[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 156 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7143-H7164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
   RESTORING AMERICANS' HEALTHCARE FREEDOM RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
483, I call up the bill (H.R. 3762) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2016, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 483, the amendment printed in House Report 114-303 is 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3762

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring 
     Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

           TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

Sec. 101. Repeal of automatic enrollment requirement.

               TITLE II--COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Sec. 201. Repeal of the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Sec. 202. Federal payment to States.
Sec. 203. Funding for community health center program.

                 TITLE III--COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                     Subtitle A--Revenue Provisions

Sec. 301. Repeal of individual mandate.
Sec. 302. Repeal of employer mandate.
Sec. 303. Repeal of medical device excise tax.
Sec. 304. Repeal of the tax on employee health insurance premiums and 
              health plan benefits and related reporting requirements.

        Subtitle B--Repeal of Independent Payment Advisory Board

Sec. 311. Repeal of Independent Payment Advisory Board.

           TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

     SEC. 101. REPEAL OF AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT REQUIREMENT.

       The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.) is amended by repealing section 18A (as added by 
     section 1511 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148)).

               TITLE II--COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

     SEC. 201. REPEAL OF THE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u-11) is repealed.
       (b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made 
     available by such section 4002, the unobligated balance is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 202. FEDERAL PAYMENT TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 504(a), 
     1902(a)(23), 2002, 2005(a)(4), 2102(a)(7), or 2105(a)(1) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 704(a), 1396b(a)(23), 
     1397a, 1397d(a)(4), 1397bb(a)(2), 1397ee(a)(1)), or the terms 
     of any Medicaid waiver in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act that is approved under section 1115 or 1915 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315, 1396n), for the one-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act no 
     Federal funds may be made available to a State for payments 
     to a prohibited entity, whether made directly to the 
     prohibited entity or through a managed care organization 
     under contract with the State.
       (b) Definition of Prohibited Entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``prohibited entity'' means an entity, including its 
     affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics--
       (1) that, as of the date of enactment of this Act--
       (A) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code;
       (B) is an essential community provider described in section 
     156.235 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, that is 
     primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive 
     health, and related medical care; and
       (C) provides for abortions, other than an abortion--
       (i) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       (ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as 
     certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death 
     unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering 
     physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy 
     itself; and
       (2) for which the total amount of Federal and State 
     expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act in fiscal year 2014 made directly to 
     the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, 
     or clinics of the entity, or made to the entity and to any 
     affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the 
     entity as part of a nationwide health care provider network, 
     exceeded $350,000,000.

     SEC. 203. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER PROGRAM.

       Effective as if included in the enactment of the Medicare 
     Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-
     10, 129 Stat. 87), paragraph (1) of section 221(a) of such 
     Act is amended by inserting after ``Section 10503(b)(1)(E) of 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 
     254b-2(b)(1)(E)) is amended'' the following: ``by striking 
     `$3,600,000,000' and inserting `$3,835,000,000' and''.

                 TITLE III--COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

     SEC. 301. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Termination.--This section shall not apply with 
     respect to any month beginning after December 31, 2014.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5000A(c) of such Code is amended--

[[Page H7144]]

       (A) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii),
       (B) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking ``2014'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``2014.'', and
       (C) in paragraph (3) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (2) Section 5000A(e)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (D).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2014.

     SEC. 302. REPEAL OF EMPLOYER MANDATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply with 
     respect to any month beginning after December 31, 2014.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4980H(c) of such Code is 
     amended by striking paragraph (5).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2014.

     SEC. 303. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking subchapter E.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
     by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such Code is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of subchapters for 
     chapter 32 of such Code is amended by striking the item 
     relating to subchapter E.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales in calendar quarters beginning after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 304. REPEAL OF THE TAX ON EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   PREMIUMS AND HEALTH PLAN BENEFITS AND RELATED 
                   REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Excise Tax.--Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking section 4980I.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Section 6051(a) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12), by 
     striking ``, and'' at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting 
     a period, and by striking paragraph (14).
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     43 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 4980I.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2017.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (b) shall apply to calendar years beginning after 
     December 31, 2014.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 2 hours 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Budget or their designees.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 60 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
Reconciliation Act of 2015.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this year, for the first time in over a decade, Congress 
adopted a 10-year balanced budget agreement. The House and Senate were 
able to agree on a plan that would reduce spending by over $5 trillion, 
save and strengthen important health and retirement programs, provide 
for a strong national defense, and support a growing economy with 
greater opportunity for more Americans to achieve their dreams.
  It is a bold plan at a time in our Nation's history when we face 
tremendous fiscal and economic challenges, challenges that are being 
fueled by an ineffective, inefficient, and unaccountable government 
bureaucracy right here in Washington. It is this bureaucracy that is 
interfering in the daily lives and livelihoods of the American people.
  The most prominent example of how intrusive Washington has become is 
the President's healthcare law. ObamaCare imposes taxes and onerous 
mandates on individuals, families, and job creators. It undermines the 
sacred doctor-patient relationship. It is driving up the cost of health 
care with higher premiums and higher deductibles, while destroying 
access to quality, innovative healthcare choices. It is discouraging 
work and making job creation and economic growth more challenging. All 
this, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are experiencing the worst 
economic recovery in the modern era.
  Now, when Congress passed our bicameral budget resolution earlier 
this year, we initiated a powerful process called reconciliation. Under 
reconciliation, we are able to move legislation through the House and 
the Senate in an expedited manner and put a bill on the President's 
desk. So with the legislation before us today, the Restoring Americans' 
Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, we are using this powerful 
budgetary tool to help end ObamaCare's attack on Americans' health care 
and its attack on our economy. We are doing so to pave the way for a 
more appropriate, responsive, patient-centered healthcare system that 
puts patients, families, and doctors in charge of health care, not 
Washington, D.C.
  Under the guidelines of our budget and the rules governing 
reconciliation, three committees in the House--the Education and 
Workforce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Energy and 
Commerce Committee--produced individual pieces of legislation to repeal 
major components of ObamaCare. The House Budget Committee then took 
those pieces and combined them into a single bill that we have now 
brought to the House floor today.
  The Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act 
repeals the individual and the employer mandates. It repeals the 
onerous Cadillac tax, it repeals the medical device tax, and it repeals 
an ObamaCare slush fund, as well as undue demands on employers and 
employees. Additionally, it prohibits, for 1 year, taxpayer dollars 
from being used to pay abortion providers that are prohibited under the 
legislation, while dedicating additional resources--that is, more 
money, Mr. Speaker--to community healthcare centers across this country 
for women's health care.
  Taken together, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimate that this legislation will lower 
deficits by $130 billion over the 10-year budget window. Roughly $51 
billion of those savings would come from the positive macroeconomic 
effect of what we are proposing. CBO and JCT estimate that this bill 
will lead to an increase in the labor supply, an increase in economic 
growth, an increase in capital investment, and an increase in total 
compensation. That is take-home pay, Mr. Speaker. It would also 
eliminate work disincentives while decreasing Federal borrowing.
  The major components of ObamaCare that are repealed under this 
legislation represent the core of the coercive nature of the 
President's healthcare law, policies that are forcing people into a 
healthcare system that Washington is simultaneously making more 
expensive, less accessible, lower quality, and with fewer choices. 
Nothing in what we are proposing would take insurance coverage away 
from Americans or their families or preclude anyone from purchasing 
coverage. What we are doing is freeing Americans from government 
coercion.
  The provisions included in this legislation also share another 
important distinction, and that is that they all fall within the 
limited scope of the reconciliation process. This is vitally important. 
Reconciliation is not a silver bullet. There are limitations. And if a 
piece of legislation breaches those limitations, it runs the risk of 
derailing the entire process.
  Ultimately, however, Mr. Speaker, this discussion is not about 
process. It is about people. It is about the men and women, the 
families that we have the privilege of representing who know that the 
only folks who should be making personal healthcare decisions are 
individuals, their doctors, and their families.
  This debate is about the millions of Americans who have seen their 
premiums go up and their deductibles go up and their out-of-pocket 
costs skyrocket after being told that the law, in fact, would bring 
those costs down, which it has not.

[[Page H7145]]

  This is about low-wage workers, Mr. Speaker--2.6 million, according 
to the Hoover Institution--who are at risk of seeing their working 
hours cut because of ObamaCare.
  This is about those Americans, particularly the one in four Americans 
living in rural parts of our country who found that, in many cases, 
their healthcare coverage comes with such narrow provider networks that 
they have to travel long distances to find the treatment that they need 
and run the risk of even higher costs.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. We can do better by these Americans 
and all Americans who long for a healthcare system that is responsive 
to their needs, that is accessible and affordable and not contributing 
to the decline of economic opportunity and job security.
  There are positive patient-centered solutions that would advance the 
cause of quality health care in this country, and none of them require 
handing more authority over to Washington. ObamaCare puts Washington in 
charge. We want to put the American people in charge of their 
healthcare decisions, and an important step in that direction is this 
legislation that we have before us today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I look 
forward to this debate and moving forward on this effort and putting a 
bill on the President's desk.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill and the vote we are going to have today is, I 
guess, a fitting end to an unproductive and shameful week in the United 
States Congress.
  Yesterday, we just witnessed an incredible abuse of power where a so-
called special Benghazi committee, funded by taxpayer money, conducted 
their political witch hunt against Secretary Clinton. The Republican 
majority leader in this own body told the Nation on television that it 
was about bringing down Hillary Clinton's polls. That dishonors the 
memory of the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi.
  Then earlier this week, this Congress passed legislation that says, 
you know what? The United States Government doesn't have to pay all of 
its bills. We will just pay some of our bills. Forget about the full 
faith and credit of the United States. We will decide we are going to 
pay some people and not others.
  It is as if, Mr. Speaker, one of us got up in the morning and said we 
are just going to make our mortgage payments but forget about the car 
payments, or we are going to pay this person but not that person. When 
the United States Government tries to do that, the economy goes 
downhill fast.
  To add insult to injury, they said, when we are going to pay certain 
people, we are going to pay the big bondholders first. The Government 
of China and Wall Street, they are going to get paid. Our veterans 
aren't going to get paid. Our soldiers aren't going to get paid.
  I hope our colleagues are reading what they are passing here in the 
United States Congress, because that is what they did earlier this 
week.
  So what are we doing here today? For the 61st time in this House of 
Representatives, our Republican colleagues are moving forward on 
legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
  Now, the chairman is entitled to his own opinions. He is not entitled 
to his own facts. All you have to do is read the report of the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that analyzed this bill, and 
here is what they say: that, as a result of this legislation, insurance 
coverage would decline by about 16 million people in most years; 3 
million of those people would be children.
  Why in the world are we here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives passing legislation that is going to take away 
affordable health care to 15 million Americans, including 3 million 
children?
  Look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. This shows the decline in the number 
of uninsured people in the United States. As you can see, you see a 
rapid drop in the number of uninsured Americans as a result of the 
Affordable Care Act. Our Republican colleagues' bill wants to get rid 
of that progress, put all those people back in the position where they 
don't have affordable health care.
  They also want to go after women's health programs, including Planned 
Parenthood, where the testimony from the chairman of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, Mr. Chaffetz, is very clear. They haven't 
violated any laws. He said it on national television. Here is what he 
was asked: ``Is there any evidence, in your opinion, that Planned 
Parenthood has broken any laws?''
  ``No. I am not suggesting that they broke the law.''
  It is another political witch hunt, just like the Benghazi hearing. 
You know what? When the regular committees found there was no 
wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, our Republican colleagues created a 
special committee on Planned Parenthood as well.
  Mr. Speaker, when the American people had been asked what they think 
of Congress these days, this is a chart of the words they come up with 
first: Ridiculous. Waste of time. Terrible. Frustrating.
  You are just making this chart worse by coming here to this floor, 
for the 61st time, repealing the Affordable Care Act, a bill that you 
know has no chance of becoming law because, if it gets to the 
President's desk, he has told this Congress long ago he will veto it 
because the President doesn't want to get rid of affordable health care 
for 15 million Americans and 3 million American kids. The President 
doesn't want to do it.
  I am really, really disappointed that our Republican colleagues 
thought this was a good way to end an unproductive week. It is a sad 
and shameful statement of the state of affairs in this body.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, so we heard about Benghazi. We 
heard about the debt limit. It sounds kind of like a political speech, 
doesn't it, Mr. Speaker?
  The gentleman knows that there is nothing in this legislation that 
would keep families from purchasing coverage for their children--
nothing, nothing at all.
  The reconciliation package before us only provides tax relief to 
working families and individuals. It gives them the freedom from 
government coercion in the area of health care.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a 
wonderful and productive member of the Budget Committee.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for all the 
wonderful work you are doing to advance this bill and to advance our 
budget.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I am proud to support the 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, which is a 
very, very important bill that does dismantle key provisions of 
ObamaCare that are harming people.
  We were sent here to fight for the American people. They do not want 
their health care dictated to them by Washington, and they don't want 
their tax dollars going to go abortion providers.
  This bill protects life by stopping the flow of taxpayer dollars to 
abortion providers. The people have, for years, begged Congress to end 
the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, especially in the 
wake of the recent horrendous videos showing Planned Parenthood 
officials exhibiting a blatant disregard for human life.
  This bill places a moratorium on funding for abortion providers and 
redirects these funds to increase funding for community health centers. 
These health centers serve eight times more women patients than Planned 
Parenthood, and they provide more comprehensive care to women.
  I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it as well.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, my parents immigrated to 
America because they saw that shining city upon the hill. America 
became exceptional because we invested in education, we invested in 
infrastructure

