[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H477-H490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. CON. RES. 3, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.
84, PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF
PERSONS AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF RELIEF FROM
ACTIVE DUTY
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 48
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 3) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026. The first reading
of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed two
hours, with 90 minutes of general debate confined to the
congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget and 30 minutes of general debate on the subject of
economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by
Representative Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn
Maloney of New York or their respective designees. After
general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. The concurrent
resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be
in order except the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Such
amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points of
order against such amendment are waived. After the conclusion
of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment,
the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution
to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution and on any amendment thereto to
adoption without intervening motion. The concurrent
resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 84) to provide
for an exception to a limitation against appointment of
persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief
from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the
Armed Forces. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2)
one motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 48 provides for
consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the FY17 budget resolution, as well as
consideration of a bill to move forward on the process of confirming
our civilian Secretary of Defense, former General Mattis.
Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule today to move
expeditiously on both of these measures, and in the time we have gotten
to spend together, Mr. Speaker, you know I am a fan of the festival of
democracy that can be the Committee on Rules process, particularly the
appropriations process. But there are times where moving expeditiously
is required, and today is one of those days.
You are not going to see a rule like this come very often because we
are considering the FY17 budget resolution today. Historically, as you
know, in this Chamber, when we get ready to consider budget
resolutions, Mr. Speaker, we are considering every single one that any
Member of Congress would have an opportunity to write. That process
takes place every spring to meet the statutory deadline of passing
budgets by April. This is not that budget today, Mr. Speaker.
This is a budget, as you know, to move us forward on a reconciliation
process to finish up the FY17 budget process, and rather than
considering all the amendments that one might have to offer, we have
made in order just one. It is the Democratic substitute. It is offered
by my good friend, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget,
Mr. Yarmuth, and it is absolutely worthy of the Membership's
consideration. But it is not going to be a vote-a-rama on every budget
known to mankind. It will be the underlying budget from the House
Committee on the Budget as well as one substitute from the ranking
member.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to consideration of the measure to waive a
statutory prohibition on naming a civilian Secretary of Defense who has
been out of the military for less than 7 years, we are also offering
that under a closed rule today. No amendments are going to be made in
order. You may not know, Mr. Speaker, but that is the
[[Page H478]]
only statutory change that has passed the United States Senate in 2017.
When we talk about having to move expeditiously, when we talk about
whether or not we are going to have an open process or a closed
process, understand that while this body has passed dozens of statutory
changes in just these first 9 days of legislative activity, the Senate
has passed but one. This is in anticipation of an inauguration of a
President on January 20. This is in anticipation of trying to fill out
a Cabinet. This is in anticipation of trying to make sure that civilian
leadership is in place on day one to lead and to serve the men and
women of the United States military.
This is not the time to have that vote-a-rama. This is the time to
move expeditiously, again, with a bill that has passed in a bipartisan
way in the other Chamber. I look forward to getting back into the
business of leading the Senate, not following the Senate. I look
forward to getting back in the business of voting on absolutely every
idea that Members bring to this floor.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that
we can move expeditiously on two of our priorities: passing that FY17
budget resolution and ensuring the speedy confirmation of the civilian
leader of the Department of Defense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this
restrictive rule, and I rise in strong opposition to the underlying
legislation.
Because of Republican in-fighting, Congress was unable to do one of
its most basic jobs last year, passing a full budget for FY17. So now
House Republicans have brought this budget bill to the floor, but we
all know that this is just a vehicle for them to repeal the Affordable
Care Act and take away health care from millions and millions of
Americans.
For nearly 7 years, my Republican friends have railed against the
Affordable Care Act. Their well-funded allies have spent billions of
dollars distorting the ACA and lying to the American people about what
it actually does. And for nearly 7 years there has not been a single
comprehensive healthcare bill brought to the floor by Republicans as a
replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Not one.
We have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA on the House floor. I
will be the first to admit that ACA is not perfect, but rather than
work together to tweak it or to make it better, all we get from them
are repeal bills, repeal bills, repeal bills. Let me again point out
that not once, not once, was there a replacement bill offered.
Not only do Republicans not have a plan to replace the Affordable
Care Act and protect access to health care for more than 20 million
Americans who gained coverage, they can't even agree on a timeline for
when they will pass their replacement. President-elect Trump says
repeal and replace will be done on the same day, and he wants it to
happen now. Representative Steve Scalise said Republicans will replace
the ACA over the course of the next few months. Senator John Thune said
it could take 2 or 3 years for the replacement to be implemented.
Representative Chris Collins said Republicans have 6 months to work out
the replacement plan, and Senator Mitch McConnell refused to even give
a timeline, just saying that it would happen.
Well, while the Republicans fight with each other over timelines, I
think it is appropriate to ask: If they did have a replacement, what
would that replacement be?
Well, President-elect Trump has the answer. When asked what we should
replace ObamaCare with, he said: ``Something terrific.'' When pressed
for further details, and more specificity, he said: ``Something that
people will really, really, really like.''
Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. It would be laughable if
it weren't so tragic. It is tragic because what Republicans are trying
to do is take healthcare protections away from millions and millions of
families.
Now, no one in this Congress has to worry about health care if the
Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the Donald Trumps of the world
certainly don't have to worry about health care if the Affordable Care
Act is repealed. If someone in their family gets really sick, they will
just sell some stocks or close down another American factory or not pay
their workers, as our President-elect has been known to do on many,
many occasions.
But for millions of Americans, it will be a different story.
Repealing the ACA would mean over 30 million Americans would lose
coverage, including nearly 4 million children. More than 52 million
individuals with preexisting conditions could have coverage rescinded
or see their premiums dramatically increased. Millions of young adults
would be unable to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26. Over
14 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion would
lose coverage, and nearly 140 million individuals with private
insurance would lose access to preventive services without copays and
deductibles. And millions of seniors would see their prescription drug
prices increase because it would reopen the so-called doughnut hole
that the ACA has begun to close.
Republicans want to slash Medicaid, a healthcare program that does a
lot of good stuff and enables mothers to work their way out of poverty
by providing affordable coverage for their children. As someone who
represents Massachusetts, this is especially personal because Medicaid
is one of the best tools we have in the fight against opioid addiction,
providing real care for the addiction and underlying conditions that
drive the opioid epidemic in our communities. Repealing Medicaid
expansion under the ACA would rip coverage away from an estimated 1.6
million newly insured individuals with substance use disorders.
That is what is at stake, and that is what my Republican colleagues
are so happy, giddy, and excited to do. It is sad. It is pathetic, but
they are moving forward anyway with no replacement in sight. I suppose
they can roll out their oldies but goodies, like health savings
accounts or their other healthcare prescription, take two tax breaks
and call me in the morning. But that doesn't do it.
Mr. Speaker, we have a complicated healthcare system, no doubt. I
wish it were simpler. That is why I have always favored a single-payer
system and that is why I favored a public option. But the problem with
our system before ObamaCare was that it left all the decisions up to
the insurance companies.
Do you remember the days when insurance companies could charge women
more for health insurance because they said being a woman was a
preexisting condition?
They can't do that anymore. Why? Not because of my Republican
friends. They can't do it anymore because we passed the ACA.
This budget bill would also give Republicans a green light to defund
Planned Parenthood. To my colleagues who are so anxious to defund
Planned Parenthood just to satisfy their rightwing base, let me ask:
Have you ever visited a Planned Parenthood clinic? Because if you had,
you would understand why what you are doing is so wrong.
{time} 0930
The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in
protecting and providing access to critical health services for both
women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood
health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves
2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics
that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent
of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care,
including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and
family planning, not abortion services.
Add to this fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of the
few affordable healthcare options available for many women. Nearly 80
percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or
below 150 percent of poverty. It is easy to see why a majority of
Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one
recent poll, 63 percent of voters,
[[Page H479]]
including 72 percent of independents, do not agree with my Republican
friends that Federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be
eliminated.
In fact, we also heard very little about the consequences that
defunding Planned Parenthood would have for families across the
country. One of the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the
idea that our Nation's community health centers, which I love and adore
and respect, could suddenly pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is
defunded.
For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood
clinics, defunding them would mean the loss of affordable and
accessible contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and
cervical cancer screenings. Simply put, for the many communities served
by Planned Parenthood clinics, recklessly cutting funding would wipe
out access to vital health services for the people who need them the
most.
Let me make something very clear. Zero Federal dollars go towards the
abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood--zero. The vast
majority of funding that Planned Parenthood receives comes in the form
of Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care that they provide.
Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel thing to do, to take away people's health
care. I will say to my Republican colleagues that they need to know
that we are going to fight you every step of the way on this. There are
some battles on behalf of the American people that are worth having and
worth fighting, and this is one of them--making sure that their health
care protections remain intact. I came to Congress to help people, not
make their lives more miserable.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment briefly on the other piece of
legislation in this rule, S. 84. General James Mattis has been praised
by both Democrats and Republicans, but there is very real concern about
civilian control over the military, the language of the underlying
legislation, and the duties and responsibilities of the House of
Representatives.
General Mattis has a distinguished career, but we are talking about
changing the law here. Approving a waiver for him to serve in the
Cabinet so soon after his military service is a serious decision. It is
so serious that such a waiver has happened only once before in the
entire history of the United States. Now, we should debate this.
Instead, the Trump transition team canceled General Mattis' testimony
before the House Armed Services Committee and now expects us to vote
for him willy-nilly without us being able to ask him any questions.
Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive branch, but if
the House is denied the opportunity to meet with and question the
military officer who is nominated as our next Defense Secretary, how
can we fulfill our duty and blindly just vote for him?
I would also say to my Republican friends, this is an early warning
sign of the disregard that this new administration has for the House of
Representatives. General Mattis was willing to testify, but the Trump
team said no. They said no to the House of Representatives. Caving in
on this issue will only mean continued disregard for the people's House
in the future, and I think that that is regrettable.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who probably knows more
about the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill than anyone
else in this Congress, the cardinal from that committee in the 114th
Congress.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation. As has been made clear, we are actually talking about two
different pieces of legislation here today.
The waiver for Secretary-designee James Mattis is, quite frankly, a
no-brainer. The Senate voted 81-17 in favor of that waiver. I would
suspect there will be similar bipartisan support here.
My friend is correct, of course; this is a serious matter whenever we
grant exceptions to the law. But General Mattis is just uniformly and
universally respected across the lines for his distinguished work in
defense of this country, so I hope we move ahead on that.
The budget resolution that comes before us is another matter, and
there will be a great deal of contention. Frankly, the resolution
itself is not, as my good friend from California pointed out, and
should not be seen as, a traditional budgetary item. It is, frankly, a
projection of what will happen if we do absolutely nothing over the
next decade and leave the current set of policies in place.
It is a sobering document to read in that regard because it shows
rising deficits every single year for a decade, beginning at over $580
billion and then moving well north of $1 trillion. Frankly, in my view,
it is something that we ought to look at and come to the realization
that we are going to need to do entitlement reform in the next decade,
something that people on both sides of the aisle seem to want to
ignore. Absent that, we will, indeed, have extraordinary budget
deficits, and they will be large enough to undercut and undermine our
economy.
The budget resolution is also a vehicle, a tool, to begin to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. This is necessary for, really, one simple
reason. The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare as it is popularly known,
is a failing system. It is unpopular. It has never been popular, never
hit 50 percent of popularity. Frankly, in my view, it has cost our
friends their majority in the House, then cost them their majority in
the Senate, and may well have cost them the Presidency of the United
States. The American people have spoken pretty emphatically: We don't
like this product. And it is collapsing financially right now. This is
not a system that is an operation that is really doing well.
Let me just talk about my own State. We have about 197,000 people
that have gotten insurance under ObamaCare. This year, they will have
exactly one choice as to what company they want to choose to provide
them, and their rates will go up by 69 percent. Now, nationally, I
think the average is over 25 percent.
Clearly, this is not a system that is working very well. Politically,
the easy thing to do would be what our friends want us to do--let's
just leave it alone. It will fall under its own weight, and it will be
very clear who is responsible for that collapse: the current
administration and my friends on the other side. But that also would be
the irresponsible thing to do, and that would be, in itself, an
abdication of leadership and, ultimately, unfair to the American
people.
Instead, we are going to repeal the system and begin to replace it
with something that will work better. Now, my friend's point is a fair
one. There is not a single plan out there, but there are plenty of
plans. I know I cosponsor a couple myself. I think we will be able to
work through this relatively easily.
There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of diagnosis about what
the failures of ObamaCare are, but there has been very little in the
way of actual legislative remedy. We have a unique opportunity to do
that. Frankly, I am proud of our Speaker, and I am proud of our
conference that they are going to seize that and begin this process
because I don't think there is anything more important facing us.
So I would urge the passage of the rule and then the passage,
obviously, of the underlying legislation, particularly the budget
resolution that allows us to begin the necessary work in repealing and
replacing ObamaCare, and, obviously, the waiver that would allow us to
have a distinguished Secretary of Defense, General Mattis.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things.
First of all, according to the Brookings Institution, without the
ACA, insurance premiums would be 44 percent higher.
And the other fact I point out for my colleagues is that healthcare
costs are growing at the slowest rate in the last 50 years. Families
are spending over $3,500 a year less than they would have because of
the ACA. I would say to my colleagues, yeah, we want to do better, but
let's work to address some of the shortcomings of the ACA rather than
repeal it and put in danger all these healthcare protections that
people have.
[[Page H480]]
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Watson Coleman).
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are in week 2 of this 115th
Congress, and, as promised, my colleagues and I are here to stand up
for this good Nation. Unfortunately, House Republicans cannot say the
same.
Last night, they decided that nursing home coverage for millions of
seniors, comprehensive health care for young children, and the benefits
earned after a lifetime of hard work are not worth fighting for. That
is exactly why the gentleman from Wisconsin offered an amendment to
ensure that the budget resolution being considered today could not be
used to cut benefits from three critically important programs:
Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
In fact, the President-elect promised many times that he would
neither cut Social Security benefits for seniors nor would he support
cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. But the rule under consideration this
morning fails to allow a debate or vote on this amendment, which places
the earned benefits and the financial future of American people at
risk.
Who are my Republican colleagues looking out for? Certainly not their
constituents.
It is clear that we are faced with a Republican-controlled Congress
that is ensuring the divided and self-serving rhetoric that echoed
throughout this campaign season rings true. This is not democracy. This
is not outlined in our Constitution. This is not the democracy we are
sworn to protect.
With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank my
colleague for her admonition to reject divisive and self-serving
rhetoric because I think that is absolutely something we should take to
heart.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a new member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for
yielding me this time to speak on these important issues.
Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak on this important rule that
provides consideration for the fiscal year 2017 budget resolution and
S. 84, which provides a legal exception for General Mattis to serve as
Secretary of Defense, certainly are important issues. As a member of
the House Rules Committee, I am very proud to support this rule as well
as both of the underlying measures.
S. 84 provides a one-time exemption on behalf of an individual who is
uniquely qualified to serve during a very challenging period in our
Nation's history and a time when U.S. national security and military
readiness is of paramount importance for both Americans and our allies
around the world.
This legislation does not permanently change the law nor does it
diminish the founding principle of civilian control of our military. In
fact, this rule allows for consideration of legislation providing for a
one-time exemption that does exactly the opposite. It reinforces the
doctrine of civilian control of our military. By setting into motion
this unique procedure, the people's elected representatives are taking
the seriousness of this circumstance to heart, to debate and carefully
weigh granting a historic exception, only provided on one other
occasion in our history.
The man at the center of this matter demonstrates the extraordinary
nature of the situation we currently face. General James N. Mattis has
served our Nation with unparalleled distinction over the past 40-plus
years. Born in Pullman, Washington, General Mattis grew up in my
congressional district, the Fourth District of the State of Washington.
He attended what was then Columbia High School, now Richland High, and
graduated from Central Washington University.
It was growing up along the banks of the Columbia River in Richland
where General Mattis' parents instilled in him a deep passion for
reading, which then developed into a renowned lifelong devotion to
intellectualism, military and world history, and the study of war.
General Mattis has been in command at increasing levels throughout
his career within the United States Marine Corps, where he began as a
student enrolled in ROTC, rose to the rank of general, and served as
commander of the United States Central Command responsible for American
military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central
Asia. Few individuals command the respect and admiration General Mattis
has earned amongst the troops, national security experts, and military
and civic leaders.
This rule allows for the consideration of legislation to provide the
United States Senate its proper role of advice and consent regarding
the nomination of General Mattis to serve as our next Secretary of
Defense.
{time} 0945
I urge my colleagues to support this rule so the Senate can
rightfully provide its constitutional guidance, which I am confident
will overwhelmingly support this distinguished leader and public
servant from the great State of Washington.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to
allow for the consideration of Representative Pocan's amendment, of
which I am a proud cosponsor, to create a point of order against any
legislation that would cut benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or
Medicaid or that would attempt to privatize Social Security. All are
things that my Republican friends have advocated for in previous
budgets.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question so that we can bring up my amendment, which would
block the House GOP majority from cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security.
President-elect Donald Trump has promised many times throughout his
campaign that he would not cut Social Security benefits for seniors nor
would he support cuts to Medicare or Medicaid benefits. In fact, at
least 15 times he said he would not make cuts to Medicare or Social
Security. He even tweeted it; so we know he really, really meant it.
