Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the recognition. Our country is in a war crisis unlike anything that has been seen for over 100 years, but there are heroes. We know our first responders. We know our doctors and nurses on the front lines, in our intensive care units. We know what heroes they are. But, Mr. Speaker, not all heroes wear capes. I have a furniture manufacturer in my district, Barbara Caldwell, who called me last weekend and said she wanted to transition her furniture manufacturing to manufacture personal protective equipment, and she is doing so. I had an aircraft manufacturer that said they wanted to manufacture ventilators, and they are changing their clean room and hiring the engineers so that they can do that. We do have heroes in this country. They don't always wear capes. I also want to recognize the hard work done by the staff on the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee--J.P. Paluskiewicz, Kristen Shatynski, Kristin Seum, Caleb Graff; and then on my staff, Elizabeth Allen, Casey Patchunka, Rachel Huggins, and my chief of staff, James Decker--who are all over in the office right now making certain that this goes smoothly.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2339, the Protecting American Lungs and Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2019. This bill is a misnomer. It is not aimed at curbing youth tobacco or e-cigarette use, it is aimed at tobacco generally. Both parties in the House and Senate agreed that we needed to act in order to prevent youth access to these products. In December, we fulfilled that commitment by sending a bill to the President's desk, which he signed, that raised the legal age to purchase all tobacco products to 21 years of age. President Trump signed what has been termed ``T21`` into law on December 20 of 2019. This policy will break down youth access through social networks in schools where 18-year olds could purchase tobacco products legally and then disseminate those products to younger students. Other significant efforts such as the flavor ban by the Trump administration will help limit youth tobacco use. The Food and Drug Administration has issued a ban on flavored e-cigarette products that appeal to children, including fruit and mint flavors. This ban will help deter youth use in the future and prevent companies from targeting children with appealing flavors. When we first held a hearing on the vaping lung injury at the start of the outbreak back in October, the cause of this lung injury was unclear, however, these lung injuries were disproportionately affecting the young population. After diligent efforts by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and State health departments, we have since found that the vast majority of these lung injuries were caused by tetrahydrocannabinol and the vaping products containing vitamin E acetate, an additive. Let me point out that none of these products are legal, and children are buying them on the black market. An article from National Public Radio, published September 27, 2019, titled ``Many Vaping Illnesses Linked to Black Market `Dank Vapes' or Other THC Products,'' walks through how two brothers in Wisconsin were arrested for running a THC vape ring. Captain Mike Martin of the Waynesboro Police Department in Virginia said that these products are labeled ``Dank Vapes'' and ``appear commercially packaged, and there are a variety of different flavors.'' His police department has recovered $35,000 worth of vaping products. At this point, Madam Speaker, I think it is worthwhile to point out it is probably not a good idea for anyone to take into their lungs something that is labeled ``Dank Vapes.'' According to the CDC, ``Dank Vapes appears to be the most prominent in a class of largely counterfeit brands, with common packaging that is easily available online and that is used by distributors to market THC- containing cartridges.'' H.R. 2339 does absolutely nothing to crack down on that black market. These deliciously named vaping products, with flavors such as lemon slushie, bubble gum, and sour diesel, will likely continue to be sold illegally, especially online. The Trump administration has already released guidance to ban flavors. The Food and Drug Administration is requiring companies to stop the manufacture, distribution, and sale of certain unauthorized flavored e-cigarette products within 30 days of their published guidance. This guidance took effect on February 6, 2020, and is now in effect and enforceable. This bill takes the flavor ban further and bans all flavored tobacco products, including menthol. This will take flavored cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco away from law-abiding adults, who must now, by law, be 21 years of age to purchase any tobacco product. Additionally, this bill contains a potential infringement on the First Amendment by requiring health warnings on cigarette labels and advertising. There are other ways to educate individuals, particularly our young population, of the harmful effects of smoking without impinging on freedom of speech. Congress has already taken steps to protect our young people from a future of tobacco addiction when we passed Tobacco 21, and the Trump administration has stepped up and banned flavored e-cigarette products. The House also passed H.R. 3942, the Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act, which requires age verification by all retailers at the time of sale and delivery. These policies will prevent young people from accessing e-cigarettes and will deter future use. On the other hand, H.R. 2339 does not address youth tobacco use. This bill would ban all flavored tobacco products from all ages, taking away choices for law-abiding adult Americans. So, let's be clear. Tobacco is not healthy; however, law-abiding adults are capable of making these decisions for themselves. Traditional