[[Page H7146]]

that connected our States, in Social Security and Medicare that 
provided economic freedom for so many Americans.
  But this budget bill, one of its main points is to defund Planned 
Parenthood. These are not the priorities of the American people. This 
is a hyperpartisan document that is just talking points for extremists.
  It is time for the majority party to do what we were all elected here 
to do in Congress. We were elected to lead the greatest country on 
Earth. It is time we start acting like it.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Hyperpartisan, Mr. Speaker? Hyperpartisan? Let me show you a chart 
here. These are four items that are included in this piece of 
legislation, that are packaged in this piece of legislation:
  Reducing, repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund. When that 
bill itself came to the floor of the House, 147 Democrats voted 
``yes''--147.
  Delay the individual mandate. When that bill came to the floor of the 
House, 27 Democrats voted ``yes.''
  Delay the employer mandate. When that bill came to the floor of the 
House, 35 Democrats voted ``yes.''
  Repeal the medical device tax. When that came to the floor of the 
House, 46 Democrats voted ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, these are mostly--mostly--bipartisan issues. The 
American people are for repeal of these portions of ObamaCare. 
Democrats even in this House have recognized the wisdom of it.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), 
another good member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman mentioned, today we are 
voting to repeal some of the burdensome taxes and mandates the Obama 
administration has placed on hardworking Americans with this healthcare 
law.
  Today we have the opportunity to vote in a bipartisan way to end the 
individual mandate, the employer mandate, the medical device tax, the 
Cadillac tax, the slush fund, and the auto enrollment mandate.
  The Affordable Care Act has proven to be unaffordable for millions of 
Americans who lost the coverage they enjoyed and must now pay higher 
premiums. Already hardworking families in my district have been told 
about the rate hikes that will make the healthcare premiums that they 
pay more expensive this next year.
  Today we are repealing mandates. But, unfortunately, we are not, in 
this legislation, able to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board 
that determines which treatments Americans are allowed to have or the 
health insurance tax that eliminates consumer choice and access.
  Today this is a positive step toward a system of patient-centered 
alternatives, with lower premiums that allow individuals to choose the 
coverage they want.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, since we are considering this reconciliation 
bill, I looked up the word ``reconciliation'' because I thought maybe I 
don't know what the word means. They say that reconciliation is a 
process of making consistent or compatible.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the bill before us that is either 
consistent or compatible with a woman's constitutional right to control 
her body. This bill is neither consistent nor compatible with a woman's 
human right to reproductive freedom.
  The only thing this bill reconciles is the majority's machismo, Mr. 
Speaker, the stubborn resolve to deny women--especially the poorest 
women in our country--access to health care. Despite the claims that 
you have heard here on this floor that ``there is nothing to stop women 
from accessing health care,'' just let me point out a few facts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, 78 percent of Planned Parenthood's patients 
are at or below 150 percent of the poverty level, 41 percent of low-
income women consider OB/GYN their primary source of health care, which 
Planned Parenthood provides, and in my own State, 14,000 women each 
year, many of whom are low income, do not have access to family 
planning services. I ask that we not pass this bill.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman 
who just spoke to read the bill. In fact, the bill increases funding 
for women's health care through the community health centers by $235 
million in both fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we are here this 
morning; I guess out of desperation. After 11 hours of trying to attack 
the former Secretary of State, now we come this morning to continue our 
attack on women and again to have Republicans address the Affordable 
Care Act that has, in my State, put a dent in some 25,000-plus who did 
not have health care.
  Today we stand here with a bill that repeals the individual 
responsibility requirements that people must have their own health 
care; repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which focuses on 
making Medicare solvent for our seniors; and the Prevention and Public 
Health Fund, which supports evidence-based programs designed to keep 
Americans healthy, prevent chronic infectious diseases, and reduce 
future healthcare costs.
  Two days ago I was standing out in front of the United States Capitol 
calling out my State, the State of Texas, that about 3 days ago 
declared war on Planned Parenthood to close 39 different clinics.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Closing the clinics would cut into the very essence 
of service to vulnerable women. It would cut into their mammogram 
services, their cervical cancer examinations. The Supreme Court just a 
year or a couple of months ago said this kind of pointed, targeted 
attack was unconstitutional.
  This bill just adds to it. Whether or not you add other clinics, the 
clinics in Texas, Planned Parenthood, have been there for years for the 
minorities, for young people, and others.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a reconciliation bill. This is another 
attack bill. We need to be able to stand for our women and women's 
health care. Vote against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition of H.R. 3762, the 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, because 
this bill does not restore healthcare Freedom.
  This bill is not a serious effort to address this nation's budgetary 
needs and its details reveal that it is another opportunity for the 
majority to hide behind a legislative gimmick in an attempt to kill the 
Affordable Care Act.
  This is a waste of taxpayer money and this body's legislative 
calendar, which has too few days left for wasting any of our lime 
voting on bills that the President has communicated in writing that he 
will veto.
  This bill is bad for the Affordable Care Act because it: continues 
the majority's relentless crusade to put barriers between women and 
their right to have the healthcare provider and services that they want 
and need; repeals individual responsibility requirements that people 
must have their own health insurance; repeals the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board, which works to keep Medicare solvent; and repeals the 
Prevention and Public Health Fund, which supports evidence-based 
programs designed to keep Americans healthy, prevent chronic and 
infectious diseases and reduce future healthcare cost.
  The news from across the nation regarding the healthcare freedom and 
choice created by the Affordable Care Act for first time health 
insurance consumers is overwhelmingly positive.
  Unfortunately, today the majority has targeted a women's right to 
control her own healthcare by attempting to defund Planned Parenthood.
  In my state of Texas, a law that would have cut off access to 75 
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged

[[Page H7147]]

before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
  On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court made unconstitutional a Texas 
law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that 
provided the full range of services would be required to have a 
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
  This requirement meant only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to 
provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women.
  In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to 
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
  The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women 
to block the move to close clinics in my state.
  New attacks on women are now being couched with renewed attacks 
against the Affordable Care Act, which the majority has attempted to 
overturn with over 50 votes since its enactment.
  The attacks against Planned Parenthood is a social and econo 
statement that if you are a woman with money you have the right to 
think for yourself regarding your healthcare choices, but if you are 
poor or lack healthcare options you do not have that same right.
  Millions of women now have free coverage for comprehensive women's 
preventive medical services, and they rely upon Planned Parenthood for 
healthcare.
  The reality is women who face difficult health care decisions do not 
do so lightly.
  Women in this nation have a right to self-determination.
  It is a fundamental human right and one that should be cherished.
  The most important right is the ability of each person to determine 
their destiny and this right has to be freely exercised.
  Healthcare has become a fundamental right for our nation's citizens 
with the best possible outcomes for the millions of people who had no 
healthcare due to pre-existing illnesses or were penalized with higher 
premiums for pre-existing conditions.
  A documentary produced by the Harvard School of Public Health 
reported that between 2007 and 2010, overall deaths among Massachusetts 
residents between the age of 20 to 64 declined by 2.9%.
  The decline in deaths was 4.5% for persons with illnesses that could 
be successfully treated though healthcare intervention such as those 
who have: tuberculosis; cancer; cardiac disease; Leukemia; Diabetes; 
Epilepsy; High blood pressure; All respiratory illnesses; and Pregnancy 
and childbirth.
  Because of the Affordable Healthcare Act: 100 million Americans no 
longer have a life-time limit on healthcare coverage. 17 million 
children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage 
by insurers. 6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their 
parents' health insurance plans. 6.3 million Seniors in the ``donut 
hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs. 3.2 million 
Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and 
360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help 
them provide health insurance to their workers.
  Statistics on Texas and the Affordable Care Act reveal that: 3.8 
million Texas residents receive preventative care services. 7 million 
Texans no longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance. 
300,731 young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance 
until age 26. 5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from 
their insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium 
dollars on healthcare. 4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now 
have health insurance.
  This year for the first time insurance companies are banned from: 
discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition; charging 
higher rates based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime 
dollar limits; and enforcing annual-dollar limits on health benefits.
  Few people knew that health insurers viewed pregnancy as a pre-
existing condition.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act women can no longer be charge 
higher rate just because they are women.
  Attempts to weaken or end the ACA are wrong.
  A January 2015, Gallup poll revealed that nationally the uninsured 
rate in the United States was reduced to 12.9%.
  The uninsured rate nationally dropped 4.2% points since the enactment 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  We are becoming a nation of equals when it comes to access to 
affordable healthcare insurance.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating another effort to turn 
the clock back on women's rights and the healthcare safety-net that is 
assuring longer and healthier lives for millions of Americans.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a wonderful, contributing member 
of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the Committee on Rules 
as well.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be here today, and I am 
saddened by some of the shrillness of the conversation. This is the 
first reconciliation package that I have seen in the 4\1/2\ years that 
I have been elected to this body.
  In fact, more than half the Members of this institution have never 
seen a reconciliation bill come to the floor of this House. Why? 
Because Congress hasn't functioned in a way where the House and the 
Senate have been able to come together to do this. That is happening 
this year for the first time. We ought to be celebrating that.
  To hear this described as a partisan exercise--and I understand folks 
have a lot of grievances, and this may just be the day that folks are 
going to air all of their grievances. But to describe this as a 
partisan exercise misses the point that the only bipartisanship in this 
entire conversation is around trying to reject the damaging provisions 
of the President's healthcare bill.
  After all, when this was jammed through using the reconciliation 
process, it was jammed through in a partisan fashion. The bipartisan 
vote was a vote ``no.''
  When we tried to deal with the slush fund that was going for all 
sorts of programs that America would reject, the bipartisan vote was 
the vote to abolish it, as this bill does today. The bipartisan vote 
was to delay the individual mandate, as this bill abolishes today. The 
bipartisan vote was to delay the employer mandate, as this bill does 
today.
  I understand that there is a lot that divides us in this body and in 
this Nation, but this is a day for celebration. I applaud the chairman 
for what he has been able to do. He has been able to do what no other 
chairman has been able to do in the 4\1/2\ years I have been in this 
institution, and that is bring the House and the Senate together around 
a budget for the United States of America. I am proud of what we have 
done, we have done together.
  If this has to be a day of airing of the grievances, let it be a day 
of airing of the grievances, but let it not be said that it is a 
partisan exercise. The bipartisanship exists in this reconciliation 
package. I hope we come together on it today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to Mr. Woodall, we 
don't celebrate legislation that takes away affordable health care to 
15 million Americans, including 3 million American children. That is 
not our definition of bipartisanship.
  I urge all my colleagues to read the Congressional Budget Office 
report. The Congressional Budget Office is headed by someone who was 
chosen by our Republican colleagues, and their report tells us this 
legislation will take away affordable health care from 15 million 
Americans. That is nothing to celebrate.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is 
deja vu all over again. This bill represents the majority's 61st 
attempt to weaken, undermine, or repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
legislation that, yes, has brought health care to millions of Americans 
and significantly reduced prescription drug costs for seniors.
  The bill is also the latest installment of the majority's crusade 
against women's health. It targets Planned Parenthood again, an 
organization that provides millions of low-income Americans with 
lifesaving services many families cannot get anywhere else.
  Finally, it threatens to cut nearly $13 billion from efforts to 
protect people against deadly diseases: measles, listeria, Ebola.
  Why are we wasting time on ideological attacks such as this? There 
are so many real issues to deal with. Wages are stagnant. Families are 
struggling to make ends meet. Stop playing games. Return to serving the 
American people. You should start by voting against this disgraceful 
bill.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount 
of time remaining on each side?

[[Page H7148]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 46\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 48\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time as 
well.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the chair 
here was that we were going to divide the time equally between three 
committees at the beginning in 15-minute segments. May I inquire of the 
gentleman from Maryland if that plan has changed?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. That is my understanding of the agreement, too. 
Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to just tell us--I guess we can do 
the math--how much time in the 15 minutes remains for each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the original 15-minute agreement, the 
gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman 
from Maryland has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any 
additional speakers?
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker 
from the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for one additional speaker 
as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the vice chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Price, as well as the 
entire Committee on the Budget, for getting us to this point, the first 
time in over a decade that we have been able to use the reconciliation 
process.
  Just like the other gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) stated, what 
a difference the way we are using it now in this bipartisan fashion, in 
a transparent lie today, a long process, not the day before Christmas 
Eve and not in a partisan way. That was used the last time regarding a 
major healthcare change of policy in this country.
  I think all of us deserve to not only pat ourselves, quite honestly, 
a little bit on the back, but also take advantage of this moment to end 
the lie, the lie being, ``If you like your healthcare plan, you can 
keep it.'' That lie continues today, and it has become a full-blown 
nightmare.
  Getting this reconciliation package to the President's desk is real 
and a real positive step in ending government-controlled health care in 
this country so that patients of whatever condition in a consumer-
based, consumer-centered fashion can use their own judgment, their own 
resources, along with the help of all of us, to get the health care 
that they need.

                              {time}  0945

  I doubt that 15 million people are actually covered better today than 
they were or could have been before. That should be our goal: to cover 
every American in the fashion that they deserve, in the fashion that 
they choose, with the doctor that they choose.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this reconciliation package.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, plain and simple, takes away 
affordable health care to 15 million Americans, including 3 million 
kids.
  I keep hearing about how intrusive and awful the Affordable Care Act 
is. The reality is the majority of Members gathered right here in this 
Chamber are on the Affordable Care Act. The government is not dictating 
to them their health insurance. They are on it.
  All they are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is take away access to 
affordable health care for 15 million Americans who would not otherwise 
get affordable health care and, in the process, take away funding for 
women's health programs, targeting Planned Parenthood as part of a 
political witch hunt, the same kind of witch hunt we saw just yesterday 
in the Benghazi special committee hearing, where, the majority leader 
of this House told the public, it was simply about bringing down 
Secretary Clinton's poll numbers.
  It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that it has been so difficult for our 
Republican colleagues to find a replacement for the Speaker. You have 
got a faction of this House that wants no compromise, that thinks it is 
a celebration to get rid of health care, affordable health care for 15 
million Americans. That is nothing to celebrate, and this is a terrible 
way to end an already unproductive week here in the House of 
Representatives.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. It is not 
going anywhere because the President of the United States is not going 
to sign a bill that deprives 15 million Americans of access to 
affordable health care that they didn't have before.
  So let's stop the games. We have got to deal with the debt ceiling. 
We have got to deal with a way where we actually pay all our bills, not 
just some of the bills, and when we decide which ones to pay, we don't 
say we are going to pay China first. We have got to make sure we come 
together to prevent a government shutdown. Instead, for the 61st time, 
this House is voting to take away health care from the American public.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Health 
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, be allowed to control 15 
minutes, as my designee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, led by Budget Chairman Dr. Tom Price, 
dismantles the twin pillars of the controversial and unpopular 
Affordable Care Act, repeals Democrat tax increases that force American 
jobs overseas, and punishes American workers who have good healthcare 
insurance. It empties a multibillion-dollar slush fund and ends 
taxpayer funding of the gruesome practices at Planned Parenthood and 
its affiliates.
  As a result, this bill lowers taxes, lowers spending, and lowers the 
deficit. It grows the economy, encourages work, and increases 
incentives to invest; and it also invests in community healthcare 
centers to ensure access to true, high-quality health care, especially 
for women.
  By repealing the two critical Federal mandates that force American 
families to buy government-approved health care they don't need and 
that force local businesses to offer health care their workers can't 
afford, this bill dismantles the foundation of the President's 
healthcare law. It frees millions of Americans from an unpopular law 
that harms patients, harms families, and harms businesses, local 
doctors, and community health providers.
  Unlike the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which the House 
approved 9 months ago and still lingers in the Senate, this measure 
uses the traditional budget process to allow the Senate to pass the 
bill with a simple majority and send it to the President's desk.
  The opportunity to put this bill on the President's desk is because 
Congress is doing its job. We passed a budget that balanced; that put 
our entitlement programs on a strong, sustainable path; and that 
afforded three House committees, including the Committee on Ways and 
Means, on which I serve, the opportunity to craft legislation to reduce 
the deficit and advance important policy goals.
  This process, called budget reconciliation, is a critical tool. It is 
not a silver bullet. It is not a cure-all, but it is a gridlock-busting 
practice I hope we can continue.
  In accordance with the budget, the provisions crafted by the 
Committee on Ways and Means targets the foundational pieces of the 
President's healthcare law, including repealing tax hikes totaling over 
$100 billion that slow our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the President may very well veto this bill, locking 
millions of Americans into a healthcare law they don't want and giving 
taxpayer dollars to controversial and unethical practices at Planned 
Parenthood; but if he does, he will have to explain to the American 
people his support of all this, including tax increases and mandates in 
the name of a law that has increased healthcare costs, raided Medicare, 
and forced millions onto an already broken Medicaid system.