If it is important to the Democrats and if it is important to the
President-elect and if it is important to the American people, let's
make sure it is absolutely certain that no one has to worry about a cut
in one's Social Security and Medicare benefits--not a single cut to
anyone. If we could do that, that would be the single biggest success
of the 115th Congress.
If you support the idea that you will not cut Social Security and
Medicare and that you will protect the promise to our constituents,
then support this amendment. But if you are not sure yet or if you
might be willing to cut Social Security and Medicare or if you are
actually considering cutting these programs, then you should oppose
this amendment.
Again, our amendment would block any legislation before the House or
Senate which cuts guaranteed, earned benefits under Social Security,
Medicare, or Medicaid programs; which increases the retirement age for
these benefits or which privatizes Social Security. Nationally, over 64
million people receive benefits from Social Security.
I want to read a couple of comments from constituents from the State
of Wisconsin, the home State of Speaker Paul Ryan and mine.
Robyn from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, said: ``Please do everything in
your power to oppose Speaker Ryan's legislation to privatize Social
Security and Medicare. These are our earned benefits for a lifetime of
working as dairy farmers.''
Carol from Madison said: ``I am a retired Navy veteran and a cancer
survivor. My grandfather, a World War II
[[Page H481]]
and Korean war vet, is living in a home on Medicaid and Medicare. What
is going to happen to him if . . . Republicans are successful in
drastically altering these programs?''
Democrats believe we need to protect our senior citizens and the most
vulnerable in our society. Democrats believe we need to strengthen the
middle class through the preservation of Social Security and Medicare,
and so do the American people.
Do Republicans share our belief? Let's make it crystal clear. Do you
want to protect Social Security and Medicare, or do you want to cut
these earned benefits? You can decide that with this vote.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question
so we can bring up the CPC--the Pocan-Ellison-Grijalva-Lee-Schakowsky
amendment--and find out who truly supports Medicare and Social Security
in this House.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Reluctantly I recognize that we are, apparently, not going to have an
end to divisive, self-serving rhetoric. I am still optimistic, as it is
a long year ahead of us.
What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is suggesting, Mr.
Speaker, is that we ensure the failure of Social Security going
forward. The only guaranteed benefit in Social Security is that it is
guaranteed to fail. Those are not my words. These are the words of the
actuaries who are in charge of protecting Social Security. The
nonpartisan actuaries who govern Social Security say that there is not
enough money today to pay the benefits that folks are expecting. The
law of the land, as it exists today, requires that, when that day
comes, benefits will get cut dramatically. Only a 75 percent
realization of benefits is what the law requires that befalls our
senior citizens. If we pass the amendment that is suggested by my
friend, we would be prohibited from considering any solutions to that
problem. Means testing, which my colleagues have advocated for years,
is off the table under that scenario.
Mr. Speaker, to suggest that anyone on this side of the aisle wants
to undermine the commitment that this country has made to our seniors
is ludicrous; but to suggest that I go to a 22-year-old, whose polling
today suggests he or she believes they are more likely to see a UFO in
their lifetime than a Social Security check in their lifetime--to
suggest that going to that 22-year-old and my thinking that maybe his
retirement age would be a year or two higher than his great-
grandparents' since he is now living decades longer--I will remind my
colleagues we came together in a bipartisan way to raise the retirement
age from 65 to 67 in 1983, not because one of us hated seniors and one
of us loved seniors, but because we all believed in our commitment to
seniors.
Mr. Speaker, don't let the Record reflect anything other than that
this budget resolution provides the framework to begin this discussion,
to begin the discussion of what comes next. There is not a single line
of authorizing language in this budget resolution. Any suggestion that
the law will change tomorrow because of this budget resolution is
false. The law will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. The
difference is we have begun a path--we will have created a framework;
we will have provided the tools--to have a discussion about how to
solve very real problems in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, by saying
that I don't know what he is talking about. The Pocan amendment is
pretty clear. It says that there will be a point of order against any
legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security,
Medicare, or Medicaid or would attempt to privatize Social Security.
Now, I know my Republican friends want to privatize Social Security,
because they tried that in the past; and I know they want to privatize
Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, because that is what their
budgets continually do. I mean, that is what we are trying to prevent.
If you want to privatize Social Security, if you want to privatize
Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, then stand with them. But
if you want to protect these programs--and the vast majority of
Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want to protect the
integrity of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--then oppose this
budget.
By the way, this budget, basically, is the green light to go ahead
and destroy the protections that people value in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable to me that the majority is
prioritizing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act as its top priority
for the 115th Congress as the Nation's infrastructure crumbles and as
the cost of education continues to skyrocket. It is particularly
outrageous that this budget puts the wheels in motion, as my colleague
has said, for a repeal of the healthcare law without there being
anything to take its place.
This budget would also increase our Nation's debt by $9.5 trillion
over the next 10 years. Apparently the party that has tried to claim
the mantle of balanced budgets for years doesn't really care about
fiscal responsibility.
It is the first step toward defunding Planned Parenthood, which
serves 2.5 million patients--men and women--across the country every
year and provides preventative care, like birth control and cancer
screenings. It seems to me, for the majority of my adult life, I have
been trying to defend Planned Parenthood. The excuse given that the
community health centers can pick up the slack is so enormously wrong
that the community health centers are scared to death that they are
going to be asked to try to pick up that slack of 2.5 million patients.
That is absolutely a cover for something that doesn't make any sense at
all.
I was shocked to read a study over the summer that found that the
rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the State of Texas, since they did
away with Planned Parenthood, seems to have doubled since 2010, making
Texas one of the most dangerous places in the world to have a baby.
What was happening in Texas during this time?
The State legislature was not only making cuts to family planning
clinics where many low-income women received the only medical care they
got, but the State was absolutely refusing to expand its Medicaid
program, which would have given lower income women desperately needed
access to prenatal services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The point being--and one of the things we talked about
last night at Rules--is that, of the many States in which the premiums,
they thought, had gone reasonably high, these were also the States that
did not expand Medicaid or set up the exchanges, which were intended to
cut the costs. While the causes of maternal deaths are complex,
certainly leaving women without access to medical care will not do
anything to decrease that mortality rate.
Today my Republican friends want to inflict the same harm on pregnant
women all over the country by taking away the Medicaid expansion and by
taking away money for clinics like Planned Parenthood. I cannot believe
that in this day and age and in this century it is even contemplated. I
know the American people are paying attention because every day in my
office we get between 20 and 30 calls--and have for the last 2 or 3
weeks--begging us not to repeal the ACA.
This agenda has the potential to devastate millions of people from
coast to coast. Instead of solving problems, the majority is on the
verge of creating new ones for families all across the country.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts said in his opening statement that
he didn't come to Congress to hurt people; that he came to help people.
I want to stipulate that that is 100 percent true. There is no one in
this Chamber who I believe has a bigger heart for men and
[[Page H482]]
women than the gentleman from Massachusetts, which is why I know that
he does not support what I see happening to my constituency.
He says people are paying less for their health care today. I dispute
those numbers writ large, but I know it is true in my district because
the free healthcare clinic has doubled since the passage of ObamaCare.
Folks once had access to small plans that they chose for their
families. Those plans were outlawed. Now they have high deductible
plans that are worthless to them, so they seek care at the free
clinics. I know that ripping the plans out from under those men and
women in my district was not the gentleman's intention when he passed
the Affordable Care Act, but it is absolutely the result.
I know that when the gentleman set up those exchanges, which all
Americans were supposed to be able to go to to buy their healthcare
plans, he did not intend for those plans to get canceled year after
year after year after year, because they were unsustainable. We all
know, of the constituents in our districts who did what the government
told them to do, they lost the plans their employers used to provide;
they went to the exchanges to buy a plan; and, 1 year later, those
plans were canceled. They went through the process again: they picked
out other plans; they went through the exchanges and paid their money;
and, 1 year later, those plans were canceled again and again.
We all know those constituents; so to suggest that the only reason
someone would come to the floor today would be to solve a nonexistent
problem is ridiculous. We all know that there are problems. What is
ridiculous are the folks who would come and defend the status quo. The
status quo is indefensible, Mr. Speaker.
When we get together, we can do amazing things. There are vast
experiences of the Members in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and our
bringing those to the table leads to better solutions. We have spent 6
years being stuck in the status quo, and this bill represents an
opportunity to turn the page on that status quo, and I know every
single Member has constituents in his district who will welcome it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to help the gentleman understand the benefits of the ACA
in his home State of Georgia:
There are 468,000 individuals in the State who have gained coverage
since the ACA was implemented, and now they could lose it if he gets
his way.
478,000 individuals in the State who were able to purchase high-
quality marketplace coverage now stand to lose that coverage if the
gentleman gets his way.