cigarettes remain the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, claiming an estimated 480,000 lives or more each year. This is a personal issue for me, as I lost both parents to tobacco-related disease. Now, according to the CDC, an estimated 34 million adults in the United States currently smoke cigarettes, and more than 16 million Americans live with a smoking-related disease. While I am certainly concerned about the effect of e-cigarettes on our young people, we do need to remember that there is a large adult population with a whole host of health problems related to tobacco. Some early studies show that current adult tobacco users may benefit from the less harmful alternative that e-cigarettes pose. Additionally, the adult population will seek out alternatives if their tobacco product of choice is eliminated from the legal market. A bill like this that makes illegal the products used by many Americans could contribute to an already existing and thriving black market for tobacco products. As we saw last year, the outbreak of lung injuries was linked to counterfeit and black market products. There were reports of illicit operations by individuals taking THC vape cartridges and cutting the product with other oils to maximize their profit. If H.R. 2339 becomes law, it could inspire similar black market operations to create products that law-abiding Americans currently enjoy. This bill is not about youth use of vaping products. It is about eliminating all adult use of tobacco products. We have seen a surge of lung injuries in the United States, an issue that is not adequately addressed in this bill. The Centers for Disease Control has linked these injuries to THC products, not tobacco. Protecting our youth from tobacco is an important priority. However, H.R. 2339 does not do that, and it goes too far. Therefore, I cannot support it. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the bill, oppose the rule that delivers the bill, and oppose this assault on free choice for the American people. Madam Speaker, with opposition to the rule, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill today, written by Yvette Clarke, making a point about the unintended consequences of this legislation. The bill carves out an exemption for certain cigar products, but it also creates a ban on menthol products, which would have the unintended consequence of adversely and selectively affecting individuals, tobacco users, in communities of color. [From The Hill, Feb. 27, 2020] Youth Tobacco Use Legislation Would Have Unintended Life-or-Death Consequences for Black Tobacco Users (By Rep. Yvette D. Clarke) This week marks a critical, life-changing moment for the black community, specifically for black tobacco users. The Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act (H.R. 2339) is set for a vote this week in the House of Representatives, and while this bill seemingly makes a lot of sense in curbing youth tobacco use, there are some glaring unintended dire consequences for communities of color with this legislation. H.R. 2339 does many things with the goal to reduce youth tobacco use, like providing resources for a substantive public awareness campaign to educate about the dangers of tobacco use and reducing access to online purchases of flavored tobacco products. However, this legislation does not treat all tobacco products equally, carving out an exemption for one flavored product, premium cigars preferred by white smokers. A ban that makes an exception for one flavor-- premium cigars--while banning menthol puts black lives at risk. Let me explain. Considering the fact that 90 percent of black smokers use menthol products, menthol tobacco users would live in fear of new stop and frisk opportunities under this legislation, because menthol would now be considered an illegal flavor. A ban that targets menthol products but ignores other premium tobacco products unduly burdens the black community. This asymmetrical ban feels more like a targeted attack than a value-neutral health care policy decision. In effect, white adult smokers would see little difference in their lives after this ban while black smokers could face even more sweeping harassment from law enforcement if the hint of menthol smoke can justify a stop. Make no mistake, banning all electronic and combustible tobacco products would save lives and while the premise of this legislation to address the uptick in youth tobacco use is positive, we cannot support an asymmetrical ban that disproportionately endangers the black community. While the debate has not made this clear, we are unfortunately not currently considering a ban on all tobacco products. In fact, we are not even debating a uniform ban on vaping products or combustible cigarettes. Instead, the ban would focus solely on flavored tobacco products, including menthol. Considering how often teenagers develop smoking habits after starting with flavored products, I understand why the Energy and Commerce Committee has focused on this issue. However, including menthol in the flavored products ban will disproportionately imperil the black community putting them at increased risk of additional over-policing. I do not take this position lightly, but as an elected official I must make the hard decisions--not the easy ones. I have a responsibility, to my constituents and the Constitution, to be the voice of the marginalized among us. To do so, I worked with the committee to find solutions to the criminal justice concerns of my community but was ultimately rebuffed. Nonetheless, I introduced an amendment promoting an education program to increase awareness about the dangers of tobacco use and the implications of this legislation. Constructive efforts like this will make considerable headway towards reducing tobacco use without laying the foundation for disparate enforcement of a ban. While I would love to