[[Page H7149]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to hear those answers from the President, and the 
American public wants to hear those answers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't have time to respond to all of 
the misstatements that were made, but now I am going to turn it over to 
the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) be allowed to control the next 15 minutes of debate time as 
my designee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Van Hollen.
  Well, where do we start?
  Clearly, there is a feeling this is more than an anticlimax. You 
know, we should have a debt ceiling bill before us. Why don't we have 
that?
  We haven't acted on Medicare part B premiums. They are right before 
us. Instead, we are doing this.
  The highway trust fund faces a deadline. Where is it? Where is our 
legislation?
  Tax extenders actually expired much, much earlier. Where is the 
legislation?
  So, instead, because the Republican Conference is essentially mostly 
fighting itself, this institution is handcuffed on these issues. So the 
decision is pass a reconciliation bill and get a bill to the President 
to veto because, so far, 60 or 61 efforts have never been able to get 
to the President for a veto.
  Well, I think this is a waste of time when there are other issues, 
because the President has also said he will veto.
  So what is this really all about?
  I think this is all a prelude, as was the so-called prioritization 
bill yesterday and, I think, also the Benghazi hearing yesterday, so-
called hearing, this is all an effort to try to lay a foundation so 
that next week we will take up a debt ceiling bill, and it will pass 
with a majority of Democrats and some Republicans, some of whom maybe 
are made to feel better because we are going through the motions here 
today.
  I just want to conclude talking about going through the motions. All 
of the pious talk on the Republican side about healthcare reform, those 
of us now on the Ways and Means Committee who will be speaking, we go 
to meeting after meeting, if they are called, where there is talk about 
healthcare reform, and the Republicans have never brought up a 
comprehensive healthcare reform that could be voted on in the 
committee, where they have a majority.
  So, essentially, what we are now facing is the dangerous bankruptcy 
of the majority party in this House of Representatives who now decides, 
let's do reconciliation so we can get a bill through the Senate and 
have the President veto it.
  By the way, because of the Planned Parenthood provision that would 
defund care for millions of Americans and for other reasons, it isn't 
even clear this will get through the Senate.
  So where is the action on all these issues? Where is it?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), one of our key healthcare leaders on the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to speak to a provision in the legislation that repeals 
the very harmful medical device tax.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, this will be the fifth time that the House 
has expressed its strong support for getting rid of this harmful and 
illogical tax. The last time was just this past June, when the House 
voted to repeal this tax by essentially a veto-proof margin, and that 
is because we had Republicans and Democrats voting together to repeal 
this very bad tax policy.
  That is because, also, everyone knows basic economics. When you tax 
something, you are going to get less of it.
  So why are we adding new taxes to lifesaving medical innovation?
  Why are we adding new taxes to an industry that is 98 percent small 
businesses with less than 500 employees?
  Why are we adding new taxes to an industry that has good, high-paying 
jobs for wage earners?
  And why we adding new taxes to an industry that has a trade surplus? 
We should be promoting this industry as much as possible.
  ObamaCare's medical device tax makes zero sense. That is because it 
is not a tax on profit; it is a tax on the revenue, on the sales of 
these innovative companies. So now some small businesses have over a 70 
percent effective tax rate. It is a tax that is costing us jobs. It is 
a tax that is stifling innovation. It is harming patients, and it is 
hurting our healthcare system.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to repeal this destructive tax to help protect 
our seniors, to help protect American innovation, and to help protect 
American manufacturing.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on our Health 
Subcommittee.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. I include in the 
Record an article from the Seattle Times entitled ``Why Washington 
State's Health Reform Faltered After the Loss of Mandates.''

                [From The Seattle Times, March 28, 2012]

  Why Washington State's Health Reform Faltered After Loss of Mandates

                          (By Carol M. Ostrom)

       As the U.S. Supreme Court tackles the question of whether 
     individuals can be required to buy health insurance--a key 
     provision in the federal health-care overhaul--some in 
     Washington state are battling a strong sense of deja vu mixed 
     with dread.
       They remember 1993, when state lawmakers passed a 
     comprehensive state law aimed at insuring everyone and 
     spreading the health-care expenses of the sickest throughout 
     a large pool of policyholders.
       But the law, which relied on both mandates and incentives, 
     was soon dismembered, leaving only popular provisions, such 
     as prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to sick people 
     or making them wait many months for coverage.
       Without any leverage to bring healthy people onto insurance 
     rolls, insurers, left with the priciest patients, began a 
     financial death spiral.
       Ultimately, companies pulled out of the individual market 
     and almost no one in Washington could buy an individual 
     policy for any price.
       For those involved, the lessons learned remain sharp as a 
     scalpel.
       ``It's the same thing we're very likely to face if the 
     Supreme Court blows a hole in the current law,'' warns Randy 
     Revelle, a former King County executive who was heavily 
     involved in the state effort nearly two decades ago.
       Unlike the debate going on in the high court, the lessons 
     here don't involve constitutional questions. They're all 
     about the realities of the health-insurance market and 
     politics.
       At the top of the list:
       Lesson 1: Good intentions, no matter how popular, can 
     backfire--big time.
       1esson 2: A machine doesn't work so well if you remove 
     parts.
       Lesson 3: Buy-in from both political parties and strong 
     public support are needed to maintain enough momentum to 
     sustain complex reforms through potential changes in 
     administration.


                        the '94 ``death spiral''

       In an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, Gov. Chris 
     Gregoire and other governors referred to the ``death spiral'' 
     in Washington's individual-insurance market that began in 
     1994.
       The 1993 law, passed when Democrats controlled both houses 
     and the governor's seat, was then the most ambitious overhaul 
     effort in the nation.
       The delicate balancing act ended when Republicans, who 
     objected to what they saw as heavy-handed government control 
     of the health industry, swept into power in both houses.
       By the time the new Legislature finished, the only parts of 
     the law that survived were the ``consumer-friendly'' pieces, 
     championed by then-Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn, a 
     Democrat.
       ``We kept some of the insurance reforms in law, because 
     they were very popular, but we didn't keep the market 
     reforms,'' says Pam MacEwan, who was a member of the Health 
     Services Commission charged with implementing the law and is 
     now a Group Health Cooperative executive. ``It was a big 
     problem.''
       That's primarily because there was nothing left in the law 
     to push or entice people to buy insurance when they were 
     healthy, which would have spread costs more broadly.
       What happened next is starkly summarized in a 1995 letter 
     sent to Premera Blue Cross by a woman in Eastern Washington.
       A few months before she gave birth that year, the woman 
     bought an individual policy from Premera. As soon as the 
     insurer paid her hospital expenses, the woman canceled the 
     policy, telling Premera ``we will do business with you again 
     when we are pregnant.''

[[Page H7150]]

       True to her word, in 1996, she bought insurance, Premera 
     said, once again canceling after the insurer paid for the 
     delivery of her next child.
       Altogether, she paid in $1,807 in premiums. Premera paid 
     out $7,024.68 in medical bills.
       You don't have to be a business genius to recognize the 
     problem with those numbers when multiplied by thousands of 
     customers.
       Claims went up. Premiums rose. Pretty soon only sick people 
     thought insurance was worth the cost. Premiums rose even 
     more.
       Healthy people, like the Eastern Washington woman, waited 
     until they needed insurance to buy it. At the time, Gov. Gary 
     Locke likened it to buying fire insurance after your house is 
     on fire.


                        state breaks the logjam

       Before deciding in 1998 not to sell any more individual 
     policies in the state, Premera lost $120 million in today's 
     dollars, says company spokesman Eric Earling. By mid-1999, 
     the state's other two big insurers, Regence BlueShield and 
     Group Health, stopped selling individual policies.
       In 1999, with the individual health-insurance market 
     essentially dead, Locke began crafting a compromise. Signed 
     into law in the spring of 2000, it was a bitter pill for 
     some, but it got the market back into action.
       In exchange for coming back into the market, insurers could 
     charge whatever they wanted, bypassing the rate review 
     normally done by the insurance commissioner's office. They 
     could also force patients to wait nine months to be covered, 
     and exclude the most expensive patients.
       To deal with those patients, the state revived its high-
     risk pool. Insurers, who would help subsidize the pool, would 
     be allowed to reject 8 percent of applicants, who could then 
     buy coverage through the pool--if they could afford it.
       At the time, Sen. Alex Deccio, a Republican from Yakima, 
     summed it up neatly: ``We are in a private-enterprise 
     system.''


                       ``have'' vs. ``have-not''

       Washington's insurance experience, some worry, could be 
     repeated on a much larger scale, should the Supreme Court 
     find the mandate unconstitutional.
       Insurers, in an amicus brief to the court, argue that if 
     the mandate is removed they should be allowed to exclude 
     people and set prices based on health--now barred in the 
     federal plan.
       Others argue that the mandate, with its relatively weak 
     financial penalty for those who don't buy insurance, isn't 
     necessary for the federal health overhaul to proceed.
       They calculate that many young, low-income uninsured would 
     buy policies without a mandate, since the federal overhaul 
     dangles attractively low premiums for the young and 
     subsidizes those with low incomes.
       State Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, who chairs the Senate's 
     health-care committee and a group of lawmakers exploring 
     alternatives, says if the federal mandate is overturned, each 
     state would be left to choose options ranging from doing 
     nothing to legislating ways to bring as many people as 
     possible into a health-insurance pool.
       ``Of course, that would mean that our country would be made 
     of `have' states and `have-not' states, making the health 
     disparities even worse, which is pretty awful,'' Keiser said 
     in an email.
       Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler says 85 
     percent of state residents, who now have group coverage, 
     wouldn't be directly affected by the federal mandate.
       But, he adds, the typical Washington family's yearly 
     insurance bill includes about $1,000 to cover costs for the 
     uninsured, which his office calculates have reached about $1 
     billion a year in the state. The state hospital association 
     says charges for charity care and bad debt by patients may 
     amount to as much as $2 billion.
       Kreidler's office has estimated that under the federal 
     plan, the vast majority of the approximately 1 million 
     uninsured would qualify for Medicaid or subsidies.
       Revelle, now policy leader for the Washington State 
     Hospital Association, says the state's struggle to improve 
     health coverage was illuminating.
       ``A fundamental lesson we learned in the process--and that 
     unfortunately was not learned in the federal process--is that 
     health care is so big, so complex, so passionate, that it has 
     got to have bipartisan support,'' Revelle said.
       It also needs widespread public support to last through the 
     years it takes to impose changes on an entrenched industry.
       And that's difficult, he says, not only because of health 
     care's complexity, but because people do not agree on 
     fundamental values.
       ``It's very hard to look out five or 10 years,'' Revelle 
     says. ``But we should constantly be thinking: Where do we 
     need to be five to 10 years from now?''

  Mr. McDERMOTT. What we are doing out here today has already been done 
in one of the laboratories of democracy, the State of Washington. The 
Republicans did exactly the same thing. They repealed the mandates, and 
the individual insurance market died.
  It was impossible to buy a policy in the State of Washington because 
the insurance companies said: Why should we insure somebody under 
guaranteed mandate when they could walk in here whenever they are sick 
and get a policy and when they are healthy cancel it, then walk back in 
when they are sick again and get a policy? That is what you are setting 
up.
  If you were serious about this, you would wipe out ObamaCare totally. 
You would wipe out the individual mandate. But you know that would be 
death to you politically, so you wipe out these mandates which you 
think are good.
  Now, we know you don't care about the people. I mean, that is pretty 
clear. But what you are saying is you don't even care about the 
insurance industry.
  This bill will die in the Senate because the insurance industry will 
say: If this passes, we won't be able to sell individual policies.
  You are wasting our time on an issue that has already been 
demonstrated does not work in the real world, and yet the ideologues in 
the back of the boat over there in the Republican Caucus had the idea 
that if you hit it with a bigger hammer, reconciliation--I mean, it is 
not enough to just pass a bill out of here. You are going to use 
reconciliation, which is a sledgehammer in the House, and that will 
make it pass.

                              {time}  1000

  Folks, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and is certainly 
dead on arrival in the White House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), one of our strongest voices for patients 
and local businesses.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Brady, and I thank Chairman Price for 
bringing this to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity to get some awful things off 
the back of the American public.
  We heard the gentleman from Washington admonishing the House, but I 
invite the House. I don't look at this as an admonition. This is an 
invitation.
  Look, we can get rid of the individual and the employer mandates; the 
medical device tax; the Cadillac tax; the prevention and fraud health 
fund, which is a slush fund for the Obama team; auto enrollment; and we 
can get Planned Parenthood squared away.
  What is not to love about that? It is a great opportunity all the way 
around. I think we should invite the American public and we should 
invite clear-thinking Democrats to do the same thing.
  There is another opportunity as well. I want to draw my colleagues' 
attention to a piece of legislation that over 100 Republicans have 
cosponsored, the Special Inspector General for Monitoring the 
Affordable Care Act, that is, SIGMA, H.R. 2400.
  One of the criticisms that we have heard is that there is no 
individual inspector general that can look over the whole broad 
spectrum of ObamaCare. What we need to do is to get one entity that can 
look at the same thing, that can look at it all in its entirety.
  This worked as it relates to Afghanistan reconstruction. It worked on 
Iraq reconstruction. It worked on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It 
is an opportunity for us to have a holistic review of all of these 
things and save billions of taxpayer dollars.
  I commend Chairman Price and his work and would appreciate very much 
an ``aye'' vote on this reconciliation effort.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation and 
strong opposition to the fact that we are back here again rehashing the 
same old issues that aren't going anyplace. It has been pointed out 
they are probably not even going to be taken up in the Senate; and, if 
by some chance they were, they are certainly not going to be signed 
into law by the President.
  We are not going anywhere if we keep wasting the time, as we have 
been wasting the time trying to repeal ObamaCare and defund Planned 
Parenthood. It is a terrible situation because we have some real 
important things that we need to do.
  Next year a third of our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries--that is 
people

[[Page H7151]]

in every one of our congressional districts--will face the steepest 
premium hikes in the history of the program if this Congress doesn't 
act.
  We have got a transportation bill that has been long due to be 
passed. We keep kicking the can down the road, and it is a very bumpy 
road because we don't pass a transportation bill.
  If we pass that bill, we put people to work. About 14 million jobs 
hinge on the passage of a long-term transportation bill. This is for 
improving roads and highways, making our overpasses and our businesses 
safe.
  Fourteen million jobs will help the economy; but, instead, we are 
dillydallying on the floor today with this piece of go-nowhere 
legislation.
  It is long past time that we put the American people ahead of the 
political gamesmanship and address the real issues facing our Nation.
  Majority party, let's get to work. Let's fix the issues that are 
hurting the American people and stop doing this partisan nonsense.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta), the former mayor of Manchester, New 
Hampshire, who understands how badly this bill has hurt his family and 
community.
  Mr. GUINTA. I thank Chairman Brady and Chairman Price very much for 
putting this piece of legislation together.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 3762, the Restoring 
Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, which includes the 
repeal of components of the most harmful provisions of ObamaCare and, 
at the same time, sharing bipartisan support for each component of this 
legislation, bipartisan support.
  I have worked hard with Members across the aisle on provisions that 
have been hurting families in Manchester, Portsmouth, Conway, and all 
parts of New Hampshire to ensure their voices are heard.
  One of the important provisions in this bill is the full repeal of 
ObamaCare's 40 percent tax on healthcare benefits, commonly referred to 
as the Cadillac tax. While this tax is set to take effect in 2018, 
employers of all sizes are already restructuring plans and cutting 
benefits to avoid the costly tax.
  This excise tax will impact an estimated 12 million middle-class 
Americans who will pay an additional $1,000 annually as a result of 
this tax. They work for big businesses, small businesses, nonprofits, 
colleges, small municipalities. They need help. They need our support.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. GUINTA. As I introduced the repeal of the Cadillac tax in its 
entirety, I am pleased to see that repeal language included in the bill 
we are debating today.
  On top of all the burdens ObamaCare has already placed on hardworking 
Americans and all the rules and regulations American businesses are 
faced with, this tax will just make it that much more difficult for 
employers to provide affordable healthcare benefits to their employees.
  So I urge my colleagues, please join the bipartisan fight to support 
middle-class families and support the repeal of this tax.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very vigorous member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard now twice this morning the term 
``bipartisan.''
  Many of my brothers and sisters on the other side wouldn't know 
bipartisan if it hit them in the head. I mean, to just throw this term 
out there like, you know, if you have one or two on this side of the 
aisle, it is bipartisan, technically, you are absolutely right.
  We should be crafting a long-term funding measure, Mr. Speaker, and 
replacing the damaging sequester cuts that have hurt our economy. And 
we are both responsible, both sides of the aisle, for that sequester. I 
don't point any fingers.
  We have also got to raise the debt ceiling. I mean, we talk about our 
budgets at home. Why don't we do the same thing in the Federal 
Government? I always thought, when I grew up, pay your bills. Pay your 
bills. That is as important as balancing the budget at home.

