Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Guyer High School sophomores Brynn Brown and Eli Stowers, who recently won gold medals at the 2019 UIL Texas State Track and Field meet. The students' victories are well-earned. Following her regional meet, Ms. Brown was a self-proclaimed underdog. At the beginning of her mile run, Ms. Brown was seeded fourth in a competitive array of runners. Despite these circumstances, she finished first with a mile time of 4.28 minutes. Impressively, Ms. Brown won a second gold medal in the 3,200-meter run. In the high jump competition, Mr. Stowers reached a remarkable 6 feet and 10 inches to claim the gold medal. Persevering through inclement weather, he rose to the challenge--a testament to his hard work and diligent preparation. I commend Guyer High School track and field coaches Jonathan Ponsonby, Megan Hardesty, and Aaron Roberts for their leadership and dedication. It is a privilege to represent Guyer High School in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am pleased to recognize the achievements of Brynn Brown and Eli Stowers, and I wish them continued success in their athletic and academic endeavors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, this amendment permanently subjects funding for the CFPB to congressional appropriation and authorizes funding for fiscal year 2020 at the fiscal year 2019 level. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently funded by the Federal Reserve System, based upon a formula. Congress has never been able to fully determine the funding level for the CFPB, limiting congressional oversight and the American taxpayers' right to have a voice in these activities. As Acting Director Mick Mulvaney stated in his quarterly funding request to Chairman Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: ``By design, this funding mechanism denies the American people their rightful control over how the Bureau spends their money. This undermines the Bureau's legitimacy. The Bureau should be funded through congressional appropriations. However, I am bound to execute the law as written.'' If Democrats do not like the actions of the CFPB Director, they should support returning control to the Congress, to the United States House of Representatives, to the people's House, through the appropriations process, as was envisioned by the Founders in the Constitution. This amendment simply returns congressional oversight by bringing funding for the CFPB under our discretionary appropriations process. Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this important and commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a section of the bill requiring public availability of all consumer complaints, obviously a CFPB web page. A provision of the bill requires that all consumer complaints be made available on a public CFPB website. While it sounds like an attempt at transparency, I am concerned about how it will affect the entities against which the complaints are filed. We had a similar provision that was included back in the stimulus bill, the HITECH Act in ARRA in 2009, resulting in the loss of consumer confidence in healthcare entities because there was no reporting required on remedial action. That is, once you got on the list, you could never get off the list. The language of this bill requires disclosure of complaints, but there is no information on which complaints must be posted and whether they can be removed. Will entities be publicly held as guilty before an investigation is conducted? Will there be a way to indicate that remedial action has occurred? Until these questions are clarified, we must not subject entities to the immediate disclosure of consumer complaints. This amendment strikes this provision so that we may thoroughly discuss these issues before submitting them to become law. Madam Chair, again, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this amendment permanently subjects the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to congressional appropriation and authorizes funding for fiscal year 2020 at the fiscal year 2019 level. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently funded through the Federal Reserve System based on a formula. Congress has never been able to fully determine the fund level for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, limiting congressional oversight and the American taxpayers' right to have a voice in these activities. Acting Director Mick Mulvaney so stated during his quarterly funding request to Chairman Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. If the Democrats do not like the actions of the Director of the CFPB, they should support returning control to Congress, to the people's House, through the appropriations process. This amendment simply returns congressional oversight by bringing funding for the CFPB under our discretionary appropriations process. Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Director Mulvaney in his quarterly funding request to Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: ``By design, this funding mechanism denies the American people their rightful control over how the Bureau spends their money, which this undermines the Bureau's legitimacy. The Bureau should be funded through congressional appropriations. However, I am bound to execute the law as written.'' It says pretty clearly in the Constitution that no money may be drawn from the Treasury except as an appropriation by the United States Congress. Most people do not accuse us of underspending when it comes to the appropriations process, so I fail to see that as a valid argument. Look, if you don't like the actions of the Director of the CFPB, support returning the funding to the Congress, support returning control to the Congress so you will have the control that you seek. Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the outstanding career of Ms. Sonya Lail. This spring, she is retiring from her position as principal of Flower Mound High School, where she has served in multiple leadership positions for the past 17 years. Ms. Lail grew up in El Paso, Texas, where she was inspired by one of her teachers to become an educator. She went on to pursue her Bachelors of Science degree in education from the University of Texas at El Paso, and achieved master's degrees from Texas Tech University and Sul Ross State University. In 2002, Ms. Lail joined Flower Mound High School as an assistant principal, a position in which she served for five years, and served as an associate principal for another four years. She has led FMHS as its principal for the last eight years. From day one, Ms. Lail has been a dedicated leader and educator, working to help each student meet his or her full potential. After nearly two decades of service to Flower Mound High School, Ms. Lail will be sorely missed by the entire Jaguar community. I am grateful for her total of thirty-three years in education and public service, and I wish Ms. Lail every continued success in her well-earned retirement.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Wendy Seeliger-Dietschweiler, who recently was recognized by the DFW World Affairs Council as ``2019 International Educator of the Year.'' Ms. Seeliger-Dietschweiler is the Social Studies Chairwoman at Lewisville High School--Harmon Campus, where she currently teaches Advanced Placement World History, 10th Grade World History, and ESL World Geography. She also serves as the faculty sponsor of the school's Junior World Affairs Council. Ms. Seeliger-Dietschweiler has been an educator for the past 22 years. She received her Bachelors of Arts degree at the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Arts in Public Administration from Webster University. She also has earned a certification in Education Administration. This teacher takes great pride in leading her students by example. Ms. Seeliger-Dietschweiler is an active volunteer in her community and encourages her students to do the same. Her community service includes participation in many organizations, including the Lewisville Lions Club, Keep Lewisville Beautiful, and Texas Refugee Services. Previously, she served as a Peace Corps volunteer and taught English in China. I congratulate Ms. Wendy Seeliger-Dietschweiler for winning this prestigious award, and I am grateful for her dedication to her students and our North Texas community.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the Flower Mound High School Boys Soccer Team for winning the school's first Texas UIL 6A State Soccer Championship. Coach David Doyle led the Jaguars through a remarkable season, and I congratulate all players and coaches for reaching this goal. In winning the state championship, the students have demonstrated teamwork, dedication, and perseverance. This year, the FMHS Boys Soccer Team has elevated the bar for future student athletes. Its seniors are leaving an impressive legacy for their school and the Flower Mound community. The team earned the nickname ``Cardiac Jags'' for their hard-fought championship run. The championship game ended only after 100 scoreless minutes, when Brock Clayton delivered the game-winning shot in a 4-1 penalty kick shootout win against San Antonio L.E.E. Goalie Landon Leach was named the state championship game MVP for making a penalty kick save in regulation and a second save in the final shootout. It is a privilege to represent Flower Mound High School in the U.S. House of Representatives. I am glad to join the students' family, friends, and North Texas community to celebrate the 2019 Flower Mound High School Boys Soccer Team's achievements, and I wish them every continued success.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the cast and crew of Central High School's production of Euripides' Medea, which won the 2019 Texas UIL Class 6A State One-Act Play Championship. This is the first time that Central High School has won the State One-Act Play Championship, a remarkable artistic accomplishment, in school history. This victory was a team effort, and all members of the cast and crew have rightfully earned this honor. I also congratulate Ms. Renee Powell for earning a spot on the State All-Star Cast and Mr. Jose Gonzalez for earning an Honorable Mention. This recognition of their talent and dedication is well-deserved. I am glad to join the entire Keller ISD community in celebrating the success of these students, and I wish them every continued success in their academic and professional endeavors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 987. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Democrats are using bipartisan drug pricing bills to pay for partisan politics. Look, these bills are proof that we can work together across the aisle and do what is best for constituents. Unfortunately, as The Washington Post so eloquently said yesterday in ``The Health 202,'' ``Democrats are putting a political pothole in the way of bipartisan drug pricing bills.'' The Democrats have decided to use $5 billion in savings to fund State-based ACA marketplaces, the federally facilitated marketplace navigator program. This morning, a publication called STAT published an article titled, ``In Washington, a partisan approach to lowering drug costs leaves Democrats doubting their own party leadership.'' As this article reported, even House Democrats do not understand why the Speaker of the House and party leadership