Brett Guthrie

Mr. GUTHRIE

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

Mr. GUTHRIE

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

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6042) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to delay the reduction in Federal medical assistance percentage for Medicaid personal care services furnished without an electronic visit verification system, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act, a bipartisan bill that will establish treatment centers that offer a full range of treatment for people suffering from opioid use disorder. Over the past several months, I have been holding public events in each of the 21 counties in my district. In every county I continue to hear about the awful effects of our Nation's opioid crisis. Each story is a little different, but they are all heart-wrenching due to the deadly effects of opioid use disorder and addiction. Right now, most patients are going to the center that is most convenient to them, but those centers might offer only one type of treatment. What if that treatment doesn't work for that person? That is why I introduced the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act, so that people can show up at one facility and have full wraparound treatment services and succeed in beating addiction. I want to especially thank my friends, Congressman Gene Green, Congressman Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, and Larry Bucshon of Indiana for introducing this bill with me. This is a bipartisan bill. It will make a difference in people's lives, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for working with me on this amendment. I rise in support of the amendment to clarify Congress' intent with regard to energy security and conservation programs at Fort Knox. In January 2009, a major ice storm hit my district, crippling local infrastructure for days. This outage across the region also affected Fort Knox, due to the post's reliance on the local energy grid. This weather event highlighted a vulnerability that local leaders at Fort Knox took very seriously and had already been working for years to mitigate. With the full support of the Pentagon, the leaders on post and in the community around Fort Knox have made great strides to make Fort Knox the Army's first energy-secure installation. This really is a great story and one that we in Congress should support. My amendment is about how natural gas fits into the complex, highly sophisticated energy security program at Fort Knox, Kentucky being blessed with natural gas. The award-winning combination of features and the Fort Knox energy program ranges from new power generation facilities to a geothermal pond, infrared heating system, extensive energy efficiency upgrades, and even a solar array. The dashboard in the control room is incredible to see as energy officials can remotely observe and analyze current energy consumption and efficiency, isolated to the level of individual rooms in the buildings on post. While the energy conservation program started in the 1970s, the natural gas story really came into focus a little over 10 years ago when the Army established service contracts with local companies to drill and pump methane gas on post. This is everything we want for our national security: energy independence and security that saves Federal money, off-the-grid capability during moments of a national crisis, and utilizing energy resources efficiency as close to the source as possible. Natural gas has been produced and used on post since 2009 and makes up about 28 percent of annual needs. The amount of gas produces enough for an entire summer load. However, the catch is, and why we are here with this amendment, that the Interior Department has raised concerns because the Army did not go through the typical Bureau of Land Management lease process. The Bureau of Land Management lease process will not work for this kind of operation because it is not in our national security interest to give mineral rights for DOD property to a third party. The Army should be able to access the resources on post for consumption and use on post without having to go through a third party or remit royalties. This amendment simply allows Fort Knox to continue their great energy security success story and gives them the ability to remain the number one energy-secure Army installation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying that it is owned by the American people, the military, which is why we are here today at the national level. It is owned by the American people. There are things that we can work through so that we can move forward. Fort Knox is an economic driver in the community. The Federal tax dollars that come to Fort Knox to support our men and women contribute greatly to that community. Being energy secure is a vital component when we look at the overall needs of the Army and the importance of every Army post, and Fort Knox can certainly make a great claim, being off the grid and being able to operate in times of national emergencies. So I do think this has been thought through. I think instead of going through the other process, we need to move forward and let the Department of Defense do what the Pentagon had sent Fort Knox forward to do. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my friend from California, but I do think this is the right policy to move forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Robert and Mrs. Rita Robbins, who have dedicated their lives to caring for Kentuckians as surgeon and surgical nurse, respectively, at Hardin Memorial Hospital. Dr. and Mrs. Robbins met when they were working together at Hardin Memorial Hospital, and fittingly were married in the hospital's chapel. They have become fixtures in the Hardin County community through their work at the hospital and beyond. Dr. and Mrs. Robbins embody the definition of servant leadership, and I am proud to honor them.