  This bill leaves intact automatic budget cuts which have threatened 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut vital services for children, for 
seniors, for people with mental illness, and our men and women in 
uniform. These harmful cuts have cut funding for thousands of first 
responders in our communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. They have cut vital services for children. They have 
cut funding for our first responders. They have eliminated jobs for 
30,000 teachers--30,000. They have cut afterschool programs for nearly 
1.2 million kids and eliminated more than 40 million meals for sick and 
homebound seniors. This is bipartisan.
  We should be replacing these harmful cuts and supporting vital 
services in our communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Instead, we are here talking about holding government 
funding hostage in exchange for decimating the Affordable Care Act.
  Enough is enough.
  Remember when the guy threw the window up in that movie ``Network''?
  We are not going to take it anymore.
  The Republican budget would result in 16 million fewer Americans 
having health insurance and a 20 percent increase in insurance 
premiums. A vote for this bill is a vote against those 16 million 
Americans. A vote for this bill is a vote for higher premiums.
  On top of that, this budget doesn't even balance. After 2025, 
deficits under this budget would begin to skyrocket. It is not a 
balanced budget. This is a fake.
  Why don't we sit down and come up with a mutual plan instead of ``a 
bipartisan fraud''?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who knows the failures of the 
Affordable Care Act in his State.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3762, the 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act.
  Too many Americans across the country are victims of ObamaCare's many 
broken promises. We all remember the chaos that ensued when the law was 
first rolled out, a billion-dollar Web site that didn't work, millions 
of Americans losing their insurance and being forced to find a new plan 
often at a higher cost.
  Now hundreds of thousands of Americans, including at least 51,000 
Kentuckians, are once again losing their health insurance because of 
the failure of ObamaCare healthcare cooperatives.
  In his State of the Union Address, President Obama cited Kentucky as 
an example of ObamaCare working in a red State. But as we learned last 
week, ObamaCare does not work in Kentucky.
  In the past 2 weeks, ObamaCare co-ops have failed in my home State of 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Colorado, Oregon, and South Carolina. Co-ops have 
failed in Nevada, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, and Louisiana.
  These failures were entirely predictable because the model was not 
sustainable. The Kentucky co-op lost nearly 60 cents for every premium 
dollar it collected. Now hardworking taxpayers will be stuck with the 
bill for hundreds of millions of dollars that will never be paid back.
  Combined with low enrollment numbers, the result of these failures 
will ultimately be borne by the American people, more consolidation in 
the healthcare market, fewer choices for consumers, and higher 
healthcare costs for the American people. This is not the reform we 
were promised.
  The bill we are debating today would repeal the most harmful mandates 
and taxes imposed by the law. It reduces the deficit by $130 billion, 
and it gives us an opportunity to put a bill on the President's desk 
that would make life easier for the American people.
  I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

[[Page H7152]]

  

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of our 15 minutes remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act and the benefits it has brought to millions of 
Americans.
  While this is the 61st vote this House has taken to undermine health 
care, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that somehow 
this time is different. That is because this is dressed up in a process 
called reconciliation.
  But this isn't reconciliation. This is procrastination. This is a 
desperate attempt to avoid working on the real issues facing America 
today.
  I get it. Governing is hard. It is difficult. But that is not an 
excuse for giving up on your responsibilities and, instead, pursuing 
yet another repeal bill. But that is their plan, their only agenda, for 
America.
  The country is days away from defaulting on our debt? Time to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act.
  Roads and bridges are falling apart? Maybe repealing the Affordable 
Care Act will help us.
  Seniors on Medicare are about to see their premiums skyrocket? Forget 
fixing the problem. Let's repeal the Affordable Care Act.

                              {time}  1015

  They must think it is a better strategy than the previous 60 votes if 
they wrap it up with a bow and slap a fancy name on it. Actually, it is 
odd they call this reconciliation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Republicans aren't reconciling with us to work in a 
bipartisan way. They are not reconciling themselves to the fact that 
the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and that it is helping 
people access quality, affordable healthcare insurance; and they are 
certainly not fooling anyone with what their true intentions are. They 
are not. Frankly, the only thing they are doing is wasting time. I have 
had enough, and I know the American people have had enough, too.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a Member of Congress who is a healthcare 
provider herself, a nurse, and a key leader of the Health Care 
Subcommittee.
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the chairman and also Chairman Price for bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of today's budget 
reconciliation to address the heinous abuses of life at Planned 
Parenthood. To date, we have seen 10 undercover videos implicating the 
abortion giant in the trafficking of unborn babies' tissue and organs.
  Planned Parenthood and their enablers could not defend the 
conversations on these tapes--which many here in Washington still have 
not watched--so they tried to discredit the source. The House minority 
leader even said: ``I don't stipulate that these videos are real.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that is my colleague's prerogative, but the 
facts--and specifically this forensic report--say differently. Since 
these revelations were uncovered, the House has voted twice now to cut 
Federal funding to Planned Parenthood and reallocate those dollars to 
other providers that better serve women and families. But Senate 
Democrats repeatedly blocked these solutions. In fact, only two 
Senators from the minority party could muster the compassion to vote 
for this proposal.
  I refuse to let the callousness and obstructionism of a select few 
stop this worthwhile effort. That is why I am voting today for the 
reconciliation bill to freeze Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. 
This is our best opportunity, to date, to put a bill on the President's 
desk and show the American people where his priorities lie.
  Mr. Speaker, we face many challenges in Washington today, but 
nothing--nothing--could be more important than how we treat an innocent 
human life. This is a fight worth having, and it is a fight I will 
continue to have until the very end. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
budget reconciliation bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Budget 
and Appropriations Committees.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member for yielding 
and for his tremendous leadership on so many issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3762, the so-called 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act. This bill 
would attack women's health and the Affordable Care Act once again. 
This bill would defund Planned Parenthood for 1 year, leaving millions 
of women across the country without access to critical healthcare 
services. It would also prevent individuals or organizations that 
provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare services from treating 
women enrolled in Medicaid, stripping women of their fundamental right 
to choose their own healthcare provider, and leaving thousands of women 
out in the cold.
  Now, let's be clear. Family planning services are critical to 
reducing unintended pregnancies, and they make economic sense also. For 
every $1 spent on family planning services, we save more than $7 in 
other costs.
  Mr. Speaker, denying access to healthcare providers such as Planned 
Parenthood and other safety net providers will hurt women who need 
these services the most: low-income women and women of color. It is 
past time to stop these ideological attacks on women's right to health 
care. Instead of continuing with these callous attacks and cuts, we 
should work to replace the damaging sequester and get a responsible, 
long-term budget deal.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reconciles nothing. It is divisive, it is 
misguided, and it is dangerous. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). He is the majority whip of the U.S. House 
and a strong leader against the Affordable Care Act and for defunding 
Planned Parenthood.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, for his 
leadership on bringing this reconciliation bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have fought for years to defeat the President's 
healthcare law and the many destructive components to that law that are 
playing out all across the country, we have got one more opportunity, 
Mr. Speaker, to send a bill to the President--but this time, not just 
to send a bill to the Senate that actually goes after and guts the 
President's healthcare law, but also a bill that now, with 51 votes in 
the Senate, will have the opportunity to get to the President's desk.
  The bill not only repeals the employer mandate, but it repeals the 
individual mandate, laws that are crushing jobs across the country and 
killing middle class jobs. The biggest reason, when you talk to small-
business owners, why they can't hire more people and why they are 
forced by this law to lower the number of working hours of people 
across the country down below 30 hours is because of these mandates in 
the law that are crushing American jobs.
  Why not put that bill on the President's desk? Why not also tell 
these people who are taking taxpayer money and providing abortion 
services that you can't do it anymore? If you want to provide women's 
health care, there is funding for you, but you can't use taxpayer money 
to provide abortions. That is in this bill to get to the President's 
desk.
  Even more than that, it goes further, and we start cutting taxes that 
are killing jobs in this bill. The medical device tax is shipping jobs 
to foreign countries. Let's cut those taxes. If the Senate wants to go 
further under their arcane rules, they will have that opportunity, and 
we would support those changes as well.
  Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, let's get this bill to the President's desk 
and let him make a decision. Is he going to finally stand up for 
American workers

[[Page H7153]]

and sign this bill, or is he going to continue to support a law that is 
destroying jobs and destroying health care in this country? That ought 
to be the President's burden. We ought to send that bill to the 
President. This is the first step, and it is a critical step to 
restoring jobs and good health care across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill, send it over to the Senate, and 
let them do their work.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of the 15 minutes remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), a gentleman who has served this committee and 
this country so well.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill before us shows what is 
wrong with the Congress. I don't challenge the corrections that people 
on the Republican side would want to make in providing health care for 
our Nation. It is a problem when none of them actually voted for the 
bill, but that could have been because we didn't give them access and 
opportunity.
  It would seem to me, especially when we are trying to find out 
someone who will become Speaker of the House, that, if you have 
objections to a bill that provides health services for Americans, we 
would try to find out, before we ask for a veto, what we can do to 
help.
  There cannot be any Republican here that truly believes that we 
should eliminate preventive health care. Preventive health care is not 
only humane and the right thing to do, but it saves us a lot of money. 
We have an advisory board that determines the amount of time that 
should be spent based on statistics. Yes, these are life-or-death 
questions, but it is also saving money as well as saving lives.
  There are so many objections that you may have as to how we use the 
tax system to encourage people and to mandate that people pay into the 
system. Most of you know, if people can have insurance and not pay for 
it, then everyone would want it.
  This is insurance. Yes, healthy people have to participate because 
younger people don't believe that they ever get sick. So don't just say 
that you want to make certain that the President vetoes this for 
political purposes so you can go back home and say, yes, one more shot 
against the President, one more shot against the Congress, and in some 
cases one more shot against your own party. Let's, for God's sake, try 
to work together to try to get something positive done.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a physician and one of the distinguished 
leaders on health care, to close on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Speaker, and I thank my friend from Texas 
for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this reconciliation package because 
it hits right at the financing of ObamaCare. As a physician, I know 
what the impact of this health law has done. It is devastating and 
causing serious disruptions in access to care, quality of care, and, 
really, eroding the doctor-patient relationship.
  Secondly, it puts a halt to the funding of Planned Parenthood. We all 
know, based on those videos and other information we have had, the 
practices of Planned Parenthood. It is time to stop it. As a pro-life 
physician, it is time to stop it.
  Finally, this forces the President to explain the support of these 
horrible, failed policies.
  Conservatives across the spectrum are standing strong in support of 
this package, and that is because it contains important provisions like 
one that I authored repealing the employer mandate, which is hurting 
job creation in this country. It is an onerous provision, and it is 
choking small business growth.
  I only wish we could have done more in this package, but we are 
limited by the Senate rules and the Senate Parliamentarian. I would 
have liked full repeal of ObamaCare. I would have liked to have seen 
the inclusion of my bill repealing the health insurance tax, which has 
been very costly, running up premium costs. We couldn't do that because 
of constraints.
  We will continue to fight these fights, but let's pass this package. 
It is really important. It will get job creation going, and it will 
help roll back the onerous effects of ObamaCare.
  If signed into law, there is no question in my mind that this 
reconciliation package will cause an implosion of ObamaCare and force 
us to get to real healthcare reform based on high quality and a high-
quality doctor-patient relationship built on trust.
  At the very least, we will accomplish putting this on the President's 
desk and have him account for his failed policies. He will have to 
account for the policies that are killing jobs, adding mountains of 
debt to this country, and continuing a legacy of failed policy.
  Mr. Speaker, support this package. It is a very important step.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) be allowed to control the next 15 minutes 
of debate time as the designee of the ranking member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, may control 15 minutes as my designee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this important bill, H.R. 
3762, which addresses some of the most pressing and important issues 
certainly to folks in Michigan and around the country: the deficit and 
the President's healthcare law.
  Rarely a day goes by when I am back home in Michigan that someone 
somewhere doesn't stop me and say, whether it be in a coffee shop, on a 
plant floor, or the local service club like a Rotary or a Lion's Club, 
you name it, asking what we are doing to address the broken promises, 
the high cost, and the surprises and the lack of choices associated 
with ObamaCare, and what are we doing to get spending under control.
  There is a lot of misunderstanding on what this bill does or does not 
do, so let's set the record straight. This bill would repeal the most 
harmful, damaging, and unpopular provisions of the health law.
  This bill would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Don't 
let the name fool you. The administration views it as a veritable petty 
cash fund that has been raided for wasteful projects, including 
building support for ObamaCare.
  This bill would, for a period of 1 year, prohibit any Federal funding 
to States for a 1-year period for prohibited entities like Planned 
Parenthood. At the same time, the bill would increase funding for 
community health centers like the Family Health Center in Kalamazoo or 
InterCare in Benton Harbor, two cities in my district, to help provide 
access to women's health care. Stalwarts in the life movement, 
including the National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, and 
Susan B. Anthony List support that approach.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill would repeal the unpopular individual mandate, 
which forces Americans to purchase coverage of the government's 
choosing, the exact opposite approach that we need to create a patient-
centered healthcare system.
  The bill would also repeal the employer mandate. Repealing this 
provision helps encourage economic growth and improve the job outlook.
  The bill would also, as we know, repeal the medical device tax. This 
job-killing tax has hurt Americans across the country, including in my 
district, certainly, Kalamazoo, where folks have lost their jobs 
because of the harmful tax.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, the CBO has found this bill would reduce the 
deficit by nearly $130 billion over the next 10 years, spur economic 
growth and the

[[Page H7154]]

creation of jobs, and cut taxes on literally millions of Americans.

