[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 51 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2353-H2360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
 RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 221 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 221

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of March 27, 2017.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of March 26, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my dear 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.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met for some 13 hours, 
maybe a little bit more, where we were tasked with the opportunity to 
bring forth from the Republican Conference the new bill that is to 
replace the Affordable Care Act. That discussion involved us taking 
testimony from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Kevin 
Brady; the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden; 
and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mrs. Black. It also involved 
three other ranking members for those committees. They assembled up in 
the Rules Committee.
  We had a very vigorous and open debate about the bill, about the 
effects of the bill, about the things which were occurring within the 
Republican majority dealing with the United States Senate and dealing 
with the President of the United States. All three are necessary to 
agree upon a bill if we are to sign it into law.
  There was a vigorous demand from Democrats to know more information, 
and I believe I forthrightly attempted to answer those questions. We 
did not have all the pieces of the puzzle together. We recognized that 
by the evening hour. So by 11 p.m. last night, upon my consultation 
with Ranking Member McGovern, I made a decision that we would not stay 
up during the evening, we would ask that we would come back today. So 
we did not actually complete our work last night.
  I am here today because last night the Rules Committee issued a rule 
that would be a same-day rule. The issues really don't change. The 
facts of the case really don't change. Information is necessary for us 
to make an informed decision. That is a change.
  I have told the gentleman, Mr. McGovern. I have told the gentlewoman, 
the former Speaker, the leader of the Democrat Party, Ms. Pelosi. I 
have told Mr. Hoyer in a direct dialogue that we had that I would do my 
best to make sure that we answer the questions that would be necessary. 
The gentleman, Mr. McGovern, who very ably represents his party, 
understood that I did not have all the answers that I needed.
  So we are here today with the opportunity to say we are going to do a 
same-day rule. We are going to try to pass this rule. We are going to 
try to explain what we are doing. We are going to allow my team, our 
Republican Conference, to get back together today because they, too, 
want to know what is the final deal.
  That is what my conference is doing right now. They are in this 
building, several hundred Members of Congress, talking, debating, 
understanding, listening, compromising, yes, on a way that we can 
approach a chance to change what we see as one of the most devastating 
pieces of legislation to the economy, to the healthcare system, and, 
quite honestly, to the standing of America as the greatest country in 
the world. We think we have to make changes.
  But today we are here right now to say that we don't have all those 
answers. A complete agreement was not available by the time I chose to 
end the matter last night in the Rules Committee. So rather than 
staying up all night, we are here today. We will be back here today. 
This is not the debate about the bill. More information is needed. An 
agreement is needed from my party. And when we reach that agreement, I 
will then come back.
  But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, my party intends to bring 
forth an agreed-to bill that we will be able to show to the American 
people, and we will own it. We are very capable of saying that we 
believe that market forces, we believe that free right of individuals, 
we believe that free physicians and opportunities exist and abound, and 
we will bring that to the floor, and we will openly debate it.
  Much is being said about a Congressional Budget Office report that 
has caused much fear. Unrightly? No, I can't say that. But it is 
certainly explainable.
  Mr. Speaker, I will start right now. The bottom line is that there 
are some 30 million people who are uninsured in the United States of 
America, 30 million people who did not find a home or chose not to take 
a government-provided available system that is called the Affordable 
Care Act. Even more people included within that are paying a penalty of 
several thousand dollars rather than taking that healthcare system, 
that availability. So we believe the right thing to do is not to force 
anybody, not to have mandates, not to penalize people, but, rather, to 
make available to them opportunities where it is their decision about 
what they would do.
  The corresponding facts of the case are real simple. The 
Congressional Budget Office said: Fine, if you don't force people to do 
it, then some 24 million people won't do it within the next 7 years.

[[Page H2354]]

  Well, there are 30 million people today that do not have it and not 
taking it. So to go from 30 million to 24 million will be a very 
interesting task for us to understand.
  Mr. Speaker, no freedom is free. But if we engage in telling the 
American people that Washington, D.C., knows better than they do, then 
that is a false promise--is a false promise that our friends, the 
Democrats, tried and actually failed at.
  So Republicans, in order to put together their plan--yes, even with 
the consequences of a ``CBO report that say there will be 24 million 
people who are uninsured,'' that is probably right, because they chose 
not to accept what would be an equal opportunity for them to take what 
might be called a tax credit that equals some $8,000 for a family of 
four, allowing them straight up to purchase their own health care for 
their family. But if they choose not to do it, that is their business.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my attributes is I come from Dallas, Texas. And 
Dallas, Texas, for all the great things that we have about us, we think 
that some of the great things come from the way we believe. We deeply 
believe we are in some ways a very open city. We have many different 
thought processes, many people, but we respect each other and don't try 
to tell each other what to do. It creates a flourishing environment 
about ourselves where, when we get in trouble, we stick together; when 
we see trouble, we ban together. But we tend not to tell each other 
what to do in our own lives. That is one thing that I think makes us a 
little bit different. We do not count on government to do the things 
that we should do for ourselves.

