Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

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. 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. 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. 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out Gallup just announced in a survey, 65 million Americans, 20 percent, put off treatment this last year and borrowed $88 billion to cover their healthcare costs. So we know there are problems out there we need to address. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

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

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is really important legislation we are working on today. H.R. 1839, the Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019, includes short-term extensions of several key Medicaid programs that have previously passed the House on a bipartisan basis. I know our staffs on both sides of the aisle put a lot of time and effort into this, and I thank them all. I especially want to draw attention to Caleb Graff, who brought his own audience with him today in the gallery, his parents and brother. He has worked very hard on this, and we appreciate it. I thank my chair and colleague, Frank Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the partnership on this extenders package. Personally, I know a lot of us would have liked to have had these extended programs go out further to give beneficiaries and providers more certainty and more stability, and we will continue to put forth offers in good faith to work across the aisle to fund these critical parts of America's safety net. However, we are here today up against a deadline, and I am pleased we were able to get at least through June and September, respectively, with these programs. I am particularly pleased to see this package includes a short-term extension of the Excellence in Mental Health demonstration for my home State of Oregon. Both Oregon and Oklahoma were set to run out of funding at the end of this month, so this money will at least line them up with the other participating States whose funding expires at the end of June. These eight State demonstration projects have shown promise as a way for community providers to expand access to treatment for mental and behavioral health, including addiction. As we continue our bipartisan work on the opioid crisis, which took more than 70,000 American lives in 2017 alone, Mr. Speaker, our behavioral health centers have the potential to provide real help. I have been encouraged to hear from providers in rural parts of my district, like Wallowa and Klamath Falls, about their success implementing this very program. I look forward to working on a longer term extension in the coming months. The other Medicaid policies included in this bill are also very important. The Money Follows the Person program is a demonstration program that helps transition individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities from institutions back into their local communities. That is where they can get the best care. The so-called spousal impoverishment program protects seniors against the high costs of home and community-based services. Finally, we are, once again, passing the ACE Kids Act here in the House, which was championed by our former colleague and chairman of the committee, Representative Joe Barton of Texas. It would improve the delivery of care for children with really complex medical conditions. Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan package of healthcare bills.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, due to my attendance at a public lands management event with President Trump at the White House, I was delayed in returning for votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 121 on H. Res 156.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at memorial services following the untimely passing of Dennis Richardson, Oregon's 26th Secretary of State, I was in Oregon and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 106 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 107.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at memorial services in Oregon following the untimely passing of Dennis Richardson, Oregon's 26th Secretary of State, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 104 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 105.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, as the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I enjoy the relationship and camaraderie I have with the Natural Resources Committee, and I want to thank the gentleman from Utah and my friend Mr. Grijalva, the chairman of the committee for once again bringing this measure forward affecting Crooked River Ranch. The Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act is essential to saving lives in central Oregon. With another wildfire season just on the horizon, the people of Crooked River Ranch are really deeply concerned that they could become the next Paradise, California, and they are deeply concerned that their community could be turned into ash as wildfire feeds off the dense fuel loads that surround this community of 5,000 people. They are there because of a lack of proper management to thin out the fuel loads because this area is in a wilderness study area. What we are doing is moving the boundary back about 800 acres. So at the BLM, it will all stay public. The BLM can come in and use mechanical treatment, literally, to reduce juniper and sagebrush so that the firefighters can come in and fight fire if they do get one. We know what happens in this kind of terrain, the tragedy, the loss of life, loss of homes, the loss of community. There are 5,000 people out on a rim, if you will, in a canyon with only one way in and one way out. The fire chief has told me that if fire breaks out and it is the wrong kind with enough wind, he might not put his firefighters in there. So