In 2016, 427,000 individuals in the State have received financial
assistance to purchase marketplace coverage; they are at risk of losing
that.
65,000 kids have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented in the
State of Georgia.
74,000 young adults are able to stay on their parents' health
insurance until they are 26 because of the ACA.
That is all in Georgia. So I would hope the gentleman would
understand what is happening in his own State before he votes to repeal
it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last night Speaker Ryan told a national
audience on CNN ObamaCare is crumbling. Donald Trump has said over and
over again ObamaCare is a disaster. I would like to share just a tiny
fraction of the emails my office has received in the last few days to
demonstrate that the opposite is true:
Peter, a 63-year-old farmer from Ellington, Connecticut:
ACA has allowed me and my wife access to quality health
care. If this law is repealed, either I sell off my land and
livestock or go without insurance.
Becky, a 41-year-old small-business owner and single mom from
Enfield, before ACA hadn't seen a doctor in 4 years. Now, she and her
kids have a plan for $315 a month.
George, a 53-year-old freelance designer from Niantic: the past 2
years, he and his wife with preexisting conditions have been covered by
an affordable plan.
Michelle, a registered nurse with health issues from Killingworth,
has the same message.
Sue from Vernon, her husband has cancer.
Barbara from North Stonington, a 59-year-old registered nurse, has a
chronic condition.
All are watching this destructive process with outrage. For these
people, the only thing that is crumbling is their confidence in
Congress to do the right thing and stop this rush to repeal.
As George from Niantic said:
I have never been so worried for my country.
Vote ``no'' on repeal. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was not in Congress at the time the Affordable Care Act passed, but
I remember it, watching from home. We talk about this as if it was some
sort of thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation that folks are so
tremendously proud of. I happen to have the numbers here, Mr. Speaker.
It was H.R. 4872 that moved through the House, that was the
authorizing part. We had three votes in the U.S. House of
Representatives on that bill. We had a motion to recommit, as it was
not actually a healthcare bill to begin with, and a vote on final
passage.
Then it went over to the U.S. Senate where they worked their will on
it. They had 43 votes on it, amendments offered, ideas, and changes.
Then it came back to the House where we changed it not at all. There
was one straight partisan vote on the Affordable Care Act. Not one idea
from the U.S. House of Representatives added, not one change from the
U.S. House of Representatives, not one alteration of any kind.
As you recall, Mr. Speaker, they had a filibuster-proof majority in
the United States Senate, so Democrats could work their will any way
they wanted. When they lost that filibuster-proof majority--they only
had 59 votes out of 100 instead of 60--they ended debate, they ended
discussion, they ended collaboration and jammed what they had passed at
midnight on Christmas Eve right on through the U.S. House of
Representatives. I can't imagine who defends that as the proper outcome
of the legislative process. We have a chance to change that, Mr.
Speaker.
I am glad that my friend from Connecticut has some constituents that
have benefited. I have some constituents that have benefited. But I
have constituents who are being failed, and I know my friend from
Connecticut does, too.
I am glad that my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking
about all of their success stories, but I want my friends to join me
and grapple with all of the failures.
I will not deny the way the conversation about health care has
changed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act--folks talking
about preexisting conditions, folks talking about lifetime caps, folks
talking about keeping young kids on their policies until they are 26.
I just don't understand why my colleagues would deny that folks who
used to have care, now don't. Folks who used to have affordable plans,
now don't. Folks who used to be able to take care of their employees
through their small business plans, now can't. This is undisputed, and
we have an opportunity to do better. I hope my colleagues will join me
in doing that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is entitled to his own
opinions but not his own facts. The facts with regard to the process in
which the Affordable Care Act was developed, I think, are worth
repeating here.
In the House of Representatives, we held nearly 100 hours of hearings
and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses,
both Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the
three committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted. The
bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on
the floor.
In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee held more than 53
hearings. The committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation,
the longest
[[Page H483]]
markup in the 22 years of the committee. The Senate Health Committee
held 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs on the
healthcare reform bill.
So to say that this was not a thoughtful process is just wrong.
Compare that to the way this budget bill is being brought to the
floor. There is no committee consideration, no deliberation. It is just
given to us. In fact, most of the committees aren't even organized yet
in the House of Representatives.
So there is a contrast there, and I stand with the way we approached
the Affordable Care Act as opposed to the way the Republicans have
approached this budget deal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Soto).
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, here is my 1-minute breakdown on why I oppose
repealing ObamaCare without replacement:
First, this law protects all Americans with preexisting conditions;
second, it keeps all young adults on their parents' insurance until age
26; third, it protects all Americans from bankruptcy if they get sick
by removing lifetime caps.
Before the act, millions of Americans were simply kicked off their
insurance when these problems arose. We Democrats support keeping these
protections for all Americans, and the Republicans want to repeal them.
We support improving the act, and the Republicans want to eliminate it.
While many have stoked fear and spread false information for
political gain, it is clear that repeal without replacement equals
disaster. It will eliminate these protections for all Americans, create
chaos for working families, and send our country into another
recession.
It is clear we need to improve the act rather than repeal it. It is
time to do the right thing for all Floridians and for all Americans.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to share with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that one is
not entitled to their own facts, but one is also not entitled to share
just half the story and leave it as if it is the entire story.
Everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said was true, until the
U.S. House abdicated any responsibility whatsoever and passed exactly
what the Senate did with no amendment whatsoever. All of the work
product the gentleman talked about, all of the work that the gentleman
talked about went for naught in this U.S. House of Representatives.
To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted to have crafted
is to deny reality. To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted
to have crafted is to deny the nine different times the Republican
House and Senate sent to the President repeals of ObamaCare, things
that were so broken even the President couldn't live with it and he
signed those repeals into law.
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to denigrate any of the motives of my
friends on the other side of the aisle. I just can't understand, for
the life of me, why they don't want to try to do better.
That pride of authorship, that arrogance, it has a real impact on the
men and women that I serve, and I am asking my friends to partner with
me to help me fix it. But if they won't partner with me, I am going to
move forward and fix it anyway.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have been willing to work with our Republican friends to try to
improve the Affordable Care Act for nearly 7 years. They have been
unwilling to work with us in a bipartisan way. Instead, they just want
to repeal, repeal, repeal.
Now, I don't know what their motivation is. Maybe it is because they
don't like President Obama. Judging from some of the rhetoric that we
have heard on this House floor over these years, I think some of the
Members over there actually hate the President of the United States,
and this is all driven by this personal animosity.
Let me just say to the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act may
have started out with a different bill number, but the facts remain
that there were hundreds of hours of hearings on the Affordable Care
Act, 181 witnesses testified; hundreds of amendments were considered in
committee.
The process of using a different bill number is very common in both
Chambers. In fact, the House Republicans have done it several times in
the past 3 years. Regardless of the bill number, the work that went
into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes in the
history of the Congress, and it has resulted in providing protections
and health care for millions and millions of people in this country.
All of that is at risk with this budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I was in the middle of hundreds of hours
of discussion and debate in committee, on the floor. It is amazing to
think of all the time and energy that went into it.
Was it a perfect bill? Absolutely not. It would have been much better
if the legislative process hadn't collapsed in the Senate and forced
reconciliation as the vehicle.
The offer to somehow become bipartisan and work together to solve the
problems ring hollow. I have been on the Ways and Means Committee for
the last 6 years when Republicans were in charge with constant efforts
to repeal ObamaCare, but they refused to work with us to fine-tune the
legislation when we could move forward and build on this foundation and
not be in a situation where we are going to unsettle healthcare
markets, leave people doubting about where they are, and having no clue
about what comes forward.
There is a reason, after 6 years, the Republicans do not have an
alternative to offer now. It is because their wildly contradictory
promises cannot be met.
I urge rejection of the rule and rejection of this effort to gut the
most important healthcare reform in the last 50 years.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee
the healthcare bill came through. We can debate how many hearings, how
many questions, and all of that. The public has rendered judgment on
this healthcare law.
In 2010, Republicans took back control of the House over two issues:
ObamaCare and cap-and-trade. And then our base was saying to repeal
ObamaCare, all the way back to 2010.
In 2014, the Republicans took over the Senate. Our base is saying:
You have got the House. You have got the Senate. Repeal ObamaCare. It
is harmful. It is destructive--and I will tell you why in a minute.
So why should anybody not expect us, in 2016, when the public has
rendered judgment again in a national election that we have to repeal
ObamaCare?
So when I talk to my constituents and people talk to me, this is
going to happen, and we know there is going to be a replacement.
