Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment itself.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague across the aisle, Mr. McAdams, that ISPs should be able to block unlawful content, and I support his amendment. In fact, even when the FCC imposed the heavy-handed title II regulations, it recognized in paragraph 113 of its order that the ban on blocking did not ``prevent or restrict a broadband provider from refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing materials.'' This was similar to the FCC's earlier nonblocking rule, which was also affirmed, that ISPs could block material that was unlawful. It strikes me as interesting that you have to have this amendment to apparently clarify an ambiguity some must feel exists in the underlying bill, but we will support it if it is necessary to do that. I firmly support net neutrality that allows Americans to enjoy the lawful content on the internet and applications of their choosing. I would point out to my friend from Utah that the concerns about social media, and I share them, are not covered by this legislation. Those big platforms are completely exempt, as near as we can tell, so that is another area where I think we all share a common bond, that there is concern about what goes on in social media, things that aren't legal, things that are fake. I mean, you name it. Under title II, the FCC could police internet content, as it currently does with content broadcasts over television or radio. I was a radio broadcaster for 21 years, owned and operated stations, and that concerns me a bit if we are going to get the FCC being the Nation's speech police. By making further rules on the ISPs, you might be able to end up there. That is a concern. This is a really broad, open-ended authority that you all are giving to the Federal Communications Commission. That is because the FCC did not forebear from some content-specific provisions of title II, such as section 223. That would give the FCC authority to impose content-based restrictions if it found it to be ``just and reasonable.'' That goes well beyond just the legal content, I think. I am not burdened with a law degree, but I have some really good lawyers that counsel me on these matters. This is why we offered an amendment that would have put certain protections in place for consumers' freedom of speech online because that is also something we all swear to uphold, our First Amendment rights of religion and speech. Rather than talk about how we can prevent the FCC from someday abusing the expansive authority that the majority is about to give it, we are here discussing something that has been universally agreed upon by all parties to this debate. Mr. Chair, we appreciate the gentleman's perfecting amendment to this legislation. I intend to support it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I support the goal of this amendment in assessing the broadband marketplace and how the government can increase competition, lower prices, and improve the quality of service. This is a worthy subject for GAO to look into, and I think we can gain valuable insights. This is something we could have approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee had it been brought to us, but we accept it here on the floor. But if we were really looking for ways to increase competition, Mr. Chairman, in the wireless broadband marketplace, then I am baffled why Democrats did not find the need to examine how 5G networks will be severely threatened by their bill. Numerous reports from entities not even in the tech space indicate that title II, this overreaching government takeover and the incredible power being given to the FCC to take charge of the internet, presents serious challenges to 5G deployment and its amazing potential for technical improvements. These reports come from Barclays, which focuses on investment and banking, Oracle, and even the IEEE, which is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, so it is not a bunch of politicians talking about this, Mr. Chairman. These are certified smart people, otherwise known as the real engineers, that we went to. To quote their analysis, ``5G networks face the challenge of being developed in a context of high uncertainty, where most of the services that underpin 5G business models appear to be unlawful under current rules.'' One example of the efficiencies that can be realized in a 5G network is network slicing which will allow operators to provide different services with different performance characteristics to address specific use cases. Because 5G is being designed for a wider range of use cases than prior technologies, it is critical that quality of service management be employed. Applying net neutrality to these new 5G networks would cripple the performance of this incredible new technology. Mr. Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky, offered an amendment to address our serious concerns about the impact of the Democrats' bill on 5G, but that amendment to preserve the growth of 5G was not given an opportunity to be part of today's vote. Sadly, we can't even debate it. It is not here. New 5G wireless networks will not only one day support apps and web pages, and texts, and chats, and video streams, but will also support a wide range of new technologies, from autonomous vehicles, augmented reality, innovations in healthcare delivery and education, to all other kinds of new advances, Mr. Chairman. These new innovations, let alone the innovations beyond 5G to come, would be simply impossible, we now believe, and I think others believe independent of us, with these heavy-handed proposals that will result from title II power being given to bureaucrats in Washington. That is what the underlying bill would do. It is worth remembering that until 2015, the Federal Communications Commission treated wireless networks differently when regulating net neutrality, because it did not want to impede the growth of a nascent technology. If we were to apply that same logic today, we should not burden developing 5G networks with onerous and outdated regulations, as these 5G networks are even more in their infancy than wireless was back in 2010, Mr. Chairman. So we need to make sure that we don't handicap this next generation of technology with rules designed for rotary telephones that could cause us to delay or lose a global race to widely deploy 5G. Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks. I support the underlying amendment, the Davids amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't think I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would say Republicans are for stopping any kind of action that throttles or blocks even paid prioritization on the internet. We share that common view of net neutrality. But I would remind my colleagues that the legislation before us does not in any way provide any regulatory oversight over where you go when you get off the ISPs, get off that freeway, if you will, into places like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They are great American companies. But what I hear from my constituents is they are concerned about pay prioritization, the security, the trust, the data, and all of that that the edge providers are a huge part of this ecosystem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip of the House and a terrific member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, Republicans and Democrats can agree more than they disagree on the issue of net neutrality parameters to protect a free and open internet for consumers. The net neutrality bright line rules Republicans support are simple, and they are actually pretty easy to understand, Mr. Chairman: no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization--period. And no government takeover of the internet by Washington bureaucrats. Unfortunately, for the last few years, Democrats have caved in to the idea that only putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of every facet of the internet is the answer. And they know what all Americans know: The bill before us today is opposed by the President, and the leader of the Senate says it is dead on arrival there, so it will not become law. This is the end of its journey. They also know the internet grew up under very light-touch regulation, which Republicans favor and which even President Clinton favored. That is what allowed the bright innovators in our Nation's Silicon Valley and across the world to experiment and to invent the great services we all enjoy today. You see, they did not have to come to Washington, D.C., to some agency and get a permit or permission first. They didn't have to get second-guessed later, either. Unfortunately, the regime that my friends across the aisle seek to saddle the internet with was only in place for less than 2 years. Less than 2 years, that is it. Some argue that during that period, investment broadband build-out actually declined. We had testimony at the Energy and Commerce Committee from an internet service provider in rural Oregon who spoke to that very fact. This bill, called Save the Internet Act, is another plank in their socialist agenda that would regulate the internet as if it were a monopoly utility under the title II section of the Communications Act of 1934. That is the law originally used to govern monopoly telephone companies in the 1930s. This legislation imposes that heavy hand of Washington's regulatory bureaucracy over the single most vibrant and important driver of the economic growth in America and the world: job creation, better quality of life, information sharing. We call that the open internet that we enjoy today. I would admit, no one fully understands the implications of this legislation, the scope of what it entails, and the impact it could have on consumers. There is much debate on this point in the committee. Does this bill empower the FCC to dictate where and when new broadband networks can or must be deployed? We think it could. Will this bill provide the authority for a government takeover and management of private networks? We think it could. Would this bill allow government taxation of the internet? It could. Could it lead to government regulation of speech on the internet? Yep. And will this legislation limit the full potential of 5G and impede the development of the next wave of innovation in internet services? Most outside experts think it could. So Republicans attempted to get to the bottom of these questions through our hearings and our markups. The answer to all of these questions was, regrettably, yes. Now, we offered amendments, Mr. Chairman, at the full committee to close the doors to these and other powers that are granted to the Federal Communications Commission under this bill, powers that are completely unrelated to net neutrality. Every one of those amendments was rejected. Supporters claim the bill locks into law more than 700 instances where the Federal Communications Commission forbore from taking action under title II, but supporters cannot provide Members of Congress with a list of those 700 forbearances--nope. We have asked; no list. The Democrats won't or can't even tell us precisely what they are putting into law if we can't see that list. But we even offered an amendment to truly lock in this forbearance and prevent the FCC from imposing similar regulations in the future or through other provisions in statute, and that, too, was rejected. We offered an amendment protecting the next generation of wireless networks, 5G, from the incompatible regulatory regime. That, too, was rejected on party-line votes. So, disappointingly, the Democrats went back on an agreement I helped negotiate in each of the last two Congresses to relieve some of our rural internet providers from some of the most burdensome reporting requirements of the FCC's 2015 order. Twice we passed that relief, and we did so unanimously in this House, and it was bipartisan, obviously. They more than cut the relief in half, putting costly bureaucratic