  That is part of the freedom model that I buy off on and part of what 
we are offering--the Republican Party--today for the American people 
rather than mandates, dictates, fines, the IRS and all sorts of other 
government organizations that we could throw in a person's way simply 
to tell them what to do. We reject that notion. We will, as quickly as 
possible, bring about a bill that we can explain, that we will own, and 
that we will pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 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 thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we aren't here to debate the government healthcare 
repeal plan. We aren't here to debate that because Republican 
leadership and the White House are huddled behind closed doors as we 
speak, making deals that will have very real, very serious, very 
dangerous consequences for millions of Americans.
  Instead, we are here to debate a martial law rule that will allow 
Republicans to rush their bill with its brand-new backroom deals to the 
floor today without any proper deliberation. As a matter of fact, it 
would let them rush any bill to the floor today, or any day through 
Monday.
  It is a blanket martial law rule that lasts past the weekend--not 
specific to their healthcare bill, and not even specific to the topic 
of health care.
  What other bills could they be contemplating considering?
  We saw the Buffalo bribe is already in the manager's amendment, but 
this rule lets them bring up any other bill before the public has a 
chance to even know what it is. Maybe something on the Russia 
investigation, perhaps? I have seen a lot of news on that lately. Or 
maybe we will give President Trump's friend Putin a Congressional Gold 
Medal. It is the least the Republicans could do after his help with the 
election.
  But let's talk about what we have learned so far in the press. We 
first learned from news reports last night that Republicans were 
considering changes to the bill that would kill the essential health 
benefits in current law. Now, let me say that again. Essential, as in 
``absolutely necessary; extremely important,'' as defined by the 
dictionary.
  And, sure enough, we reported out this martial law rule in the dark 
of night, which will allow Republicans to bring the new and unimproved 
version of the bill--again, now with even more backroom deals--to the 
Rules Committee later today, or in the dead of night, and take it 
straight to the floor. Apparently, there is no time to even have it sit 
for 1 day so that Members can read it, let alone get analysis from the 
nonpartisan experts at CBO.
  Are they hoping that if they move quickly enough, no one will figure 
out what they are up to?
  Well, let me lay it out for everybody. Essential health benefits 
require insurance plans to cover basic essential benefits, such as 
emergency services, maternity care, mental health care and substance 
abuse treatment, pediatric services, and prescription drugs.
  Now, The New York Times this morning pointed out that this late-
breaking Republican proposal could lead to plans that cover 
aromatherapy, but not chemotherapy.
  I mean, really? Are Republicans seriously contemplating making a 
change this massive without hearings? Without a markup? No CBO estimate 
of the impact? No chance to read the bill?
  I have seen a lot in my years here, but this is truly unbelievable. 
You guys take my breath away.