                              {time}  1030

  Today we say to folks in Michigan and around the country: We hear 
you. Yes, we do. We are addressing what matters to you most.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this important bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the chairman of our Energy 
and Commerce Committee, but I have to respectfully disagree with almost 
everything he said.
  I am glad that he is admitting that, basically, what this 
reconciliation tries to do is repeal the Affordable Care Act. There was 
some question about that by my colleagues until now. But, clearly, they 
are admitting that that is what they are trying to do.
  Of course, they don't say anything about the positive impact of the 
Affordable Care Act and how many more people now have health insurance, 
how many people don't face discrimination, all the terrible things that 
existed before the Affordable Care Act became law.
  What I do not appreciate, though, is my chairman saying that somehow 
we are trying to expand access to health care by providing more funds 
to community health centers. The fact of the matter is that the 
community health centers cannot make up for the work on women's health 
that Planned Parenthood centers take care of. To suggest that somehow 
that is going to make up for what Planned Parenthood does is simply not 
the case.
  Mr. Speaker, this reconciliation legislation amounts to the futile 
61st attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act. It also represents 
the Republican's continued assault on women's right.
  The reconciliation instructions defund Planned Parenthood, and the 
recently enacted legislation forming a new select subcommittee will 
continue a fraudulent investigation into Planned Parenthood, and I 
think that is appalling. This investigation and this effort in 
reconciliation are nothing more than a radical assault on women's 
health.
  Extremist Republicans want to take away a woman's right to choose 
what is best for her and her family as well as her right to choose the 
healthcare provider that best meets her healthcare needs. This isn't 
just an attack on Planned Parenthood. This is an attack on all women 
across the country.
  I am also disappointed that the reconciliation instructions would 
repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which is part of the 
Affordable Care Act. There is nothing more important than the 
Prevention Fund. My colleague, the chairman of our committee, suggested 
it was a slush fund. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Less than 4 months ago the House voted overwhelmingly to support the 
21st Century Cures Act, which was one of my chairman's goals, was to 
pass that bill. With that vote, we all agreed on the importance of 
making investments to spur innovation to develop new treatment and 
cures, investments that could reduce the human toll of disease and 
reduce the financial strain that disease places on public and private 
healthcare payers.
  Just like we know that investments in developing new cures and 
treatments matter, we know that investments and prevention pay off. 
According to the Trust for America's Health, every dollar spent on 
community-based interventions generates a return of $5.60.
  Not only does investing in prevention have economic benefits, such 
investments can potentially prevent the human suffering that results 
from disease. I don't see how anyone can be against that goal.
  I would venture to say again out of respect to the chairman of my 
committee, if we were to get rid of the Prevention Fund, I don't see 
any point in having the 21st Century Cures Act because the money is 
similar. One goes for prevention, and the other goes also for 
prevention.
  This legislation is harmful, unnecessary, and will never become law. 
I urge all Members to reject it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Before I begin my remarks, I want to commend Chairman Price and 
Chairman Upton for the work that they have done--Energy and Commerce is 
an authorizing committee, and Chairman Price is the Budget Committee--
making certain that we meet the targets for reconciliation.
  One of the things we have heard repeatedly from our constituents is 
the U.S. House of Representatives is responsible for this Nation 
getting their fiscal house in order. It is an imperative. We know we 
are not going to have a silver bullet that does it overnight. Those 
silver bullets don't exist.
  We do know this, that we can take the right steps at the right time 
and put a bill on the President's desk. The President has the choice to 
say, I agree with you. Let's move this Nation to fiscal health, or he 
will veto the bill. And, of course, our goal is to get it over to the 
Senate so they can do their work and we can see that step of the 
process take place.
  There are some items in this bill for reconciliation that I do come 
to strongly support. I think it is imperative that the Affordable Care 
Act, which has proven to be so unaffordable, too expensive to use, too 
expensive to purchase--insurance gets you to the queue, not to the 
doctor. We all know those stories.
  What we have learned is that the administration has recently cut in 
half their enrollment projections for next year. This should trouble 
everybody because this is something that we said.
  We know from history, from government-run programs, that those 
expectations many times are not met. So then you see a movement into 
damage control. We are taking the right steps to begin to rein this in 
and to break this program apart.
  I think it is important to note, as we look at the ObamaCare program 
and the steps we are taking to eliminate portions of that program, that 
just this week, with the co-ops that were put in place--and, by the 
way, about a billion taxpayer dollars spent on those co-ops and nine--
nine of those co-ops have now failed. They failed, poof, gone. It is 
these findings that are raising the questions that Americans have for: 
Look, the program isn't working.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. What you need to do is stop this before it becomes 
too entrenched to change because people are not getting access to care 
and money is being wasted on healthcare delivery theories that clearly 
do not work.
  This bill repeals the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the 
Cadillac tax, the medical device tax, ends auto enrollment, and ends 
the Public Health Fund, which is a slush fund. When you are paying for 
pet neutering and other things out of a prevention fund, yes, it is a 
slush fund, and it needs to be clawed back.
  In addition, there is a 1-year moratorium on the funds for Planned 
Parenthood while Congress completes its investigation into the 
practices that have taken place around fetal tissues.

  H.R. 3762 is a net tax cut, a net spending cut, and reduces the 
deficit. I urge support.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I said, now our vice chair of the committee also is going into all 
the reasons why we should repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  So I think maybe at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just 
read, if I could, from the Statement of Administration Policy. This is 
the President's statement about why this bill should not pass. He says:
  ``The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3762. The 
House now has attempted to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act 
more than 50 times. By repealing numerous key elements of current law, 
H.R. 3762 would take away critical benefits and health care coverage 
from hard-working middle-class families. The bill also would remove 
policies that are expected to help slow the growth in health care costs 
and that have improved the quality of care patients receive. H.R. 3762 
would increase

[[Page H7155]]

the deficit in the long term and detract from the work that Congress 
could be doing to foster job creation and economic growth.''
  The Affordable Care Act is working and is fully integrated into an 
improved American healthcare system. Discrimination based on 
preexisting conditions is a thing of the past. Under the Affordable 
Care Act, we have seen the slowest growth in healthcare prices in 
nearly 50 years benefiting all Americans.
  Repealing key elements of the Affordable Care Act would result in 
millions of individuals remaining uninsured or losing the insurance 
they have today. An estimated 17.6 million Americans gained coverage as 
several of the Affordable Care Act's coverage provisions have taken 
effect, 15.3 million since the beginning of the first open enrollment 
in October 2013. This legislation would roll back coverage gains and 
would cost millions of hardworking middle class families the security 
of affordable health coverage they deserve.
  Repealing the healthcare law would have implications far beyond these 
Americans who have or will gain insurance. More than 150 million 
Americans with employer-based insurance would be at risk of higher 
premiums and lower wages or losing their coverage altogether. Reforms 
that strengthen Medicare's long-term finances also would be repealed, 
likely making Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund insolvent 
earlier.
  H.R. 3762 also would defund the Prevention and Public Health Fund, 
which was created to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage 
conditions before they become severe; limit women's health care 
choices; and disproportionately impact low-income individuals.
  Rather than refighting old political battles by once again voting to 
repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class, 
Members of Congress should be working together to grow the economy, 
strengthen middle class families, and create new jobs.
  If the President were presented with H.R. 3762, he would veto the 
bill.
  This is an exercise in futility, this reconciliation act. To suggest 
that somehow we should repeal the Affordable Care Act after all the 
good things that it is doing to help Americans obtain health care, have 
access to health care, and lower costs, there is absolutely no 
justification for it. I thought that the Republicans would stop doing 
this months ago, but here they are at it again. I don't really 
understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3762, the 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act.
  This comprehensive package focuses on significant portions of 
ObamaCare, striking onerous tax and mandate provisions, and laying the 
groundwork for a new President elected in 2016 to complete a full 
replacement plan of ObamaCare--not repeal--repeal and replacement.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the package reduces the 
deficit by nearly $130 billion and provides a 1-year moratorium on all 
Federal mandatory funding for Planned Parenthood, a moratorium to 
Planned Parenthood, but that funding is redirected elsewhere, to 
community health organizations that do a fine job across this country.
  Under the leadership of Chairman Upton, provisions finally end the 
ObamaCare fund, known as the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which 
gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services billions of dollars to 
spend each year with little accountability.
  All Members of Congress should recognize that that responsibility 
belongs to us here in this branch of government and not in the 
executive branch. Funds from this program have financed questionable 
programs, and there has been waste. Some Democrats have joined in 
calling for its termination.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee sections also direct that the 
Planned Parenthood funding will go to other organizations' high-
quality-access healthcare options both for women and men.
  Contributions from both the House Education and Workforce and Ways 
and Means Committees also include the repeal of a series of significant 
pieces of ObamaCare, including the repeal of the individual and 
employer mandates, the repeal of the 40 percent excise Cadillac tax--
and there is no one I know who favors that Cadillac tax, certainly 
those hardworking men and women who are in labor organizations in this 
country--and that forces people to accept different insurance coverage 
from the coverage they knew and liked, and it includes the repeal of 
the medical device tax, which increases the cost of care, discourages 
medical innovation, and harms job creation, particularly in my home 
State of New Jersey.
  Because the legislation was developed through the reconciliation 
process, it will be protected from a filibuster in the Senate and could 
be passed in that body by a simple majority. I call for majority 
passage in the Senate of the United States. Reconciliation is our best 
chance to send meaningful legislation to the President's desk.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  As President Reagan used to say, ``Here we go again,'' on the 61st 
attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I mean, give us a break. It 
is a waste of everybody's time. I don't know why we are going through 
this exercise.
  I do understand, Mr. Speaker, the need to reconcile our budget. I do 
not, however, understand the impulse to do so by gutting both the 
Affordable Care Act and an organization that provides vital preventive 
services to more than 2 million Americans, and that is Planned 
Parenthood.

                              {time}  1045

  Investing in preventative care saves money in the long term. Yet this 
shortsighted measure would abolish the Affordable Care Act-created 
Prevention and Public Health Fund, which is our government's sole 
investment in prevention.
  This isn't merely a talking point. I have seen the ample returns on 
this investment in my hometown of the Bronx, where the fund sponsors 
healthier meals, antismoking campaigns, and increased access to 
vaccinations. This fund should not be gutted. This bill ignores the 
progress that the fund is making not only towards saving money but, 
more importantly, towards saving lives.
  This bill, again, as I said, bars the funding for Medicaid 
reimbursement to Planned Parenthood--again, yet another politically 
motivated attempt to demonize Planned Parenthood based on discredited 
allegations of wrongdoing. As I have said repeatedly, more than half of 
Planned Parenthood centers are in rural or underserved areas where 
health care is already hard to come by. Yet some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle want to make it even harder to access HIV 
and STI tests, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other 
lifesaving services.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to continue to 
provide preventative care to our country's most underserved citizens. 
This is what we should be doing, not making it harder for them to get 
the help they need.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my friend from New Jersey how 
many speakers he has remaining on his side. We are prepared to close.
  Mr. PALLONE. I have no additional speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to just talk, in closing, about the part of this 
reconciliation that eliminates funding for Planned Parenthood and 
related agencies.
  Basically, the reconciliation instructions would prohibit Federal 
funding under Medicaid as well as under SCHIP--the children's health 
fund--and social services' block grants to prohibited entities that are 
defined as

[[Page H7156]]

those primarily engaged in family planning, reproductive health 
services, and related medical care, and those that provide abortions 
beyond limited circumstances.
  Now, the thing that is most disturbing to me is the ideological bent. 
We know that the Supreme Court says that abortion is legal and that 
women have a right to choose; but this goes way beyond even the 
abortion issue by talking about family planning and reproductive health 
services. My colleagues continue to say that there are alternatives to 
Planned Parenthood, but the reality is that there are not because it is 
the main provider for family planning, reproductive health services, 
and related medical care.
  That is our point here. You can try to define this as relating to 
abortion, but the bottom line is that Planned Parenthood and similar 
entities provide all kinds of services for women's health and even for 
some men, and you are denying them access. So I do kind of resent the 
fact that there is this suggestion that you are going to allow access 
at community health centers, because I know, from my own experience, 
that community health centers are limited--there aren't that many--and 
they don't have the ability to provide these services, particularly 
this kind of specialty care that women deserve and that women should 
have.
  Once again, we are here to defend longstanding freedom of choice 
protections that ensure that a woman in the Medicaid program can see 
the qualified provider she trusts. Remember, when you are talking about 
Medicaid in particular, you are talking about poor women. You are 
talking about vulnerable women who will lose access to care because 
Medicaid is their major source of funding if they want to get care.
  I can never support any legislation of any kind that would leave 
millions of American women without key preventative health services, 
including birth control, lifesaving cancer screenings, STI testing and 
treatment, well-woman exams, and advice on family planning. Federal 
rules protect the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from 
trusted and medically qualified providers of their choosing.
  Now you are entering an ideological debate into what we call ``any 
willing provider.'' The idea was that you could decide as a woman--or 
as anyone--where to go. If an agency provided the services and if it 
were qualified, you could choose to go there. Now you are breaking that 
for ideological reasons. My concern is: Where do we go next? We then 
say that you can't go to a hospital because it is Catholic or that you 
can't go to a clinic because it is Jewish. How are you supposed to 
define, ideologically, which provider you can go to if you now put the 
ideological bent on it as saying you can't go to a provider that may, 
at one of its clinics--not even the one you go to--provide abortion 
services?
  This is a protection that has existed for a long time, and you are 
breaking it. This is the wrong bill--wrong because it repeals the 
Affordable Care Act, wrong because it denies women access to important 
care.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I really thank Chairman Price for the budget process 
that we have seen this year. One of the toughest votes any Member has, 
whether the Republicans are in charge or the Democrats--either side--is 
the passage of a budget. For a lot of years, at least on our side of 
the aisle, we complained bitterly that the Senate was never able to 
pass a budget for, probably, 4 or 5 years, I want to say.
  It didn't happen this year. We passed a responsible budget in the 
House, and the Senate passed a budget.
  I don't think many Americans realize that the budget, itself, does 
not go to the President for his signature or veto. It is just the 
roadmap for us, and it sets up the stage where we can use 
reconciliation. This is a process, I want to say, President Reagan used 
for the first time back in the eighties. I worked at the White House 
then.
  This is a way that you don't need the 60-vote threshold that most 
bills require in the Senate. You only need 50 votes. So that budget 
process, by getting a conference agreement, was nurtured through the 
two bodies--the House and the Senate. Then began the process of 
reconciliation within the authorizing committees. Our committee--Energy 
and Commerce--Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, and others 
can come up with a real savings to match that budget target that we set 
last spring.
  That is what this is. It is reconciliation. It is a coming together 
based on the budget, and this, in fact, is a bill that goes to the 
President. In the Statement of Administration Policy, we are expecting 
a veto, but at least we are getting the job done. We are delivering on 
what we said we would do, and we are getting the bill to the President 
for action either way.
  I just want to take this time and again thank Chairman Price and 
others and my fellow committee chairs for their hard work because it 
is. It is hard work to get a bill to the House floor, particularly one 
that actually does reduce the deficit, something that many of us on 
both sides of the aisle actually support.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Tom Price), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) be allowed to control the next 10 minutes of 
debate time as the designee of the ranking member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the 
chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and I ask unanimous 
consent that he be allowed to control the next 10 minutes of debate 
time as my designee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. I thank Chairman Price for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise today in strong support of Restoring Americans' Healthcare 
Freedom Reconciliation Act.
  Mr. Speaker, higher costs, fewer full-time jobs, loss of insurance 
coverage, less access to trusted healthcare providers, those are just 
some of the harmful consequences stemming from the President's flawed 
healthcare law--a law that is wreaking havoc on families and small 
businesses across the country.
  Just this month, officials in Clay County, Tennessee, moved to close 
local schools due to severe budgetary challenges. According to the 
county director of schools, ObamaCare is ``the straw that broke the 
camel's back.'' This local official said it is very difficult for the 
school district to ``meet the mandates of the law.'' Of course, that is 
what school leaders, college administrators, small-business owners, and 
others have been saying for years. Employers, working families, 
teachers, and students are paying the price for the President's 
government takeover of health care.
  We have a responsibility to use every tool we have to dismantle this 
flawed healthcare scheme, and the bill before us today will do just 
that. The Education and the Workforce Committee has helped play a role 
in this effort.
  The committee recently passed a proposal that will repeal a costly 
and unnecessary mandate in the healthcare law, known as auto 
enrollment. As the name suggests, this mandate requires certain 
employers to automatically enroll employees in the government-approved 
health insurance. It may not sound like a big deal, but this one 
mandate will create costly confusion for employers and employees, will 
penalize those already enrolled in coverage, and will take wages out of 
the paychecks of hardworking Americans. The mandate is so complex, Mr. 
Speaker, that, after 4 years, the Department of Labor still hasn't 
figured out how to enforce it.
  The American people sent us to Washington to focus on their 
priorities. By supporting H.R. 3762, we can reduce