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. General McMaster has served in our military honorably for 34 years, and our country is better for it. I first met General McMaster during our time at the United States Military Academy. General McMaster was my squad leader for Cadet Basic Training, known as ``Beast Barracks.'' General McMaster, being from Pennsylvania, was amused by my then-Alabama accent. He gave me the nickname Huckleberry, which is how I am still referred to by my West Point classmates. General McMaster was an excellent leader as a senior cadet, and he went on to be a highly decorated soldier as a junior officer in the first Gulf War. As he moved up the ranks in the my, he continued to be an outstanding leader, commanding troops overseas in Iraq. I was pleased when President Trump nominated General McMaster to be National Security Advisor and think he did a fantastic job in that role. I wholeheartedly agree with those who have called General McMaster the ``greatest solider of his generation.'' It was an honor to serve under his leadership at West Point and I wish him all the best in his retirement. I hope it includes a lot of time spent reading and enjoying the comfort of his famous Hawaiian shirts.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, this evening, we will hear from myself and a colleague from Tennessee, and he is joining me today to talk about how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has benefited our States. In my congressional district, Kentucky's Second, I have heard from constituents who have seen more money in their paychecks and from businesses that have been able to grow and pass along the benefits of tax reform directly to their employees. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction for both individuals and couples. For the 75 percent of residents in Kentucky's Second District who take the standard deduction, this is an automatic tax cut. Additionally, individuals in every tax bracket are paying lower rates. When I visited Owensboro in February, I met Cheri and Ray Middletown, who own On Time Fab, a small business that provides fabrication services for agricultural, industrial, and commercial productions. Cheri and Ray shared with me that, during the first week of the implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, each of the 20 employees of On Time Fab took home more pay as a result of tax reform. One employee took home as much as $56 a week and more than $200 a month. A single dad working for On Time Fab is bringing home an extra $40 each week. Some thought there was a mistake in their paychecks because they are able to keep so much of their hard-earned money, and $40 a week is over $160 a month. By cutting the corporate tax rate to make the U.S. competitive globally, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has given businesses the opportunity to pass along savings to their customers. For example, residents of 48 States, plus the District of Columbia, are seeing their utility bills go down because of tax reform. In Kentucky, the Public Service Commission has ordered investor-owned utilities to track their tax savings and to reduce rates for hundreds of thousands of Kentucky customers. In fact, the Public Service Commission has already announced that Kentucky Utilities' and Louisville Gas & Electric's residential electric customers will see their average monthly bills decreased by 6 percent. Atmos Energy, which serves western Kentucky, announced in March that it will be cutting the average residential bill by just over 3 percent. Other savings from tax reform will fund infrastructure upgrades across the Commonwealth. Companies in Kentucky have been able to expand their operation because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Owl's Head Alloys in my hometown of Bowling Green recently announced a $3 million expansion which would create 17 new jobs, bringing their total employment in the Second District to nearly 100 good-paying jobs. When I visited their facility in March, Owl's Head owner and president, David Bradford, told me that the economic outlook resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act helped lead to their decision to expand. This is exactly why we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: to give American businesses the confidence to grow and expand right in our communities, and to help individual taxpayers keep more of their money. Some might say that an extra $200 a month is just crumbs. For hardworking Kentucky taxpayers, the extra money can go toward a car payment or a mortgage. It can help pay for a child's braces or even for regular expenses like groceries. The bottom line is that, with more expendable income in their pockets, Americans across the country have more freedom to choose how they spend their hard-earned money. A typical family of four earning $75,000 can expect to pay $2,000 less in taxes this year compared to last year. I was proud to support the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I am proud to report that tax reform is making a real difference in the lives of Kentuckians. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a neighbor to the south of me here today to talk about how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is having a big effect on the lives of not just Kentuckians but all Americans-- particularly Kentucky and Tennessee--so I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), my good friend from suburban Memphis, which is one of the great cities in our area, to talk about the effects of the tax cuts in Tennessee.