                              {time}  0930

  That is not even considering the already dangerous bill we were 
supposed to be down here considering right now. Let me just make it 
clear what that bill actually is.
  First, it is a massive tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, 
paid for by taking health insurance away from 24 million people, 
period. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to look at any unbiased analysis of 
the bill knows that this is true: massive tax cuts for the well-off at 
the expense of 24 million people.
  Now, let me paint a picture of how big that number is:
  Twenty-four million people is basically the entire population of the 
country of Australia.
  It is more people than live in the States of Kansas, New Mexico, 
Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode 
Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, 
Wyoming, and the District of Columbia, combined.
  You know how I know this bill is a tax giveaway for the wealthy, and 
it is not a healthcare bill? Because, according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office--and this is truly incredible--it would 
actually result in more people uninsured than if the Affordable Care 
Act were simply repealed. Let that sink in for a minute.
  Second, their bill would cause people to pay more in terms of out-of-
pocket expenses, and in return, they will get lower quality health 
insurance. That is right. Republicans are asking people to pay more for 
less coverage. In particular, lower income and older Americans will see 
their costs skyrocket--those people who can least afford to pay more.
  Third point, and this is a big one, the bill guts Medicaid and 
Medicare. Now, don't take it from me. The AARP said: ``This bill would 
weaken Medicare's fiscal sustainability, dramatically increase 
healthcare costs for Americans aged 50 to 64, and put at risk the 
health care of millions of children and adults with disabilities, and 
poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program for long-term services 
and supports and other benefits.'' That is the AARP.
  In fact, Americans aged 50 to 64 will pay premiums five times higher 
than what others pay for health coverage no matter how healthy they 
are. This bill is an age tax, plain and simple, and Republicans are 
cutting $880 billion from Medicaid. That is a 25 percent cut in 
funding.
  All this to give tax cuts to the rich and to corporations. The bill 
must look like a cruel joke to the most vulnerable among us.
  Representative Mo Brooks, a member of the Republican Conference said 
just the other night: ``Quite frankly, I'm persuaded that this 
Republican healthcare bill . . . long-term, is a detriment to the 
future of the United States of America.''
  Finally, even before imposing martial law last night, this process 
was horrendous. The Republican majority rushed their bill through the 
committee process without any hearings--none, zero--just holding 
marathon markups where no Democratic amendments were accepted--none, 
not one. They didn't even wait for a CBO score.

[[Page H2355]]

  Then, when the score finally came, it showed that the bill would kick 
24 million people off their insurance. Did they stop then? No, of 
course not.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, we rushed ahead with a cobbled-
together manager's amendment--I am sorry, four cobbled-together 
manager's amendments since the originals had errors and, again, no CBO 
score on the updated bill.
  Didn't my colleagues learn their lesson from last week?
  And even worse, the main manager's amendment, which we received just 
36 hours before our meeting, is so full of backroom deals, as I 
mentioned, like the Buffalo bribe, a cynical--likely unconstitutional--
agreement with wavering New York Republicans who know the Republican 
healthcare plan would devastate New York.
  And now they are saying: Don't worry. If you don't like this bill, it 
is just step one of three. You will get another chance to vote on 
health care during step three. Never mind that they can't give us the 
full slate of bills that are part of this mysterious step three.
  Or maybe I should just take Republican Senator Cotton's word for it. 
He said: ``There is no three-step plan. That is just political talk. 
It's just politicians engaging in spin.''
  Republican Ted Cruz from my colleague's State of Texas called the 
third prong of this three-bucket strategy ``the sucker's bucket.'' The 
sucker's bucket--that is your own Member calling you a sucker if you 
vote for this.
  We heard testimony all day yesterday and well into the night about 
how disastrous this bill would be for hardworking Americans. We heard 
about how countless major health organizations oppose this plan, from 
the American Medical Association to the American Hospital Association, 
to the National Rural Health Association, to the AARP, to the American 
Society of Addiction Medicine, to the National Alliance on Mental 
Illness, and I could go on and on and on and on.
  This reverse Robin Hood will steal from the working class and give to 
the wealthy. Under the Republican plan, $2.8 billion in tax breaks will 
go to the 400 richest families in America each year. My colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle seem to be rushing this through in hopes 
that no one will figure out that it is a tax break for the rich 
masquerading as a healthcare bill.
  Now we find ourselves on the floor debating a martial law rule that 
will take that reckless process from light speed to warp speed. Let me 
just remind my colleagues again that we are talking about people's 
lives here. I am pretty sure the middle class Americans, whom 
Republicans claim to be helping would be okay with delaying this 
reckless bill for a little while to give us a chance to find out what 
the impacts will be.
  Mr. Speaker, this process is beyond the pale. I am honestly still 
stunned that we are even here debating a martial law rule on 
legislation of this magnitude when changes to people's basic, essential 
health benefits are being contemplated without so much as a single 
hearing, let alone a CBO score. And again, we have no real clue what 
Republicans will be bringing to the floor later today.

