medications.

Although many of these are regulated under the Controlled Substances Act, current law does not specifically authorize the transportation or administration of such substances away from their registered location. Currently, the Controlled Substances Act does not specifically authorize the transportation and the administration of controlled substances away from the location registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In order to ensure appropriate oversight of this practice, H.R. 1492 would establish a separate registration process for mobile practitioners who are already registered with the DEA and in good standing.

For a practitioner to transport and administer controlled substances pursuant to this new registration, he or she must be licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted by the State in which the substances are administered to carry out such activity at the location where it occurs.

In addition, the practitioner must limit the time of transport to not more than 72 consecutive hours and return any such substances not administered to their registered location from which they were obtained.

Further, the practitioner must maintain records of the transporting and administering, and DEA would maintain the authority to deny or revoke a registration.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden: I write with respect to H.R. 1492,

the ``Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act.'' As

a result of your having consulted with us on provisions

within H.R. 1492 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of

the Committee on the Judiciary, I forego any further

consideration of this bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1492 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our

committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as

this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our

committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation and asks

that you support any such request.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1492 and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration of H.R. 1492.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

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

I want to commend Chairman Sessions for working on this important legislation with the Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the Drug Enforcement Administration to ensure that we got it right. This is a good bill with appropriate safeguards.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Mr. Bill DeBerry, Sr., one of the finest businessmen in Denton, Texas. As the founder and owner of a funeral home in Denton, Bill devoted much of his life to assisting others during some of the most difficult times of their own lives.

Bill left school at an early age to help support his family when he began driving an ambulance for a funeral home. The owner of the funeral home at the time noticed Bill's work ethic and encouraged him to finish his education. With both high school and University of North Texas degrees in hand, Bill worked his way through the Dallas Institute of Mortuary Services.

After graduating with his specialized degree, Bill began his mortuary career at Schmitz-Floyd-Hamlett Funeral Home in Denton. After gaining valuable experience in the industry, he opened Bill DeBerry Funeral Directors in 1990. This local business continues to serve the Denton community today under the leadership and dedication of his sons.

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to Mr. DeBerry's family, friends, and colleagues. He will be remembered for his compassion and commitment to excellence throughout his 60 year career, as well as his service to our Denton community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and public service of Robert B. Toulouse. Dr. Toulouse, provost emeritus and dean of the Toulouse Graduate School at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas, devoted his life to the education of others.

Robert Toulouse served his country for 25 years. Beginning in World War II, Dr. Toulouse served five years of active duty in the United States Air Force and twenty years in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. In 1978, he retired at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

Dr. Toulouse earned three degrees in education from the University of Missouri, which led him to a robust career in academia. In 1948, Dr. Toulouse began his distinguished career in education as assistant professor in the University of North Texas' College of Education. He made a significant impact on campus through his service as dean of the graduate school from 1954 to 1982. During this time, the graduate school grew to host more than 100 graduate programs, increasing from just a few hundred graduate students to more than 5,000.

After 28 years at the helm of the graduate school, Dr. Toulouse joined the university's leadership team as provost and vice president for academic affairs in 1982. After he retired as provost emeritus, the University of North Texas named the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies in 1990 in honor of his tremendous professional and personal contributions to the institution.

Dr. Toulouse passed away this year at the age of 98, leaving a rich legacy of service to our community. I would like to offer my sincere sympathy to the Toulouse family on their loss. I am grateful for the service Dr. Robert B. Toulouse rendered to this nation and to the university of which I am a proud alumnus.

Mr. Speaker, July 7, 2016, is forever marked by the sadness and loss our community suffered when five Dallas police officers were gunned down in the deadliest attack for law enforcement in the United States since the September 11 attacks.

These officers were killed as they protected Dallas citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest. They put their own lives on the line for the safety of others.

Reflecting on the events of last July 7, what stands out to me is the heroism of those who answered when duty called and a community that banded together during this tragic event. We are in the midst of an environment that can be deeply divided. We should all seek to follow the example of the Dallas community.