There are two different ideologies of how to provide care. We believe
in markets; you believe in centralized control. We believe in people
choosing the best plan for them in the private markets; and those who
need help and assistance to get in those markets, we are going to help
them get in those markets. But to have our Federal Government say that
you only have one of four choices--my constituents pay for health care
that they can't use because they can't pay the deductibles, so they are
forced to buy something that they can't use.
So this is timely. I am glad we are moving expeditiously, and we look
forward to the year ahead.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we believe healthcare protections ought to
be enshrined in the law and not left up to insurance companies.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. It
sets into motion the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
This repeal-only bill takes money intended to fund health care for
middle class families and it hands it to the wealthy families and to
big health corporations in the form of tax cuts. The public does not
know this.
[[Page H484]]
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this bill
would give the 400 highest income families in the United States an
average tax cut of $7 million a year. It would rob millions of families
of the money they need for their insurance. It hands it over to the
wealthy, including nearly $250 billion over 10 years in tax cuts for
health insurance companies and drug manufacturers.
{time} 1015
Where are the majority's values? We should be providing more
Americans with health insurance, not fewer; and we should be creating
jobs, not eliminating them. This bill is a disgrace. It is a betrayal
of the working families of this Nation.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say
absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely not one word of that is
true. This bill does not one of those things. This bill does, in fact,
nothing to change the law at all in any way, shape, or form. It is not
true. This bill provides a process for debating the law, and I
certainly hope we will pass it so we can have that debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Khanna).
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill
which will set forth the repeal of ObamaCare. But I also am concerned
that the bill doesn't have a basic amendment which would allow for the
importation of drugs from Canada.
Senator Sanders courageously, on Wednesday night, went on the floor
and introduced an amendment to allow for the importation of drugs from
Canada that the overwhelming number of Republicans and Democrats
support. It was appalling that 13 Senate Democrats voted against the
Sanders amendment, and they did so because the pharmaceutical industry
is a cancer on this body; the pharmaceutical companies' contributions
are a cancer.
We need to allow for the importation of drugs, we need that to be an
amendment to this bill, and we need to take it up as a body.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts I do
not have any further speakers and would be happy to close when he is
prepared.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. A report by Families U.S.A. said that repeal of the
Affordable Care Act equals a huge tax cut for the wealthy.
What people don't know, and the public doesn't know at the moment, is
that this will hand over to wealthy and major corporations new tax
breaks worth nearly $600 million--more than a half-trillion dollars
over 10 years, $345.8 billion over 10 years in tax cuts for people
whose incomes are over a specified threshold; $200,000 for single
individuals; and $250,000 for families. There are $274.4 billion over
10 years going to health insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and
other large healthcare corporations.
That is what repeal of the Affordable Care Act does. My colleagues
need to face up to that, and the public needs to know it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American
Medical Association, a letter from 120 interfaith groups, a letter from
the Consumers Union, a letter from the Massachusetts Health & Hospital
Association, a letter from a number of labor organizations in my home
State of Massachusetts, and a letter from UMassMemorial Community
Healthlink, which is a provider of comprehensive health care in my
district. They are all opposed to undoing the Affordable Care Act.
American Medical Association,
Chicago, IL, January 3, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker
Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the physician and
medical student members of the American Medical Association
(AMA), I am writing regarding our ongoing commitment to
reform of the health care system and potential legislative
actions during the first months of the 115th Congress.
The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage
for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice,
freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. These
policy positions are guided by the actions of the AMA House
of Delegates, composed of representatives of more than 190
state and national specialty medical associations, and they
form the basis for AMA consideration of reforms to our health
care system. (A summary of key AMA objectives for health
system reform is attached.)
Health system reform is an ongoing quest for improvement.
The AMA supported passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
because it was a significant improvement on the status quo at
that time. We continue to embrace the primary goal of that
law--to make high quality, affordable health care coverage
accessible to all Americans. We also recognize that the ACA
is imperfect and there a number of issues that need to be
addressed. As such, we welcome proposals, consistent with the
policies of our House of Delegates, to make coverage more
affordable, provide greater choice, and increase the number
of those insured.
In considering opportunities to make coverage more
affordable and accessible to all Americans, it is essential
that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance
coverage be maintained.
Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before
any action is taken through reconciliation or other means
that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should
lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what
will replace current policies. Patients and other
stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy
to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about
whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process
of health reform.
We stand ready to work with you to continue the process of
improving our health care system and ensuring that all
Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care
coverage.
Sincerely,
James L. Madara, MD,
Executive Vice President, CEO.
____
January 12, 2017.
Dear President-elect Trump and Members of the U.S.
Congress: We the undersigned members of the investment and
public health communities want to re-affirm our deep
commitment to a more accessible and affordable health care
system by voicing our support for the continued expansion of
coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In order for our economy to thrive and Americans to
prosper, our health care system must be both equitable and
efficient. As a result of ACA's implementation, quality and
affordable health insurance has been guaranteed to more than
20 million previously uninsured Americans. While the ACA has
dramatically expanded coverage, we support reforms within the
framework of the Act to further contain rising health care
costs.
We agree that thoughtful improvements to the ACA are
needed, but we are deeply concerned by threats to repeal and/
or replace the ACA before these improvements are implemented.
Repeal of the ACA would destroy the tremendous strides we
have made as a nation in expanding coverage, would have a
destabilizing effect on jobs, businesses and our economy, and
would further jeopardize the health and financial security of
millions of Americans.
We call on you, our elected leaders to:
1) Preserve the Affordable Care Act.
2) Work collaboratively with all key stakeholders to
improve the ACA and better rein in health care costs.
3) Make the fiscal and political commitment necessary to
expand quality health care coverage to all Americans.
We pledge to do our part to support the ACA and expanded
health care coverage through our own operations and beyond,
and request that as legislators and leaders of our nation
entrusted with the health of all Americans, you will do the
same.
Sincerely,
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility; Adrian
Dominican Sisters; Amalgamated Bank; American Baptist Home
Mission Society; Arc Advisers, LLC; Augustinian Province of
St. Thomas of Villanova; Benedictine Sisters; Benedictine
Sisters of Baltimore; Benedictine Sisters of Florida;
Benedictine Sisters of Holy Name; Benedictine Sisters of
Mount St. Scholastica; Benedictine Sisters of the Sacred
Heart; Benedictine Women of Madison, Inc.; Benet Hill
Monastery; Bon Secours Health System, Inc.; Boston Common
Asset Management; BVM Shareholder Education & Advocacy Group;
CHRISTUS Healthcare; Clean Yield Asset Management.
Congregation of Divine Providence Inc.; Congregation of
Holy Cross, Moreau Province; Congregation of Sisters of St.
Agnes; Congregation of St. Basil; Congregation of the Sisters
of Charity of the Incarnate Word; Congregation of the Sisters
of Divine Providence; Corporate Responsibility Office of the
Sisters of Charity of Nazareth; Daughters of Wisdom; Dignity
Health; Diocese of Springfield, IL; Dominican Sisters,
Sparkill; Dominican Sisters, Grand Rapids; Dominican
[[Page H485]]
Sisters of Hope; Dominican Sisters of Houston; Dominican
Sisters of Peace; Dominican Sisters of San Rafael; Dominican
Sisters of Springfield, IL; Dooley Center; Earth Equity
Advisors.
Everence and the Praxis Mutual Funds; Felician Franciscan
Sisters; Felician Sisters--Buffalo Region; Franciscan Action
Network; Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration; FundX
Investment Group; Glenmary Home Missioners; Green America;
Health Care Without Harm; Holy Name Monastery; Horizons
Sustainable Financial Services, Inc.; Incarnate Word
Associates; Incarnate Word Convent; Incarnate Word Sisters;
IWBS Associate; Jantz Management LLC; Leadership Council of
the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary--
Monroe, MI; Marist Fathers.
Maryknoll Sisters; Mennonite Education Agency; Midwest
Coalition for Responsible Investment; Miller/Howard
Investments, Inc.; Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate;
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, JPIC Office;
MomsRising; Mount St. Scholastica Monastery; Newground Social
Investment; NorthStar Asset Management, Inc.; Northwest
Coalition for Responsible Investment; Peace/Justice
Committee, Benedictine Sisters of FL; Progressive Asset
Management; Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment;
Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary WAP; S&C North America;
SC Ministry Foundation; School Sisters of Notre Dame
Cooperative Investment Fund; School Sisters of St. Francis.