  I am just going off what I read in the news since we haven't gotten 
any actual updates from the other side of the aisle, but this rule 
would allow them to bring anything to the floor today or tomorrow or 
Saturday or Sunday or Monday--literally anything.
  Will there be a new bill? Who knows.
  Will it even be on health care? Beats me.
  What mysterious changes are they contemplating that are so broad they 
can't even narrow their martial law authority down to the topic of 
health care?
  Please, please, I would ask my colleagues to slow down. Be 
thoughtful. This is not a game. You don't get extra points for being 
fast. This healthcare repeal affects millions upon millions upon 
millions of Americans.
  Don't jam a disastrous bill through the House with patched-up fixes. 
Wait for a revised CBO score. Listen to what members of your own 
Conference are saying. Or better yet, don't do this at all. Let's go 
back to the drawing board.
  It is clear Republicans never really had a plan to replace the 
Affordable Care Act. Don't pretend you did and then make our most 
vulnerable pay the consequences.
  This is a sad day. This is a sad day for this institution, but it is 
even a sadder day for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the chance for us to be here today means that a lot of 
people are going to have a lot of opinions, and I appreciate the 
gentleman having an opinion. He knows what we are doing. So do the 
American people.
  The American people are watching TV, and they are seeing where 
Republicans are huddling together and pushing this activity of health 
care, debating ideas right, really, before the American people, really, 
hundreds of TV shows.
  I have been on 15 or 20 myself where I am saying that the Republican 
replacement or repeal of ObamaCare is something we are taking our time 
to discuss. We are taking our time to make sure our colleagues 
understand it. We are taking time to be thoughtful. Otherwise, we would 
have just rushed it through.
  In fact, we took some 13 hours last night, yesterday, at the Rules 
Committee to do exactly that. Ms. Pelosi spent 3 hours before the Rules 
Committee, essentially talking about things that--we see things 
differently. She thinks she sees things differently than we do, and 
that is okay. It gave her a chance to have a debate opportunity. This 
is what this is all about. It does not bother me at all.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we want Members to have a chance to have 
their thoughts and ideas on the record, to take their time to be 
thoughtful about what we are doing. And it does matter.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Collinsville, Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a gentleman whom I came to 
Congress with in the 105th Congress. The gentleman is from the 15th 
District of Illinois and served our country as a veteran. He was a West 
Point graduate, and he is a really good guy.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important day, and I have great 
friends on the other side of the aisle. We debated aggressively, and, 
in fact, I see one of my colleagues from California. We spent 27\1/2\ 
hours dealing with our committee of jurisdiction's markup of the bill.
  It has been a long time since ObamaCare was passed, 7 years, and 
those of us on our side said: Well, we didn't keep the insurance plan 
they said we were able to keep, we didn't get to keep the doctor that 
they promised we could have, we didn't save the $2,500 a month that was 
promised would be the savings if we passed ObamaCare.
  So I would argue, we have been very patient--7 years--and I think the 
public has been very patient. The public has judged ObamaCare through a 
couple of election cycles and has claimed failure. So we are on, as we 
call it, a rescue mission, because right now premiums have increased 25 
percent, on average, across the country; one-third of U.S. counties 
have only one insurer; 4.7 million Americans were kicked off their 
health plan; and $1 trillion in new taxes.
  Out of the 23 ObamaCare CO-OPs--I love co-ops. I am from rural 
America. We believe in co-ops. They are not-for-profits. Out of the 23 
ObamaCare CO-OPs, 18 failed. It shows you it is not working: $53 
billion in new regulation costs; 176 million hours of paperwork.
  So what do we do? Republicans believe in transparency. We believe in 
markets. We believe in competition. We believe in what we are calling 
cooperative federalism: returning power to the States.
  We are seeing that in part of the Medicaid proposals, allowing the 
engines of our country, the States--some have been very, very 
successful in reforming the Medicaid programs, providing first-dollar 
coverage, and some

[[Page H2356]]

have not. Hopefully, they will learn from the other States.
  We also want to empower the individuals in the individual markets. 
One-size-fits-all, mandatory--you have to have one of only four plans--
has destroyed the individual market.
  So 7 years is too long to wait. I appreciate us moving aggressively. 
Time is of the essence. We are on a rescue mission, and this is just 
another path in the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Illinois, but let me 
just say to him that the Republican plan is not a rescue mission. It is 
a full-fledged attack on the middle class--a rescue plan for the rich, 
maybe, slamming the middle class with a tax hike.
  Ripping away coverage and undermining Medicare is not a rescue 
mission, I assure you. I have seen the townhalls around the country. 
They want nothing to do with your rescue plan.
  Rescuing something you sabotaged, offering Americans a plan that 
costs more and covers less, going after essential services--please, 
that is not what the American people want.
  To my colleague from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, he is assuring us that Republicans are huddled somewhere. 
Well, I have got news for him. I have been reading press reports that 
Republicans have canceled their 9 a.m. Conference meeting. As I 
understand it, one Republican Member told the reporter that that move 
``tells me it's panic time.''