assume the best intentions of all involved parties and hope for the best in regard to enforcement, lived experience demands caution. In the world created by this asymmetrical ban where menthol tobacco products provide justification for police stops, I fear that we would have handed law enforcement another excuse to harass, detain and otherwise endanger marginalized communities. Despite the clear health benefits of this ban, I cannot in good conscious expose already vulnerable communities to this risk. As a duly elected representative of Brooklyn, it would be an abdication of duty to disregard our painful history of over-policing or to ignore the very real potential of this history repeating itself. While no one would enjoy the political pressure this has exposed, I cannot ignore my nightmares of a jumped turnstile and a loosie turning into a far more serious matter of life and death potentially creating an additional health crisis. As Eric Garner's mother knows all too well, and relayed in a letter to the New York delegation regarding this ban, in New York a single cigarette can become a death sentence. If the committee decides to improve this bill by making it a categorical ban on tobacco products, I will throw my full support behind the effort. When I asked for a carve out for menthol products, similar to the carve out that was granted for the on line sales of premium tobacco products like the Cuban cigars favored by Wall Street executives, I was soundly rebuffed. I would proudly support a categorical tobacco ban, but the committee so far has denied this opportunity. Nonetheless, and regardless of the political pressures, I will continue to do everything in my power to protect the people of the 9th District of New York and all black tobacco users across America.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter from Mothers of the Movement. They state, in part: ``We ask that, at the same time you consider health issues, you look carefully at the criminal justice impact of such a change in health policy. Our community has had plenty of experience living under laws passed with the best of intentions. Under your bill, cigarettes preferred by African Americans would be illegal; cigarettes preferred by non-African Americans would be legal.'' Mothers of the Movement, Miami Gardens, FL, October 11, 2019. Hon. Frank Pallone, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up a resolution condemning the comments of Democratic Socialist Presidential candidate Bernard Sanders. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, to explain this amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this bill claims to curb youth tobacco use, including vaping. The reality is it bans many types of tobacco products that are legally and voluntarily used by adults. While I do not support any form of tobacco use, it is a choice for law-abiding adults to make. The unintended consequences of suddenly making legal tobacco products illegal will likely push people to the black market to seek the same products--or worse. If we really want to address vaping, we need to target products containing tetrahydrocannabinol, THC. As I previously stated, we just recently made tobacco use illegal for those under the age of 21, and the Trump administration has banned certain flavored e-cigarette products. This is a problem that requires a multilayered approach. Unfortunately, the provisions in this bill will not produce the desired result, and could even create more harm than good for some populations. Republicans do stand ready to work on bipartisan solutions to increase the health of our population and to protect our young people, but I need to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Fred O. Placke Ill. He was a businessman, educator, realtor, public servant and humanitarian. As a college student at Tarleton State in Stephenville, Texas, Mr. Placke and a small group of fellow football players distributed donated gifts to children at a local foster home. Over the past four decades, he expanded that initial charitable endeavor into an annual community Christmas event in Goldthwaite, Texas as he and a multitude of volunteer ``elves'' delivered moving trucks full of thousands of presents for children at the New Horizons Foster Home. After graduation, Mr. Placke returned to his hometown of Spring Woods where he taught history and coached football. Later in his teaching career, he taught U.S. government at Marcus High School in Flower Mound, Texas and was voted ``Teacher of the Year'' in 1997. Two years later, he was elected to the Lewisville ISD Board of Trustees and subsequently served for twelve years; six of those years, he led the Board as President. Fred Placke was a passionate educator, dedicated leader and active community volunteer. He was a beloved husband, father and grandfather and will be sorely missed by his family and friends to whom I extend my sincere condolences.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exemplary work and life of service of Captain David Owen of the University of North Texas Police Department in Denton, Texas. Captain David Owen began his law enforcement career with the Titus County Sheriff's Office in 2004. He was hired by the University of North Texas Police Department on June 13, 2005 as a Police Officer. He served the UNT students, faculty, and staff until his death on February 11, 2020 after a courageous battle with cancer. Captain Owen received a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and political science from Midwestern State University and a graduate certification in criminal justice education from the University of Virginia. He also attended several leadership training programs including the 270th session of the FBI National Academy, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators Executive Development Institute and the Institute for Law Enforcement Administration's