I want to acknowledge former Dallas Chief of Police David Brown and offer my sincere gratitude for his leadership; as well as the Dallas Police Department; first responders; the Parkland hospital; Baylor University hospital, where this iconic photograph was taken, for providing excellent emergency care; and others who helped the victims of this attack.

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize the sacrifice of the men and women and the critical role they played to protect our communities.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 379 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration for two very important measures. First, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2372, the VETERAN Act. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2579, the Broader Options for Americans Act. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are a part of the House of Representatives' commitment to repair damage done by the Affordable Care Act. These bills seek to amend key parts of the American Health Care Act, which the House passed on May 4 of 2017.

The American Health Care Act expands health coverage options for Americans by allowing them to use advanceable, refundable tax credits to purchase State-approved plans in the individual market. The two bills will ensure the tax credits that Americans will use to purchase health insurance policies will be available to all who qualify.

When the House passed the American Health Care Act, the bill included individual, advanceable, flexible, refundable tax credits that individuals can use to purchase health insurance policies on the individual market. When the bill passed, however, procedural reasons prevented the House from including two key groups of Americans: veterans who are eligible for coverage through the VA and individuals who need to get continuation of coverage through an employer's COBRA- sponsored plan. The two bills covered under this rule will remedy that same problem.

In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service has adopted a practice of providing eligible veterans the choice to get financial support for a private plan in lieu of enrolling in healthcare provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

H.R. 2372, the VETERAN Act, will codify this and continue that practice retroactively for both the Affordable Care Act's Premium Tax Credit and the new tax credit created in the American Health Care Act. Veterans will continue to be able to get premium support when they opt out to purchase a private health plan instead of enrolling in the healthcare provided by the VA.

Similarly, H.R. 2579 will expand access to the new American Health Care Act tax credit to COBRA, in the continuation of that coverage. Under COBRA, group plans allow beneficiaries to keep their existing employer-sponsored coverage if they are laid off, work fewer hours, or lose insurance due to a change in family circumstances.

Often, those who need to use the COBRA coverage are those most in need, such as individuals who are in the middle of a treatment course and want to preserve their network of providers. COBRA coverage is frequently very expensive, since the individual policyholder must now pay all the premium for their policy.

H.R. 2579 will extend the new tax credits to include people receiving COBRA coverage and enable people who need it to continue taking advantage of their employer-sponsored healthcare coverage, even after a triggering event.

Mr. Speaker, the bills the House will consider under this rule will help fulfill the promise Republicans made to the American people. We made repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with something that works the highest priority. Six weeks ago, we took the first step in fulfilling that promise with the passage of the American Health Care Act, and today we will take another step forward creating a healthcare system that works for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, I urge support for the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say that I do agree with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts. Yesterday, I think Speaker Ryan gave one of the finest speeches that I have heard on the floor of this House.

I also agree that there will be ample time for debate on all of the issues that are encompassed in today's rule, and I look forward to that spirited debate, as I always have in the past. But I also agree with the gentleman, that some of that debate may be best left for another day.

I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Massachusetts and his comments about David Vince. Any time one of our staffers departs from either the minority or the majority side, it is obviously a time of gratitude for their service, and we look forward to what is next in their lives.

But I want to join with the gentleman from Massachusetts that we appreciate the service of David Vince to the minority and to the members of the Rules Committee in general.

So thank you for your service to the House, David.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for all of their work on the rules and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of former First State Bank executive, Lamar Ball, who passed away on March 26, 2017. Mr. Ball was known for his commitment to his family and his leadership in the Denton banking community. He was a skilled visionary who saved First State Bank from potential closure immediately after assuming the role of chairman and CEO in October 1989.

A Tennessee native, Mr. Ball graduated from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1962. Long before he led First State Bank, Mr. Ball began his working life measuring cotton crops straight out of college. After a full year of such work, he decided he needed a change. The only requirement for his next job, according to his daughter Allison, was that it be indoors, so Mr. Ball accepted a banking job in Atlanta and embarked on a banking career that would endure more than 30 years.