                              {time}  0945

  Another Republican source is quoted as saying: This is such a 
disaster. Representative Massie said: Frankly, it is not very well 
thought out.
  So I don't think people are huddling. I think people are dispersed, 
and so it makes me even more wary about what we are going to see later 
today.
  By the way, all we are asking is that we actually see the bill. We 
had a Rules Committee hearing yesterday on a bill that, quite frankly, 
will not be the bill we are going to consider later today or tomorrow 
or Saturday or Sunday or Monday.
  We are talking about health care that affects millions and millions 
of people, and nobody in this Chamber has seen what we are going to 
vote on. This is ludicrous. How can this be? What are you thinking? Do 
this right. There is no rush. You don't get extra points for being 
fast.
  When we read about some of the compromises that are being talked 
about--going after essential services that basically help the most 
vulnerable in this country, services like mental health treatment, 
treatments for opiate addiction, maternity care--essential benefits are 
being compromised or being taken away. So what will end up happening is 
you will get up and say: Yeah, we will sell you insurance. It will be 
cheap, but you get no coverage. Nothing is covered.
  That is not what the American people want.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans and President Trump 
will try to keep a political promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
despite the plainly obvious and harmful impact this bill would have on 
hardworking Americans.
  It is really sad that, after 7 years, my friends on the other side of 
the aisle still don't have a bill that they are publicizing, that we 
can read, that we can carefully analyze. It is sad that we can't work 
together on this.
  This Republican bill would raise premiums while increasing out-of-
pocket costs, forcing Americans to pay more for less coverage, attack 
women's health, threaten retirement savings, force those over age 50 to 
pay thousands more because of the age tax, and cause 14 million 
Americans to lose health insurance next year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, In my district alone, 76,700 would lose 
coverage, including nearly more than 5,000 children and nearly 18,000 
adults with employer-sponsored coverage.
  This isn't health reform. It is a political game. Lives are at stake. 
I hope we vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am delighted that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) came down. She, not unlike many of those in her party, are 
intensely interested in making sure that the American people are going 
to get the opportunity to have something that I have always said is 
equal to or better than.
  The bottom line is that families on ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care 
Act, today--and that includes almost every single Member of Congress, 
including myself and my family--did not get what we were told would 
happen. Much of the Affordable Care Act was not even decided and 
developed until after the bill was put together, and we knew that ahead 
of time. They told us it is going to take a couple of years for us to 
put this together. Right now, here, today, only about 24 out of 100 
physicians across this country even accept ObamaCare.
  The Republican plan is not simple, but it is easy to understand, and 
that is this: We allow every single person to stay on ObamaCare 2017, 
2018, and 2019. That is undeniably in the bill, and they know that.
  We are allowing every single American that does not, today, receive 
the tax benefit, the benefit that goes back to World War II, an untaxed 
benefit by employers--we are allowing every single American family to 
be able to receive a tax credit. You cannot use both. You cannot 
double-dip into another system. But we are allowing every single one of 
those families that, today, was completely excluded or chose not to 
take ObamaCare to receive a tax credit.
  That tax credit for families is important because, today, they are 
paying after-tax dollars if they choose to get health care. And 
tomorrow what we will do is allow up to $8,000 for a family of four--
that is $8,000 for a tax credit for a family--effective in November of 
a year to be able to, before they purchase their health care in 
January, to designate the first $8,000 to the healthcare plan of their 
choice. Well, that obviously doesn't fly well either because the 
Democrats want to tell people what they have to have.
  Most families don't need many things that are covered. Why should 
they pay for that? Oh, because the Democratic Party, Washington, D.C., 
says you have to. These are essential items.
  No, no, no. A family will be able to make their own decisions and not 
pay for what they don't need.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there always are at least two sides of the story. 
And it is true that what the Republican Party is going to do is allow 
people to make their own choice, but to give them the tools necessary. 
And if a family decides to do that, then they can; if they decide not 
to, they don't have to. Just like what is happening today where people 
are required to get health care but 30 million people are uninsured, 
figure that one out, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says the Republican bill is 
simple and easy to understand. My question is: Where the hell is it? 
Maybe it is under the table. We haven't seen it.
  Every time we get the bill, it changes. So maybe they ought to start 
with giving us the bill so people know what the bill would do.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues, this is a new 
analysis from the Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute's Healthy 
Policy Center that shows just how dramatically these tax cuts benefit 
the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and working class 
families. This bill really is a giveaway to the rich. This chart 
clearly illustrates that disparity.
  The rich would benefit greatly from the tax cuts in the bill, with a 
family making more than $200,000 receiving a $5,680 tax cut, and a 
family making more than a million dollars a year getting a $51,410 
break on their taxes. That is too high to even fit on the chart. 
Meanwhile, families making less than $50,000 will be paying the price.
  This bill really is a massive giveaway to the well-off and to the 
wealthy. This