have decided to politicize bipartisan bills that enjoy widespread support. The chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee is on record as saying she was ``not a fan of what happened.'' Republicans stand ready to work on solutions. Congressman Mark Meadows, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told STAT that the Democrats' political stunt is a wasted political opportunity. He continued, ``You have got the chairman of the Freedom Caucus willing to work with Democrats on making real, structural reforms on prescription drug prices. And what do they do? They put a poison pill in, trying to augment a failing healthcare-delivery system.'' I ask my friends on the other side of the dais, why are you intent on tanking good legislation that can deliver real results for real people? You say you want to lower drug prices, but your actions speak loudly otherwise. Fortunately, I am not just here to complain. I also have a solution to the scenario we are facing on the floor today. On Tuesday night at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would take these three drug policies and the $5 billion in savings from those policies, and I introduced H.R. 2700, the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities Act. H.R. 2700 couples the bipartisan drug pricing policies with reauthorization programs, such as Community Health Centers and Special Diabetes Programs. Look, reauthorizations are tough. I know. I was chairman of the Health Subcommittee in the last Congress. September seems like a long way away. Many of these programs expire at the end of the fiscal year, but the time to get these things done is now. We have taken no specific action toward reauthorization of these programs. Again, September seems far away, but we have to account for the time it takes to move through regular order. On the other issues that we are facing today, the short-term, limited duration rule repeal, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the policy to repeal the Trump administration's short-term, limited duration insurance rule would result in 500,000 individuals becoming uninsured. Is this what you want? Isn't it better that people have some form of insurance than none at all? I take meetings in my office back home in my district with families that cannot afford the high premium, high deductible plans that they have been forced to buy off the ACA exchange. These individuals need lower cost options, and that is exactly what these limited duration plans provide. States already regulate these plans and have the authority to disallow them at the State level, if they so choose. This is a case for federalism. I want to quote from the Congressional Budget Office report: ``CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would result in roughly 1.5 million fewer people'' participating in insurance plans.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Of those, more than 500,000 would instead participate in nongroup coverage through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, and 500,000 would become uninsured. The drug policies contained in both H.R. 987 and my bill, H.R. 2700, are commonsense bipartisan measures to lower drug prices for our constituents. I am disappointed they have been rolled into a partisan package that will be dead on arrival in the Senate. We were able to work together in the committee and subcommittee to ensure these policies would improve access to generics for American patients. I hope the Democratic leadership would consider the bipartisan nature of the policies when moving the packages to the floor in the future.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. The fact is, there was a hearing on this one-size-fits-all government takeover, top-down, Soviet-style healthcare system that has been proposed by the other side of the aisle. And yet, that bill was not heard in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It wasn't heard in the Ways and Means Committee. It was heard in the Rules Committee, the Speaker's committee. This is a high priority for the Speaker. This bill was heard in the Speaker's committee. That tells me that this is something that is highly likely to come forward. Unfortunately, it is just not a very good plan. And the gentleman is right, doctors would be required to take a significant reduction.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think the kindest thing I can say about this amendment is it should not be necessary. Just a brief review of the history of mental health parity as it relates to our healthcare system, of course, those of us who were here in Congress the day after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was declared in September 2008 will recall that Patrick Kennedy's bill dealing with mental health parity was used as the vehicle to provide the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which followed in the wake of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. So mental health parity was actually written into law in 2008, signed by George W. Bush. That was 2 years prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. So the Affordable Care Act comes along. The essential health benefits were eventually disclosed in the Affordable Care Act in November 2012, about a week after election day, if I recall correctly. The mental health parity rules were not written by the Department of Health and Human Services until probably 2 years after that, but they were written under Secretary Sebelius. As a consequence, those have been the rules of the road ever since. I guess what I don't quite understand is why the navigator system constructed under the Affordable Care Act was not constructed in a way