Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Barrington Breakfast Rotary Club for thirty years of dedicated service to the needy in their community and around the world. The Barrington Breakfast Rotary Club operates as a 501(c) entity and commits itself to service in the community and the less fortunate. Some of their recent work has included collection of donations for disaster relief after the volcano eruption in Guatemala, and organizing KidFest in Barrington. The Barrington Breakfast Rotary Club is also dedicated to helping young people get an education. Every year they award the Donn Branstrator Service Above Self Scholarship along with the Harper College Scholarship. Finally they have continued the great work that Rotary International has done in ending Polio worldwide. The Rotary community has made incredible strides in the decades long goal to end Polio. I have confidence that they will complete this goal with their continued dedication. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Barrington Breakfast Rotary for the great work they have done in the community and across the world serving others. Their servant leadership sets a fine example for citizens in the Sixth District and across the country.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late A. George Pradel, who dedicated his life to the betterment of his hometown, Naperville, Illinois, most notably as mayor for two decades. A lifelong Napervillian, Mr. Pradel began his life in public service by joining the military where he completed a three-year tour with the United States Marine Corps. After his time in the Marine Corps, he went on to serve as a police officer in his hometown. As an officer in Naperville he took it upon himself to educate students about the role of police in the community. He took a unique approach in doing so by helping develop ``Safety Town,'' a miniature town on Aurora Ave. that teaches children about self-awareness, and staying safe in the community. His cheerful demeanor and eagerness to work with kids earned him the nickname ``Officer Friendly.'' As Officer Friendly continued to grow as an icon in Naperville, the community turned to him once again when it needed a leader, and in 1995 George Pradel was elected Mayor. As Mayor of Naperville, Mr. Pradel continued along the path that led him to office. He spoke at schools and events, he cut ribbons, and he was seen throughout the community, always with a smile. Under Mayor Pradel's leadership Naperville transformed from a growing suburban town to an award-winning city. He helped Naperville attract businesses from around the world, he encouraged the continued excellence in Naperville schools, and he always supported local law enforcement efforts to keep his hometown safe. Mr. Speaker, Naperville lost a great American in Mayor Pradel. I offer my greatest condolences to the Pradel family, and thank A. George Pradel for his lifetime of dedication to the city of Naperville and to our country.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, what a joy it is to be on the floor today. What a joy it is to be amongst a group of people who have set aside partisanship and have come together to address a crisis that is crushing our constituents. What a joy it is to be a part of the process and among a group of people who are trying to find common ground. This is a good day, Mr. Speaker. There is good work that is happening. I chair the Health Subcommittee, and it was incredible to see the work that that subcommittee did on the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to strongly endorse this bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, there is a quotation that is familiar that is brought to my attention this afternoon as we are debating this, and it has echoes for today. It is by Martin Niemoller, who was a Lutheran pastor in Germany; and this is what he said: ``First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.'' Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something good today, to build on the work that Congressman Smith has initiated and that has been shepherded through this process by Chairman Royce and by Ranking Member Engel; and that is to recognize the growing rise of anti-Semitism around the world and to say, we are not only not going to be complicit in it, we are going to speak out about it, and we are going to bring attention to it, and we are going to bring the full force and power of the United States Government and its moral authority and its imprimatur on this issue. There is real power in that. You have heard both sides going back and forth sort of being reminded of this responsibility that we have because we have seen anti-Semitism, Mr. Speaker, arise within the last year alone in Germany, in Brazil, in France, in Hungary, and in New Zealand. In closing, the Anti-Defamation League has pointed out that in the last year alone there have been over 4 million English language tweets that are anti-Semitic. This is upon us. So what Congressman Smith has initiated now is to raise the status of this person to make sure they are not just a Special Envoy, but to raise that to ambassadorial status for all the obvious reasons; to get this person appointed quickly; and to have this post filled and brought with real authority. I urge its passage, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Levin for his observations about this bill, that it is created in a spirit of bipartisanship, and I appreciate his support for it. I think it is interesting, just a little bit of a point of clarification, because we were able to discuss in the committee the GAO report. There are two facets of it. There are two numbers, and those people who are tracking this closely will care about it. There is one 2 percent representation and then a 22 percent representation. Here is the story. The GAO said only 2 percent of cases that they evaluated would have been completely changed by this. I think if we were talking about any other thing in Medicare as it relates to 2 percent, we would be chasing it. Be that as it may, 2 percent would be completely changed. Twenty-two percent of the cases they evaluated, however, would be impacted in some way. So the bottom line here is that we have an opportunity to adopt technology at a cost of about $40 million, we are told, to pursue $40 billion in fraud and error. That is good math any day of the week. Both sides of the aisle recognize it. Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something together on a bipartisan basis that can bring a level of confidence to a program that all of us cherish and all of us want to defend, and that is Medicare. Medicare is an incredibly popular program. It is a necessary program, and it is a program that needs all of us to defend it, particularly on the integrity side. If Medicare were to ask CMS today what their fraudulent or erroneous payment rate is, those two numbers together, they would come back and they would tell them it is about 10 percent. So, in other words, about $40 billion a year, Mr. Speaker, is going out the door not to benefit seniors, but it is going out the door either fraudulently or erroneously. I thank Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon because, together, we have been working on this concept which would apply the same type of technology that we see in so many other parts of the economy right now, and that is smart card technology, and use it in a Medicare setting. The proposal is this: Let's try it. Let's see how it works. Let's have a pilot program. Toward that end, what we are hoping and the expectation is that the same types of savings that we have seen in the private sector we will see in this sector to make sure that seniors are protected, not only the funds that seniors have come to rely on, but their identities and so forth. This is a concept, again, that Mr. Blumenauer and I have worked on. I thank Chairman Brady for his work on this bill and the attention that this has gotten on a bipartisan basis. I think it is particularly interesting to note that AARP has weighed in very strongly in favor of it. Let me just read one quick snapshot from a letter that they sent to Mr. Blumenauer and me at the end of August, and I will just give you a couple of sentences. ``While the new cards are more secure than before, `smart cards' could provide even greater security, and have the potential to contain useful health information and facilitate care. If enacted, this pilot program would also help Medicare learn more about the beneficiary engagement and education. This technology deserves to be tested and evaluated.'' Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell, this is a proposal to create a pilot program. I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 7, 2018. Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Walden: I write to you regarding several health bills the Committee on Ways and Means ordered favorably reported to the House. The following bills were also referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I ask that the Committee on Energy and Commerce waive formal consideration of the following bills so that they may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor: H.R. 6662, Empowering Seniors' Enrollment Decision Act of 2018; H.R. 6690, Fighting Fraud to Protect Care for Seniors Act of 2018; H.R. 6561, Comprehensive Care for Seniors Act of 2018; and H.R. 3635, Local Coverage Determination Clarification Act of 2018. I acknowledge that by waiving formal consideration of the bills, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those provisions of the bills that fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate conference involving this legislation. I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation on the House floor. Sincerely, Kevin Brady, Chairman.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6690, currently under consideration.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6690) to establish a smart card pilot program to combat fraud, waste, and abuse and to protect beneficiary identity under the Medicare program, as amended.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the incorporation of Hanover Park, Illinois. Through its continued dedication to building a friendly and welcoming community for residents and visitors alike, Hanover Park is a model for other cities and towns to follow. In the years since its first permanent settlers in 1874 and its incorporation in 1958, Hanover Park has become a center of culture and commerce. As home to 80 nationalities and 30 spoken languages, it is a diverse village. This diversity also transfers into their business environment. Hanover Park has thriving business parks, a growing retail community, and easy access to global markets. While the Village's police and fire departments are consistently recognized as two of the finest in the state, the local government is highly engaged and enthusiastic. All of these sectors make Hanover Park a vibrant and thriving community, as well as a great place to work, live, and raise a family. On the occasion of this 60th Anniversary, we join together to celebrate Hanover Park's legacy of growth and prosperity and look ahead to the opportunities facing this Village and our great Nation. Today marks 60 years of working together to build a brighter future and reminds us that our work continues. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing the 60th anniversary of the incorporation of Hanover Park, Illinois, and wishing its residents great success in the years ahead.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the birth anniversary of the 52nd Dai Al Mutlaq, his holiness Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, and the birthday of the 53rd and present Dai Al Mutlaq, his Holiness Dr. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. The Dawoodi Bohras' patriotism and commitment to the United States and their recognition of International Women's Day should serve as an example for all. The Dawoodi Bohras mostly reside in India, Pakistan, Africa, Europe, USA, South East Asia and Australia. Their name, `Bohra' comes from the Gujarati word `vehru' which means trader; as the community has always maintained a strong and robust business community. The late Dr. Syedna Burhanuddin RA had a profound impact on this as he unceasingly encouraged his adherents to start their own business. In addition to fostering a robust business community, the Bohras are loyal and law-abiding citizens throughout the world. They have maintained cordial relations with all levels of government with an aim to foster harmony and goodwill. They embrace technology and equal opportunities, and consider patriotism a religious obligation. The Dawoodi Bohras are a sect within Shia Islam and follow the seven pillars of Islamism: guardianship of the faith, purity, prayer, alms- giving, fasting, pilgrimage to Mecca and struggle. Mr. Speaker, and distinguished colleagues, please join me in celebrating the birth anniversary of the 52nd Dai Al Mutlaq, his Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and the birthday of the 53rd and present Dai Al Mutlaq, his Holiness Dr. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and wishing the Dawoodi Bohras a year of peace and prosperity.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize Grace Seiboldt, an exceptionally talented young woman from the Sixth District of Illinois. Grace recently competed for Team Illinois in the 2018 Special Olympics USA National Games where she won two gold medals and one silver medal. Grace started swimming when she was just five years old and began competing in the Special Olympics in 2007. After competing for the last 11 years at the state level, she qualified along with 46 Special Olympic athletes from Illinois to compete in the Special Olympics USA National Games. Grace joined with more than 4,000 athletes and coaches from across the United States in Seattle for the games and was incredibly successful. She earned gold medals in the 200 individual medley and the 4 100 medley relay, where she swam the butterfly leg. She also received a silver medal for her performance in the 400 freestyle. This is an incredible feat for someone competing at her first National Games. Grace's prowess as an elite swimmer has not gone unnoticed. Her skills caught the eye of an assistant coach with the USA Paralympics, and she was invited to attend the national training camp in September at the University of Delaware. If chosen, Grace will join with 7,000 athletes from around the world to compete at the Special Olympics World Games in Abu Dhabi next March. This is a great honor and I have no doubt Grace would make the United States proud. Mr. Speaker and my Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing Grace Seiboldt for her remarkable achievements and all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject this motion to recommit. The hospital insurance trust fund isn't going to be insolvent purely because we are freeing Americans from the individual mandate. This crisis has been going on for decades. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I served on the Ways and Means Committee when the ACA was passed, and I recall then-minority ranking member Dave Camp from Michigan, who went on to become the chairman later, offered an alternative to the ACA. He inquired of then-chairman Rangel: When are we going to get to the Republican alternative? When are we going to get to the Republican alternative? I remember this because I was sitting--I think I had the same seat that Mr. Higgins from New York has--down in front on the left side of the dais. Charlie Rangel evoked an old gospel song. He said: Soon and very soon, which is why I remember. Now, soon and very soon never came for that amendment. Soon and very soon never came for the Republican alternative to be considered in the Ways and Means Committee. Now what we are dealing with is the reality of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing is to say: Look, we have got some suggestions; we think we can make this better. Is this reckless? I think not. I fundamentally reject that. When you accept the entire premise of the current structure of the Affordable Care Act, and you take something that pre-existed within the Affordable Care Act, that is health savings accounts, and you attach it and you expand it, where is the defensiveness? This is what is amazing to me about this debate. This is why our country is stuck. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have created the Affordable Care Act, and it is orthodoxy. To take it on and to try to make improvements--they say they want improvements. They say: Oh, let's work together. All afternoon with Ms. Jenkins here on the House floor, she was managing time of bills that were bipartisan in nature, bipartisan as they went through the committee, but you got none of that veneer of bipartisanship as they were discussed on the floor. They were perceived as a direct attack at what? Orthodoxy. So notwithstanding the invitation to work on both sides of the aisle, the other side is making it very clear that they are unwilling to take the structure of the ACA, to take favorable tax treatment and help more people save their own money and spare themselves the results of a law that our friends on the other side of the aisle said that you could keep your doctor, you could keep your coverage, and you would save $2,500 per person--and, again, I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, did you notice there was no answer to that charge this afternoon? I laid it out twice and now a third time; and absolute silence. Why? Because they oversold. Now when they have got friends on this side of the aisle who are saying: Look, we can improve this. Let's work here. No, we don't like the ACA, but we can work through some of these things, then, all of a sudden, it is stiff-arm. Then, all of a sudden, it is insincere. Then, all of a sudden, it is political. This is good work, this is serious work, and it is work that is designed to bring relief to people who are suffering, who have no interest in the nature of a donkeys-and-elephants debate on the House floor. Most people's eyes glaze over. Most people say they want remedies. This is a remedy that makes sense. This is a remedy in sync with the ACA in some ways. The responses we have heard from the other side I don't think are persuasive. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 6311, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that is destructive at all. The entire structure of the bill is invitational. The bill presumes the status quo in terms of the Affordable Care Act, and it allows people to get in sync with the Affordable Care Act, and it allows them to save money in a tax-free manner. I am really surprised at the hyperbole, the overstatement, and the over characterization. Nobody has answered either, Mr. Speaker, if you will notice, my admonition about the characterization of junk insurance. To attribute that claim, which we have heard from a couple of speakers this afternoon, against this bill is to attribute that claim and that criticism against the ACA, because the underlying bill matches exactly what the ACA purports, that is, catastrophic coverage. It simply says, if you have that coverage and your deductibles take your breath away, good news; you can save on a tax-free basis. So I think, with all due respect to the talking point writers and all due respect to the critics of this bill, I think the entire debate would be uplifted somewhat if we were debating the actual bill that is before us instead of tweets and news feeds and so forth. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the 5 percent solution. So, if you are in the 5 percent, you need a solution. Five percent of this country is millions of people who are in HSAs. And the characterization of something as a tax shelter, as the gentleman from Texas just characterized, is a completely loaded and pejorative term. So where do we go for some level of clarity? Let's go to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the question that was posed to them was: Show us the tax returns of people who take advantage or who are in a health savings account. In 2015, 71 percent of returns reported an income of $200,000 or less. Are those rich people? I don't think so. And, in addition, 28 percent reported income of $75,000 or less. So the hyperbole, the overstatement, the mischaracterization, I think is ``rich.'' And did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? I laid out the President's promise: You like your coverage, you get to keep your coverage. You like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor. And we are going to save $2,500 per year per family. There has been silence on the other side of the aisle, and I predict that that won't be answered all afternoon. Do you want to know why? Because there is no answer. For real answers, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every time today we hear the phrase ``junk coverage,'' think ObamaCare. And I am not trying to be facetious, because there is nothing in this bill that makes any change to any coverage. I could only assume that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) is referring to the catastrophic coverage that was part of the ACA. All we are doing today is saying, with that coverage, they ought not be alone. They ought not just be out on an ice floe all by themselves. People who have that type of catastrophic coverage that our friends, when they were in the majority, created, those people should simply have access to a health savings account. What is not to love about that? So when you hear ``junk coverage,'' just be dismissive of that. It is a talking point, and it is not particularly persuasive. Who is persuasive is the gentleman from Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Michigan asked the rhetorical question: Why are we here? I will tell you one reason why we are here. One reason why we are here is I have an independent recollection of being in my car on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, listening then to President Obama give a speech to, I think it was the American Medical Association. I was listening on the radio and he said, I think--I may be conflating here. But he said: If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. If you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor. I think, during the course of the healthcare discussion, the Obama administration made this explicit promise to the American people: You are going to save $2,500 per family. And it was going to be great. It was going to solve all the problems. Yet, that didn't happen. That is why we are here. I have a constituency where two counties have one insurer. That is why we are here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) to tell us why we are here.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Health Subcommittee at the Ways and Means Committee, and I have had the opportunity, like many of my colleagues, to hear from physicians, hospitals, and patient advocates. I have heard a lot of stories about increased costs, which are exacerbating the coverage and access challenges that we currently face. There is a broad consensus that healthcare in the United States needs to move towards a system that provides greater access to affordable care. The question is: How do we get that done? The ACA government-approved, government-mandated one-size-fits-all insurance has dramatically decreased choice and increased premiums in the individual market. We will hear a lot of debate about this today. But here is what is happening close to home. Mr. Speaker, in my home State, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report that shows, between 2013 and 2017, the average monthly premium for coverage in the individual market, in Illinois, increased 108 percent, or by $3,228 a year. I have five counties in my constituency. In two of those five counties, there is only one insurer offering plans on the individual exchange. That is not a choice. That is a government mandate. That is a government monopoly. It is time to drive a discussion around empowering individuals and their families to make healthcare decisions for themselves based on their needs and based on their