reporting requirements ahead of small internet service providers investing in connecting Americans to high- speed internet services. It doesn't have to be this way. It should not be this way. Republicans have put forth serious proposals. We put forth a menu of options as a starting point for true bipartisan net neutrality legislation. I have introduced a bill that codifies the FCC's bright-line rules prohibiting blocking and throttling and paid prioritization for internet traffic, and that would require that ISPs, internet service providers, be transparent in their network management practices and prices. Two of my Republican colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have introduced legislation that should also gain Democratic support. Representative Bob Latta, who is our top Republican on the subcommittee, has legislation drawn from a proposal introduced in 2010 by the previous Democratic chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman of California. If Democrats don't believe Mr. Waxman's plan is a good starting point, then Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers has introduced legislation that is drawn directly from a bill that passed in Washington State's Democratic-controlled legislature and was signed into law in 2018 by a Democratic Governor. So what do all three of these proposals have in common? They are rooted in the shared principles of net neutrality that will protect consumers, but without putting unelected bureaucrats in control of the internet. So I remain committed to a bipartisan solution, to preserving a free and open internet. I actually believe it is achievable, and I want to express to my friends on the other side of the aisle--and they are my friends--that our work and our efforts together are genuine and have been made in good faith. The fact is we can permanently address blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. We could do so in a bipartisan way, and we all believe in open and free internet. We believe in net neutrality. But net neutrality is not title II, near limitless government management of the internet. Net neutrality does not need the harmful, heavy-handed approach of title II. Net neutrality does not require a government takeover of the internet. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now privileged to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the ranking Republican on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, when it comes to 5G, Republicans had an amendment to keep 5G from being regulated by 1930s law called title II. My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to get into a big discussion about the huge regulatory door they are opening in section 201 and section 202 that allows the FCC to basically run amok with rules. They will claim that they are locking down what the FCC did in 2015 but, in fact, while they may close one door--although we don't even know all those 700 rules they are forbearing against that are going to go into statute, they can't even provide that list and this bill isn't going anywhere--they are opening this other authority-- unlimited authority, frankly--to the FCC to regulate all these forms of technology. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for his work on this amendment, and the Democrats for accepting this very thoughtful approach. Americans are more and more concerned about the role that tech companies play in this Information Age. You read about how content gets blocked, gets prioritized, or in some cases allegedly shadow banned. We increasingly see these tech giants' inability to curb harmful and illicit behavior online while they monetize our personal information. Now, these are incredibly important platforms as well, they are great American companies, but in most cases, they come about as close to a monopoly as I have ever seen. Meanwhile, these edge providers get special protection under section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and they are not covered by the net neutrality rules that we are discussing today. They are not covered at all. This bill does nothing to protect consumers from online abuses. When Republicans were in the majority, I personally presided over hearings with the heads of some of the most important tech companies in America. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter came before our committee, sat inside the Rayburn hearing room, and talked to us for hours. Our majority enacted landmark protections against online human sex trafficking that received the support of both sides of the aisle. We moved forward with that legislation. It is now law. Just as the internet has not stopped working from rescinding the 2015 order, the internet has not stopped working because we enacted protections like FOSTA and SESTA. The internet still works. But more improvements can be made in how we bring responsibility to this sector of the internet. We should review all participants in the virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem, and that is the aim of this amendment. The amendment calls on the Government Accountability Office to recommend solutions in dealing with edge providers, so they do not abuse their special privileges that the 1996 act gave them. This is our third revision of the amendment to make it acceptable to move forward with the majority. I certainly had hoped we wouldn't outsource this responsibility to the GAO over the FCC, not to mention the Energy and Commerce Committee and Congress, but I certainly believe we must make progress on this issue for the benefit of all American consumers and for the health of the overall internet ecosystem.