To Mr. Ball, his legacy was important. According to his son David, ``His legacy was not the material things he gained; his legacy was his children and grandchildren, and he made sure [they] knew that.'' Mr. Ball was an accomplished and influential banker, but more importantly, he was a loving and dedicated parent and grandparent. He will be greatly missed. I include in the Record an article that appeared in The Denton Record-Chronicle.

Lamar Ball, Former Exec at First State Bank, Dies at Age 76

(Jenna Duncan, Staff Writer)

Lamar Ball, a devoted father, grandfather and a staple in

the Denton banking community, died Sunday after a battle with

myelodysplastic syndrome, a blood disorder that can lead to

cancer. He was 76.

Ball was known in Denton for saving First State Bank. He

started in October 1989 as chairman and CEO and quickly

stopped the bank from losing money and facing closure. He

brought in investor Carl Pohlad, who at the time owned the

major league baseball team Minnesota Twins, and rebuilt the

company, former colleagues said.

``His mission was to raise capital to quite frankly save

the bank and he did, so in my mind he saved First State Bank

of Texas,'' said Bill Bonds, who served as chief financial

officer under Ball. ``He was a visionary. He told me one time

that he loved to create worth. His greatest skill was finding

or taking something that was broken and turning it into

something valuable.''

The Tennessee native graduated from the University of

Tennessee in Knoxville in 1962 and immediately got a job

measuring cotton crops. His daughter, Allison Bertorelli,

said his only specifications for what he wanted in his first

job was that it would be indoors.

The next year, Ball switched to banking with a job in

Atlanta and continued in the industry for more than 30 years.

One phrase he took to heart and would often repeat was, ``I

might not be the smartest guy in the room, but I work harder

than anyone in the room,'' said Glenn Monroe, a family friend

turned colleague at First State in Denton. He was a fan of 6

a.m. meetings and didn't like doing check-ins with employees

on a regular basis. A lot of times, Ball was also the

smartest man in the room, Monroe said.

``You won't meet too many bankers at the executive level

who are willing to make decisions and live with them,''

Monroe said. ``He was willing to listen to all of the

information, listen to your input, and he'd make a decision.

That would be it. If the decision wasn't the greatest one, he

never came back on anyone else.''

A main reason Ball was able to build capital at First State

was through acquiring smaller community banks in the area,

then helping make them more profitable. By the time he left

in the late 1990s, the bank had more than quadrupled its

assets.

From there, he went on to invest and lead Smart Start, a

company that creates alcohol detection technology for cars,

and invested in other companies.

He worked a lot of late nights, his children said, but he

made sure he could always coach a sports team for one of five

children and never missed a game, Bertorelli said. He also

loved the phrase ``Heck of a deal'' whenever one of his kids

came to him with a tale of success.

Later in life, he continued that dedication to family with

his 11 grandchildren. Each photo of him with one of

grandchildren reveals a large, toothy grin with Ball's ears

sticking out, his son, David Ball, said.

``His legacy was a big deal to him,'' David Ball said.

``His legacy was not the material things he gained; his

legacy was his children and grandchildren, and he made sure

we knew that.''

Ball is survived by his wife, Barbara Ball, his five

children, a stepchild and 11 grandchildren. Visitation will

be from 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at Bill DeBerry Funeral

Directors, 2025 W. University Drive.

Funeral service will be at 11 a.m. Thursday at St. Andrew

Presbyterian Church, 300 W. Oak St. in Denton.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Randy Reid, Superintendent of Schools at Keller Independent School District (ISD). Dr. Reid is retiring after thirty-four years of public service in Texas.

Dr. Reid received a bachelor's degree from Baylor University and a master's degree and Doctorate in Education Administration from Texas A&M University at Commerce. After completing his own education, Dr. Reid began his career in public service as a teacher in Richardson ISD. Over the next 24 years, he advanced from teacher to coach to Assistant Superintendent of Richardson ISD. Before assuming the helm of Keller ISD in 2012, Dr. Reid served as the Superintendent of Celina ISD and Tyler ISD.