[[Page H7157]]

spending and rein in our Nation's deficit and debt, and we can send a 
bill to the President that will dismantle his flawed healthcare law. 
These are leading priorities of the American people that this proposal 
helps to advance.
  I urge my colleagues to seize this important opportunity by 
supporting this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today, the House will take yet another vote on the Affordable Care 
Act. More specifically today, we will vote on whether or not we want to 
support a budget reconciliation process that will seek to take away 
health insurance from millions of Americans--but this isn't a new 
exercise.
  In the past 5 years, the House has voted about 60 times to repeal or 
to undermine the law. There have been multiple lawsuits filed, and 
countless attacks have been mounted--all with the same goal of turning 
the clock backwards on the progress we have made.
  Before Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs were 
skyrocketing. That was before the Affordable Care Act. In the months 
before we passed the bill, there were months during which 14,000 people 
a day were losing their health insurance. Women were routinely charged 
more for insurance than men. If you had a preexisting condition, you 
may not have been able to get insurance at all; or if you lost your job 
or wanted a new business and had a preexisting condition, you were just 
out of luck.
  We made great progress in improving a system that didn't work for 
American families, and as a result of the ACA, more than 17 million 
uninsured Americans have gained health insurance. Today, young 
Americans can stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. If you 
have a preexisting condition, you can get healthcare insurance at the 
standard rate; so, if you want to change jobs or start a business or 
start a family, you have healthcare options even if you have a 
preexisting condition. Further, the healthcare cost growth has slowed, 
resulting in the lowest annual increase in healthcare spending in at 
least 50 years.
  It is clear that the Affordable Care Act is working, and it is even 
clearer that we should not revert back to the way things were before 
the ACA when those with preexisting conditions couldn't get health 
insurance, when young people had few or no coverage options, and when, 
of course, the costs were skyrocketing.
  Once again, we are considering a bill that dismantles the law without 
any credible alternative to ensure that millions of Americans won't, 
once again, be left out in the cold; so I urge my colleagues to protect 
healthcare insurance by opposing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Stefanik), a member of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
reconciliation package.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Kline and Chairman Price for their 
instrumental work in putting this package together.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 5 years, the President's healthcare law has 
led to higher costs, less access to doctors, and fewer choices. This is 
why it is so important to make commonsense fixes to this law.
  As I travel throughout New York's 21st District, constituents tell me 
they want Members of Congress to work together to ease the pain this 
law has created for so many North Country families and businesses. By 
moving employer-sponsored healthcare coverage away from a voluntary and 
flexible model, the President's healthcare law has created countless 
penalties and mandates, including one that requires certain employers 
to automatically enroll their full-time employees in healthcare 
coverage.
  This auto enrollment mandate creates confusion for my constituents, 
and, by triggering tax penalties, it actually creates duplicative costs 
for employees who might already have health insurance. For example, if 
veterans in my district who are eligible for TRICARE or if North 
Country college students stay on their parents' healthcare plans and 
then get jobs, they will be automatically enrolled in unnecessary and 
duplicative plans unless they know about this confusing provision and 
decline coverage within a set amount of time.

                              {time}  1100

  It is redundant. It is unnecessary. It is not in line with the 
patient-centered healthcare system this country deserves.
  The reconciliation package, which is under consideration today, would 
eliminate this misguided mandate, and it does not take away an 
employee's ability to opt in and enroll in their employer's healthcare 
coverage.
  This provision accomplishes this by getting rid of the onerous and 
duplicative mandate known as auto enrollment. This commonsense fix will 
save Americans hard-earned money. It will protect workers from a one-
size-fits-all healthcare system. It saves the Federal Government 
billions of dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayer and 
support this reconciliation package.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3762, which 
would make getting health coverage more difficult and more expensive 
for millions of hardworking Americans.
  Today 17 million Americans who had been uninsured now have high-
quality, affordable health coverage. We should not overlook this fact. 
Across the country, people are now able to live their lives, to pursue 
careers, to start families without the looming fear that any medical 
emergency could bankrupt them.
  The bill we are debating today would send our country back to a time 
when hardworking people couldn't access preventive services, when 
injuries and illnesses were not only physically debilitating, but could 
also be financially crippling.
  Imagine being diagnosed with cancer and fighting for your life to 
beat it and then facing the prospect of losing your home because you 
are torn between paying a mortgage and paying for life-saving 
treatment. No one should have to face that choice.
  What is especially disappointing is the fact that Members of both 
parties have ideas for improving the Affordable Care Act that are 
worthy of consideration. We just heard one from Ms. Stefanik of New 
York.
  Instead of coming together around issues of common interest, the 
House is using its time to debate an unrealistic measure that would 
simply push health care beyond the reach of hardworking people in 
communities across this country and, yet again, on top of that, try to 
defund Planned Parenthood.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in me rejecting this bill. Let's 
get back to the table and work together.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, 
Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act. I thank 
Chairmen Kline, Ryan, Upton, and Price and their staffs for the work 
and leadership on this important bill.
  As a physician who spent more than 30 years caring for patients, I am 
keenly aware of the negative impact that the President's healthcare law 
has had on the American healthcare system. The mandates, tax increases, 
wasteful spending, failed Web sites, co-ops, including ObamaCare, put a 
strain on hardworking families, and it has succeeded only in making our 
already-struggling economy worse.
  This bill repeals the individual mandate, the employer mandate, stops 
the damaging and progressive Cadillac and medical device taxes, which 
have strong bipartisan support, and is estimated to save about $79 
billion. Further, it will protect workers from having to purchase 
insurance plans they may not want or need by excusing them from the 
auto enrollment provision.
  This bill does not accomplish everything we need to to right the 
wrongs of ObamaCare, but it is a strong step in the right direction. By 
using the reconciliation process to repeal the most

[[Page H7158]]

damaging parts of ObamaCare, we are keeping our promise to the American 
people to protect them from this fatally flawed law.
  Let me take you down to the ground level, where I live. I was mayor 
in Johnson City, Tennessee. I just met with the folks there. They have 
$185,000 they have to pay into a reinsurance fund. They have 1,000 
employees and a large HR department.
  They have had to hire a consultant to figure out whether they are 
complying with all of the regulations, and the city manager said: Under 
no circumstances will we hire anybody to work more than 25 hours a week 
because we cannot afford to do that in our local situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to help reform our Nation's 
healthcare system, and there is no question it was broken before 
ObamaCare. Unfortunately, this law has only made things harder and more 
expensive for too many Americans.
  I hear over and over again Republicans don't have any alternatives. 
Well, here is one right here, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare 
Freedom Reconciliation Act, a 193-page bill which lowers cost, 
increases access, and gives more freedom to patients. Also, H.R. 2300, 
Dr. Price's bill, does the same thing.
  I strongly encourage support for this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are 
back here using valuable legislative time to make a doomed attempt to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  Next week the highway bill will expire. The week after that we are 
facing the prospect of defaulting on our Nation's debt. Next month we 
could shut down government because we don't have a long-term budget.
  Yet, here we are again, repealing the Affordable Care Act, defunding 
Planned Parenthood, because maybe the 65th time it will stick?
  I would like to remind my colleagues that the Affordable Care Act has 
insured over 17 million Americans and that Planned Parenthood provides 
care to 2.7 million patients a year, often in underserved areas of our 
country. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem determined 
to replay these issues, despite the fact that we have already voted on 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of very important time-sensitive issues we 
need to deal with. We need to fund our highway system. We need to pay 
our bills. We need to keep government open. These are the very basic 
functions we were elected to perform. These are the minimum of what 
families need and expect from us.
  Instead, we are wasting precious time debating backward, ideological 
bills that roll back important progress made for women and families who 
are working hard to get to and stay in the middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this partisan attempt to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act and defund Planned Parenthood. Let's get back to 
solving this Nation's problems.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
affording me the opportunity to address such a critical issue.

  This reform package will protect taxpayer dollars while reforming 
some of the most egregious portions of the Affordable Care Act. As a 
member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am 
proud to support language included in this bill that would repeal the 
harmful auto enrollment mandate of the ACA. This provision, which would 
apply to companies with 200 or more employees, would otherwise move 
employees into a preapproved government-managed health insurance plan.
  Mr. Speaker, creating more red tape and mandates was never the 
solution to curb rising healthcare costs and to increase access to 
insurance markets. I was a freshman Member in Congress in 2009 when 
many of the individuals speaking today took part in a 24-hour-long 
markup of an earlier version of the ACA.
  Mr. Speaker, some of these provisions lacked all common sense and 
that holds true today. Half a decade later the Department of Labor is 
still struggling to find a way to enforce auto enrollment.
  Say what you want about the Affordable Care Act, this is plain 
unworkable. Repealing this provision will save $1 billion and maintain 
flexibility for employers in structuring health insurance benefits for 
their employees.
  Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are just in denial. Since its passage, the ACA has been amended more 
than 50 times, and the bulk of these were changes they supported and 
were signed into law by the President. We should not stop there.
  H.R. 3762 is the next great change to the ACA, and the American 
people deserve as much.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman from 
Virginia how many more speakers he has?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Kline, Chairman Price, and 
Chairman Upton for their work on this Restoring Americans' Healthcare 
Freedom Reconciliation Act, H.R. 3762.
  You know, when I go out in our district, people want choice. I think 
the top-down elements of the Affordable Care Act are creating 
tremendous burdens on our people who demand that we give particularly 
our small business community and our employees the opportunity to have 
the right choice.
  The Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act is 
important legislation that repeals many of the most harmful provisions 
in ObamaCare. ObamaCare has had a devastating effect since its passage.
  H.R. 3762 repeals the individual and employer mandates, the medical 
device tax, and the outrageous Cadillac tax which, again, does not 
allow for folks to choose the plan they want. This thereby unburdens 
our families and our businesses from the harmful effects of these 
mandates.
  I came to Congress to create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce the 
size and scope of the Federal Government and restore fiscal 
responsibility in Washington.
  Passing a balanced budget amendment that repeals the job-killing 
ObamaCare provisions is a good start. Republicans in Congress are 
continuing to fight to rein in Washington's spending problem and get 
our economy on the right track.
  I stand in strong support of Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
Reconciliation Act and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
important legislation to give our people the opportunity to choose how 
they would like to have their health care rendered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Virginia 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three 
letters, one from the American Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees of the AFL-CIO, another from the AFL-CIO, and 
another one from America's Essential Hospitals.

                                                       AFSCME,

                                  Washington DC, October 22, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose the budget 
     reconciliation bill (H.R. 3762). This bill would gut the 
     Affordable Care Act (ACA), jeopardizing the ability of 
     millions of Americans to see a doctor, get medications or go 
     to the hospital when needed. H.R. 3762 would create extensive 
     upheaval in health care coverage for children, working 
     families, retirees and individuals with disabilities.
       This bill eliminates both the employer and individual 
     responsibility requirements which the Congressional Budget 
     Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate would 
     cause as many as 15 million to lose their health coverage, 
     20% of whom would be children. In the individual market, 
     premiums would increase by an estimated 20% over premiums 
     expected under current law. Rather than helping Americans 
     achieve greater financial security in an unbalanced economy, 
     H.R. 3762 would put millions at risk of financial hardship 
     and even ruin from an unexpected illness.
       The bill would repeal the Prevention and Public Health 
     Fund, eliminating the nation's largest single investment in 
     prevention and

[[Page H7159]]

     undermining efforts to bend the cost curve by preventing 
     chronic diseases. Repealing this fund also puts our nation at 
     risk of being unprepared for emerging epidemics and other 
     public health crises.
       We are also opposed to the repeal of the modest excise tax 
     on the medical device industry, which has profited 
     substantially from the expansion of health coverage under the 
     ACA. We also oppose the elimination of federal funding for 
     women's health services provided by Planned Parenthood for 
     one year. This provision will block millions of women from 
     having access to health care services.
       The bill also repeals the 40% tax on high cost, employer-
     sponsored health benefits. We agree that the 40% tax should 
     be repealed in order to keep health care affordable for 
     working families. However, repeal of this tax should not be 
     included in a bill that would eliminate health coverage for 
     millions of workers.
       We urge you to oppose H.R. 3762.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                 Washington, DC, October 22, 2015.
       Dear Representative:  On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you 
     to oppose the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
     Reconciliation Act (H.R. 3762). This bill will undermine the 
     coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and 
     restrict women's access to safety-net medical services.
       The ACA has enabled 171.6 million uninsured people to gain 
     health insurance coverage. Many of these individuals--2.3 
     million--are young adults who are trying to establish 
     financial independence. Many others are people who could not 
     obtain coverage from their employer or who found coverage in 
     the individual market to be unaffordable. We cannot take a 
     giant step backward in exposing these individuals to the risk 
     that their medical care will be unaffordable or that a 
     catastrophic illness will bankrupt their families. H.R. 3762 
     will repeal elements of the ACA that enable the coverage 
     expansions to work, resulting in a loss of coverage for 
     millions.
       The reconciliation package also directly targets Medicaid 
     funding for nonprofit providers of women's health care 
     services, eliminating payments for these services for one 
     year for certain providers. The Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) estimates that many women will lose access to medical 
     services. Their report on the bill notes, ``The people most 
     likely to experience reduced access to care would probably 
     reside in areas without access to other health care clinics 
     or medical practitioners who serve low-income populations.'' 
     It is simply unacceptable to cut women off from these 
     services.
       It is true that the legislation repeals the 40 percent 
     health benefits tax, which we believe should not be part of a 
     health reform law aimed at keeping care affordable. The tax 
     was intended to increase the out-of-pocket costs of people 
     with employer-based coverage so they would use fewer 
     services, thereby reducing expenditures on health care. We 
     oppose this policy because it will shift costs to workers 
     without directly addressing the major cost drivers in the 
     healthcare system. However, repeal of the tax does not belong 
     in legislation intended to eliminate coverage for millions of 
     workers.
       We urge you to vote against this harmful bill.
                                         William Samuel, Director,
     Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____



                                America's Essential Hospitals,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 2015.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Representative Pelosi: On behalf 
     of America's Essential Hospitals, it's more than 250 member 
     hospitals and health systems, and the millions of people we 
     serve every year, I am writing to express my grave concern 
     regarding H.R. 3762, Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
     Reconciliation Act of 2015. America's Essential Hospitals is 
     the leading association and champion for hospitals and health 
     systems dedicated to high-quality care for all, including the 
     most vulnerable. Our members are vital to their communities, 
     providing primary care through trauma care, disaster 
     response, health professional training, research, public 
     health programs, and other services.
       H.R. 3762 includes a number of provisions that we believe 
     would damage the ability of all people--particularly the low-
     income and vulnerable--I to access high quality health care. 
     While we appreciate the legislation's inclusion of a repeal 
     of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which could usurp 
     Congress' authority over health care entitlements, there are 
     five provisions in the legislation that we oppose as written:
       While America's Essential Hospitals does not have a formal 
     position on either the individual or employer mandates, we 
     steadfastly support policies that promote health care 
     coverage. We know that health care coverage--whether it be 
     through employer-based insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, through 
     an exchange, or in another venue--ultimately promotes access 
     to care and saves lives. Independent analysists have 
     consistently found that repeal of the individual and employer 
     mandates would significantly erode coverage. Without 
     provisions to retain coverage for affected individuals, we 
     believe Congress should reconsider eliminating the mandates.
       America's Essential Hospitals firmly opposes repeal of the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund. The fund represents a 
     significant and needed investment in prevention and public 
     health, particularly for the Centers for Disease Control 
     (CDC), which receives more than 90 percent of the fund's 
     resources. In 2015 the fund provided (among other items):
        one-third of the funding for the CDC's 
     immunization programs
        all of the funding for state block grants to 
     detect and respond to infectious diseases
        half of the funding for CDC efforts to prevent 
     heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
       We strongly urge Congress to protect this vital source of 
     funding.
       Finally, in an effort to prohibit funding to a specific 
     health care provider, the reconciliation bill would amend 
     Medicaid statute in an unprecedented way. In what is known as 
     the ``any willing provider'' provision, federal Medicaid law 
     allows beneficiaries to receive services from any provider 
     that is qualified to perform the service or services. This 
     provision--which has never been waived for fee-for-service 
     population--promotes access care for beneficiaries in a 
     program that all too often lacks adequate access due, in 
     part, to inadequate reimbursement. By undermining this 
     critical protection, the reconciliation legislation would set 
     a destabilizing precedent that could lead to further 
     restrictions to access for our nation's most vulnerable 
     people.
       America's Essential Hospitals appreciates the opportunity 
     to provide our thoughts on the pending reconciliation 
     legislation. We strongly urge you to reconsider this bill and 
     work with all stakeholders to find consensus-based innovative 
     ways to reduce health care spending without damaging access 
     to care for millions of people.
           Sincerely,
                                            Bruce Siegel, MD, MPH,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield any remaining time left 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and ask unanimous 
consent that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good debate here today. We 
have talked about doing some commonsense things. This bill does not 
repeal all of ObamaCare, but it certainly repeals some egregious 
aspects of it.
  The one that our committee worked on ending the auto enrollment 
feature saves $7.9 billion and removes something that even the 
administration can't figure out how to implement.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Tom Price) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, of my friend 
from Maryland how many speakers he has remaining?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we have more speakers, but they are not 
with us on the floor at the moment. I am not sure exactly how many 
there are either.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Does the chairman have additional speakers?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in that case, in the interest of time, 
would the gentleman be interested, since we have 9 minutes and 12\1/2\ 
minutes left and no other speakers, in agreeing that we will each take 
5 minutes to close?
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do that. Yes.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have been listening to the debate, and I am sorry to report that as 
I come here to close the debate, not much has changed from when we 
started this debate this morning. This is still, in my view, an 
unproductive end to an already unproductive and shameful week.