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding back. As he said, Tennessee has seen the benefits from tax reform. Kentucky is seeing the benefits of tax reform and the opportunity for people to move into prosperity as they expand opportunity. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in April, unemployment was at 3.9 percent across the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that 164,000 jobs were added across the country in April, raising the total since our tax reform bill was signed into law to nearly 800,000 people. Businesses are confident in our economy because of tax reform. Most businesses are telling me that they are looking for workers, looking for people to have the opportunity to move forward. One of the great reasons that we are trying to do some of the policies that were talked about during the last hour is that we want to see people have the opportunity to work, to go from poverty to prosperity, from dependence to independence. We want people to have the opportunity to move forward, and a growing economy will allow them to do so because these people are needed in the workforce. They are wanted. They are needed, and I will guarantee you, when we have people in the workforce, they are going to be better off than if they are not. So we are looking forward to moving forward with some of the issues that were talked about earlier. But tonight we have heard stories about Kentuckians; we have heard stories about Tennesseans who have benefited from tax reform. Hardworking taxpayers are seeing more money in their paychecks. Companies are expanding and creating jobs. Businesses are passing along the benefits of tax cuts to their customers and to their employees, handing out bonuses and raises. We are seeing these stories in our own States and across the country. This is exactly what we expected when we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I am glad to see many of our communities benefiting from this bill. I want to thank my friend from Tennessee for sharing his stories from Tennessee, as I was sharing my stories from Kentucky, and I thank him for joining me tonight to discuss the importance of tax reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ben Quinn, Sr., from Glasgow, Kentucky, for his induction into the University of Kentucky College of Engineering Hall of Distinction. Ben graduated from the College of Engineering in 1966, and has over 50 years of experience in civil engineering. Thirty-five years ago, he started his own company, American Engineers, Inc., with only two employees, in Glasgow. Now, American Engineers has over 100 employees in Kentucky and Georgia. American Engineers has worked on several projects in Kentucky's Second District, including the William H. Natcher Parkway, the Owensboro Health Regional Hospital, and the Western Kentucky University baseball field. Next week is Small Business Week, and I cannot think of a better example of building a small business from the ground up than Ben, his wife, Dianne, and his family. Ben is an outstanding member of our community, and I am proud to recognize his achievements.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for organizing this event. On behalf of the 1,419 Kentuckians who died of an opioid overdose in 2016, and the countless more who are currently suffering from opioid addiction, I rise today in support of legislation to combat our Nation's opioid epidemic. Everywhere I go in Kentucky's Second District, I hear from people who have felt the impact of the opioid crisis. The range of people falling victim to opioid use disorder is vast--from babies born with opioid withdrawal, to adults of all ages and backgrounds, even students, brothers and sisters, moms and dads. It doesn't matter if someone becomes addicted to opioids after they have sprained an ankle or following major surgery--anyone who has been prescribed opioid painkillers could be at risk, and we need to find a way to help the thousands of people who have, in fact, become addicted. I recently introduced two pieces of legislation to combat our widespread opioid crisis. The first is the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act of 2018. I was proud to introduce this bipartisan bill with the Health Subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan). This bill addresses the current lack of comprehensive treatment options available to opioid use disorder patients. Currently, there is a wide range of treatment options from faith-based abstinence programs to FDA-approved medications, but not everyone has access to the specific treatments they need. Patients usually seek treatment from a facility convenient to them in their own community or from a facility that is covered by their insurance. However, most facilities only offer a single type of treatment, which may or may not work for each individual patient. The Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act would provide grant money to help create treatment centers where every FDA-approved option is available to each patient. These centers would also include intake services and help with reentering the community and provide data to the Department of Health and Human Services so that other treatment centers can learn and apply best practices to provide more patients with comprehensive care. I also introduced the bipartisan Maternal Opioid Treatment, Health, Education, and Recovery Act, known as the MOTHER Act, with Congressman Ben Ray Lujan. Opioid addiction is a serious risk to anyone's health, but it can even be more harmful and life-threatening for a pregnant woman and her child. This bill would help healthcare providers better treat pregnant women with opioid use disorder as well as babies who are born experiencing opioid withdrawal. The MOTHER Act increases education about neonatal abstinence syndrome, which sadly affects babies whose mothers suffer from opioid use disorder, and the bill also provides resources for pregnant mothers and caregivers. It highlights the need for responsible pain management for expectant mothers. Our Nation is in the middle of combating a serious opioid epidemic, and all of us on both sides of the aisle can agree on the need to act with urgency on all fronts. I was proud to join with my Democratic colleagues to introduce two bipartisan bills that would address important aspects of the opioid crisis. I urge my colleagues to support the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act and the MOTHER Act. I thank the subcommittee chairman for organizing this.