While serving as superintendent, Dr. Reid oversaw the passage of a $169.5 million bond package which funded four new campuses in the District. This expansion included Keller's first campus solely devoted to Career and Technological Education coursework, the cutting-edge Keller Center for Advanced Learning.

While serving as a catalyst for academic success in his own district, Dr. Reid has also advocated for the advancement of quality education throughout the state of Texas. Dr. Red currently serves as President of the Texas Fast Growth School Coalition, a group of more than fifty of the fastest-growing Texas school districts. In addition, he is active member of the University Interscholastic League (UIL) Waiver Review Board, the Texas Association of School Administrators, and the Future Ready Superintendents Leadership Institute.

For the past five years, Dr. Reid has been a dedicated community leader in the greater Keller area. I salute Dr. Reid for his exemplary career and extend my best wishes upon his retirement. It is an honor to represent the students, families, teachers and staff of Keller ISD in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue support for this week's focus on combating human trafficking.

Some of the people most vulnerable to trafficking are unaccompanied alien children who cross our southern border. These children are oftentimes released to sponsors or relatives, and sometimes they simply disappear. Once released, unaccompanied alien children receive one follow-up phone call, and many are never contacted, leaving them potentially vulnerable to trafficking.

No child should fall into the hands of traffickers because of our lack of surveillance. When I was in practice as a physician, if I ever suspected that a child had been abused, I was required by law to notify authorities. We should require no less of our Federal agencies.

Today, I am asking the Office of Refugee Resettlement to redouble their efforts to make certain these children never end up in the care of the wrong people.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank our Denton County sheriff, Tracy Murphree. Just last weekend, they conducted a significant human trafficking operation that led to 11 arrests. I am grateful for them and for all law enforcement officials for taking the steps to end this abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO).

For nearly a decade, Taiwan has participated as an invited observer at the World Health Assembly, the annual forum for the WHO. This invitation arrived late last year, due to political opposition to democratically-elected President Tsai Ing-wen. This year, no invitation was sent at all. Public health should be a politics-free issue and the WHO, a leading actor in reacting to global health crises, should remain a neutral, independent body which does not only serve the interest of any specific country.

As our world becomes increasingly connected and travel times to places around the globe are decreasing, communicable diseases have spread at an ever increasing pace. With its modem, world-class health system, Taiwan has been a leader in disease prevention, surveillance, quarantine, and treatment. It has been a key ally in the fights against many diseases, including SARS, avian flu, and Zika. Taiwan has shared its expertise and resources with people in South East Asia, and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the World Health Assembly is an important event with worldwide attendance where global health policy is determined. Taiwan's medical expertise should be well represented. I encourage the administration to continue to help Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Assembly and work together with their Taiwanese counterparts to strengthen the bilateral cooperation on health.

Mr. Speaker, how did we get to this point?

The Affordable Care Act is simply not working for the American people. It is limiting choices. It is raising costs. It is leaving millions without access to care. And unfortunately, these are not just talking points but very real issues affecting very real Americans.

The Affordable Care Act has left the individual market in shambles and has driven insurers away from offering coverage. Now, we are seeing one-third of all counties in the United States of America with only a single insurer. And among the plans that have chosen to remain in these markets, there have been widespread, double-digit premium increases. In Texas, premiums have jumped 29 percent a year, on average, from 2014 to 2017.

The markets are in difficulty. They are failing to live up to the promise made 7 years ago, that Americans would be able to receive ``affordable care.''

As we knew then, and we still know now, this was an empty promise and has priced over 19 million Americans out of the market. What is worse, these individuals are forced to pay the individual mandate penalty or seek a hardship exemption because of the cost to purchase and use their health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, 11 months ago, Speaker Ryan released the Better Way plan to save the Nation's healthcare system and to bring relief to the American people. This plan, which served as the blueprint for the American Health Care Act, laid out policies to stabilize the markets damaged by the Affordable Care Act, repeal the burdensome Affordable Care Act taxes and mandates that have hindered innovation and limited access to care. So let's take a look at what the American Health Care Act does.

