Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting; the prior amendment that passed added $25 million more to this navigator program. For the plan year 2017, navigators received a total of $62.5 million in grants and yet only enrolled 81,426 individuals. That is less than 1 percent of the total enrollees. You see, the issue here isn't whether we should or shouldn't enroll more people. The issue is who is most efficient with the taxpayer or private-sector dollar to do that. We keep pouring more and more money into this navigator program and we know there is all this, well, I guess I am going to call it waste. I don't know if it is fraud. But holy smokes, as I have said before, one grantee, according to The Wall Street Journal, took in $200,000 and enrolled one person--one person. You want to have a Government Accountability Office report and investigation, let's look at the underlying program and how in the heck that could happen. And then they also found the top 10 expensive navigators collected $2.77 million and signed up 314. These aren't my numbers. These are The Wall Street Journal investigative reporters. You know, in the press, these are facts, which caused the Las Vegas Review-Journal to editorialize that: ``The navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists. It's a slush fund for progressive constituent groups.'' Not my words, that is the press. I have a journalism degree. I have a great respect for the press and what they write. I don't always agree with them. But, look, when you take these independent reviews and you look at what is happening there, CMS reported that 17 of those navigators enrolled fewer than 100 people at an average cost of $5,000 per enrollee--$5,000. $5,000. And my friends on the other side of the aisle want to shovel more money into that program. I think that is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. See, for $2.7 million, if we put that into community health centers, Mr. Chairman, do you know how many people we could cover? We could take care of 20,000 patients, according to one estimate--20,000. Health centers are really, really important to me and my constituents. We have 63 different places in my district, which is bigger than eight States east of the Mississippi, Mr. Chairman, where people get their healthcare in our communities. We have to reauthorize this year, by the end of September, our community health centers. Now, when I was chairman, we did that at a record level because they deliver record good healthcare. We have had no plan yet to figure out how to pay for that, but you are going dump $25 million more into this navigator program. Why don't we put it into actual healthcare? We reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program under Republicans and fully funded it for a decade. The longest that had ever been done was 5 years, and, unfortunately, most of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted repeatedly against doing that for a whole host of reasons, but they voted ``no.'' In Oregon, we have 122,700 children and expectant moms that rely on CHIP, SCHIP, partnership with the State for their health insurance. So there are a lot of things we can invest in with the proceeds from the savings from the drug bills, but investing in the navigator program? $5,000 per enrollee? There are 100 navigators, that is all they did? One for 200,000, enrolled one person? I mean, come on. There has got to be a better way to not spend the taxpayers' money than that. And so I think you look at the incredible growth in men and women working in America, getting better paying jobs, bigger paychecks and healthcare, 2.5 million since President Trump took office, and Republicans put progrowth policies into the Tax Code, progrowth regulatory policies into the bureaucracy. Jobs are coming up. The biggest issue I run into with employers now is not overregulation; it is: Where do I find more people to work? So we need to look at job training. We need to work at available workforce. But this, this amendment, I think, is, frankly, from my perspective--with all due respect, GAO doesn't need to waste their time on this nor the taxpayer's money, and especially after $25 million more was just signed up in addition to--what?--$63 million, roughly, an enormous amount of money into a program that I think has a lot of problems. And the editorial writers at the Review-Journal said, ``highly susceptible to scam artists,'' ``slush fund for progressive constituent groups.'' So I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), America's only pharmacist in the U.S. House of Representatives and a distinguished gentleman from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Georgia, a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We really have come to rely upon Mr. Carter for his guidance, especially on areas related to pharmacies and trying to get the costs of prescription drugs down for consumers. We are all about that. We worked together in the last Congress to empower the FDA to get more generics to market sooner so we have more competition. That was a bipartisan bill. That is the way we operated in the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, as Republicans and Democrats. I led the committee, and we revamped everything at the FDA in generics, on medical device approvals, and on pharmaceuticals so we could benefit the patient first. We brought those bills to the floor unanimously. We didn't mess around with them and package them up with poison pills. We said: Let's go legislate, and let's get this done. And they did. They got done. They got into law, signed by President Trump. And guess what? Last year, the FDA approved more generics in one year than at any time in its history. So we did do things, led by Republicans in the House, the Republican leader of the Senate, and President Trump, joining with Democrats, just as we have attempted to do on the drug bills before us today. We are in full agreement. Stop the bad behaviors, get competition into the market, and bring down costs of drugs. But we also believe we should make sure Americans have choices that are more affordable when it comes to their insurance. Democrats voted for ObamaCare. They blocked every amendment we had as Republicans at the time that was legislated. Remember, the former Speaker, now Speaker again, said you have to pass it so you can find out what is in it. It is kind of an odd way to legislate, but, anyway, here we are. By the way, the