School of Police Supervision. At the time of his death, Captain Owen supervised the Field Services unit of the police department, overseeing patrol and special events planning. His prior roles in the department include serving as Support Services Unit Supervisor, Criminal Investigator and Patrol Officer. Captain Owen was a certified TCOLE Master Peace Officer and Police Instructor. He had served on UNT's Student Support Task Force, and earned a Police Commendation and the Excellence in Public Service award, as well as being recognized by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). David Owen was extremely tough and resilient in his last fight, a reflection of the type of person he was--dedicated to performing the job well and to the best of his abilities. He stood up for what he believed was right but was always thoughtful enough to consider the viewpoints of others. He believed strongly in educating himself and others so that clear and informed decisions could be made. He is survived by his wife Joy and their six children who live in Krum, Texas. Captain Owen devoted over 20 years of his life to protect and serve his community, putting strangers' safety above his own, and we are indebted to him. His positive impact and worthwhile contributions to the UNT Police Department and UNT community will be sorely missed. I am deeply grateful for his service and pray for comfort and peace for his wife, children and friends.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Midshipman Duke Anthony Carrillo of Flower Mound, Texas. On February 8, 2020, Duke passed away after collapsing during his semi-annual physical readiness test. He was a dynamic, patriotic young man intent on serving his country as a military officer. He was the son of Gerald and Jennifer Carrillo, and brother of fellow midshipman, his twin Dylan, and younger brother Jake. He was a 2016 graduate of Flower Mound High School. An all-star athlete, Duke was a three-year varsity letterman in football and wrestling. He was an Eagle Scout, member of the Flower Mound High School Student Council, and an active church and community volunteer. In everything that he did, Duke strived for greatness. Led by his strong desire to serve his country, Duke received nominations to attend the United States Naval Academy and United States Merchant Marine Academy. He also received a letter of assurance from the United States Coast Guard Academy. On June 28, 2018, Duke was inducted in the Naval Academy's Class of 2022, with his twin brother Dylan. Duke believed that service to country is one of the greatest achievements a man can have, and that he was called to take a stand to serve and protect our nation. He aspired to be a naval aviator, was a member of the Naval Academy's Flight Training Squadron and was selected to serve as a Naval Academy Summer Seminar squad leader. Duke majored in quantitative economics, was an active member of the 24th Company and an intramural athlete. Our nation has lost a brilliant young leader. May the world be inspired by this exceptional young man's legacy and strive to follow in his footsteps.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Part of one of the underlying bills, H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act, includes language to expand the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area by some 191,000 acres, an area known as the Rim of the Valley Corridor. In 2008, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study whether to designate all or a portion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor as part of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. In 2016, the National Park Service recommended an expansion of 173,000 acres. The bill today expands the area by more than that to 191,000 acres, including new areas that were not listed in the study. They are completely disconnected from the Rim of the Valley Corridor; yet they are included in the exclusion. In addition, the National Park Service testified in June 2019 against the proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, citing a need to focus resources on the deferred maintenance backlog. The proposed land expansion would include Soledad Canyon, a mineral- rich area where the Bureau of Land Management has issued contracts to mine millions of tons of sand and gravel for southern California. Our strong economy has led to an increase in manufacturing and construction. The problem is that the supply of construction materials, like those that can be found in this area, is declining. This legislation, the underlying legislation, would make it incredibly onerous for contracted companies to move forward with agreed-upon projects. Democrats often talk about the importance of a large infrastructure bill, yet the passage of this bill would increase the costs of essential materials that such projects do require. The bottom line is that the land under consideration is currently in dispute, and decisions that will significantly change the landscape and activity of an area should not occur without consensus. Last night, the Rules Committee reported a rule that included consideration of two amendments that may help address these concerns. Representative McClintock offered an amendment to allow the Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior to exclude from wilderness designations any areas that do not meet the definition of wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act. Representative Westerman offered an amendment to strike all designations of potential wilderness under the bill. Those are commonsense amendments, and when the appropriate time comes, I urge all Members to support the amendments. The underlying bill is flawed, and I will oppose it on passage.