budgets. The policies that are included in H.R. 6311 expand access to consumer-directed health plans with tax favored accounts, like health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill increases choice, lowers premiums, and let's more families save more money to pay for their healthcare costs. Now, my friends across the aisle will, without question, get up this afternoon and say that this bill doesn't do anything to help people. That instead of these policies, we should drop everything and work to fix the very broken, flawed plan that is the ACA. Well, here is the thing. There are twice as many people who have an HSA than those who are covered under the exchanges. Let me say that again. Twice as many Americans are covered under HSAs than under the Affordable Care Act: 21.8 million people, Mr. Speaker, had a health savings account in 2017, and there is only 10.6 million who are enrolled in the exchanges in 2018--2 to 1. The bill makes smart changes to help families save more money pre-tax for their healthcare. It changes the so-called use-it-or-lose-it nature of flexible spending arrangements, FSAs, by allowing balances to roll over to the next year. It doubles the amount of money people can put into a health savings account so that they can save enough to cover their exposure to out-of-pocket costs, and they are increasingly vulnerable to these out-of-pocket costs. Now, my friends on the other side may say they want to talk about and distract from some of these commonsense solutions and say that somehow some subpar insurance is being promoted. Well, even after canceling millions of healthcare plans that people had and that people liked, notwithstanding the President's promise that if you like your coverage, you get to keep your coverage--you remember that, Mr. Speaker-- notwithstanding that, Democrats, God bless them, they still think they know what type of healthcare is best for everyone. They haven't learned yet that individuals and families are the best ones to make these decisions, not politicians and not bureaucrats in Washington. We think people should be able to purchase the type of coverage they want and the type of coverage they can afford. One of the provisions in this bill allows everyone to purchase a catastrophic plan, a plan that was designed by ObamaCare. These plans offer the lowest premiums, and we think everyone should have access to them. Even better, because these plans have average deductibles of $6,000, we think we should allow catastrophic and bronze plans to qualify for an HSA as well. This means people can get a break in taxes for the money that they save for their huge ObamaCare deductibles. This is real savings to real people who are struggling under the current healthcare law. It allows working seniors with HSA-eligible coverage who are enrolled in Medicare part A to contribute to an HSA, which can provide an added benefit for seniors and an incentive for them to stay on their employer-sponsored plan over Medicare, if they choose. It makes perfect sense. It increases utility and flexibility through allowing both spouses to make catch-up contributions into the same HSA if they are over age 55. Finally, it delays ObamaCare's health insurance tax for an additional 2 years, which would otherwise increase the cost of insurance premiums through a nearly $27 billion excise tax. This is a flawed tax that gets passed on to American families who are purchasing in the individual market; it gets passed on to seniors in Medicare Advantage; it gets passed on to small businesses; and it gets passed on in Medicaid programs. So I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee members who took that effort seriously. I look forward to this afternoon's debate. I want to thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in driving this discussion, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, July 13, 2018. Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Walden: I write to you regarding H.R. 6311, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition of the qualified health plan for purposes of the health insurance premium tax credit and to allow individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market to purchase a lower premium copper plan. The Committee on Ways and Means ordered favorably reported this bill which was also referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I ask that the Committee on Energy and Commerce waive formal consideration of the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. I acknowledge that by waiving formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those provisions of the bills that fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate conference involving this legislation. I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation on the House floor. Sincerely, Kevin Brady, Chairman.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1011, I call up the bill (H.R. 6311) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition of qualified health plan for purposes of the health insurance premium tax credit and to allow individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market to purchase a lower premium copper plan, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the inclusion of the Promoting High-Value Health Care Through Flexibility for Deductible Health Plans in this bill today. This is legislation that is bipartisan that I introduced, along with the Congressman from California (Mr. Thompson), that gives consumers the choice and flexibility that they need to be engaged in their healthcare. In a nutshell, the bill allows plans to offer coverage for high- value, low-cost services like telehealth, chronic disease management such as diabetic testing strips, or primary care visits below the deductible. In a nutshell, what we are trying to do is give patients more choices, more capacity to be more demonstrative about navigating through their own healthcare needs. This is a good bipartisan approach. I thank the gentlewoman for including it, and I thank her for the time. I urge its passage.