that would have allowed this information to be part of the package of information that is disclosed by the navigators. Perhaps had we had a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee dealing with this, it might have been instructive when we did the 10- year reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program a little over a year ago. The parity language was, in fact, included at the request of a Democratic member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The parity language was included in the rewriting of the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But my recollection was, in the navigator program, this should have been part of the basic information offered by the navigators. I guess, to sum up, I do not understand why it would now take an act of Congress to get them to do what they were required to do upon the signing of the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, the gentleman is correct. And, in fact, if the gentleman will recall, that in our committee work on these bills dealing with the Affordable Care Act, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health actually had this as a stand-alone bill. It was not considered when we did the markup on the other four bills. For some reason, it fell off the list that day. I don't know why. I wasn't consulted, and I wasn't advised. But it was offered as one of the amendments up in the Rules Committee, again, by a Democratic member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health, but the amendment was not made in order. And, again, I don't know why. I was not part of the discussion of the majority that decided which amendments were going to come to the floor. It was perhaps a little surprising, because a majority of the amendments that were made in order were Democratic amendments. And, again, this was a Democratic amendment. I think the ranking member of the full committee and I agree, that this is precisely the type of situation where you would want the purchaser to have complete knowledge of what they were buying. And the State Commissioner of Insurance, I know in my State in Texas, is very clear about that. On the website of the State of Texas, you need to know what you are buying. This would be one of those cases where that disclosure, in fact, would be extremely helpful to the family that is trying to make a decision. Because, look, why is someone looking at buying a limited-duration plan? They are looking at buying a limited- duration plan because they can't afford what is being sold on healthcare.gov or there perhaps is some temporary situation, a job transition or something that they are trying to cover. The fact of the matter remains that the child described in the previous discussion would likely be better covered in one of the plans sold at healthcare.gov, but if, for whatever reason, the family decided that they wanted to investigate a less expensive plan and a limited- duration plan, that is certainly their right to do so. Probably not the best advice for them to buy that limited-duration plan, but certainly they should be free to do so, but they should also receive the information.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, you can imagine my surprise this morning checking the email and the Health 202, an email put out by The Washington Post--The Washington Post, for crying out loud--and here is the headline: ``Democrats Are Putting a Political Pothole in the Way of Bipartisan Drug Pricing Bills.'' They go on to say: ``ObamaCare battles threaten even the most bipartisan healthcare efforts on Capitol Hill.'' What a strange turn of events. So here we have a rule today that will allow a bill to be brought to the floor where the Democrats are using bipartisan drug pricing bills to pay for partisan politics. Look, I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Rules Committee, so I am on the oldest and second oldest committees in the United States House of Representatives. We worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the BLOCKING Act, the CREATES Act, and the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act would deliver drug pricing solutions to Americans. In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that keeps the three drug policies and uses the savings--some $5 billion from those policies--to pay for bipartisan public health priorities. I also introduced the standalone bill, H.R. 2700, if you are keeping score at home. This is the Lowering Prescription Drug Costs and Extending Community Health Centers and Other Public Health Priorities Act. H.R. 2700 couples the bipartisan drug pricing policies with reauthorization of programs such as community health centers, special diabetes programs, and the National Health Service Corps. Every Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a cosponsor of H.R. 2700, signifying the broad Republican support for both the drug pricing and the public health priorities. Look, it is pretty clear: You can say that it is more important to have a navigated program that would never pass any cost-benefit analysis; you can say it is more important to have an earmark for the State of New Jersey to set up an ObamaCare exchange; or you can say it is more important to reauthorize Community Health Centers. Reauthorizations are tough. We did multiple reauthorizations in the last Congress, and they are difficult to get across the line because so many people have so many opinions. All of these programs are going to expire in September, and we have taken no activity towards reauthorization in the Energy and Commerce Committee. These reauthorizations, again, take a substantial amount of time. The clock is ticking, and we should act as soon as possible. Again, unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order, but I do encourage Members to look at H.R. 2700, a good bill. For this morning, I think The Washington Post had it right.