short-term plans they call junk plans on that side, Mr. Chairman, those short-term plans are the same ones we are debating today, except all President Trump did is say you can have them a little longer, because guess what? For some people, it is the only affordable health insurance they have access to in their States. They are regulated by the States. They are not unregulated. States can do all kinds of things. We should empower them to do things to make insurance more affordable. Unlike my friends on the other side, Mr. Chairman, they want to gag the navigators so they can't even tell them about alternatives that may actually benefit them and be more affordable. The plans that the other side of the aisle is railing against today, Mr. Chairman, are plans that are very much like the ones that were approved under President Obama and ObamaCare. It is just that President Trump said you can have them for longer if they work for you. But the States can come in and say, no, no. My State says just 3 months. That is it. Boom. Other States say 30 days. Some States say none at all. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. So let's talk about the navigator program. They enroll less than 1 percent today, less than 1 percent. Wall Street Journal reported an investigation that one grantee took in $200,000 to enroll a grand total of 1 person; and they found the top 10 most expensive navigators collected 2.77 million taxpayer dollars, 2.77, Mr. Chairman. Do you know how many people they signed up? 314. They want to add $25 million more on top of the $62,500,000 in grants. We are talking about less than 1 percent. Meanwhile, while they are talking about oh, we have got to educate people about all their options, then they put a gag rule in here that says, can't talk to you about short-term duration plans. Oh, no, we can't educate about that choice. No, you can't know about that. No, we are going to stop that. Oh, and you can't know about association health plan options either. It might be better for you and your family and actually be more affordable. No, no, no, because that is not our Federal decision here. They decide, and they don't want you to even know. So navigators can't talk about those things. That is gagged in this law. The amazing thing we never hear about is the good work of the Trump administration and the economy as it has taken off. And I say that in the context that we have seen the lowest unemployment rates for virtually every American and group of Americans; whether it is African Americans, Hispanic Americans, you name it, we are seeing, the lowest rates, in some cases, since they began keeping track of unemployment. So the economy is doing really well. Over 3 percent GDP growth the first quarter. So what has that meant for insurance? We have heard the constant, unrelenting attacks; you might as well use impeachment here at some point probably today. Look, the number of Americans in employer health coverage has increased by more than 2.5 million since President Trump took office. Two-and-one-half million more Americans aren't having to get their healthcare through the government and taxpayers. They are getting it through a job and their employer. In fact, today, there is a greater percentage of Americans in employer health coverage since Trump took office than any time since 2000, any time since 2000. See, there is another way to provide healthcare and that is through a job. Now, I know those who support a full Federal takeover of everybody's health insurance don't like to hear that because, see, they don't think that employers should offer health insurance. They think only the government knows best. And so their Medicare for All plan, which would cause great delays in access to care, drive up costs, you would pay more; but it would take away your health insurance. If you get it from your employer, or if you get it from your union, or if you are a senior on Medicare and you have a Medicare advantage policy, that goes away too. Veterans with TRICARE? Democrats' Medicare for All program, that is gone, too. It is kind of ironic to talk about how wonderful the Affordable Care Act is working for Americans, who, by the way, tell me: ``Look, I am getting stuck with the highest deductibles and premiums I have ever seen. I can't afford it.'' We had an example from Grand Island, Nebraska, last week. A 60-year- old couple makes $70,000 a year. They were paying $38,000 in premiums and $11,000 in deductibles. That is affordable insurance? I don't think so. That is why we think States should have the ability to experiment and regulate plans at the State level, as they did under ObamaCare. All that talk about junk plans and all that, by the way, those were approved under ObamaCare. Those were allowed under ObamaCare. Trump just allowed them to be there longer. But because he changed something, there is this automatic partisan response. I think we all ought to come together here. I have fought my entire legislative career in Oregon and here to make healthcare more affordable. The underlying drug bills, there is no light between us, none, between Republicans and Democrats. Those bills came out of committee unanimously. The only reason we are having this fight on the floor today is because somewhere along the way, the political operatives, Mr. Chairman, decided to bolt these two unrelated sets of bills together. They knew it would be kind of a poison pill and kind of fun to watch Republicans squirm on the floor. That is why we are here. The ObamaCare bills we are voting on today just dump more money into programs that investigations have shown are filled with fraud and abuse. How can you justify putting another $25 million into a program where the top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million and signed up a grand total of 314 people? Who in their right mind in private business, Mr. Chairman, would make that kind of investment? The Las Vegas Review-Journal said, after reading that, ``The navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists.'' Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his service to the country and all of our veterans, men and women, who wear our uniform and deserve our undying appreciation and thanks. But it is astonishing, once again, it is appalling that these navigators apparently aren't serving our veterans. We have to come to the floor with amendments to Federal law to order them to take care of our veterans. What kind of program is this? We know it is expensive. We know some in the news media, some of the editorial writers in our country said it is open to fraud and--let me read it. An editorial paper out West said, ``In reality, the navigator scheme is a make-work government jobs program rife with corruption and highly susceptible to scam artists. It's a slush fund for progressive constituent groups.'' That is how one editorial came out. I am sure there are good people in there somewhere doing good work, but we know that according to CMS, 17 navigators enrolled less than 100 people at an average cost of $5,000 per enrollee. What kind of program is this? We know it is expensive. One grantee took in $200,000 and enrolled one person. The top ten most expensive collected $2.77 million and signed up 314 people. So it is inefficient, but at least it is really expensive. What a waste. I am sure they enroll people, but only 1 percent of those enrolled in the exchange are helped by navigators. And then today, we find out that we have to tell them what to do, which makes you wonder, what have they been doing? Because we have had amendments to say, you have got to have them educate people about Medicaid, or CHIP, or veterans, rural areas, mental health, substance abuse--one thing after another. I think we ought to investigate them and the whole program stem to stern. If there is waste and fraud, we ought to go after it. If there is all of this expense, we ought to knock it down. And if they are not serving people--I am glad we had the rural amendment. Do we need one for urban, and suburban, and semi-frontier counties? It makes me wonder who they do serve. We know it is expensive. Obviously, we are going to tell them to serve the veterans. You know that makes sense. I am glad your amendment got made in order. We had 16 Republican amendments. They only made one in order. There were 25 Democratic amendments made in order. Two of those we had to edit on the floor, and one technical amendment. It seems an odd way to run the House. We were promised in the opening days by the chairman of the Rules Committee that it was all going to be different. Boy, he was right. It is just a different way. I think that our Member on the Rules Committee could probably tell us 92 percent of the amendments that have been allowed on the House floor have been from Democrats. When Republicans were in the majority, 45 percent of the amendments came from Democrats. We tried to have an open process. Now we are being shut out, and that is unfortunate. So, Mr. Chairman, we have had a long day here. I think we all care deeply about making sure people have access to affordable healthcare. Republicans believe we need to reform how our systems work. We need to drive down the cost of drugs, and nobody has led more on this in my history around here than the President of the United States, Donald Trump. From day one, he has told the drug companies: You need to get your prices down. I was with him in the White House when he said that in about February of 2017, and he has never relented. And he is a partner in this progress to go after surprise billing, to go after high drug costs. He is leading through his administration, and he will sign the drug bills that we worked out in committee. The travesty is the pothole created by the Democrat politicos that said we have got to link the drug bills we all have agreement on that the President would sign, to bills that we know are bailing out ObamaCare. And worse, we are now funding huge money, and even more authorized today, into a program that apparently wasn't taking care of veterans, nor people in rural areas. It is astonishing. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fine. It makes sense. It is just outrageous we have to put in Federal law that these navigators have to actually help veterans because they ought to be doing that day in and day out. Veterans are the ones who give us our freedom. We need to investigate the navigators. Mr. Chairman, I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the life of an American hero who I was honored to call my friend, Bob Maxwell of Bend, Oregon, who passed away last weekend at the age of 98. Bob Maxwell represented the best of what Oregon and America had to offer. Bob was the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient in our country, and his gallantry was well known. On the night of September 7, 1944, in France, Bob Maxwell threw his unprotected body on top of a German hand grenade to protect the lives of his comrades in World War II. This unhesitating selflessness earned Bob Maxwell America's highest military honor. It earned him his second Silver Star, a second Purple Heart, and a Bronze Star. For those who had the pleasure of knowing Bob, as I did, they know that his bravery and heroism were only matched by his kindness, his warmth, his sense of humor, and his humility. Bob once said of his Medal of Honor: ``I am not wearing the medal for any personal deeds. I am wearing it because it represents all the casualties we had in the war. It represents those who were killed defending their country and the ideals that they believed in.'' Like his fellow soldiers, Bob's service will forever be cherished in the country that he sacrificed so much to protect. Bob's legacy will live on in the hearts and minds of everyone he interacted with, and especially in his community in central Oregon, where Bob Maxwell was a pillar. To the entire Maxwell family, Mylene and I send our heartfelt condolences and prayers during this difficult time of loss.

Mr. WALDEN

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire again about the amount of time on each side.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side, please.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reinforce what the gentleman from Wisconsin said. This is from The Washington Post: ``The Health 202: Democrats Are Putting a Political Pothole in the Way of Bipartisan Drug Pricing Bills.'' That is all you need to know. It didn't have to be this way. These bills came out of the committee individually. The Democratic leadership put them together knowing full well they could put a poison pill into a drug reform bill and delay consumers' ability to get more affordable drugs sooner, because this legislation could move through the Senate and down to the President much more quickly if it didn't have these provisions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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