today we are going to save lives, thanks to your work. Harry Ward, the fire chief, said this ``has created a dangerous environment and continues to threaten the people that live here.'' This legislation will adjust that WSA. The important public safety legislation will give peace of mind to the residents of Crooked River Ranch. Last year, a fire only a few miles away burned 2,000 acres. It destroyed two homes in less than a day. The next fire season is not far away. We do not want to see images like this of homes turned to ash and lives destroyed in central Oregon, where we have a real opportunity to prevent that from happening thanks to this bipartisan legislation. So I want to thank my Senators who worked on this. I want to thank Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Bishop for their work on this, and I appreciate its being brought in as part of the package of bills that now will go to President Trump, who I am convinced will sign it into law.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 583, the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement (PIRATE) Act, introduced by Reps. Paul Tonko and Gus Bilirakis. I want to thank Rep. Chris Collins of New York and former Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey for leading on this last Congress. Mr. Speaker, I've been around radio for most of my life. From working as a teenage janitor at my dad's radio station to spending more than 20 years as a radio station owner myself; in fact, I'm still a licensed amateur radio operator today. But you don't need that much experience to understand that protecting our public airwaves from illegal pirate radio interference is important for consumers and broadcasters alike. The PIRATE Act gives the FCC additional tools to address the growing pirate radio problem and increases the penalties for bad actors. These illegal broadcasts deprive Americans of important programming provided by legitimate broadcast license-holders serving the public interest. And they can disrupt important public safety communications, including our nation's Emergency Alert System and critical aviation frequencies. In many cases, these pirate radio stations broadcast vile and vulgar content, which also harms consumers. By preventing illegal pirate radio operations, consumers are protected, and airwaves are kept free for legitimate broadcasts and public safety announcements. Last Congress, this House passed the PIRATE Act by voice vote. I'd like to thank our former colleague Leonard Lance, who first authored this legislation last Congress, and my colleagues Mr. Tonko and Mr. Bilirakis for bringing this important bill to strengthen our public safety communications back to the House floor today. I urge its quick passage.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 501, the Poison Center Network Enhancement Act. This important bill, introduced by Reps. Eliot Engel, Susan Brooks, Jaime Herrera Beutler, and Diana DeGette, reauthorizes the national network of Poison Control Centers. The nation's network of poison control centers offers free, confidential, and expert medical advice and often serves as the primary resource for poisoning information. These centers help reduce Emergency Room visits through in-home treatment and their lifesaving assistance helps prevent unnecessary poisoning deaths and injuries. Poison control centers are also essential to combating the opioid crisis because not only are these centers often the first resource people seek after an opioid overdose occurs, but they also collect real time data to alert impacted communities about opioid abuse and misuse. Last Congress, Rep. Brooks led similar legislation, which passed this House by voice vote and was then included in the House-passed version of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, our broad legislative package to combat the opioid crisis. Unfortunately, after negotiations with the Senate, this language was not included in the final package that was signed into law. Therefore, I'd like to commend Rep. Engel and Rep. Brooks for their continued leadership on this bipartisan legislation in helping to bring this bill to the floor today, and I urge passage.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 525, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Task Force Act. This bipartisan bill--which I introduced with Chairman Frank Pallone, and which is supported by Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Republican Leader Kevin Brady--is a commonsense, bipartisan bill to improve the integrity of our nation's health care system. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) currently operates the Health Care Fraud Prevention Partnership--a voluntary collaboration between the federal government, state agencies, law enforcement, private health insurance plans, and anti-fraud associations. Together, this group works to detect and prevent fraud that threatens to undermine our nation's health care system. This program was created by the Obama Administration, and the Trump Administration has recommended codifying it into law. The bill before us today does just that. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House passed this legislation by voice vote but unfortunately, we were unable to get this bill through the Senate and to the President's desk before the end of the Congress. In fact, the House Energy and Commerce Committee had 148 bills pass the House last Congress, and 93 percent of them received bipartisan votes. I'd like to thank Chairman Pallone for continuing in that bipartisan spirit by helping to bring this bill back to the floor today. I urge passage of H.R. 525.