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Latta for bringing this very thoughtful amendment to the House floor, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, I believe, agreed to accept it, if I heard that correctly. The bill would codify the forbearance of 700 regulations into law, as you probably heard, Madam Chair. However, we just don't know what those 700 provisions that are being forborne upon are. We have repeatedly asked for that information in the subcommittee, in the full committee, and every step of the way. In fact, I don't think the authors of this legislation could tell us today what those 700 provisions are, although they get referenced from time to time. We are told that is really the underpinning and crux of this legislation, that, in all these areas of law, the FCC said, ``We are not going to, basically, regulate in this area,'' and they said there are about 700 of these. So I think it does matter, if you are in business or just whatever you do in your life, to not know what the government--a pretty big, powerful government here in Washington--is going to enforce or not enforce or regulate or not regulate, and we don't know. But we are being asked today, in this bill, to enshrine in Federal law the whole 700 of these that the FCC--not this one, not a future one, we are told--would ever regulate in. So we want the list. That is what this amendment asks for. But wouldn't it be better when we legislate to actually know what we are legislating on before we vote? That is a pretty simple concept in good legislating, I think, and that is why we repeatedly asked for it; and, obviously, we have not been able to get it, so it is a bit of an irony. Now, at the same time, they say don't worry because the FCC--you can trust us. The FCC is never going to regulate in this area. And, in fact, we are going to take these forbearances and lock them into statute and they can never come back and everything is locked down solid, boom. But that is like locking the front door of your house while you open the backdoor. And the backdoor is another part under title II. This is the argument on the floor today. It is not about blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. You have heard us go back and forth, and we both agree. We can stop those bad behaviors, and we should, and that could become law. This bill will not become law. But they open the backdoor and say to the FCC: You have got the right, under sections 201 and 202, to basically do anything you want through a rulemaking. So all the agency has to do is do a rulemaking, and basically they can do everything they have done before and more. It is that uncertainty of regulation on the internet that we have referred to as the heavy-handed government. And this could be about taxing the internet, fees on the internet, et cetera, et cetera. So I am glad we are doing this amendment, and I am glad the majority is going to accept it. I only wish it were a list before us in the Record today, Madam Chair.

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I appreciate that from my good friend. If it were that easy to get that list, why didn't they get it for us from the Chairman of the FCC before we went through this whole process? We shouldn't have to vote on the bill to find out what is in it.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to a prior commitment to speak at an event in my district that was set prior to the late change in the schedule by the Majority, I was unable to attend votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 157--H. Con. Res 19 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 158--H.R. 1331.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a couple of comments. First of all, the President is very good to work with, and we worked in a bipartisan manner last Congress to address the Nation's opioid epidemic. That is a healthcare issue and a life-and-death issue. We passed 60 bipartisan bills that became law, and President Trump signed them. We extended health insurance for children in America--the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program--for 10 years. That is twice as long as ever had been done before. We did that on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the President signed that. In my State, that is 122,700 Oregon kids and pregnant moms who are covered for certainty for 10 years under that insurance program. We reauthorized and fully funded community health centers. Now 240,000 Oregonians in 63 sites in my district get their healthcare from community health centers, Madam Speaker, and we did that at a fully funded record level. Now, I just want to address something my friend, the majority leader who schedules bills on the floor, said about how we voted to repeal ObamaCare 65 times. What he kind of failed to mention is Democrats voted for not quite half of those, I would wager, because 25 of those votes became law, signed in large part, if not totally, by one Barack Obama, because there were problems in the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, however you want to describe it, that this Congress interceded on and in a bipartisan way voted to repeal ``ObamaCare.'' That is what the leader said, the 65 were all to repeal. I would argue he probably voted for a bunch of those, because some of them passed unanimously in the House and Senate. Even President Obama agreed there were mistakes in ObamaCare. Our argument is we can fix America's healthcare laws going forward, and we should. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), who is a terrific new Member of Congress and of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I continue to yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I appreciate the gentleman's comments and share them. This is H.R. 692, legislation that would guarantee Americans with preexisting conditions are not discriminated against. We have a lot of cosponsors on this, but we don't have a single Democrat willing to cosponsor a bill that would provide protection to Americans should this judge's decision be upheld. That is my argument today. Why wouldn't we go ahead and schedule this, pass this, and move this to the floor so that if by some means this judge's decision is upheld, Americans with a preexisting condition would have coverage? Meanwhile, why don't we start hearings on the Medicare for All proposal that Democrats have championed? I have asked for those hearings from my friend. We have not seen that happen, and I know there is a certain dust-up in the press even today about alleging the Speaker's own staff person here may have been saying things or not about whether this is a good idea or not. We ought to have a hearing on that because close to 200 million Americans might lose their insurance under this plan. So there is lots we should be doing here. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments on my bill, H.R. 692, known as the Pre-Existing Conditions Protection Act of 2019. As we've made clear today, Republicans have long believed that pre- existing condition protections are an essential part of our nation's health care markets. These assurances give patients and families who have suffered from or are battling pre-existing conditions peace of mind. As a nation, we will not go back to the days when patients could be denied care or charged more than their peers because of their pre-existing condition. The Pre-Existing Conditions Protection Act has 45 cosponsors and would lock in existing protections for patients. It aims to achieve three important goals for patients: guaranteed access to coverage; a prohibition on pre-existing condition benefit exclusions; and, a ban on premium rating based on health status. This bill reaffirms the commitment by House Republicans to uphold these three safeguards, commonly defined as the principle pre-existing condition protections in Obamacare. And we can build on this foundation if necessary to adapt to potential changes in law or decisions from the courts in order to ensure our citizens who have pre-existing conditions are protected. In the first few months of the new Congress, Democrats have already voted down multiple attempts to lock in a commitment to legislate on pre-existing condition protections. Instead, they'd rather score political points on an issue that we actually have agreement on. This bill represents the desire of House Republicans to maintain these crucial protections for patients.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I hope, before the Speaker of the House leaves, she will listen to this. I was moved by her story about a young child with a congenital heart defect, but nobody is going to lecture me about the need to protect people with preexisting conditions or the need to repeal the lifetime caps. Let me tell you a story about a young man with a heart defect. February 7, 1994, he was born in Portland, Oregon, at Oregon Health Sciences University, with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. It would require immediate surgery and multiple surgeries to try to save his life, or a complete heart transplant. Tragically, that little boy did not live long enough to be flown to Loma Linda Hospital in California for that heart transplant. His name: Garrison Daniel Walden. He died the next day. Madam Speaker, nobody is going to tell me about the need to protect people with preexisting conditions. Nobody is going to lecture me about the need to get rid of caps on lifetime. My wife and I dealt with those issues directly, and I will always stand up for people who face similar challenges. That is not what this is about today, and you can laugh if you want. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the American people expect us to come to this floor with solutions, not political ``gotcha'' statements. The resolution before us in this week's Democratic dosage of attack on the President is just that. It doesn't do a darn thing to protect people with preexisting conditions; not one thing. In the opening day of the 116th Congress, House Republicans brought a powerful, but simple, measure to the floor that called on this body to legislate on what we all agree needs to be done: locking in protections for patients with preexisting conditions. Let me repeat. Republicans acted on day one of this Congress to protect Americans with preexisting conditions. Democrats blocked that. In fact, I introduced legislation which has 45 cosponsors that protects people with preexisting conditions. Period. This is something I have fought for my entire time in public service. It would lock in existing protections for patients. It is before the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I have worked since the first day of this Congress to get this measure passed so that if the court decision that found ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, if that judge's decision is upheld, we want to make sure that our citizens who have preexisting conditions still have coverage. The legislation I have sponsored would do that. Republicans and Democrats could get this done, and the question is: Why are we not voting on that today? Instead, Democrats have rushed a resolution to the floor that has never had a hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee. So much for the talk about due process and regular order, Madam Speaker. No hearing, and it was rushed to the floor. We only got to see it for the first time last Friday. So it is little more, in my opinion, than a political screed, not a public policy proposal. It will never go to the Senate. It is only here. Americans ought to know this, too: that the legal case working its way through the courts did not immediately end ObamaCare and will not affect insurance coverage on premiums for 2019. Moreover, Democrat attorneys general and a couple of Republicans from intervening States are already defending the law in this case, and the judge's ruling has been appealed. This body has voted not once, but twice, to allow Speaker Pelosi to intervene in the case, and she has moved to do. Just as my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly refused to let this House approve protections for people with preexisting conditions, they also know they could moot the lawsuit that they so decry today. All they would have to do is bring a bill to the floor and vote to repeal the individual mandate. That