[[Page H2357]]

is going to hurt the middle class. This is not what the American people 
want.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I never thought in coming to Congress that I 
would be voting on legislation that would take away health insurance 
from 24 million Americans, including my own constituents.
  The Speaker said that this legislation is an act of mercy. I think it 
is merciless. Every human being has a spark of divinity in them, and we 
dishonor that with this legislation. It is not worthy of the American 
people. There is less coverage, higher costs, elimination of essential 
services--not only for what people need day to day but for the 
unexpected. That is what insurance is all about.
  There is a crushing age tax for people between the ages of 50 and 64. 
What has happened to the GOP? Is it now ``get older people''?
  This does not deserve one vote in the House of Representatives. It is 
shameful, and it is immoral.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have at least two different sides up here, and people are entitled 
to believe whatever they want to believe. I am entitled to the same 
opinion of myself, also.
  There are also a set of answers and facts that need to be given, 
evidently, and that is, in fact, we do make changes in the bill to 
ObamaCare. We do.
  Mr. Speaker, the law, the way it was written, we have virtually few 
30-year-olds to 45-year-olds that actually pay for ObamaCare, the 
people we were told who needed it the most. The reason why is because 
it was dictated from Washington how to rate the coverage. In rating 
that coverage, it became so illogically expensive for a young person to 
pay an astronomical amount for their insurance, and even many times a 
higher value for their deductible, to where 30-year-olds, 35-year-olds, 
36-year-olds, 37-year-olds chose simply not to take the policy offered.
  So what do Republicans do? It is real simple. Here is what 
Republicans do: They allow the States the flexibility to determine what 
might be called a rating.
  And it is true that, now, people will be rated based upon their own 
actuarial experience of where they are in life, their age. Mr. Speaker, 
it is true that a 25-year-old, 30-year-old, 35-year-old needs less 
necessary intricate and expensive health care. And it is actuarially 
true that the older that we get--I celebrated my birthday yesterday. I 
get it. I am getting older, and I probably am a little more expensive 
at the doctor in things that I need, especially into my future.
  So what we did is we said where you have that rating system, we will 
allow more money through the tax credit system to adjust that so that a 
50- to 64-year-old will not be at a disadvantage because those, too, 
are the people we want in the healthcare plan.
  So we are actually going to add, by making it actuarially sound and 
attractive, a whole bunch of younger people; and we are going to 
recognize this balance, and we are going to provide more of an 
incentive to balance out for those who are older. That makes sense.
  It is also reality based, Mr. Speaker. But to say that someone is 
going to be paying more without us recognizing that and doing something 
about it would not be a fair argument.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna).
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and 
for yielding me the time.
  When the President campaigned, he said he wanted more benefits, more 
coverage, and lower premiums. Since he got to the White House, he said, 
well, health care is complicated; and they have tried to create a bill 
with the Republicans cobbling every special interest group and every 
faction.
  But the President knows it doesn't have to be complicated. He knows 
the solution. In 2000, he wrote that the Canadian plan, single-payer 
plan, helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. There 
are fewer medical lawsuits, less loss of labor to sickness, and lower 
cost to companies paying for medical care for their employees.
  He wrote further that, ``We, as a Nation, need to reexamine the 
single-payer plan;'' and he advocated for a single-payer plan.
  Mr. President, what has changed?
  You know what the solution is. If you are serious about health care, 
work with people like Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, and others, 
and offer a real solution to the American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this legislation described 
as a rescue mission and an act of mercy. Don't insult the intelligence 
of the American people. This bill is the cruelest and most immoral 
piece of legislation I have seen since I arrived in Congress. It will 
rip insurance from 24 million hardworking Americans, including 60,000 
Rhode Islanders. It will put $600 billion in tax breaks into the hands 
of the powerful, wealthy special interests.
  This is not a healthcare bill. This is a tax-cut bill. Let's call it 
what it is. It is going to produce higher costs, higher premiums, and 
more out-of-pocket expenses. It imposes a crushing age tax on older 
Americans. It ransacks funds that seniors rely on for long-term care, 
and it will destroy nearly 2 million jobs.
  All of this harm to the American people, to settle a political score, 
and to reward your friends and wealthy special interests. Shame on 
President Trump and shame on the Republican Party for doing this to the 
American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What a shame the gentleman was not here to vote for the Affordable 
Care Act when it took hold several years ago, and he would have known 
this is a bad deal.
  Mr. Speaker, even the American people cannot be fooled. The American 
people saw ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, waste billions of 
dollars simply to try and put together a computer system.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people understand it was a tax bill. It is 
about using the IRS, and they were going to add 17,000 employees, 
literally, to beat the brains out of the American people to force them 
into having health care from Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, no wonder Republicans won the majority several years 
ago. No wonder Republicans have saved the American people not only from 
the IRS, but from the massive taxes that were embedded within this huge 
government takeover of our healthcare system.
  The bottom line is that my colleagues have not yet met a tax they 
wouldn't be for. They have not yet built and grown these massive 
government organizations to the tune that they want to force the 
American people to do things. And they are having a difficult time 
understanding today why the American people--if given a choice and an 
opportunity and an advantage that would be fair for all Americans to 
have a tax credit, why that is something that people really want to 
see.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Trump may or may not have contemplated every single 
part of the healthcare issue, but I will tell you what he did 
understand. And that is, draining the swamp from a system that takes 
away your freedom, that saps the economic growth and vitality of this 
country, and that empowers the Internal Revenue Service is a bad idea.
  Mr. Speaker, having to qualify by going through the IRS to look at 
your records first to determine whether you qualify for a subsidy 
should be an embarrassment, and it was seen that way by the American 
people. Mr. Speaker, to guess at how much money and work you would have 
during the year, and then if you are wrong, pay up, was a system that 
did not work because many physicians across this country and many 
hospitals simply do not take ObamaCare. They are acting like it was a 
gift from God.
  Mr. Speaker, it did not work, and it does not work. The Republican 
Party is going to find a way, and we are going to get our act together, 
and we are

