Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I believe it is No. 5, printed in House Report 116-51.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, from a parliamentary standpoint, I was just going to withdraw the amendment, but if the gentleman wants to speak on it, I can ask unanimous consent to withdraw it after he speaks. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I just want to say that I, too, wish we were debating my legislation that I tried to offer the first of the Congress and was refused the opportunity to bring it to the floor. That would lock into statute preexisting protections for people who have preexisting conditions. This court case is pending. We could get a ruling tomorrow. Somewhere in the last couple of months, Congress could have acted to put in statute a separate law that would be there, irrespective of the decision of the judge, or judges as it goes through its process, that could wipe out all of the ACA and could wipe out preexisting condition protections. We could do that, except their Committee on Rules put these amendments in order to debate on the floor, but not the amendment that actually protects people with preexisting conditions. So it is not my fault--we don't control of the Rules Committee--that my serious amendment about protecting people with preexisting conditions was not made in order. I don't control the Rules Committee. The Speaker does, and others. When we talk about affordability, remember the example that Seema Verma points out, in Grand Island, Nebraska, a couple making $60,000 a year, 60 years old, $38,000 for the plan, and $11,000 deductible. How is that affordable? It is not. I want our States to innovate. Do you know what, if a State doesn't want to innovate, it doesn't have to. And if they violate the rules, they are not going to get their waiver. But what we do know is that when States have innovated, like mine, like the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Alaska, they have seen reductions in premiums and full-throated coverage. I want innovation. I don't want to price people out of the market.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend, the biggest assault on Medicare is the Democrats' proposal to do Medicare for All. We know it will cost $32 trillion, double personal and corporate income taxes. I met with our hospitals yesterday: 40 percent reduction in their payments. They are not sure how they would survive. They told me most hospitals in America will go bankrupt under the Democrats' proposal. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, this bill is blatantly political in its title. The misleading title of the bill confirms the Democratic majority's passion to score political points instead of governing. Madam Speaker, they claim the agenda is ``for the people.'' This bill is ``for the politics'' and the TV ads. This motion to recommit is simple, Madam Speaker. First, it strikes the Democrats' misleading title, and it includes findings to make clear that, under current law, Health and Human Services cannot waive protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, period. They are protected. Second, Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit would prohibit the Secretaries of HHS and Treasury from reissuing substantially similar guidance, including guidance that allows the State to waive guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions. Madam Speaker, the Trump administration guidance does not amend section 1332. It does not permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, like guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, like the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions. Moreover, the President's guidance stipulates that any section 1332 waiver will need to carefully account for any impact on the individual market risk pool and guarantee--guarantee--that access to coverage is at least as comprehensive and as affordable as would exist without the waiver. Now, this is fully explained, Madam Speaker, in the letter I have here from the head of CMS, Seema Verma, and I want to quote directly from it because I think it is important for our Members to understand the facts of the matter here, because facts matter. ``To be very clear, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode,'' I am going to say ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act's ``preexisting condition provisions''--nothing--``which cannot be waived under section 1332. Section 1332 does not permit States to waive Public Health Service Act requirements such as guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance, the prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions.'' Now why are we here? Why are we having this discussion? Because people at home can't afford the health insurance they are being peddled, and we want States to be able to innovate and cut costs for consumers. That is why we are here. That is what we are for. Democrats don't want that. Democrats are opposed to letting States innovate, apparently. And let's look at what happens. Madam Speaker, according to Health and Human Services Administrator Seema Verma, Grand Island, Nebraska, a 60-year-old couple making $70,000 a year is paying about $38,000 for their insurance premiums, and that plan, under ObamaCare, gets them an $11,100 deductible. $38,000 in premiums, $11,000 in deductibles, and they call that coverage. I call that unaffordable. Now, meanwhile, we have seven States that have used the authority under the last administration. See, ObamaCare allows this 1332; Trump expands it. They have been able to drive down premiums by 19.9 percent. My State, it is 6 percent; other States have been more. Alaska, New Jersey, other States have taken advantage of this. Republicans and Democrats agree we will always protect people with preexisting conditions. We will always do that. They can run their ads; they can deceive people; they can mislead people, Madam Speaker; but we will always fight to protect people with preexisting conditions-- always. Our plan last year did it. Our plan this year does it. I will tell you what, Madam Speaker. We would have a vote today on the House floor to do that, to actually enshrine in statute, irrespective of the lawsuit, protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, except the Democrats and the Rules Committee refuse to allow that amendment to be considered on the House floor. They would not do that, because it was my amendment; it is my bill. I have been pleading to have this bill considered so we can lock into statute protections for Americans' preexisting conditions. They want the argument. They want the politics. They don't want the policy. We are for innovation; we are for lower premiums; we are for more consumer choice; and we are for driving down the cost of healthcare in America so people have coverage they can afford, Madam Chair. That is what our motion to recommit will do, and I urge our support. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Madam 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make a couple of comments to my friend from Maryland, and he is my friend. He is always quite poignant and eloquent in his remarks. What we are debating here today is a bill that is misnamed that doesn't do what it says it is going to do. What we do know is that 1332 waivers work. My State took advantage of that 1332 waiver and reduced insurance premiums by 6 percent. The great State of Maryland--I was just looking at some data, Mr. Chairman--has about 181,500 in the enrollment year. They used a 1332 waiver. This year in the individual market their costs for premiums in the individual market percent decreased 43.4 percent.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, so we can move on to the other amendments, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily opposed to his amendment, but I do think it is important to talk about the issues that really matter when it comes to affordable healthcare. Again, when we talked about giving States the authority to innovate and to protect their citizens, we are for that. I come from a State that pioneered the Oregon Health Plan. I was there. I created a select committee when I was the Republican majority leader of the Oregon House, when we finally got the waiver from the Federal Government after a couple of years to actually implement the Oregon Health Plan. It was very creative about how to hold down healthcare costs and expand coverage and do all those things. We have worked on a lot of different issues over the years. What we did with the President today, I think, is really important and, that is, looked at this issue of surprise billing: If you follow all the rules, you go to a hospital that is in your network, and let's say some provider gets sick in the night and they substitute somebody else who doesn't turn out to be in your network and then, weeks later, you get an astronomical bill through no fault of your own. There was a parent down there whose daughter had had, I think, some sort of surgery, and the physician, on the way out, said: Oh, by the way, I want you to do just a little urine test here. We are going to run an analysis. So she did, left, and, a period of time later, got a bill for $17,000. Her dad is a doctor and said: How did this happen? Well, it turned out whoever did the test was not in the network of her insurance. She didn't know. What are you going to do? You have had whatever surgery she had, and on the way out the doctor says: Hey, by the way, give us a little sample. I just want to run a test because I have got you on this drug, and I want to make sure it is all working right. Then a $17,000 bill arrives a couple of months later. They were there with the President today in the Roosevelt Room at this bipartisan event. And her dad negotiated. He couldn't say what level, but it was certainly not what the insurer would have paid. Do you know what the insurer would have paid for that, in network? A hundred bucks. He said you can probably get the test done now for $25. A $17,000 bill arrives. This is what is happening to Americans who have insurance, and that is why we have got to deal with the surprise billing issue. It is why we have to squeeze the juice out of the middle of the healthcare delivery system. We do all these great innovations. And Republicans led the effort on the 21st Century Cures Act. We met with Dr. Francis Collins yesterday, the extraordinary leader of NIH; the longest-serving President-appointed--under Obama--NIH director in the history of our country. Because of what we put forward to dramatically increase investment in NIH--Republicans led that effort, Fred Upton, but joined with Diana DeGette, a Democrat out of Colorado, and a bunch of us--they are now finding cures. Dr. Collins said yesterday they have identified now 6,500 genetic diseases where they now can figure out, I'll say, the misspelling of the DNA code. Some of my colleagues may have seen on ``60 Minutes'' Dr. Collins talking about that they think they found a cure for sickle cell anemia. They found a misspelling--one letter misspelled in that big chain of DNA--that they were able to go in with our new technology--some of it is a result of what we have done collaboratively here--and change, alter, that letter. And they have these people now that there is no evidence of sickle cell in their blood platelets. There are 6,500 diseases that they now know the misspelling. Now they have got to figure out how to train your body, using immuno technology, to have your own cells turned on in a little different way and go after these diseases. These are remarkable advances in lifesaving medicines and treatments. We, I think, as a country, have to figure out how we pay for that, if each one of these is individualized. Our system is antiquated and doesn't deal with this effectively. We are going to have to figure that out because a lifesaving cure isn't going to cure a life if people can't afford to get the medicine. We also need to drill down on telehealth and telemedicine. One of our colleagues today was talking about mental health services. My district is bigger than any State east of the Mississippi, unless you have to count Lake Michigan with Michigan, which, of course, you do. So telehealth really matters, and we are getting great results for our veterans and for our citizens using telehealth. But our providers don't often get paid for the service they provide over telehealth. Why? That is something we have to address. You go one thing after another after another here, where we should be spending our valuable legislative time solving the problems that real Americans run into every day of the week: How do I pay the bill? You tell me I have insurance, and I do, and I pay a record--I don't know whose premium under ObamaCare went down $2,500 a month, but I will talk about this more. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a very important member of our committee.