[[Page H7160]]

  We saw in this House just yesterday the spectacle of a kangaroo 
court-style special Benghazi hearing, using taxpayers' dollars, engaged 
in a political witch hunt, abuse of power, misuse of taxpayer dollars, 
and in fact the Republican majority leader himself, Mr. McCarthy, told 
the country that that was all about bringing down Secretary Clinton's 
poll numbers.
  Then, just earlier this week, we pretended, in passing a piece of 
legislation, that the United States doesn't have to pay all the bills 
that are due and owing. We passed a piece of legislation that says we 
will only pay some of our bills but not all of our bills. No American 
citizen can get up in the morning and say: ``You know what? I am not 
going to pay my mortgage bill. I will only pay my car payment.'' When a 
country like the United States puts its full faith and credit at risk, 
it puts the entire economy of our country and the international 
economic order at risk.
  But to add insult to injury, in passing a piece of legislation that 
said the United States will only pay some of our bills, so forget about 
that full faith and credit, we passed legislation that says, well, we 
are going to pay the big bondholders first. So China gets paid first. 
Wall Street gets paid first. Troops don't get paid. Veterans don't get 
paid. Doctors providing Medicare services, they don't get paid.
  Now here we are, for the 61st time, passing a piece of legislation to 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which, according to the analysis of 
the Congressional Budget Office, will cost 15 million Americans access 
to affordable health care, including 3 million children.
  Now, I have heard some of our colleagues come to the floor and say, 
well, we want to improve the Affordable Care Act in certain ways. We 
understand that the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but a piece of 
legislation that takes away affordable health care from 15 million 
Americans, that is nothing to celebrate. That is nothing to be proud 
of. We shouldn't be doing that here on the floor of the House, taking 
away access to health care for women at places like Planned Parenthood, 
when the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Chaffetz, has also 
stated on national television that they didn't violate any laws and 
later said that they hadn't engaged in inappropriate activity.
  When our Republican colleagues got that kind of answer with respect 
to Benghazi, when the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 
House and the Committee on Armed Services in the House concluded that 
there had been no wrongdoing in the tragedy in Benghazi, our Republican 
colleagues invented the Select Committee on Benghazi. When they didn't 
get the answer they wanted on Planned Parenthood, they invented a 
special committee on Planned Parenthood that is going to waste taxpayer 
money, just as the Select Committee on Benghazi has.
  Mr. Speaker, I showed, earlier, a chart that shows just how fed up 
the American people are with what is happening here in the House. The 
problem is everything we have done this week, from the Benghazi 
hearings to pretending the United States will only pay part of its 
bills--and when we do, we are going to pay China first--to dismantling 
the Affordable Care Act or attempting to do it for the 61st time. They 
want us working on the important issues.
  A few weeks from now, our national transportation infrastructure 
system is going to run out of money. In just a few more weeks, the 
Federal Government will shut down if we can't come together and work 
something out. I have introduced the Prevent a Government Shutdown Act. 
I tried to get a vote on it here on the floor today, but the Committee 
on Rules said no. Their priority was not to prevent the government from 
shutting down in a couple weeks. Their priority was, for the 61st time, 
to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, even at the cost of 15 million 
Americans' affordable health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, let's get on with the big issues of this country. Let's 
invest in our infrastructure. Let's shut down some of the tax loopholes 
that perversely incentivize American corporations to move jobs and 
capital overseas and invest it here at home. Let's make sure we lift 
the unproductive caps, sequester caps that are slowing down economic 
growth right now, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Let's 
invest in our kids' education. Let's invest in scientific research, and 
let's do it while we shut down some of these ridiculous tax breaks for 
hedge fund managers. We should end this inversion that is going on 
where U.S. corporations just change their address to some tax haven 
overseas to escape their responsibility to the American taxpayers and 
their country.
  We have got a lot of pressing issues to take care of--instead, 
Benghazi, pay China first, pass this legislation to take away health 
care from 15 million Americans, including 3 million American kids.
  We can do better. We can do a lot better, Mr. Speaker. Let's defeat 
this legislation and get on with the real work of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset of this, we heard a lot of 
things talked about on the other side, many of which had nothing to do 
with the piece of legislation before us.
  What we are talking about with this legislation are the harmful 
effects of ObamaCare. What has ObamaCare actually done? 7.5 million 
Americans paid the individual mandate tax in 2014, an average of about 
$200. That is going up in terms of numbers and in terms of dollars.
  Sixty-seven percent of the American people have seen increased 
deductibles since this law went into place, so much so that many 
individuals aren't able to pay their deductible, which means they are 
denied care, they don't have care. They may have coverage, but they 
don't have health care. A premium increase of $3,775, on average, 
instead of the $2,500 premium decrease that was promised by the 
President.
  The co-ops, the cooperative program, will cost $2.4 billion, yet more 
than 420,000 Americans will lose coverage from the co-op program 
because it doesn't work, like the rest of this law.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of the American people continue to oppose 
this law. Why? Let me suggest to you it is because the principles of 
health care have been violated by the law.
  We all want a system that is affordable for everybody. Does that 
occur in ObamaCare? No.
  We want a system that is accessible for everybody. Is that the case 
in ObamaCare? Absolutely not.
  We want a system of the highest quality of care. As a formerly 
practicing physician, I can tell you that my former colleagues tell me 
that the quality is going down.
  We want a system that is full of innovation and responsiveness to the 
patients and choices for patients. Have any of those increased in 
ObamaCare? No. No. No.
  That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem that we have, 
and that is that the principles of health care are violated.

  What does this bill before us today do? It reduces the deficit by 
nearly $130 billion. It increases gross domestic product by over $55 
billion. It eliminates the work disincentives and increases the labor 
supply. That means more jobs, Mr. Speaker. It increases capital 
investment. That means more jobs. It decreases Federal borrowing. That 
means more jobs and a healthier economy.
  Who is supporting the bill? All these groups are supporting the bill. 
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have 42 individual groups supporting the bill: 
Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council, Americans for Tax 
Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Concerned Women for America, National 
Right to Life Committee, National Retail Federation, Americans for 
Prosperity, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Council, Americans United for Life, and on and on and 
on. They support this because they know that this is what the American 
people want and it is what they deserve.

                                        Susan B. Anthony List,

                                                 October 21, 2015.
     US House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative, On behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List 
     (SBA List) and our 386,000 members nationwide, I urge you to

[[Page H7161]]

     support the ``Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
     Reconciliation Act'' (H.R. 3762).
       This bill blocks a large portion of federal funding to 
     Planned Parenthood, America's largest seller of abortions, 
     for one year. The funding is instead re-directed to community 
     health centers, which provide comprehensive health care for 
     women but do not perform abortions.
       Planned Parenthood does not need or deserve taxpayer 
     funding. Most recently, undercover videos show that Planned 
     Parenthood, America's largest abortion business, has been 
     engaged in unethical and possibly illegal abortion practices 
     connected to the trafficking of unborn children's organs for 
     profit.
       These videos offer just a glimpse into the abortion 
     industry's day-to-day horrific practices. Over one million 
     abortions are performed annually in the United States, with 
     nearly 330,000 occurring in Planned Parenthood facilities, 
     all the way up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, past the time when 
     recent studies show that a substantial percentage of these 
     children can be saved if treated with the best techniques of 
     modern perinatal medicine.
       Regardless of whether Americans identify as pro-life or 
     pro-choice, we should all be able to agree that taxpayer 
     dollars should not be subsidizing an already cash-flush 
     industry.
       Instead, these tax dollars would be put to better use at 
     local community health centers, which provide all the same 
     health services Planned Parenthood does (and usually more), 
     but do not perform brutal abortions and harvest body parts.
       Finally, this bill would repeal parts of the Affordable 
     Care Act, which SBA List has long opposed because of its 
     anti-life provisions.
       For these reasons, I urge you to support this pro-life, 
     pro-woman bill.
           Sincerely,
                                            Marjorie Dannenfelser,
     President, Susan B. Anthony List.
                                  ____



                                      Family Research Council,

                                                 October 20, 2015.
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative:  On behalf of the Family Research 
     Council (FRC) and the hundreds of thousands of families we 
     represent, I urge you to vote in favor of the Restoring 
     Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, which 
     eliminates a significant portion of federal funding for 
     Planned Parenthood Federation of American (PPFA) as well as 
     several key provisions of the Patient Protection Affordable 
     Care Act (PPACA) through the budget reconciliation process. 
     Americans are outraged as they are made aware of what happens 
     at abortion clinics, where life is only valued by the sum of 
     body parts. FRC strongly supports the effort to eliminate a 
     significant portion of PPFA's federal funding through this 
     effort. FRC has also supported repealing the Affordable Care 
     Act and supports several provisions contained in this bill to 
     repeal key provisions. FRC reserves the right to score in 
     favor of votes for the Rule and will score in favor of votes 
     for the bill.
       PPFA, despite its nonprofit status, received over $528 
     million in federal, state and local government grants and 
     contracts in 2013-2014, and reported a total revenue of over 
     $1.3 billion. According to a March 2015 GAO report, PPFA 
     received $401.29 million in reimbursements from federal-state 
     programs such as Medicaid, CHIIP and Medicare in 2012. Of 
     that $400.45 million was provided to PPFA through Medicaid. 
     For 2010-2012 those three programs funded PPFA a whopping 
     $1.186 billion, of which 99.9% came from Medicaid.
       While an effort to defund Planned Parenthood has been 
     blocked in the Senate due to the 60 vote cloture threshold, 
     we believe an effort to defund a significant portion of 
     PPFA's government revenue through the reconciliation process, 
     which is subject to a 51 vote threshold, is entirely 
     appropriate and possible. While past efforts to defund 
     abortion in reconciliation were subject to a Byrd rule point 
     of order, the provision in the House bill is different. It 
     excludes funding for certain entities.
       Specifically, the House reconciliation bill will restrict 
     for one year funding under several mandatory programs such as 
     Medicaid to entities that receive over $350 million and which 
     provide abortion services, other than for cases resulting 
     from rape or incest or cases in which the life of the mother 
     is at risk. CBO estimates this provision would save an 
     estimated $235 million. The reconciliation instructions would 
     allow funding in the amount of $235 million to community 
     health centers, which do not provide abortion. In essence, 
     the Committee's reconciliation instructions would defund a 
     significant amount of federal funds PPFA receives and 
     redirect funding to other health centers.
       Adding these defunding measures to budget reconciliation 
     provides a way forward to defunding PPFA and passing this in 
     the Senate with 51 votes. To avoid such an approach would 
     diminish much of the effort Members in the House and Senate 
     have engaged in so far to defund PPFA.
       This bill would also repeal key provisions of the PPACA 
     which have the effect of threatening life-saving treatment, 
     which encourage subsidies for abortion coverage and which 
     threaten conscience. Specifically, the bill would repeal the 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board which is established to 
     control health care costs but which will result in government 
     rationing of lifesaving care.
       The bill also would repeal the employer mandate and its 
     penalties, thereby allowing employers to offer health care 
     plans to their employees that are pro-life and avoid dropping 
     their employees into exchange plans which may cover elective 
     abortion. Moreover, repealing the employer mandate grants 
     employers the option to forgo health care coverage and 
     thereby escape the HHS preventive care services mandate, 
     sometimes called the ``contraception mandate'', in which all 
     employers offering group coverage must provide drugs and 
     devices that can cause abortion in violation against their 
     conscience. While the Supreme Court protected closely held 
     businesses in the, ``Hobby Lobby,'' case, non-profit 
     employers such as the Little Sisters of the Poor and numerous 
     other employers are still subject to the HHS mandate. 
     Employers should not be forced by the federal government to 
     cover health insurance that violate their conscience.
       Last, the bill would repeal the individual mandate, 
     allowing individuals to refuse to purchase insurance where 
     there are no or few pro-life alternatives. This is especially 
     relevant for individuals who live in 26 states that did not 
     opt out of elective abortion coverage. Currently, of the 24 
     states that allow abortion coverage (and which the federal 
     government may subsidize), 4 states have no pro-life plans, 
     and in 9 states 90% of the plans cover elective abortion. 
     Under the PPACA, those purchasing plans with elective 
     abortion must pay an abortion surcharge, and the federal 
     government subsidizes such plans in violation of the long-
     standing Hyde Amendment. Pro-life individuals in these states 
     should have more options. The abortion funding schemes in the 
     PPACA would still need to be addressed. However, repealing 
     the individual mandate removes penalties that force people to 
     purchase health plans they find objectionable as it relates 
     to abortion coverage.
       For these reasons, FRC supports the ``Restoring Americans' 
     Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act.'' Again, FRC reserves 
     the right to score in favor of votes for the Rule and will 
     score in favor of votes for the bill.
       Sincerely,
                                                David Christensen,
     Vice President of Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            National Right to Life


                                              Committee, Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 2015.
       Dear Member of Congress: The National Right to Life 
     Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life 
     organizations, urges you to support the ``Restoring 
     Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act'' (H.R. 
     3762), which the House of Representatives will consider on 
     October 23. NRLC intends to include the roll call on final 
     passage of H.R. 3762 in our scorecard of key right-to-life 
     votes of the 1141h Congress, and we reserve the right to also 
     score the vote on the Rule as well.
       NRLC strongly supports the language in the bill that would 
     block, for one year, most federal payments to affiliates of 
     the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). It would 
     close the largest pipeline for federal funding of Planned 
     Parenthood, Medicaid, and apply as well to the CHIP and the 
     Title V and Title XX block grant programs, thus covering 
     roughly 89 percent of all federal funds to Planned 
     Parenthood. The amounts denied to Planned Parenthood in 
     effect are reallocated to community health centers.
       Over one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed 
     at PPFA-affiliated facilities. Longstanding objections to the 
     massive federal funding of PPFA have been reinforced by 
     recent widely publicized undercover videos, which illuminate 
     the callous brutality that occurs daily in these abortion 
     mills. For additional up-to-date information on the extent of 
     Planned Parenthood's involvement in abortion, see: 
     wwvv.nr1c.org/communications/ppfamediabackground/.
       In addition, NRLC has always opposed the Obamacare law and 
     advocated its repeal. With respect to H.R. 3762, we 
     particularly endorse the components that would repeal the 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the ``excess 
     benefits tax'' (``Cadillac Tax''), both dangerous mechanisms 
     that would ultimately contribute to the rationing of 
     lifesaving care.
       We urge that you vote for the Rule, oppose any Motion to 
     Recommit, and vote to pass this vital pro-life bill.
           Sincerely,
     Carol Tobias,
       President.
     David N. O'Steen, Ph.D,
       Executive Director.
     Douglas D. Johnson,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                 Washington, DC, October 22, 2015.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: I write 
     to share the strong support of the National Retail Federation 
     (NRF) for H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare 
     Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. Please note that NRF may 
     consider votes on H.R. 3762 and related procedural motions as 
     Opportunity Index Votes for our annual voting scorecard.
       The Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains a great concern for 
     NRF and the greater retail community. The ACA adversely 
     influences