Sinsinawa Dominican Peace and Justice Office; Sinsinawa
Dominican Shareholder Action Committee; Sisters of Bon
Secours USA; Sisters of Charity BVM; Sisters of Charity
Cincinnati; Sisters of Charity of New York; Sisters of
Charity of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of Charity, Halifax;
Sisters of Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament; Sisters of
O.L. of Christian Doctrine; Sisters of St. Dominic of
Blauvelt, NY; Sisters of St. Dominic of Caldwell, NJ; Sisters
of St. Dominic, Racine, WI; Sisters of St. Francis of
Philadelphia; Sisters of St. Joseph; Sisters of St. Joseph of
Boston; Sisters of St. Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia,
PA; Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange; Sisters of St. Joseph of
Springfield; Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
Sisters of the Holy Cross; Sisters of the Humility of Mary;
Sisters of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of the Incarnate Word
& Blessed Sacrament; Sisters of the Presentation; Sisters of
the Presentation of the BVM; Socially Responsible Investment
Coalition; Society of Mary (Marianists); SRI Investing LLC;
St. Jude League; Stardust; The Pension Boards--United Church
of Christ, Inc.; Trillium Asset Management; Trinity Health;
Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment; Unitarian
Universalist Association; United Church Funds; United
Methodist Women; University Presbyterian Church; Ursuline
Sisters of Tildonk, U.S. Province; Ursulines of the Roman
Union--Eastern Province; Veris Wealth Partners; Walden Asset
Management; Zevin Asset Management, LLC.
____
Consumers Union,
January 11, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McGovern: On behalf of Consumers Union,
the public policy and mobilization arm of nonprofit Consumer
Reports, I write to express our deep concern that the budget
resolution for fiscal year 2017 will begin a process that
could lead to the repeal of several key parts of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), and could result in tens of
millions of Americans losing vital health coverage and the
destabilization of insurance markets. As an organization
whose founding principles include ensuring access to quality,
affordable health coverage and care for all, Consumers Union
is concerned that this would jeopardize both the health and
financial stability of American families.
Consumers Union has a long history of working for a fairer
and more just marketplace for consumers. We believe all
Americans deserve care and coverage that is accessible,
affordable, understandable, fairly priced, and meets high,
uniform standards for quality and safety. The Affordable Care
Act was an important step towards this goal, allowing more
than 20 million consumers to purchase private insurance
through exchanges or benefit from the Medicaid expansion,
thus lowering the uninsurance rate in our nation to its
lowest point ever.
The ACA also includes a number of critical consumer
protections that benefit all consumers, regardless of the
source of their coverage. The law prevents insurers from
discriminating against consumers with pre-existing conditions
or charging them more for coverage, prohibits insurers from
imposing annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and ensures
coverage of a comprehensive package of essential health care
services. It also takes steps to measure and improve the
safety and quality of care received by all. Consumers Union
opposes legislative changes that would eliminate or weaken
these critical consumer protections.
A move to repeal the ACA without a simultaneous replacement
that, at minimum, maintains coverage for the number of people
currently covered and provides comparable consumer
protections would be irresponsible and affect every American
family. It could destabilize the individual market for those
who buy insurance for themselves, resulting in fewer choices
for consumers and sending premiums skyrocketing while
benefits shrink. Consumers do not want to go back to a time
in which health insurers ran unchecked and insurance coverage
was out-of-reach and unreliable for so many Americans.
Consumers Union strongly urges you to oppose the repealing
of the Affordable Care Act.
Sincerely,
Laura MacCleery,
Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization, Consumer
Reports.
____
Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association,
January 12, 2017.
Hon. Elizabeth Warren,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. E. Richard Neal,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Niki Tsongas,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Katherine M. Clark,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael E. Capuano,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. William Keating,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Edward J. Markey,
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim McGovern,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joseph P. Kennedy, III,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Seth W. Moulton,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Stephen F. Lynch,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Members of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation:
On behalf of our member hospitals and health systems, the
Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association (MHA) opposes
the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). MHA is a
founding member of the new Massachusetts Coalition for
Coverage and Care that was formed to preserve and improve
access to health insurance coverage in Massachusetts and to
protect the gains in access to care, health, and health
equity that have resulted from near universal coverage. We
stand ready both as an individual organization and as a
coalition member to provide you the information and resources
you will need to oppose efforts to repeal the ACA.
As you know, Massachusetts has been a pioneer in expanding
health coverage over the years, including our state's
historic 2006 health reform law that served as a model for
the ACA. We believe our state serves as an example of how the
ACA's approach to expanding access to affordable health
coverage can be successful nationally if given the time and
support it deserves. With 10 years now passed since then-
Governor Mitt Romney signed our initial health reform
initiative into law, we can proudly say that the commonwealth
is better off than where we stood in 2005. We know we share
this sentiment with other Massachusetts healthcare providers,
insurers, the employer community, government leaders, and,
most importantly, Massachusetts consumers and families. With
time, support, and improvements to the ACA, we know the
country will value and appreciate the full benefits of
ensuring access to affordable health coverage to all citizens
as well as creating an environment for our health system to
better manage its resources and deliver high-quality care.
While we were successful in achieving expanded coverage
prior to the ACA, it took time and the collective effort of
all stakeholders to achieve the reductions in uninsured.
Expanding Medicaid was essential to providing coverage to the
poorest individuals in our society. First through waivers and
then through the ACA, the federal government has played an
instrumental role in supporting coverage to economically
challenged Massachusetts residents. Approximately 300,000
individuals now are covered due to the ACA's Medicaid
expansion, many of whom would otherwise be unable to afford
health insurance in the commercial market even with
government subsidies.
Since 2006, our state's health insurance exchange has
consistently served as a dynamic marketplace for those
purchasing insurance in the small group and non-group market.
In Massachusetts, we have modified our exchange to conform to
the ACA and it remains as robust as it did 10 years ago. The
state's Health Connector has experienced broad participation
from many health insurers, with 10 insurers currently
offering 62 insurance products. Lower and middle income
individuals have relied on the exchange for the past decade
to shop for affordable health coverage, benefitting from
subsidy support, which now comes in the form of federal tax
credits and co-payment subsidies. More than 234,000
individuals purchased their insurance coverage through the
state's exchange in December, including more than 190,000
with the support of federal advanced premium tax credits.
Another 1,300 small groups covering more than 6,000 lives
also purchased insurance in the exchange.
The effect of these expansions in reducing the number of
uninsured has been well documented. According to the United
States Census Bureau, Massachusetts had 97.2% of its
population covered with health insurance in 2015 compared to
89.3% for the three-year average between 2002 and 2005. This
coverage expansion had its greatest effect on people with
great healthcare needs, working adults with disabilities,
younger adults, people with low incomes, and women--all who
gained coverage at a faster rate than the general population.
And while there are many statistics that highlight the
achievements made in expanding coverage, there has been a
tremendous positive effect on individual lives
[[Page H486]]
as result of better access to care. Researchers have found
improvements in physical health, mental health, functional
limitations, joint disorders, and body mass index for those
in Massachusetts, especially for those with low incomes,
minorities, near-elderly adults, and women. Individuals here
and around the country also no longer fear not being able to
access health coverage due to pre-existing conditions or
having inadequate health coverage during their times of
medical need.
The cost of providing care to the uninsured also has been
significantly reduced due to reform. In Massachusetts, our
state's Uncompensated Care Pool covered hospital care for
low-income uninsured and underinsured residents for decades.
In FY2005 hospital uncompensated care costs totaled $702
million, or $992 million adjusting for inflation. This
financial burden to hospitals, insurers, and government was
yet another reason to address affordable coverage for low-
income residents so care could be better managed with
insurance coverage, including Medicaid. Hospital costs in the
program's successor, now called the Health Safety Net, was
$407 million in FY2016--or 59% percent less than prior to our
2006 reform adjusting for inflation. While there have been
some changes to the program over the years, undoubtedly the
most significant contributor to this reduction has been the
expansion of coverage. Also, it is impossible to calculate
the unknown potential for increased numbers of uninsured if
affordable health insurance had not been introduced in 2006
and maintained for the past 10 years.
A repeal of the ACA would turn back the clock here in
Massachusetts. Attempting to revert back to our Massachusetts
coverage programs that existed before the ACA would not be
accomplished easily and would involve significant challenges
related to the federal support needed for the current level
of coverage as well as hospital uncompensated care for
uninsured residents. The current subsidized insurance
offerings in the state's Connector exchange are now built off
of the ACA federal tax credit approach, and the financing of
that coverage is heavily dependent on federal funding. On the
Medicaid side, the ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility even in
states like Massachusetts that had higher levels of Medicaid
coverage through waivers. Massachusetts would likely need to
seek a waiver to maintain that coverage through Medicaid if
the ACA expansions were repealed. Of great concern, losing
the ACA's enhanced federal Medicaid funding for these
expansions would be a significant issue as the MassHealth
program is already facing financial challenges with growing
enrollment and reimbursement cuts to hospitals and other
providers.