would turn off this lawsuit. I am sure many on our side might be happy to join them in that effort. And if the Democrats didn't want to do that, they could vote to reinstate the individual mandate penalty. That, too, would moot the lawsuit. But we are not doing that either. So they had policy options that could have been brought to the floor, three of them. Two would have ended the lawsuit that they decry today, and one would have given rock-solid security to those with preexisting conditions if the law is thrown out. There is no difference between us or among us about protecting people with preexisting conditions. But, unfortunately, they chose not to actually legislate. Democrats control everything in this House. They decide what gets heard in committee or, in this case, not, and what is brought to the floor, or not. So it is clear they would rather play politics with healthcare and attack the President for political purposes rather than work with us on what could and should be bipartisan solutions. A fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle must acknowledge is, for many Americans seeking coverage, healthcare costs keep getting more and more expensive. Last week, the Bend Bulletin, a newspaper in my district, reported on a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation about how insurance premiums are out of reach for many older, middle-class residents of our area, particularly in rural areas, including my home State. They report: ``In central Oregon, for example, a 60-year-old individual with an annual income of $50,000 must pay at least $703 a month, representing 17 percent of his or her income, and that would only buy a bronze plan with a deductible of $6,500.'' We should be focused on helping people like that be able to afford insurance. When the Affordable Care Act passed, Democrats promised people their insurance premiums would actually go down by $2,500. For many in America, that promise was false. For many Americans, healthcare costs, health insurance premiums, and, certainly, deductibles and copays have done nothing but gone up and up. I was in Oregon over the weekend and held seven townhalls. Do you know what I hear about when it comes to healthcare? That insurance premiums are out of reach for too many of my constituents. And for those who cannot afford the premiums, many make difficult choices, from choosing which family members to cover, to changing jobs, or limiting income in order to continue to qualify for subsidies. This is a real problem. I think we can find a bipartisan solution if Democrats are willing to work with us on it. But, plainly, the current healthcare system for too many Americans is not working. So we know we have more work to do, and I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with us that we need to improve State markets that, in some part, were damaged by ObamaCare; that we should work together to lower healthcare costs and increase access to private health insurance. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, actually, there are some things we are working on, on drug costs. No President, in my memory, has ever leaned farther forward to get drug costs down for American consumers than President Trump. He has been an incredible leader in this effort, and we are going to see bipartisan work get marked up tomorrow in the Energy and Commerce Committee. So on that topic of healthcare that is so crucial to survivability of American consumers, we can move forward. We have proven that. But, meanwhile, the American people need to fully understand that the Democrats' one-size-fits-all, government-run plan itself would end the Affordable Care Act. You have to admit that. That is what your Medicare-for-all plan does. They need to understand the $32 trillion price tag for the Democrats' alternative and the tax increases that would be necessary to go with it; the doubling of the individual income tax; doubling of corporate tax; and providers would have to take a 40 percent reduction in their payments. Think of what the wait lines will be if that were to become law. Americans need to know that when the Democrats Medicare-for-all plan ends, employer-sponsored healthcare and your union plans you negotiated for, 158 million Americans who have health insurance today, will lose it tomorrow. They need to understand how they would have to wait longer for access to care than they do today. And for my older friends, they need to understand the worst-case scenario. Seniors in America need to fully understand how this plan does away with popular Medicare Advantage plans and Medigap plans and impacts this proposal would have on access to their doctors and an earlier bankruptcy of Medicare altogether. So we would be better served today, and so would the American people, if we stood down, parked our partisan swords and shields, and worked together to solve the real problems Americans face when they go to pay their family bills. I had lunch today with a couple from the southern part of my district, professionals. They said the cost of health insurance for them is so high they have had to make the choice not to have it. This is going on every day in the marketplace, and I wish we could come together and spend our time on this House floor with a solution we could agree upon, because I think we could. But that is not what we are doing today. It is like every week there has to be a resolution on the floor to condemn the President, something he said or did; not a policy proposal that will actually solve the Nation's problems. That is all you are dealing with today, another screed. So let's work together. Let's come together as this Congress can, and as the Energy and Commerce Committee has had a wonderful record of doing over the years, and can going forward, to address healthcare and other issues. We can do that. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan, political resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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