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Gary Neal, for his many years of hard work and dedicated service to the Port of Morrow, Morrow County, and Eastern Oregon. Gary has served as Port Manager for nearly 30 years, and I would like to pay tribute to his leadership in the region. After five years as the Manager at the Port of Clarkston, Gary was hired in 1989 to manage the Port of Morrow. Since that time, and thanks to Gary's leadership, the Port has grown to be the second largest Port in the state of Oregon. The Port now houses facilities for everything from value-added agriculture processing to high tech data centers. It serves the area as an economic powerhouse. In 2017 alone, the Port generated $2.7 billion of economic output and created nearly 8,500 jobs either directly or indirectly. From 2008 to 2013, the second worst economic downturn this country has experienced, the Port grew by 88 percent. All of this was driven by Gary's visionary leadership of the Port. Despite the multitude of successes, Gary is humble about these achievements. While all the above mentioned statements are fact, Gary often refuses credit, and instead points to his commissioners and the community when explaining the success of the Port. This focus on community is also evident in the Port's countless efforts to support community development projects. Whether it is parks, schools, or athletic facilities, the Port never hesitates to contribute to the growth of the community. In addition to his commitment to the Port, Gary has served the community in many other ways. He currently serves on the board for The Bank of Eastern Oregon; Pacific Northwest Waterways Association; is past president of the Oregon Public Ports Association; served on the Infrastructure Finance Authority Board for the State of Oregon for eight years, and is an active committee member with several other groups. This breadth of experience and involvement has made Gary a great asset to me on a variety of issues affecting the Port and the surrounding area. On everything from issues with the Navy's Boardman Bombing Range and the Army's Umatilla Chemical Depot, to river transportation and renewable energy, I've leaned upon Gary's experience and ideas as we navigated toward solutions. As Gary begins his well-earned retirement, I know he is looking forward to spending time with his family. Gary and his wife Kathy have been married for 45 years and have two children. Their daughter Rochelle is married and works for Nike. Their son Ryan is taking over as the Manager of the Port of Morrow. The apple didn't fall far from the tree. Congratulations to my good friend Gary Neal on a much respected and successful career. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him well as he pursues his next adventure.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes on January 22nd due to unavoidable travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 44 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 45.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to title III of the Democrats' rules package which, as you have heard, paves the way for Speaker Pelosi to unilaterally take legal action on behalf of the entire House of Representatives in the ongoing court case surrounding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and any future court cases on the ACA as she sees fit. That is a pretty big blank check. Madam Speaker, first of all, I object to this vote on the grounds of pure common sense. The authority we are voting on today was already given to the Speaker last week under title I of the Democrats' rules package. You can look it up. It is right there, beginning on page 30. You will find it after the provisions that make it easier for House Democrats to increase taxes and to set up automatic debt limit increases. Not to mention, Speaker Pelosi has already filed three motions to the court to intervene in the case since last week's vote. Moreover, Democratic Attorneys General from intervening States are already defending the law in the case, and the judge's ruling has already been stayed and appealed. So this is an unnecessary waste of time, paper, and ink. I can only assume part of the reason for today's show vote is to distract from Democrats' real radical views on healthcare. Madam Speaker, where is the single-payer, $32 trillion government takeover of healthcare bill which ends employer- and union-sponsored healthcare and forces the 158 million Americans who get their healthcare through their job into a one-size-fits-all government-run plan? A majority of House Democrats supported that proposal--or one very like it--in the last Congress. When will they keep their promise to bring that plan up for a vote? Madam Speaker, today's vote to repeat the authorities given the Speaker last week is just for show. It is not a serious exercise in legislating. Meanwhile, last week, Republicans brought a powerful but simple amendment to the floor that would have actually called on this body to legislate on something we all could agree needs to be done, and that is to lock in protections for patients with preexisting conditions. But, unfortunately, in a fit of partisanship, Democrats voted that down. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary political theater today and vote ``no'' so we can work together expeditiously to guarantee preexisting condition protections for all Americans, and do so in a manner that can withstand judicial scrutiny.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I spent about a year in Alaska going to college, have been back a number of times, and it is, as the gentleman from Alaska describes, a very unique area. It is unlike anywhere else in America. When you get out into these remote villages, you may fly in in a small Cessna airplane, land on a gravel strip, as I have done, and get out, and there may only be 25 or 50 people there. That is it. By the way, in the winter, it can be--what?