The ACA also ushered in profound innovations that have
improved how healthcare is paid for and delivered. These
enhancements improved quality of care, improved value,
enhanced integration and collaborations in delivering care,
and expanded preventive health screening. And other federal
statutes, like meaningful use electronic medical record
changes and the new Medicare physician payment law (MACRA),
are designed to integrate with the ACA for success. The ACA
included many less well known provisions that have improved
the integrity of our healthcare system, such as the
``sunshine'' act provisions which greatly improved
transparency in the financial relationships between
clinicians and manufacturers. These are only a handful of the
examples of how significantly the ACA has changed the way we
deliver healthcare and, either directly or indirectly, has
led to improvements in access and quality for everyone.
As you know, our hospitals are also in the midst of
responding to an opioid use crisis, increased prescription
drug prices, a behavioral health system in drastic need of
repair, and an aging patient population--all with limited
financial resources. The Massachusetts healthcare system is
also focused on improving the delivery of care and achieving
cost savings through increased care coordination. The ACA
aligns financial incentives and alternative payments as
levers for improving healthcare quality while driving down
costs. Without comprehensive health coverage, progress on all
of these efforts will be seriously challenged.
In dollar terms the picture is very clear if the ACA were
to be repealed--especially since a large part of the funding
for the ACA came from payment cuts to hospitals, and since
those cuts may continue despite repeal of essential ACA
components. A recent study commissioned by the American
Hospital Association (AHA) and Federation of American
Hospitals (FAH) found that hospitals stand to lose $289.5
billion in Medicare inflation updates alone from 2018 to 2026
if the payment cuts in the ACA are continued, and estimated
further hospital losses of $102.9 billion if Medicare and
Medicaid disproportionate share hospital reductions are
retained. The effect of these losses in Massachusetts would
be $12.3 billion over this time period, according to the
study. The report also estimates that nationwide insurance
coverage losses without a replacement would have an
additional $165.8 billion financial impact on hospitals in
this same time period. The AHA/FAH analysis also estimates
the cumulative federal payment reductions to hospital
services that have been imposed through other actions
subsequent to, and independent of, the ACA; these cuts total
another $148 billion nationally from 2010 to 2026, and come
on top of the ACA cuts.
The ACA, like Medicare in 1965, has had its growing pains,
but the benefits of the ACA far exceed any ongoing problems.
As with any comprehensive law it has been a work in progress.
We are still trying to review all the potential aspects of
what repeal might mean, but simply getting beyond the key
threats of repeal is difficult; the effect on coverage and on
the Medicaid waiver programs, the end of quality initiatives,
and the great hospital financial hit of not reversing the
cuts in place to pay for expansion are all extraordinarily
troubling. To our knowledge, no proposal has been floated
that would actually maintain insurance coverage that now
currently exists as a result of the ACA, or that would
continue the quality and delivery system improvements now
underway.
Our hospitals, and the thousands of healthcare employees in
the commonwealth, are on the frontline of providing some of
the best healthcare in the world. Every day Americans see the
importance of access to high-quality, cost-effective
healthcare, and millions more are insured because of the ACA.
We will work with you to ensure that affordable health
coverage is sustained so that our efforts can continue to
focus on the payment and delivery reforms which remain
underway.
Sincerely,
Lynn Nicholas,
MHA President & CEO.
____
January 12, 2017.
Congressman Jim McGovern,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McGovern: We write today on behalf of
adults and children, persons with lived experience, family
members, providers, and organized labor that make up the
mental health and addiction disorders advocacy community to
urge you to strongly oppose any major restructuring of the
Medicaid program.
A study done by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) concluded that one in five
Americans experience a mental illness or addiction in any
given year. The number of adults and children in the
Commonwealth who need behavioral health care services is
staggering. In 2015 in Massachusetts, about 4.2% of all
adults aged 18 or older had a serious mental illness within
the year prior to being surveyed; 46.2% of these individual
did not receive any mental health treatment/counseling during
that time period.
Massachusetts and the United States as a whole are in the
midst of an unprecedented opioid epidemic. In Massachusetts,
an estimated 1475 individuals died from January 2016 to
September 2016. The first 9 months of 2016 saw a higher
opioid overdose rate than the first 9 months of 2015.
Nationwide, more people died from drug overdoses in 2014 than
in any year on record, and the majority of drug overdose
deaths (more than six out of ten) involved an opioid.
We know that recovery is possible for these individuals
with effective treatment and supports, which is why
preserving Medicaid funding for vital treatment services is
so important.
In 2014, spending by Medicaid accounted for 25% of all
mental health spending in the U.S. and 21% of all substance
use disorder expenditures in the nation. People with
behavioral health conditions are nearly one-third of the ACA
expansion population.
Republican proposals to drastically restructure Medicaid
will shift costs onto states and enrollees, restrict access
to care, and increase the number of uninsured and
underinsured. The ultimate goal of re-financing Medicaid into
block grants/per capita caps is to massively cut the amount
of federal spending for Medicaid. According to House Speaker
Paul Ryan's proposed Medicaid plan, these proposed changes
would result in a total of $1 trillion in cuts to federal
Medicaid spending over the next ten years. Massachusetts
would then be forced to increase state spending on the
Commonwealth's Medicaid program, and/or reduce eligibility,
payments to providers, or benefits.
Proponents of the block grant/per capita cap approach have
argued that states would gain greater flexibility in
designing and managing their Medicaid programs. However,
block grants/per capita caps will not provide any greater
programmatic flexibility to states than they have under
current law. States currently work with CMS through the
section 1115 waiver process to tailor their Medicaid program
to fit the needs of their specific state.
We are especially concerned about how many of the proposals
being offered by the President-Elect and Republican members
of Congress will impact access to vital behavioral health
services. The pressure on state Medicaid programs and the
corresponding efforts to reduce funding and eligibility will
put mental health and substance use disorder services at
significant risk. The risk to behavioral health services is
so high because Massachusetts, like the rest of the nation,
is not required to cover mental health and addiction
treatment services as part of our state Medicaid program.
Over the past decade, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
implemented many reforms to improve health care delivery in
the Massachusetts. Despite these efforts, access to a robust
continuum of behavioral health services continues to be a
challenge for individuals living with a mental health and/or
addiction disorder. Any changes that result in reduced
funding for Massachusetts' Medicaid program will only
exacerbate this problem as Medicaid continues to be the
largest payer of these services across the Commonwealth.
[[Page H487]]
It is imperative that adults, children and families be able
to access the services they need, when they need them, where
they need them. These services should be person-centered,
outcome-oriented and clinically and cost effective. Massive
cuts to Medicaid funding will make the provisions of such
services almost impossible.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important
matter. Our organizations are available at your convenience
to answer any questions you or your staff may have in
relation to our letter.
Sincerely,
Vicker DiGravio III, President/CEO, Association for
Behavioral Healthcare; Monica Valdes Lupi, JD, MPH, Executive
Director, Boston Public Health Commission; Emily Stewart,
Executive Director, Casa Esperanza; Nancy Allen Scannell,
Children's Mental Health Campaign; Erin Bradley, Executive
Director, Children's League; Melody Hugo, Director,
Clinicians United; John McGahan, President/CEO, Gavin
Foundation & Recovery Homes Collaborative; Stephen Rosenfeld,
Interim Executive Director, Health Care For All; Matt Selig,
Executive Director, Health Law Advocates; David Matteodo,
Executive Director, Massachusetts Association of Behavioral
Health Systems; Danna Mauch, Ph.D., President/CEO,
Massachusetts Association for Mental Health; Steve Walsh,
President & CEO, Massachusetts Council of Community
Hospitals.
Georgia Katsoulomitis, Executive Director, Massachusetts
Law Reform Institute; Joseph Weeks, LMHC, President & Midge
Williams, LMHC Executive Director, Massachusetts Mental
Health Counselors Association; Maryanne Frangules, Executive
Director, Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery;
Mark J. Hauser, M.D., President, Massachusetts Psychiatric
Society; Mary McGeown, Executive Director, Massachusetts
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Laurie
Martinelli, LICSW, NAMI Massachusetts; Carol J. Trust, LICSW,
Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers--
MA Chapter; Lisa Lambert, Executive Director PPAL; Michael
Weekes, President & CEO, Providers Council; Peter MacKinnon,
President, SEIU 509; Siva Sundaram, Student Coalition on
Addiction.
____
UMass Memorial
Community Healthlink,
January 10, 2017.
Attn: Jennifer Chandler, Chief of Staff,
Hon. Representative Jim McGovern,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McGovern: On behalf of Community
Healthlink located in Worcester, Leominster and Fitchburg
Massachusetts, I am writing today to urge and request your
support in protecting the Affordable Care Act and preserving
Medicaid expansion in the 115th Congress.