[[Page H7162]]

     staffing patterns, discourages full-time employment and adds 
     to the cost of goods in retail stores. NRF opposed enactment 
     of the ACA in 2010 but has also worked steadfastly to change 
     the law since its enactment. We support reasonable efforts to 
     reduce the ACA's cost burdens and ease compliance concerns.
       Many important retail priorities to change and improve the 
     ACA are included in H.R. 3762. Repealing the employer 
     mandate, the already harmful Cadillac Tax and automatic 
     enrollment provisions are all strong NRF-endorsed goals. We 
     have supported bipartisan repeal efforts on each of these 
     issues. NRF urges bipartisan support for these initiatives 
     and the underlying legislation.
       Budget Reconciliation offers an expedited path past the 
     Senate procedural hurdles that have hampered progress on many 
     of these priorities and advance them to the President's desk. 
     We urge the President to sign this legislation at his first 
     opportunity.
       For all of these reasons, NRF strongly supports H.R. 3762. 
     We therefore ask for your vote in favor of H.R. 3762 when it 
     reaches the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      David French
     Senior Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                              Chamber of Commerce,


                                     United States of America,

                                 Washington, DC, October 22, 2015.
       To The Members of The U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as 
     well as state and local chambers and industry associations, 
     and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending 
     America's free enterprise system, supports several key 
     provisions in H.R. 3762, the ``Restoring Americans' 
     Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.''
       Key provisions in H.R. 3762 would repeal many of the most 
     harmful sections of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Indeed, 
     repealing the employer mandate, the 40% excise tax on so-
     called ``high-cost'' employer sponsored health plans, the 
     medical device tax, and auto-enrollment requirements would 
     help control increasing health care costs and protect the 
     employer-sponsored health care system.
       Due to the tremendous harm that these particular ACA 
     provisions are causing employers and employees alike, the 
     Chamber urges you to support H.R. 3762 and repeal the 
     provisions in the ACA that are undermining the employer-
     sponsored health care system that over 160 million Americans 
     rely on for their health care benefits.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____



                                     Americans for Prosperity,

                                                 October 22, 2015.
       Dear Representatives, Since President Obama's healthcare 
     law went into effect two years ago, the American people have 
     been saddled with cancelled healthcare plans, higher taxes, 
     and premium increases. On behalf of more than 2.8 million 
     Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I write 
     in support of the ``Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
     Reconciliation Act of 2015'' (H.R. 3762) because it would 
     relieve the American people of many of ObamaCare's most 
     significant burdens.
       Americans for Prosperity has consistently endorsed many of 
     these reforms in the past in standalone legislation--
     repealing the mandates on individuals and employers, 
     repealing the medical device tax, repealing the tax on high 
     cost employer-sponsored health plans, and repealing the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund. Overall, the reforms 
     included in this package represent significant steps as we 
     work toward full repeal of the President's healthcare law.
       The reforms included in this package enjoy broad bipartisan 
     support. Earlier this year, 46 House Democrats joined 234 of 
     their Republican colleagues in supporting the standalone 
     legislation to repeal the medical device tax (H.R. 160). 
     Current legislation repealing the so-called ``Cadillac tax'' 
     (H.R. 2050) has 146 Democrats and 19 Republicans listed as 
     co-sponsors. Past Congresses approved legislation repealing 
     the ObamaCare Slush Fund (H.R. 1217) and delaying the 
     individual mandate (H.R. 4015) with bipartisan votes, as 
     well.
       We encourage you to support the reconciliation package when 
     it comes to the floor for a vote. Thank you for your 
     consistent leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Brent Gardner,
              Vice President of Government Affairs, Americans for 
     Prosperity.
                                  ____



                    Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council,

                                     Vienna, VA, October 21, 2015.
     Hon. Tom Price,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Price: On behalf of the 100,000 members of 
     the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), 
     I am pleased to support H.R. 3762, the ``Restoring Americans' 
     Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.''
       The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as 
     ObamaCare, is raising health insurance costs for small 
     businesses and the self-employed, increasing deductibles on 
     policies, increasing patient's out-of-pocket exposure, and 
     limiting health care choices. Higher costs and more 
     regulatory hurdles mean less investment and fewer jobs being 
     created by small businesses.
       H.R. 3762 repeals several important provisions of 
     ObamaCare. Among other provisions, it would repeal the 
     individual mandate that forces all Americans to buy expensive 
     health insurance; repeals the employer mandate that forces 
     America's job creators to provide health insurance or pay 
     taxes; repeals the Cadillac tax on robust health insurance 
     plans; repeals the medical device tax that is adversely 
     impacting innovative small companies that dominate the 
     medical device sector; and repeals the Independent Physicians 
     Advisory Board (IPAB) that would determine medical services 
     for seniors.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue. SBE Council 
     looks forward to working with you to advance H.R. 3762 into 
     law.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                             Americans United for Life Action,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans United for Life 
     Action (AUL Action), the legislative arm of Americans United 
     for Life, the legal architects of the prolife movement, I 
     urge you to support continued efforts in the House to defund 
     abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, by voting 
     for H.R. 3762, the ``Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom 
     Reconciliation Act.'' AULA is grateful to House leadership 
     for taking concrete actions to investigate Planned Parenthood 
     in three Committees and now in the Select Committee. 
     Including defunding abortion providers in H.R. 3762 is 
     further evidence of House leadership's commitment to Life, 
     which we urge you to support.
       AUL Action has long called on Congress to disentangle the 
     American taxpayer from the Abortion Industry. The video 
     footage recently released by the Center for Medical Progress 
     (CMP) capturing Planned Parenthood's top doctors and other 
     personnel discussing its practice of harvesting the body 
     parts of aborted babies in exchange for money has shocked the 
     conscience of the nation. Planned Parenthood's abhorrent and 
     potentially illegal practice uncovered by the CMP is further 
     proof that subsidizing Planned Parenthood is an inappropriate 
     use of taxpayer dollars.
       Planned Parenthood's Senior Medical Director, Dr. Deborah 
     Nucatola, discussed in one of the videos how she 
     strategically ``crushes'' the babies she aborts in order to 
     best harvest their hearts, lungs and livers. These videos 
     shed light for the American people to see Planned Parenthood 
     for what it truly is, the abortion industry that puts profits 
     ahead of anything else.
       The recorded conversations also raise serious concern that 
     Planned Parenthood may be violating federal fetal tissue 
     trafficking laws, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban--a law that 
     Planned Parenthood's Dr. Nucatola flippantly describes as 
     ``open to interpretation''--and the federal Born Alive Infant 
     Protection Act. As Americans United for Life has documented, 
     Planned Parenthood's harvesting of baby body parts is one of 
     a growing list of scandals that should make Planned 
     Parenthood ineligible for the tremendous amount of taxpayer 
     dollars it takes in annually.
       In FY 2014, Planned Parenthood reported that 40 percent of 
     its nearly $1.3 billion in revenue came at the taxpayers' 
     expense. A report issued by the Government Accountability 
     Office in March 2015 documented that Planned Parenthood 
     receives half a billion dollars annually from federal and 
     joint federal-state programs. The federal government has a 
     responsibility to the American people to ensure the integrity 
     of these programs.
       Relying on a heavy stream of funding from the government, 
     Planned Parenthood operates the largest abortion business in 
     the nation. Planned Parenthood clinics perform nearly 900 
     abortions every single day--327,653 abortions in 2013. 
     According to Planned Parenthood's most recent annual report, 
     abortions were 94 percent of its pregnancy related services.
       Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize Planned 
     Parenthood's abortion business. AULA thanks the House for 
     passing important pieces of legislation including H.R. 3435, 
     the ``Women's Public Health and Safety Act,'' sponsored by 
     Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI). This bill would explicitly permit a 
     state to exclude abortion providers and facilities where 
     abortions are performed from its Medicaid program. AUL Action 
     scored in favor of this important piece of legislation and 
     urges the Senate to take up the companion piece of 
     legislation, S. 2159, sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
       I hope you will support continued efforts in the House to 
     disentangle the taxpayer from the scandal ridden abortion 
     industry by voting for passage of H.R. 3762, the ``Restoring 
     Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act.''
           Sincerely,
                                           Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.,
                President & CEO, Americans United for Life Action.

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what the American people have 
heard and seen today is a real contrast. There is no doubt about it. On 
the one hand, those of us on this side of the aisle are fighting to 
protect the American people from the harm that ObamaCare is doing to 
our healthcare system and to our economy.

[[Page H7163]]

  On the other hand, most of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
are doing everything that they can to protect a broken status quo. They 
are defending a law that is contributing to higher healthcare costs, to 
less access to care, to lower quality of care, and an economy that is 
leaving too many Americans behind.
  Interestingly enough, many of the provisions in the bill that we are 
talking about today have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. When 
our Democrat colleagues bemoan the fact that we are actually trying to 
provide folks relief from the individual mandate or the employer 
mandate or the punitive taxes on medical innovation and the onerous 
provisions within ObamaCare, their protestations simply ring hollow.
  I don't doubt their sincerity. I am sure that our friends believe 
that, with enough Washington bureaucratic engineering, they can craft a 
healthcare system that will effectively serve the American people, 
despite the evidence that proves otherwise. We fundamentally disagree.
  We think a healthcare system that is responsive to the needs of 
patients and families and physicians will not come by way of Washington 
decree or mandates or tax penalties. We think that if you want to 
increase quality, affordable health care, if you want to improve the 
responsiveness of our system, then you need to trust the American 
people, trust them to make decisions for themselves and for their 
families rather than try to force them into some Washington-created 
definition of care.
  The legislation we have been debating today will provide strong 
relief from the most coercive components of the President's healthcare 
law. It will pave the way for the sort of patient-centered healthcare 
reform that we ought to be implementing. In doing so, it will save the 
American taxpayer $130 billion over the next 10 years by lowering the 
amount of deficit spending we see here in Washington, and it will 
expand economic growth and opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues so very, very much. I want 
to thank the chairs of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, 
Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and their committee members. I 
want to thank my colleagues here in this Chamber for this spirited and 
important debate. I look forward to the American people having the 
opportunity to learn more about who is really fighting to protect and 
promote the ability of patients and families and doctors to make 
medical decisions, not Washington, D.C.
  I urge support of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3762, the budget reconciliation bill. This bill is little more 
than a partisan attack on the health coverage for millions of Americans 
and access to women's health care.
  This legislation is the 61st repeal vote on the Affordable Care Act, 
which has succeeded in expanding health coverage to over 17 million 
Americans, including nearly 20,000 residents in the 29th District of 
Texas.
  Included in this legislation is a repeal of the Prevention and Public 
Health Fund, the federal government's only dedicated investment in 
prevention and the Nation's largest single investment in prevention. 
The Prevention Fund was enacted as part of ACA in response to the 
overwhelming bipartisan support for prevention efforts and recognition 
of the lack of targeted and sustained federal initiatives to address 
chronic and costly illnesses.
  This bill would also strip funding for Planned Parenthood for 2016. 
Eliminating federal support for Planned Parenthood would limit or 
prevent women from accessing important health services such as 
contraception, cancer screenings, and STI tests and treatment. Women in 
communities with a shortage of other health care providers who serve 
low-income patients would be the ones most likely to experience 
barriers to care.
  As the current ranking member of the Health Subcommittee that worked 
endless hours authoring the Affordable Care Act six years ago, I ask my 
Republican colleagues to offer reasonable proposals to improve ACA. 
There are areas of the current law that I and many of my Democratic 
colleagues on this side of the aisle would be willing to consider 
changing. Unfortunately, the bill before the House today is another 
extreme proposal that would gut the heart out of ACA and take away the 
health coverage for millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we will not let that happen. ACA has been a success 
beyond the wishes of its supporters and the most important expansion of 
health coverage since Medicare and Medicaid while slowing the growth of 
health care prices in nearly half a century.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this extreme proposal. President 
Obama has already said he will veto this bill if it reaches his desk. I 
promise that his veto will be sustained by Congress.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I request that this article from White 
House Blog entitled, ``The Faces of Health Care: Joanne W.'' regarding 
the benefits of the Affordable Healthcare Act be submitted.

       Joanne was able to sign up for Medicare at 66. Her doctor 
     told her there was an advancement to Medicare through ACA. 
     After being on disability with no other health insurance, 
     Joanne went in for a free annual wellness check once she had 
     Medicare. At that very check they detected early caratoid 
     artery stenosis--a condition that has no early symptoms, but 
     if not treated can lead to a stroke or cardiac arrest. 
     Because it was detected early she was immediately given 
     medication and advice on diet and exercise. ``Who would have 
     thought after all my support for the ACA, my life would be 
     saved by it,'' she wrote in a letter to the President.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against H.R. 3762, 
the Restoring American's Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act. This 
legislation is not a serious effort at deficit reduction. Rather it is 
an assault on the American public by gutting the Affordable Care Act 
(ACA), and badly undercutting women's health services.
  The budget reconciliation process is supposed to reduce funding 
shortfalls, but instead this bill would increase America's long-term 
deficits. Not only would it take health care away from 16 million 
Americans, but it would also make our families less safe by eliminating 
the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that, for example, has 
helped thousands of adults and teenagers quit smoking, deaths from 
which cost taxpayers over $100 billion each year.
  This latest repeal effort comes after millions of Americans are newly 
enrolled in health insurance, many using financial assistance or 
enrolling in expanded Medicaid programs. In Oregon, over 100,000 
individuals have enrolled using the health exchange marketplace and 75 
percent of those Oregonians receive financial assistance. Over 1 
million Oregonians have coverage through the expanded Medicaid or 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This legislation takes away 
this coverage or dramatically increases premiums--undermining important 
patients' rights and benefits along the way.
  What's worse than the substance of this bill is the fact that this 
charade used up precious time that ought to have been used to address 
real problems. In just a few days, America's Highway Trust Fund will 
expire. If Congress rolled up its sleeves and found a solution to pay 
for America's crumbling infrastructure, we could put hundreds of 
thousands of people to work, reduce the deficit, improve the economy, 
and strengthen the quality of life in communities across America.
  In less than two weeks unless Congress acts, America will default on 
our debt. When we came within one day of default in 2011, Republicans 
caused serious damage to the U.S. economy. The stock markets were hit 
hard, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging 2,000 points in 
July and August of 2011. Standard & Poor's, the ratings agency, 
downgraded the U.S. credit rating. As a result, taxpayers spent $1.3 
billion more in interest payments because of the downgrade. In the four 
years since, due to the GOP's continued brinksmanship, the S&P has not 
reversed that downgrade.
  It's time to act responsibly and deal with difficult issues by 
offering real and thoughtful solutions. Let's be clear--this vote, the 
61st vote to repeal the ACA, is anything but responsible or thoughtful, 
and it is reckless in the extreme to hold the entire U.S. economy 
hostage to fringe economic demands. The Republican party needs to 
sideline reckless actors and the ideas they present, not bring them to 
the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 483, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-

[[Page H7164]]

minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 189, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 568]

                               AYES--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Castor (FL)
     Deutch
     Kelly (IL)
     McNerney
     Payne

                              {time}  1157

  Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________