First and foremost, the American Health Care Act provides immediate relief to the State insurance markets. As Republicans, we know that one-size-fits-all works for no one, and certainly did not work for the individual markets. The States should have the flexibility to support their insurance markets and ensure that plans can continue to provide options for coverage.

To do this, we relax two of the more egregious market regulations that were imposed under the Affordable Care Act: the mandate that premiums cannot vary for younger and older Americans by more than a 3- to-1 ratio and the mandate creating fixed actuarial values for plans.

The mandate limiting a plan's ability to set premiums by age has driven up the cost of coverage for younger and healthier Americans and, subsequently, pushed them away from seeking coverage by the millions. Of the over 19 million Americans who have sidestepped the individual market, it is estimated that as many as 45 percent of these individuals are under the age of 35. Without these younger Americans seeking coverage, the markets have plunged, as insurers have hiked up premiums year after year to compensate for unhealthy risk pools.

To change this, there is relaxation of the 5-to-1 ratio. It will lower premium costs and provide necessary opportunities to stabilize markets. We also give States the option, the choice to go higher or go lower, which honors the spirit of federalism.

Additionally, we are repealing the actuarial values mandate to provide insurers with additional flexibility to offer more coverage options. The requirement for insurers to offer specified Bronze, Silver, and Gold level tiers has limited consumer choice, driving even more individuals away from seeking coverage and further contributing to the collapse of the healthcare markets.

To further supplement these efforts, we are establishing the Patient and State Stability Fund. This fund provides States access to a total of over $140 billion over 10 years to promote innovative solutions to lower costs and increase access to health care for their unique patient populations.

Mr. Speaker, the goal is simple, to provide States with maximum flexibility in how they address the cost of care for their citizens. The American Health Care Act provides States with options for how to use funds, including providing financial assistance for high-cost individuals, incentivizing insurer participation in those markets, reducing the cost of insurance, promoting access to preventive services, and reducing out-of-pocket costs for patients.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a combination of the Stability Fund and other proconsumer changes would reduce premiums by 10 percent below current projections of 2026.

We want patients to have access to high-quality, affordably priced health coverage. The Patient and State Stability Fund can help States lower costs and can increase access to high quality health care for their citizens.

In addition to supporting the insurance markets, the American Health Care Act creates needed reforms to the Medicaid program itself. Without any changes, the current Medicaid expansion is expected to cost $1 trillion in 10 years' time--$1 trillion a year in 10 years' time. Medicaid needs reform so that States can continue to provide coverage to children, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups, the very populations that this safety net program was created to serve.

To address these concerns, the American Health Care Act first phases out the Medicaid expansion, not traditional Medicaid but Medicaid expansion. The expansion has hurt State budgets and limited States' abilities to ensure that resources will continue to be available for the vulnerable populations for which Medicaid was designed. By phasing out expansion, we are providing States with greater budget autonomy.

Additionally, our bill helps further bend the Medicaid cost curve by shifting the program toward a per beneficiary allotment. Per beneficiary allotments set limits on the annual growth for per capita expenditures for which the States will receive matching funds from the Federal Government. Per beneficiary allotments create greater fiscal accountability and ensure that the program can continue to exist for years to come.

This is not a new idea. This was an idea put forward by President Bill Clinton and, at one time, supported by every Democratic Member of the Senate in 1995.

Second, the American Health Care Act increases the amount of flexibility that States have in managing their Medicaid program. The bill scales back the Affordable Care Act mandates that have limited a State's ability to tailor plans toward the needs of beneficiaries. States can and States should be trusted to effectively manage the needs of their Medicaid beneficiaries. The American Health Care Act will allow them to do so.