[[Page H2358]]

going to gleefully go and do the right thing. It is a process, Mr. 
Speaker. It is a long process. It actually does take the House, the 
Senate, and the President, and we are going to get our job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I feel bad for the 
gentleman from Texas for having to defend this lousy rule and this 
lousy bill all by himself. We have so many speakers here, we don't have 
enough time to accommodate them all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, since the ACA was enacted, California's 
uninsured rate has dropped by 54 percent. Over 263,000 people have 
gained coverage in the three counties in my district. But now my 
Republican colleagues want us to pass a replacement bill that will 
strip away health care for 24 million Americans.
  TrumpCare guts the Medicare program and creates a new, pre-broken 
system that rations health care for more than 76 million Americans. In 
my district alone, more than 64,000 people will lose coverage because 
of the provisions of the Republican replacement bill. It will take 
money away from our hospitals and eliminate 4,000 jobs in San Joaquin 
County alone. Working and middle class families will be forced to pay 
more for less. This will increase healthcare costs and decrease the 
quality of coverage available. Americans deserve access to quality 
healthcare coverage and health care that they can afford.
  I ask my Republican colleagues to withdraw this terrible bill and 
work across the aisle, for once, to improve the ACA that benefits all 
Americans. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss the rule for voting 
on TrumpCare, or RyanCare, or whatever they are calling it today, based 
on whoever is willing to put their name to it. But we learned upon 
arrival at work that the rules are that there are no rules.
  It is ``Lord of the Flies Day'' here in the House of Representatives. 
They want to make us vote on a bill that no one has even read. No one 
can find it. Anything goes. The whole process has been a disaster, a 
debacle, a mockery of democracy--no hearings, no witnesses, no experts, 
no process, no deliberation, and now no bill even.
  But the American people are saying ``no way.'' The polls show people 
are turning dramatically against that wreck of legislation that is 
missing in Washington today.
  Yesterday, we heard about the Buffalo Bribe, the Hudson Hustle, the 
Kinderhook Kickback, every manner to try to round up votes from Members 
who know their political careers are in danger for going anywhere near 
this bill.
  What do they propose to do?
  What we know is they want to kick 24 million Americans off their 
health care, destroy Planned Parenthood, and transfer $600 billion up 
the wealth ladder in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RASKIN. This legislation, however it turns out today, will crash 
the system, which is what their chief strategist, Steve Bannon, has 
said he wants to do. If a foreign power like the Russians proposed to 
do this to America, we would consider it an act of aggression and war 
against the American people.
  This bill is not a rescue mission, as they say. It is a wrecking 
ball, and we should put it to bed once and for all today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, and to my friends on the Republican side, you 
have got the perfect bill. It cuts taxes, $800 billion, largely at the 
high end. It cuts 24 million people off of health care. And it ends the 
Medicaid entitlement.
  What is the problem?
  Bring your bill up here. Now, what you have is not a healthcare bill. 
You have a tax-cut bill masquerading as a healthcare bill, and your 
hesitation is the collateral damage that you are going to do to the 
people who voted for you will become clear. To the hospitals in rural 
America we need, that damage will become clear. To the people age 50 to 
64, who are going to get hammered, hammered at a point in their life 