We provide care to approximately 20,000 of the
Commonwealth's most vulnerable individuals. We deliver
outpatient mental health and substance abuse services,
residential programs for those with mental illness and
addiction, detoxification and stabilization services,
emergency services for Worcester and North Central
Massachusetts, for youth and adults. We also provide primary
care for a significant number of adults in addition to
services for the homeless in Worcester. The vast majority of
our patients are Medicaid eligible and many of the adults are
disabled due to mental illness. Though Massachusetts lead the
way with covering all of its citizens, at this point the ACA
provides a good deal of the funding that we need to continue
to provide this near universal coverage.
Recent health insurance data show that Americans with
mental health and substance use disorders are the single
largest beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid
expansion. Approximately one in three people who receive
health insurance coverage through the Medicaid expansion
either have a mental illness, substance use disorder or both
simultaneously. By repealing the Medicaid expansion, this
population of vulnerable American would be left without
access to lifesaving treatment, driving up costs in emergency
room visits and hospital stays.
Moreover, I am writing to urge your support for the
protection of the Medicaid program from proposals to
restructure Medicaid as a block grant or capped program.
These proposals would reduce federal investment in Medicaid
and leave millions of Americans without access to needed
mental health and addictions treatment in our state and
communities. Please work with your colleagues to protect our
nation's most vulnerable patient population and preserve
their access to treatment.
Thank you for your continued support. I would be honored to
help you in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Marie Hobart, MD,
Chief Medical Officer, Community Healthlink Clinical
Associate Professor of Psychiatry University of Massachusetts
Medical School.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the previous question, and that would allow us to vote on an amendment
by Mr. Pocan which would create a point of order against any
legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare
or Medicaid, or attempts to privatize Social Security.
So if you want to protect those programs, and if you are against
privatizing Social Security, then vote against the previous question so
we can bring this up.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a sad day because
what we are doing here by voting for this budget is setting in motion a
process to deny millions of people healthcare protections. I can't
imagine why anybody would want to do that.
Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No, and we are the first to admit
it. We want to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen it, to make it
better, and to make it less onerous on certain businesses. But my
colleagues don't want to do that. They are determined just to vote for
an outright repeal, and that is going to hurt countless people in this
country, people who have now benefited from no preexisting conditions,
people who have benefited from allowing their kids to stay on their
insurance until they are 26, and senior citizens who have benefited
from closing the doughnut hole. I could go on and on and on. All of
that is about to be eliminated.
We are told that there will be replacement someday, somehow. For 6
years--over 6 years--you have been talking about repealing the
Affordable Care Act and a replacement, and you haven't brought one bill
to the floor--not one.
Now, we believe that health care ought to be a right; I know you
don't. We believe that healthcare protections ought to be in law; you
believe they ought to be up to the insurance company. But this is a
lousy thing to do. As I said in my opening statement, we are going to
fight you on this. This is a fight worth having. Protecting people's
health care is something that we all should be dedicated to, and we're
going to fight you on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am fond of telling folks back home, Mr. Speaker, when they tell me
they know exactly what is going to happen over the next 2 years, that I
don't think they are telling me the truth. Because I confess to you, I
have absolutely no idea what is coming over these next 2 years. I think
these next 2 years are going to be unlike any we have seen in the
history of self-governance in this land; and, candidly, I am excited
about that because the status quo isn't working for the 700,000 people
that I represent.
I don't know what's going to happen over these next 2 years, but I
believe that, for the first time, we are going to grapple with some
really, really, really hard problems that folks on both sides of the
aisle have been ignoring for too long.
Mr. Speaker, I don't question the commitment of my friends on the
other side of the aisle to the American people. I question the
legislation that they use to deliver it. You heard my friend from
Oklahoma talk about premiums going up 67 percent for his constituents.
That is indefensible. It is not okay. We can do better, and, with the
passage of this budget resolution, we will have the tools to do that. I
say again, the law will be the same tomorrow as it is today, but we
will have the tools to grapple with these problems.
Eight million Americans were so failed by the Affordable Care Act
that they paid a tax penalty instead of accessing care. That is not
okay. I don't believe a single Member on the other side of the aisle
decided they just wanted to tax young people instead of provide young
people with quality care. This budget will give us the opportunity to
have the tools to fix that problem.
Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, have gone into State-based co-ops
that have failed, gone bankrupt, and terminated all of their plans
which not only ripped health care out from under the American people,
Mr. Speaker, but threw billions of dollars away in administrative costs
at the same time. That is not okay. That is indefensible. We can do
better. Passing this budget resolution will give us those tools.
Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment in the Rules Committee last night to
do everything I could to stop poisoning the well of public discourse.
Then I re-
[[Page H488]]
upped for the Rules Committee, and I realized that is going to be a
tough promise to fulfill. We have difficult work to do, and we are
passionate about the quality of that work.
But, Mr. Speaker, we all know the status quo has failed. We all know
that we have the opportunity to deliver, and we all know that a vote of
``yes'' on this budget resolution will give us more tools to deliver
that success than we have today. We need to do this. We need to
celebrate doing this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and support the
two underlying measures that it will bring to the floor.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a Budget Resolution later
today that makes it possible to take away health coverage from tens of
millions of people.
But the Democrats know that this is just the beginning.
Congressional Republicans have started their plans to not just repeal
the Affordable Care Act, but to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security.
Republican proposals would threaten nursing home coverage for
millions of seniors, undermine comprehensive health care for children
by cutting Medicaid, and slash benefits earned after years of hard
work.
The CPC and Congressional Democrats will not stand for this. That is
why we introduced an amendment that would ensure the Budget Resolution
we are voting on today or any future bill can't be used to cut benefits
from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, increase the retirement age
for these benefits, or privatize Social Security.
But, the majority is not allowing debate or a vote on our amendment.
This sends a clear message: Congressional Republicans are willing to
put the lives and futures of millions of children, seniors and working
families at risk.
It also puts them on the wrong side of history. Cutting Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security is not what the American people want.
President-elect Trump has promised several times that he will not
support cuts to these important programs that help millions of
Americans make ends meet.
This leaves Congressional Republicans in a tough spot. Whose side are
they on?
Will they commit to protecting hard-working Americans? Will they
protect America's children? Seniors? What about people with
disabilities?
Or, will they yet again cut the benefits of working people so they
can give tax breaks to big corporations?
The Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Democrats will not
back down. We will oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security.
I urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so
we can bring up the CPC amendment to block the House GOP from cutting
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Will House Republicans stand with us?
Today, 55 million older people and people with disabilities have
health care because of Medicare.
82 percent of Americans--including 74 percent of Republicans, 88
percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents--agree it is
critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it
means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.
In 2015, 11 million Americans became newly eligible for Medicaid
thanks to Medicaid expansion.
If Republicans repeal the ACA, at least 11 million people's Medicaid
coverage will be at risk.
The House Republican budget plan far fiscal year 2017 would have cut
federal Medicaid funding by $1 trillion--or nearly 25 percent--over ten
years. That is in addition to ending Medicaid expansion.
The Urban Institute estimated that the 2012 Ryan proposal would lead
states to drop between 14.3 million and 20.5 million people from
Medicaid by the tenth year, in addition to the effects of repealing
health reform's Medicaid expansion.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 48 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, following general debate on Senate Concurrent
Resolution 3 and prior to consideration of the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, the amendment specified in section 4 shall
be in order if offered by Representative Pocan of Wisconsin
or a designee. Such amendment shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendment are
waived.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
At the end of the concurrent resolution, add the following:
SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BREAK
DONALD TRUMP'S PROMISE NOT TO CUT SOCIAL
SECURITY, MEDICARE, OR MEDICAID.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report that would--
(1) result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits scheduled
under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.);
(2) increase either the early or full retirement age for
the benefits described in paragraph (1);
(3) privatize Social Security;
(4) result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for
individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under the
Medicare program under title XVIII of 18 such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395 et seq.); or
(5) result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for
individuals enrolled in, or eligible to receive medical
assistance through, a State Medicaid plan or waiver under
title XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 5 et seq.).
(b) Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--Subsection (a) may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under subsection (a).
(c) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a
point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the rule or order,
as applicable. The question of consideration shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point
of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall
otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has
no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.
Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative
Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th
edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the
previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is
generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority
Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . When
the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of
the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to
ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then
controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or
yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
[[Page H489]]
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 179, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 55]
YEAS--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--179
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Costa
Crist
Crowley
Evans
Frankel (FL)
Huffman
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Meeks
Moore
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Suozzi
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Young (AK)
Zinke
{time} 1047
Messrs. DOGGETT and CLYBURN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. BRADY of Texas, SMITH of New Jersey, and JORDAN changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 56]
AYES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
[[Page H490]]
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Crowley
Frankel (FL)
Huffman
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Suozzi
Zinke
{time} 1053
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to vote during the following
rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following
manner. On vote roll No. 55, I would have voted ``nay.'' On vote roll
No. 56, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________