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

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) to speak on this matter.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, clearly, today is, unfortunately, more about the politics of climate change than actually rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on American solutions. Climate change is real, but addressing climate change should not involve binding ourselves to international agreements that put United States workers and jobs at a disadvantage to our main competitors around the world and with no regard to the cost for American consumers and ratepayers. We should have a serious, solutions-oriented discussion about how to address climate change risks through American innovation, American conservation, and preparation. But we all know that long-term, sustainable policy is best developed through a thoughtful, logical, and strong bipartisan process. That is the approach we have taken over the last several Congresses as Republicans and one I think we should continue in this Congress. In fact, in the last Congress, Republicans worked with Democrats to remove regulatory barriers to new technological advances in power generation, from hydropower to small modular nuclear, from tax policies that actually encourage carbon capture and storage to reforms of the Nation's electric grid. There are many bipartisan policies Congress could further pursue to accelerate innovation and to create industrial, electrical, and technological infrastructure that actually will enable cleaner energy systems for the future; such as, furthering advanced nuclear reactor technologies, easing the permitting of clean-energy infrastructure, and modernizing our electric grid. We need to do all of those, Mr. Chairman. We can also look to better management of our Federal forests to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which choke the communities, like those in my home State of Oregon, with smoke and fill our atmosphere with untold pollutants. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that sustainably managing our Federal forests--in fact, all forests--will create the longest sustained carbon mitigation benefit. Those are the findings of the U.N. IPCC. But H.R. 9, it just does not represent that kind of bipartisan policy that we should be considering today. This bill is being considered, frankly, without the benefit of regular order in any committee of jurisdiction. It has no companion in the United States Senate. H.R. 9 represents the Democrats' reflexive response to the President's June 1, 2017, announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Now, the Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made without a clear plan to even meet those provisions, without a full view of the costs to American consumers, and certainly without a strategy that had broad bipartisan support from Congress. Further, H.R. 9's unquestioning focus on U.S. domestic action ignores the evidence that the bulk of the future global emissions growth will be in China, it will be in India and the rest of the developing world. If implemented, it would lock in the United States to expensive commitments that will harm consumers; our communities; and, frankly, our economic security. Republicans offered a number of amendments to debate these matters, but, unfortunately, most of those amendments were rejected by Democrats. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about reducing emissions and addressing other climate change risks, and doing so quickly, they would acknowledge the reality of global energy needs. They would acknowledge that the United States is reducing greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and through technological development, frankly, better than any country on the planet. That is what we are doing as Americans. That is what we do. We innovate. We lead. And we are doing that in emissions reduction; we are doing that with new energy technologies; and that is where we should be focused as a Congress to incentivize those going forward. Now, instead of spending a week of precious legislative time talking about a bill that, frankly, has little teeth, will never move in the Senate, would get vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk, we could be legislating on how to ease the overly burdensome hydropower licensing process. The Northwest is a great place for hydroelectricity. We know a lot about it, and it has zero carbon emissions. Or we could be passing bills that support nuclear energy. You look at the small modular nuclear technologies that are on the cusp of an energy future for baseload power, and you understand just what that could be, with no emissions. We could either do that through licensing reform or through these advanced technologies. Let's focus on the new technology necessary for future energy systems, for future transportation systems, for advances in manufacturing and industry to emit fewer greenhouse gases. That is what we should be doing. Let's work together on the bills that are going to lead to ribbon- cutting ceremonies for new energy infrastructure or to an American getting a new, well-paid job in the energy industry. That infrastructure could be a wind farm. It could be a natural gas pipeline. That new job could be as a solar installer, or it could be a nuclear engineer. I am not talking about picking winners and losers here when it comes to energy, the environment, or the climate. I am talking about unleashing American innovators to do what they do best, and that is develop new and better technologies that benefit consumers, benefit the environment, and benefit the good, old United States of America. So we should reject H.R. 9 and focus on realistic solutions to prepare for the future and on policies that work for the American public. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I don't believe we have any other speakers on our side, so I will conclude my comments and then be happy to hear from the chairman of the committee. I think we have had a good debate here, a thorough debate, and at the end of the day, it is important to remember America is actually leading, through new innovation and technology in the energy sector, the reduction in emissions. Again, we are leading as a country. You look at other countries, competitors of ours like China, wouldn't have to begin making reductions until 2030, so they can keep adding emissions-spewing power plants. They could do all kinds of things until 2030. Meanwhile, we are supposed to shut down our economy in a lot of ways if you go down certain paths. We don't think we should take that bargain. We don't think we have to take that bargain. Instead, Republicans believe we should continue to rely on our great innovators in America to develop even new technologies to reduce emissions and produce power like we have done in the energy sector, as my friend from Texas described. And like my friend from Arizona described, there are companies around the world that are figuring out how to remove carbon from the atmosphere and use it for another purpose. Republicans led the effort on tax credits to say let's incent you to put carbon into other use or into the ground, and we will even give you a bigger incentive to put it in the ground. We should be doing more in the area of advanced battery research, like is being done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory across the river from Oregon, and get to where we can harness the renewable intermittent power sources to more firm power; and the same with streamlining hydro, with pump storage. There is a lot we can do working together to make sure we have a safe, secure, reliable grid that is adequate to make all this seamlessly work together because, at the end of the day, we want to make sure we don't have riots in the streets because you have driven up costs too high, like they are having in France today. We want to make sure that we are creating the jobs and technology here, because if somebody is going to lead this effort internationally, it should be us. Mr. Chairman, this bill is going nowhere after this vote today, and I would urge opposition. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the one World War II veteran and twenty-four Korean War veterans from Oregon who are visiting their memorials on the National Mall on Thursday, May 2, 2019, through Honor Flight of Central Oregon. Every time I have the chance to meet one of these heroes, I am reminded of the poignant words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a message to Allied troops just before D-Day, he said, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.'' He was right then, of course, Madam Speaker. But over seventy years later, liberty-loving people everywhere continue to owe these heroes for their extraordinary service and their incredible stories of sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. That's why it is my privilege to enter their names into the Congressional Record today. The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: Norman Coffelt, Army; Charles Cole, Navy; Stanley Cunningham, Navy; Ralph Emerson, Jr., Army National Guard; Leonard Glenn, Jr., Navy; Robert Gordon, Air Force; Dean Griffin, Air Force; Robert Hall, Army; Emmitt Hussey, Navy; Glenn Hutchinson, Jr., Navy; Raymond Kjolso, Navy; Melvin Lemmon, Air Force; Harold Marken, Army; Joe Martin, Air Force; Ronald Miller, Navy; Rolf Moller, Coast Guard; Philip Murphy, Army; Barbara Murphy, Army; Vernon Nance, Navy; Richard Reeve, Army; Kenneth Stevens, Army; Gene Todd, Air Force; Donald Van Cleve, Jr., Marine Corp; James Walker, Navy; and Ervin Wesenberg, Navy. These twenty-five heroes join over 200,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. I would also like to recognize the eight guardians traveling on this trip who have also served our country: Gregory Cole, Navy; Clinton McAuliffe, Jr., Navy; Aidan McGowan, Army National Guard; Kelly Nance, Army; Dane Prevatt, Marine Corp; Vaughn Robinson, Army National Guard; Colben Sime, Jr., Marine Corp; and Darrell Walz, Army. Madam Speaker, at the height of the Civil War in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``Honor to the Soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause.'' Each of us in this chamber and in this nation should be humbled by the courage of these brave veterans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Central Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Rudy Dory who is a great Oregonian and this year's recipient of the National Grocers Association's Clarence G. Adamy Great American Award. Established in 1982, this award is presented to an individual or a company whose leadership in the food industry best exemplifies active and effective participation in government relations as a citizen and industry representative. Rudy Dory is the executive chairman of Newport Avenue Market, which is an employee-owned, independent grocery store in Bend, Oregon, in my district, and I had the pleasure to get a full tour from Rudy of Newport Avenue Market in Bend just last August. He has been in the grocery industry for 40 years. He has helped Newport Avenue Market through its migration from a traditional store to the award-winning, employee-owned, specialty grocery store it is today. Rudy is a tireless advocate of the independent supermarket industry and advocates in support of a public policy agenda that benefits Main Street grocers throughout the Nation. Local grocers like Rudy help job growth, support Oregon's producers, and help feed our communities. So please join me in congratulating Rudy Dory on receiving this prestigious award, and working on behalf of not only Newport Avenue Market, but for all businesses and independent grocers across the country.