--50, 60 below. I have seen that. And I have seen it in spring at break where we had to try to take off three different times on a runway because it had begun to soften up. The snow had begun to soften up, and we had to get out of the plane, turn it around, get back in. Eventually, we had to leave one guy behind in order to get off the ground. This is a very unique place. The poverty that the gentleman from Alaska describes is very real. So, yes, of course, I wish we had had more time to work this out. And to my colleague from New York, he and I have worked out most of these things along the way quite well. This bill came to us late, and, frankly, we didn't have time to deal with all of the finite pieces. Perhaps we could go back in the next session and do that, but this is before us today. The problem is before us today. I believe this is a reasonable solution and that we should pass it. So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to approve this bill and send it to the President. I commit to work to make it even better next year. I won't be the chairman, I understand that, but Mr. Tonko, Mr. Speaker, will be, I think, the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, and I would work with him and the gentleman from Alaska. But this is the time, as we know, when things finally get done, and they may not be perfect, but in this case, I would err on the side of passing this bill and then fine-tweak it later if we have to. This is a real serious issue in these tiny, remote, impoverished villages. I would defer to the gentleman from Alaska, who knows it better than any of us, and encourage passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute, in closing, to our chief counsel on the committee, Karen Christian, who will be leaving us at the end of this Congress. She has been a remarkable member of the staff, engaged in the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for years, doing incredible work, and is going off to greener pastures. After 13 years in the committee, I just want to say to Karen: Thank you for your service. Thank you for your leadership. We are going to miss you. Good luck to you and your family Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I'm convinced we have the best members in Congress and the best staff. In her thirteen years with the Committee, Karen Christian has been one of our finest. At the end of this Congress, Karen will move on, and while we are sad to see her do, we wish her well. Karen joined the Committee in 2006 as a counsel on our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. She's served as both the deputy chief counsel and chief counsel of that subcommittee, and for the last four years she has served as general counsel of the Committee. As deputy chief counsel, Karen led several major Committee investigations, including investigations into the Department of Energy's management of the Loan Guarantee Program, including a failed loan guarantee to Solyndra; the stimulus bill, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; cyber security and critical infrastructure, including an investigation of Huawei Technologies; and the Federal Communications Commission's handling of a license application from LightSquared. As chief counsel, she led the Committee's investigations into General Motors ignition switch safety failures; the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the failure of HealthCare.gov; the fungal meningitis outbreak due to contaminated drugs; mental health care and treatment, including federal programs related mental health and serious mental illness; the opioid addiction epidemic; and the Environmental Protection Agency's consideration of carbon capture technologies in developing greenhouse gas emissions standards for new power plants. And as general counsel, Karen has been responsible for overseeing and managing the legislative process for the entire Committee--that includes a 27-hour, marathon markup in March 2017 and regularly battling to preserve the Committee's jurisdiction. By every measure, Karen's time at the Committee has been a complete success. While we are sad to lose our friend, we look forward to seeing her next accomplishments. Karen, we wish you and your family--Dave, Christian, Andrew, and Charlotte the very best. We thank you for your service, your hard work, your guidance, and most of all your friendship. Your work made a difference . . . America is better because of your efforts. Thank you and remember--at Energy and Commerce, the fun never stops.

Mr. WALDEN

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2278, the State Offices of Rural Health Reauthorization Act led by Senator Pat Roberts and by my Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues Representative Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma and my fellow Oregonian, Kurt Schrader, here in the House. This important legislation reauthorizes and enhances Federal grants to States for improving healthcare in rural areas through the operation of State Offices of Rural Health. Now, in my home State of Oregon, the Oregon Office of Rural Health has been the coordinating body for frontier health since the 1970s. This office partners with the Oregon Health & Sciences University to improve the delivery of statewide resources to rural areas, such as the Second District. Telehealth, rotational programs for medical students in rural communities, and recruitment of healthcare providers are just a few examples of the Oregon Office of Rural Health's work to help patients in Oregon's rural areas. I am proud of the great work that they do, and this bill will enhance their ability and those of all State Rural Health Offices to equip communities with the tools they need to strengthen the delivery of healthcare in rural and underserved areas. So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), who is a cosponsor of this very important legislation.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2278) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants to improve health care in rural areas.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), who is a pharmacist on our committee and a great leader on health issues on the Energy and Commerce Committee.