Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

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

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. First of all, of course we want navigators to work in areas where there is high unemployment. My district, over the years, has had some of the highest unemployment in the State of Oregon. Then I go down the list of future amendments here, and it is like, oh, we have got another one coming up that ensures rural areas are included in the navigator outreach. Well, that is a good idea. And then there is another one that ensures that State healthcare exchange outreach activities also target our veteran population. Yes, that is a good idea. Why are we having to put all this in statute? Who the heck is running this program, and why is it such a mess that it requires amendment after amendment after amendment? My point is: Where does this stop? Of course we want them to work with veterans. Of course we want them to work with seniors and the young. Are we going to go to age segments here, 18 to 29, 31 to--I mean, come on. Really? We are going to put all this in statute? How do they not have common sense? Who are these navigators that we have to direct them from the floor of the House into statute? Oh, by the way, be sure and work in an unemployed area. Be sure to mention that there are services for mental health and substance abuse. Oh, don't forget this, that, and the other thing. I mean, I think we only ran out of amendments because we ran out of ideas of things to put into the statute, but that is no way to run a program. And if it costs $767 for everyone they sign up for the government to run its navigator program but the private sector can do it for $2.40, that is not a very economical way. You don't make it up in volume. And of course we want people to get access to insurance and information. I was in the radio business for 20 years. Our job was to get information out to consumers, so I am all about that. It is just amazing, though, when you see the inefficiency of a Federal system versus the efficiency of a private-sector initiative. And here we just passed an amendment, $25 million more into this program, and yet we know in some cases there is enormous cost, and there appears to be, you know--I don't know--malfeasance. I don't know what it is. But if the top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million to sign up 314 people, I think we are in the wrong business. We ought to go be navigators at that rate. That is a pretty good rate of return for them, but not for the people and the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment. I find it a bit interesting, though, that under the navigator program, on the one hand, my friends on the other side of the aisle say, Look, you can't talk about--in fact, you can't tell anybody about association health plans and those as options. You can't educate the public, the consumers about an opportunity to save money by having a state-regulated plan. No, not under the navigator. You can't do that. And yet, with this amendment, they want to expand that knowledge, so they can get training on the other government plans, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. I am not saying that is a bad thing. But what I am saying is, why wouldn't we want full education? Why would we want, basically, a gag order here that prevents the navigators from telling the consumers, Here are some other options you may want to look at. Now, they have limitations; they are regulated by your State; you need to be fully informed--in fact, really informed, because some of them don't cover everything--as we have heard--because that was how it was designed under President Obama's plan, that there would be these options and they wouldn't be the fully covering plans, but they were okay because they would fill a gap. And those are the same plans we have heard a lot about today that States regulate. And I would go back to the fact that in some States it is 3 months. Well, in 27 States they go up to almost 1 year, including States such as Rhode Island and Tennessee, even Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Idaho. In 12 States, they go up to 6 months. In eight States, including mine, we said--in Oregon--just 3 months, that is all we are going to do in short-term duration plans. California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, said no. Zero. We are not going to allow them. That is okay. That is federalism. But why, in the navigator program, would we say, You can't talk about things. I got a degree in journalism a long time ago at the University of Oregon, and I believe in the facts. And I believe marketplaces and consumers are better served when they have complete information to make choices. And I know that these insurance products are on the market. Some are fine, people like them. And I get these letters--I got one from Tom in Medford--that talked about how his premium, I think, went from 400-and-some dollars to $800 in 1 year. And he is not sure what he is going to do. That was in October when the new numbers came out. And meanwhile, when we put all this reliance on these navigators. We know from the Wall Street Journal, one grantee took $200,000, enrolled one person. I guess, if you are the grantee, that is a pretty good deal. All you have to do is find one person to enroll, and you get 200 grand. To me, that sounds like a big waste of taxpayer dollars. The ten most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million, signed up 314 people. Now, we heard about how the government needs to borrow and spend more than taxpayer dollars--or at least spend more taxpayer dollars--and do more education because the enrollment in the government plans has gone down by, I think, the figure is about $1 million or so. I guess, that is what is bandied about. What isn't mentioned, however, Mr. Chairman, is that under President Trump and the policies Republicans put into law, the economy took off. The economy took off. Thank goodness the economy took off. And 2.5 million Americans now get their insurance, more get their insurance through an employer. So, see, they got a job, they got a paycheck, they got insurance through their employer. And my guess is that accounts for some of that downturn. They don't have to come to the government to get their insurance. They are getting it through their employer. So you might have had like $1 million roll off on the exchanges, but you have got a 2.5 million pickup in the private insurance side. And I think that is pretty cool. I mean, that is important. And I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle with their national takeover of health insurance want to abolish ObamaCare and replace it with a single-payer system, which sounds sort of simple on its face, but we know that means you would have to double the personal income tax, double the corporate tax, and our doctors and hospitals, they would have to take like a 40-percent reduction. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my friend, the doctor, the former chairman of the Health Subcommittee, to make some comments.

Mr. WALDEN

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, as I have no other speakers. I would just like to point out, make clear for the Record and for all our colleagues, Republicans supported and worked closely with our Democratic colleagues on the drug reform bills here to get lower cost prescriptions and more generics into the market sooner. There is no light between our shoulders on those issues. If those bills were brought here independently as they came out of committee independently, they would be headed to the Senate and likely to the President, and we would be moving forward. But, instead, Democrats merged in bills they know Republicans oppose. When it comes to navigators, the actual number is $767 per individual the navigators signed up; agents and brokers cost $240 per enrollee. Mr. Chairman, we would rather take that money and put it into community health centers. That would take care of 20,000 patients, just at $2.7 million. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Vermont for not only his comments here on the floor, but his comments publicly about what we agree with, which is these issues should have remained separate and not lumped together. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.