Mr. BURGESS

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a bill that appropriates a little over $17 billion for disasters affecting all parts of the United States. As Members of Congress, we are elected to serve the people, and part of that duty is providing emergency aid when disaster strikes. I am supportive of disaster relief, and we certainly could have provided this crucial aid months ago. At this time, our communities are still in need. This is the third time that the House will consider a relief bill to address the same set of disasters. On 20 December 2018, the House of Representatives passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through February 8 that also included almost $8 billion of disaster relief funding, but this bill did not become law. On January 16, 2019, the House passed a supplemental appropriations package that would have provided a little over $12 billion in aid. But at the last minute, during Rules Committee debate, Democrats added a short-term, full-government continuing resolution through a manager's amendment that did not include President Trump's request for border security funding. As a result, the government remained closed without providing a resolution to the problem. It has now been 4 months since the House last considered providing disaster aid, long enough that additional disasters have struck our country, necessitating an increased number. The bill before us seeks to provide relief funding for Hurricanes Michael and Florence, as well as continued support for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The wildfires in California will be included in this supplemental, as well as the severe storms and flooding in multiple States, including Texas; the Alaska earthquake; Typhoons Yutu and Mangkhut in the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam; Tropical Storm Gita in American Samoa; volcanic eruptions in Hawaii; and devastating floods across the Midwest. This third iteration of disaster relief legislation is similar to a bill passed by the House in January of this year, with an additional $500 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Conservation Program to rehabilitate damaged farmland; $1.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for projects and flood mitigation; and $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery account for rebuilding houses, businesses, and public infrastructure. The bill also includes $600 million for disaster nutrition benefits in Puerto Rico as that island recovers from Hurricane Maria. The President has expressed concern about Puerto Rico's management of the billions of disaster aid the island has already received. Senate Republicans are negotiating with the White House on a compromise, but Democrats have decided to continue pushing this legislation forward without engaging the other two parties that would be required in order for the bill to become law. This bill also includes language prohibiting any funds from being used for the construction of a border wall. The crisis on our southern border is not a natural disaster; it is a humanitarian and security disaster, one that we can stop and take steps to prevent in the future. But the Democrats refuse to accept that our Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are overwhelmed, that our Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities are near capacity, and that our immigration judges are facing years of backlogged cases. This is a disaster that we can do something about now. Rather than negotiate in good faith, Democrats have chosen once again to bring up a bill that will not pass the Senate. I am disappointed that these controversial provisions are included in the bill. It does beg the question: When are we going to get back to the business of legislating? As an aside, I would note that the House adjourned yesterday at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, plenty of time to continue working on some of these problems. For whatever reason, we decided not to do that. The second bill under consideration, H.R. 986, is supposed to protect Americans with preexisting conditions. It has a very catchy title. Despite that catchy title, the bill does nothing to enhance preexisting condition protections under the Affordable Care Act. The first vote that Republicans called this Congress was a motion to require legislation protecting individuals with preexisting conditions. Rather surprisingly, the Democrats voted against that previous question, blocking the motion. In 2017, as part of the proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, Republicans included legislation that would have preserved access for those with preexisting conditions. Again, this was not supported by House Democrats. H.R. 986 eliminates healthcare choices for States by infringing upon the authority that was given to the Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act established the Waiver for State Innovation. This allowed States to waive certain ACA regulations in order to provide flexible coverage through new State healthcare programs. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was required to promulgate regulations for the granting of these waivers, maintaining that new State health programs stay within the guardrails provided by law. My constituents of north Texas are consistently concerned about not having access to affordable healthcare. I take meeting after meeting with families who say they are suffering from the high cost of healthcare and prescription drugs, deductibles, and copays. Texans are struggling to afford their health insurance, and I am sure we are not the only ones experiencing these premiums and deductibles. What good is health insurance if you are afraid to use it because you cannot afford your deductibles and copays? This is an issue that I would like to see us tackle, yet we are here today discussing a bill with a very misleading title that would take flexibility away from States. During the Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday, we discussed innovative strategies for providing high-quality and affordable health insurance, expanding consumer choice, and some of the positive results for States that have implemented these waivers. In no way did we discuss removing ACA protections for people with preexisting conditions. In fact, I pointed out that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Administrator Seema Verma stated in her remarks at the CMS National Forum on State Relief and Empowerment Waivers that ``a waiver cannot be approved that might otherwise undermine these protections.'' Yet Democrats have titled this bill ``Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019.'' This is clearly an attempt to coerce Members of Congress into voting for a bill that actually scales back the guidance recently issued for the application of State innovation waivers. Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden offered an amendment to more appropriately title the bill ``This Bill Has Nothing to do with Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act.'' I hope this amendment will alert Members to the partisan wordplay of the Democrats when we should be focusing on improving the health insurance marketplace. Taking flexibility away from States is one step closer to a single- payer, government-run healthcare system. This single-payer, government- run healthcare system would only further deteriorate our Nation's healthcare. The Affordable Care Act was one step in that direction. While it is clear that the Affordable Care Act has proven to be nothing like affordable for Americans, section 1332 waivers would have allowed States the flexibility to employ innovation that works for their citizens. To date, eight States--Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin--have approved State innovation waivers, and seven have created their own reinsurance programs. Premiums in these States--and this is important--premiums in these seven States were almost 20 percent lower, on average, in the first year of enactment. Maryland saw the greatest percent change, with the average individual market premium coming down by more than 40 percent, 43.4 percent, to be precise. Again, section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act explicitly gives the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to provide guidance surrounding these innovation waivers. As more States submit applications, the administration has learned more about what hurdles States must traverse in order to obtain these waivers. One limit to a State's ability to apply for an innovation waiver is that the State must have already enacted a State law establishing authority to pursue and implement the waiver. For a State like Texas, where the State legislature meets only every 2 years, this can be a substantial barrier. The recent Trump administration guidance provides clarity, stating that, in certain circumstances, existing State legislation coupled with a duly enacted State regulation or executive order could satisfy this requirement. This guidance, the 1332 guidance, removes some hurdles while maintaining the integrity of the coverage guardrails established by law. Those statutory requirements maintain that coverage must be as comprehensive as coverage would have been absent the waiver, provide cost-sharing to protect against excessive out-of-pocket spending, cover a comparable number of residents, and not increase the Federal deficit. I would like to reiterate that this is a misleading bill title and that H.R. 986 will restrict healthcare choices for States. Once again, we are using the valuable time on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to debate something that will not solve the issues of affordability in our Nation's healthcare system and really has no chance of becoming law. It is unfair to patients who are not going to the doctor because, on top of their monthly premiums, their deductible is so high that they cannot afford the visit. We need a comprehensive solution to address the high patient out-of- pocket costs in our system. This bill moves us in the wrong direction. It will inhibit innovation and much-needed flexibility in our State insurance markets. As a physician, I cannot support such a piece of legislation, so I will urge opposition to the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification. While our last vote was just after 2 p.m. yesterday, the House actually adjourned a little after 3 p.m. I did want to make that correction. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond before I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Madam Speaker, last Congress passed the first comprehensive, stand- alone sickle cell bill for as long as I can remember. There was a partial reauthorization in 2004, signed by President Bush, that was part of a tax bill. But Danny Davis' bill passed through our committee, passed through the Senate, and passed on the floor of the House in the previous Congress last year; and as a consequence, for the first time in four decades, new sickle cell therapies are coming through the National Institutes of Health. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).