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three unrelated measure, each of which have little chance of passing the Senate or becoming law. The one is a nonbinding messaging resolution, another one a partisan labor bill, and the third provides billions of dollars in Federal aid for disaster recovery from recent earthquakes in Puerto Rico, but actually can be distributed to meet unmet needs in other States. Let's talk first about the resolution expressing disapproval for the Trump administration's Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration project that was just announced on January 30. A letter provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to State Medicaid directors detailed an option for States to apply for increased flexibility under the section 1115 for Medicaid waivers. The Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration provides States with a choice as to how they would like to receive their funding for adults under the age of 65 who are covered by a Medicaid expansion population. This does not include children. This does not include pregnant women. It does not include individuals with disabilities, or the elderly. This only applies to healthy adults who are not covered as part of the traditional Affordable Care Act population, and if, and only if, the States decide to pursue the Healthy Adult Opportunity. H. Res. 862 is a political statement made to diminish the efforts of the Trump administration. It is unreasonable and unrealistic for Democrats to declare this demonstration an attack on Medicaid after only a few days since the release of the plan. Do we have a full understanding of the opportunity grants? So I strongly suggest Members on both sides of the aisle speak with their Governors and their counterparts in State legislatures to ask about this option. My office did indeed speak with our Texas Governor this week. The State is still unpacking everything that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may provide, and this may not be an option Texas will take, but it is up to them. They are currently running internal analyses to come to a conclusion, a process that does take some time. Recognizing this, there is little chance that the Senate will agree to this messaging resolution. A far better approach would have been for us to have, perhaps, a hearing and a markup in our committee of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, not everyone agreed with that. H.R. 2474, the PRO Act, has a similarly low chance of being considered by the Senate. The bill is nothing more than a requirement that workers become members of labor unions. Republicans support the right of employees to form a labor union, but it should be a choice for every individual worker. There is a card-check system included in this bill. Employees will no longer enjoy the privacy of a secret ballot election. Organizers will be able to collect authorization cards covering 50 percent of the bargaining unit and form a union without holding a secret election. In effect, employees are not protected from potential political intimidation and not protected from coercive behavior by organizers in an effort to obtain the required number of cards. That is not free and voluntary choice. Against a recent National Labor Relations Board decision, the bill reinstates what are called micro unions, allowing bargaining units smaller than a workplace if there is a community of interest. The joint employer standard is expanded, creating liability for franchise owners, franchise owners who may have no direct relationship with the franchisee employee. This is not only unreasonable, it is impractical, and certainly will weaken or damage the franchise model of business. In addition, the bill preempts State right-to-work laws. My State is a right-to-work State. Does the Federal Government know Texas citizens better than the State of Texas? This disregards the rights of 27 States by overturning their right-to-work laws. Even more concerning, employers will be required to provide union organizers with an employee's personal information without the employee's consent. In the Energy and Commerce Committee we are in the middle of negotiating both sides: What are the parameters, or what should be the parameters of a Federal privacy law? This provision in this bill flies in the face of protecting individuals' privacy, and it is odd because in the committee, the other side seemed so eager to defend privacy in any other forum. Along with these partisan measures, we are also considering emergency disaster funding for Puerto Rico. The supplemental appropriation provides over $4 billion for cyber and energy security, electricity restoration, education assistance, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Community Development Block Grant. In recent years, Puerto Rico has faced multiple natural disasters, including Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, and a series of earthquakes in January of this year. There is no doubt that Puerto Rico is facing a long road to recovery, but compounding the national disasters is a mismanagement of aid. Just a couple of weeks ago, a warehouse was discovered full of emergency supplies. Some of them had been there since 2017. Citizens were outraged. They broke into the warehouse and took it upon themselves to distribute the aid. President Trump released nearly $16 billion in aid funding in January but did place restrictions on usage to help prevent any squandering of Federal resources. This bill provides additional billions in aid without any accountability measures. Existing disaster aid should be expended before appropriating billions of taxpayer dollars. And then here is the kicker: It may not go towards its intended recipients. Only a small portion of these funds are specifically directed to Puerto Rico. The rest may be applied to unmet needs of disasters in recent years. Yes, including Puerto Rico, but including many other States. FEMA has yet to complete its damage assessment, and initial assessments indicate $40 million in Federal costs, a much smaller amount than appropriated in this bill. No one wants to deny any Americans support when they are in need, but this appropriation is premature. We could and should take the time to evaluate the best path for recovery for Puerto Rico, and we have the ability because there is existing disaster aid that has been released to meet those immediate needs. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), who is a valued member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 1 minute.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider a resolution reinforcing policies that are part of the ``best is yet to come'' blueprint, which was outlined by President Trump in this very Chamber on Tuesday night in his historic and optimistic State of the Union Address. His address highlighted the increase in wages for American workers, the decrease in unemployment, the reduction in the number of those receiving nutrition assistance, and the strength of our Armed Forces. He went on to detail the ongoing efforts to decrease healthcare costs and to improve access to broadband and the continuing defense of our borders, among other priorities. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman) to speak on his amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, one of the underlying bills here, H. Res. 826, is really nothing more than a political exercise, and I really am disappointed at how we have come to discuss the healthier adult opportunity demonstration, in the manner that it is. If we were to have a legitimate debate on an optional policy, we should do so in a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. That is why the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Republican leader Walden and me sent a letter to Chairman Pallone to request such a hearing. We should be asking questions of agencies and States that are deciding whether or not they would like to utilize this option to deploy the new section 1115 waiver for this very specific population. Should a State choose to apply for this Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration, it will only be allowed to address the adults that are under 65 that fall into the expansion population. This optional demonstration changes nothing for children. It changes nothing for seniors, changes nothing for individuals with disabilities. All essential health benefit requirements remain in place. Most importantly, States do not have to take this option because it is an option. States can maintain the status quo and continue to operate their Medicaid programs as they were before this opportunity was presented to them. Some States may find this demonstration provides the necessary increased flexibility for them to handle the limited healthy adult population that is now covered under Medicaid expansion. In fact, under one of the financing mechanisms, if a State does not spend all of its Federal allotment under the Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration, it can keep 25 to 50 percent of the savings not to transfer over to the road and bridge fund, but to reinvest in Medicaid. In the States that might be ravished by an opioid epidemic, that could mean getting more individuals with opioid use disorder into treatment. It could allow States additional flexibility to help their most vulnerable populations. And we heard very compelling testimony in the Rules Committee last night from the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) about the unconscionably long waiting list for individuals with disabilities to get coverage under Medicaid. Madam Speaker, 700,000 people across the country are on that waiting list. These shared savings could go in to reducing that case backlog for those individuals. Look, this may not be an opportunity that every State wants to take. That is why it is optional. That is what optional means. My State, the State of Texas, is working through whether or not this would be beneficial, a beneficial demonstration opportunity for them. There is a lot to look at in the rule that was produced by the Department of Health and Human Services. After all, it was just a week ago that this was received, and people are looking into whether or not it makes sense for them. But we, in this body, should take the time to understand this, rather than simply jump to a conclusion with an action that is ultimately going to be meaningless because it goes nowhere. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, I just want to highlight a few things. The gentleman from Virginia came and spoke about an amendment that will be offered if we defeat the previous question. As a consequence of that defeat of the previous question is the consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. Riggleman. And some of the things that people need to understand is that, well, they will be voting against these things if they vote to approve the previous question: The acknowledgment that jobs and investment are coming into this country at a rate that has previously not been known. America is now energy-independent and energy jobs, like so many elements of our country, are at a record high. We are building an inclusive society that is making sure that every young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. That Congress wants to support our students and back the plan to offer vocational and technical education to every single high school in America. In addition, the commitment to access to high speed internet, including rural America, and the defense of religious liberty. Many of us worked the prayer breakfast this morning and heard this an additional time, but including the constitutional right to pray in public schools. I just want people to be aware that if they defeat the previous question, this is where we will be engaging. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.