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my sincere thanks to Steve Miller of Shelby County, Kentucky, who is retiring after nine years of service as a field representative with my office. My friendship with Steve began when I was first elected to the Kentucky State Senate. Steve worked for the Senate leadership office, and I quickly learned how much everyone loved Steve. He built friendships quickly and had a deep knowledge of legislation and policy, so when I was elected to serve the Second District in the U.S. House of Representatives, I knew I wanted Steve on my team. Steve rose up to the challenge and immediately developed a reputation for serving constituents effectively. He understood early on that service transcends ideological differences. Once, when Steve had an introductory meeting with a local official, he was rebuffed because the official was of a different party. Steve chuckled and explained that he wasn't there to be political--he was there to serve that community and be a resource to that official. A great relationship began in fifteen minutes and endures still. For the past nine years, I've heard my constituents tell similar stories of appreciation for Steve. He wakes up each day thinking about who he can introduce me to as he hits the road to visit the constituents of Kentucky's Second District. I will miss Steve, but I wish him and his wife Donna good health and good times with their family during retirement.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, I move the call of the House.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and my good friend.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one, this IPAB effort is bipartisan. We have even heard on the floor both sides of the aisle support passage of the bill. It has been bipartisan. First, a couple of things. On the value-based payments--which I think is the direction we need to go to rein in the costs and make sure we have sustainable programs, but the IPAB's annual short-term focus savings provision would affect Medicare and the wider health system in unpredictable ways with potentially many negative unintended consequences by doubling down on the traditional practice of squeezing payment rates in order to slow spending with no meaningful eye to how these changes impact long-term incentives--the IPAB could work at cross purposes to broaden reform that would base Medicare payments on quality and value. On the offset, we did offset CHIP and the community health centers. We know that money is going to be spent. We know that when we authorize it, it is going to be spent. We believe it is going to be spent wisely. That is why we are moving forward with these bills. The IPAB has not been constituted, and repealing it should not have to be offset since it has not spent any money nor been charged yet with finding any savings. The IPAB trigger has never been hit. The CBO estimates that the IPAB would be triggered in 2023, 2025, and 2027. But by their own admission, and I quote from the report, ``Given the uncertainty that surrounds these projections, it is possible such authority would be invoked in other years,'' or we could also assume possibly never at all. The CBO estimate also has to assume the level of cuts required by the amount Medicare is spending that exceeds the trigger. The CBO also then has to speculate on how reductions made in any one year would impact the trigger in future years, further laying assumption upon guesswork. As the CBO notes in their estimate, the estimate represents a broad range of possible effects. The CBO admits they do not know if the IPAB will be triggered or what policies they might pursue if activated. Some of their assumptions are one-sided bets that may or may not achieve savings, and the CBO must further speculate on the probabilities associated with such variations. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe the IPAB will not be effective providing real solutions for Medicare solvency. It contributes disproportionately little to the projected cost savings needed in Medicare, but it has the potential to hurt seniors' access to care. Fundamentally, I believe it is a constitutional affront to the legislative branch. The IPAB decisions don't come to Congress to be approved or disapproved. We can undo the IPAB decisions if we have dollar-for- dollar replacement, but that could even be blocked by a minority vote in the Senate. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 849, to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and I hope there will continue to be bipartisan support for this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 849, the Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act of 2017. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, was created in the Affordable Care Act to reduce per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending. If a spending target is exceeded, cuts must be made, and the HHS Secretary is directed to implement the proposals made by this 15- person board automatically unless Congress affirmatively acts to alter the proposals or to discontinue automatic implementation of the proposals. This board has not yet been formed, but the statute requires the HHS Secretary to come up with the required reductions instead. Medicare is crucial for our Nation's seniors to see their doctors, and the program's viability must be protected. There is no question that Medicare must be modernized in order to continue for future generations, but IPAB is not the right approach, and a bipartisan group of my colleagues agree that IPAB is not the answer to fixing Medicare's shortfalls. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my sincere thanks to Emily Buckman, who will be moving on from my office at the end of this week to serve at the United States Department of Agriculture. What is a loss for my office is a major gain for the administration, and I wish her all the best. Emily grew up in Marion County, Kentucky, where her parents still operate their family's farm. Emily began her Washington, D.C., career during a summer internship with my predecessor. She came back to D.C. after graduating from Campbellsville University to intern for my office. She came on as staff in 2010 and has been promoted several times. Emily has been dedicated to the Second District of Kentucky ever since then, and her commitment to serving her fellow Kentuckians will be missed.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Daniel T. Curry, a constituent of mine who tragically passed away on September 6, 2017. Daniel was born in Green County in my district and later moved to my hometown of Bowling Green, where he was the director of the Kentucky Legal Aid Benefits Counseling Program. Daniel was a friend to everyone. As director of the Benefits Counseling Program, he helped countless Kentuckians receive their federal and state benefits. He worked with my office on several occasions, assisting with many casework inquiries that my office received. There was no constituent he would not try to help. In addition to his work at the Kentucky Legal Aid Benefits Counseling Program, he served as an adjunct professor at Western Kentucky University, served as a docent for Riverview at Hobson Grove, presented at the Bowling Green-Warren County Bar Association, was an advocate for elder abuse prevention, and participated in community theater. Daniel touched many lives in Bowling Green and the surrounding counties. I send my prayers to Daniel's family and community during this time.

Mr. GUTHRIE

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) and I have worked on a lot of issues together, and it is always a pleasure to work with her and to move important things forward. I know a lot of times you see a lot of big issues need to be addressed, but a lot of things are getting done here in the House. Today, once we pass this bill, it goes to the President. It is coming back from the Senate, so it goes to the President. My interest in this is when I was in the General Assembly of Kentucky, the Governor had a big proposal dealing with children in the first 3 years of their life and was looking at a lot of money to be spent. And I remember doing research on a site. I found a report from a doctor from Vanderbilt, and I went down and met with her. So there has been a lot of debate on the research of some of the things that we were looking at moving forward. She said: In normal stimulation, a child is going to rise to their ability. But she did say this: If you took a healthy baby and put it into a closet with no light, and it couldn't hear, and pull it out 3 years later--which obviously you couldn't do that--it wouldn't be able to see and it would never be able to develop its hearing because the brain does start adjusting at a young age. That is why you can learn a language far better as a child than you can as an adult. So I was driving back, and part of what Governor Patton of Kentucky had proposed was screening, eyesight screening, and early childhood hearing detection as part of the bill. So a lot of us were saying: ``What do you do with mandates?'' I was driving back, and I remember thinking, well, if you were born and you can't see well, if you were born and you can't hear well, then isn't that the same thing as being put in a dark closet? Because if you don't figure out till you show up to school that you can't hear well, then you have lost those first 3 to 5 years of ability and lost language ability for a lifetime. So for the small amount of money that it actually costs, we passed and authorized, in Kentucky, mandated screenings. One is for eyesight, which my son got caught in going into kindergarten. That is the first time you can really test them, when we gather them, but you can test newborns at birth. If you can find a newborn at birth that has a hearing impairment and get it corrected, it will develop just like all the other healthy children, so why not do it? So I got to Washington, D.C. It is a national program. It is not something I came up with. It was authored before, so we are here today to reauthorize it. I just want to point out this program is a success. In 2000, 40 percent of newborns were screened for hearing loss. That number rose to over 86 percent in 2011. In 2015, CDC has reported that roughly 97 percent of infants are screened for hearing loss. Think of the difference that makes in these children's lives when we catch them. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Matsui. I want to thank Senator Kaine from Virginia and Senator Portman from Ohio for taking the bipartisan lead in the Senate. I thank them for their hard work. I am proud to say, when we take this vote today, it doesn't go back to the Senate. It goes to the President, and we look forward to his signature and continuing this in moving forward. I have been honored to be part of this. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Burgess for yielding.