Additionally, the American Health Care Act furthers the goal of providing the States with greater flexibility in managing their Medicaid programs by providing States with the option to implement two additional opportunities: work requirements and block grants for Medicaid.

When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, some of the most consistent complaints that we heard throughout the discussion came from Governors and State representatives expressing concerns about the negative consequences that they saw on the horizon.

This time around, we chose to engage our State counterparts in the discussion and listen to their input as we designed the bill; and at the top of their list was a desire to see the work requirements built into the Medicaid and the expansion populations, and the opportunity to work with Medicaid as a block grant.

Republicans trust that States know what works for their respective populations, and we are not going to stand in the way of States seeking to design Medicaid programs that work for them.

Finally, the American Health Care Act provides additional resources to bolster State safety net providers. The bill provides increases to the Community Health Center Fund, offers enhanced funding to support the safety net providers in States that did not expand Medicaid, and ends the cuts to Disproportionate Share Hospital payments, cuts that are going to occur under current law on October 1 of this year.

We are committed to ensuring that our local providers can continue to deliver lifesaving care and that the American Health Care Act turns this commitment into action. For the millions of Americans in rural and medically underserved areas, these actions

will provide needed relief that was undercut by the Affordable Care Act and will allow these Americans to continue to have access to care.

Moving forward, together, these efforts will provide meaningful reform and relief for the States and for the individuals seeking health care. We are stabilizing the markets, reforming Medicaid in the most substantive and consequential way in its 52-year history, and ensuring that all Americans can maintain access to care through local safety net providers.

We do recognize there is still more work to be done in health care, and that is why we only consider the American Health Care Act to be the beginning. It is the key that gets us through the door into additional health reform. From here, we will work with Secretary Price at the Department of Health and Human Services to further deregulate the marketplace and increase consumer choice in the healthcare markets, and we will enhance the American Health Care Act with additional legislative efforts to further the goal of lowering healthcare costs.

Mr. Speaker, this should be a very exciting time in health care. With all of the knowledge that has been gained over the years in the practice of medicine, I am humbled to be here today speaking in support of this legislation.

It will begin the much-awaited process of unwinding the Affordable Care Act and will finally return patients to the center of health care.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 308, I call up the bill (H.R. 2192) to amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate the non-application of certain State waiver provisions to Members of Congress and congressional staff, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2192.

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

Mr. Speaker, after 7 years, we have heard the stories from our constituents, from our patients, from our friends, from our families who have suffered under the Affordable Care Act. Today, we will have a chance to vote on a plan that will rescue and revitalize the market and lower costs and increase flexibility for patients to choose and keep a health insurance plan that works for them and their family. However, before we can do that, we have to pass a bill that will ensure that Members of Congress and their staffs are treated the same way as the rest of America.

So let's be clear. We firmly believe that Members of Congress should live by the same rules as everyone else, period. The bill we are considering now will make a simple technical correction to ensure that the American Health Care Act and its amendments apply equally to everyone when signed into law.

Over the last several months, we have worked thoughtfully and thoroughly with our colleagues in the Senate to achieve our shared goal of repealing and replacing ObamaCare. Throughout these discussions, we have come to better appreciate and better understand the other Chamber's reconciliation limitations. As a result, we have drafted the American Health Care Act with constant awareness of what the slightest misstep may mean for the legislation's privileged status or that 51- vote threshold in the other body.

Some might say it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to draft House policy to Senate procedure, but we are confident that we have achieved that challenging feat.

One of the limitations we have come to respect is that no committee other than the Senate Committee on Finance or the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions can receive a jurisdictional referral. For example, if we were to cross-reference multi-State plans established by the Affordable Care Act, we would get a referral to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee because those plans are under the Office of Personnel Management.

So let's be clear, congressional healthcare operates as a small group plan within the District of Columbia's SHOP Exchange. This was a decision that was made by the Obama administration.

So for waivers impacting the essential health benefits of age rating, which impacts both the individual and small group markets, Members of Congress and our staffs would be treated the same. As far as community rating, this impacts only the individual market, so no group plans, including Members of Congress or our staffs, would be impacted.

Even so, in an attempt to be crystal clear, today we are passing a bill, out of fairness and transparency, to ensure that Congress operates under the same laws as private citizens, a principle that both Republicans and Democrats should support.

My thanks to Representative McSally for her leadership on this issue. Her bill helps deliver us a step closer to fulfilling our promise. Today we will fulfill our promise to provide relief from the higher costs and the dwindling choices for patients under the Affordable Care Act. Today we will repeal and replace ObamaCare with a better solution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a valuable member of the Health Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to now speak to the underlying MacArthur amendment that the McSally bill is here to modify. The MacArthur amendment specifically would allow States to waive three of ObamaCare's costliest mandates. Let me stress that again. It would allow States-- not require States; it would allow States to waive three of ObamaCare's costliest mandates, essential health benefits, age ratings, and community rating.

In waiving these Federal mandates, health insurers would not be allowed to discriminate by gender or preexisting condition, and no one would be denied coverage, period.

Here is how it works: a State may apply to waive essential health benefits or to increase the age rating ratio from the bill's underlying 5-to-1 ratio. They may also change the way individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage are charged for their healthcare plan, but only if the State has a risk-sharing program in place, like the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program established by the Palmer- Schweikert amendment.

In order to receive a waiver, a State must explain to the Secretary of Health and Human Services how the program will reduce average premiums for patients, increase enrollment for residents, stabilize the State's health insurance market, stabilize premiums for individuals living with preexisting conditions, or increase the patient's healthcare options.

It is important to note that in providing assistance to reduce premiums or other out-of-pocket costs, for individuals who may be subject to an increase in their monthly premiums because they reside in a State with an approved waiver, have a preexisting condition, are uninsured because they have not maintained continuous coverage and they purchase health insurance on the individual market, there will be $138 billion to assist with premium assistance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that within the State of Illinois, there were eight plans in 2015. There are five plans in 2017 with a 57 percent increase in premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, directed to the Chair, I would just make note of the fact in North Carolina, there were three plans offered in 2015, down to two plans in 2017, premium increase of 82 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), another valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, in the State of Florida, there were 10 insurance plans available in the individual market in 2015, down to 5 plans in 2017, with a 24 percent premium increase.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins), who is a very valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), who is a very valuable Member of Congress and a fellow physician.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), who is a fellow physician and the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do want to take a minute today to thank the superior team we have in the House Legislative Counsel. They have put in many man hours and woman hours to draft this bill that is being considered here in the House today. Specifically I want to thank Ed Grossman, Jessica Shapiro, Michelle Vanek, and Jesse Cross for their devotion to the people of the United States in helping us draft this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to correct a technical problem that exists with trying to draft to Senate rules with the House legislation. Recognizing the problem, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally) has introduced a straightforward and practical bill to fix the problem. It is a simple 2-page bill that, when the American

Health Care Act becomes law, Members of Congress and congressional staff will be treated the same way as every other citizen. That is only right, and it is only proper.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Reverend Richard Kevin Barnard, who passed on March 18, 2017. Reverend Barnard has served as a minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church since July of 1989. Prior to that, he served 18 years at The Chapel of the Cross in Dallas, Texas and most recently at Christ Church Angelican Ft. Worth.

Before coming to The Chapel, Reverend Barnard was Director of Communications for the International Bible Society, which was then located in East Brunswick, New Jersey. In that capacity he was a regular participant in the monthly White House Forum for Religious Organizations during the Reagan Administration and represented the Bible Society at public and private events, traveling to Central America, Europe, Africa and Asia.

At my invitation on July 26, 2006, Reverend Barnard served as Chaplin of the Day for the United States House of Representatives.

Reverend Barnard's gracious presence and true dedication to the work and word of Christ has been an instrumental part of my life. He encouraged his congregation to remain faithful to pursuing our walk with Christ daily.