when, more than ever, they need health care, you are going to stick it 
to them. The people who supported you, the people who believed in you 
are the people you are turning your back on.
  I say, bring your bill up here. Vote it. Take ownership of what it is 
you are doing. I welcome your courage in telling rural America that 
they don't matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to come to the 
floor this morning to urge my Republican colleagues to stop hiding the 
TrumpCare bill. The American people and their Representatives deserve 
to know what is in the bill.
  But here is what we know so far. It rips coverage away from millions 
of our neighbors back home. It is a massive tax or cost increase for 
people's insurance, whether you have it through healthcare.gov or 
through your private employer. It imposes a significant age tax on our 
older neighbors back home. It cuts Medicare and shortens the life of 
the Medicare trust fund. It breaks the fundamental guarantee we have 
with our neighbors back home who are Alzheimer's patients, children 
with complex conditions, the disabled, under Medicaid, all to give a 
massive tax break to the wealthiest people in America.

  That is a failure in vision and a failure in values, and this bill 
should be hidden forever.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this merciless 
bill, ironically called a healthcare bill, would be disastrous for this 
country's health, and especially harmful to the people in my home State 
of New York.
  It will not expand access to health care, as promised. It will, 
instead, rip away healthcare insurance from 24 million people, 
including 2.7 million in New York City, people who already have health 
care. And it will not make premiums more affordable, as promised. It 
will, instead, raise premiums across this Nation. Premiums in New York 
would go up an estimated $1,000 next year alone.
  It cuts all Federal funding for a year for Planned Parenthood 
clinics, which serve women in need across this country. And to make an 
already bad bill even worse, this bill cuts nearly $5 billion in 
funding for New York's hospitals that serve some of our most vulnerable 
people.
  Voting for this bill is voting to cause sure and certain harm to 
millions of Americans. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we are considering a bill so bad it was 
kept under lock and key, hidden from Democrats and those Republicans 
who would not pledge allegiance to it; a bill that was so destructive 
that no witness would come to defend or explain it in all-night 
committee sessions; a bill jammed through this House, logically, you 
would expect this special rule to jam it through today.
  What is at stake here is not only the crumbling and destruction of 
health care, but it is the crumbling of our democracy.

[[Page H2359]]

  Our Republican colleagues need to remember that this is Washington, 
not Moscow. This is Congress, not the Duma.
  We deserve a fair consideration of this bill open to discussion 
because of its impact on millions of Americans who will lose their 
access to a family physician. These heavyhanded tactics reflect the 
fear of the American public getting an opportunity to look thoroughly 
at this bill and understand what it does to each family affected.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the Republicans are doing 
something that goes against what was promised in the campaign, and that 
was that everyone would have insurance, the insurance would be better, 
and it would cost less. But, instead, we are going in the opposite 
direction. Less people are going to have insurance; 24 million are 
being kicked off. It is going to cost more for the insurance, and you 
are going to get less insurance coverage than what you are paying for. 
It is a total disaster what they are trying to do here.
  Today, they are going to meet with the Freedom Caucus at 11:30, I 
understand, over at the White House. So the bill is going to get worse. 
Can you imagine that?
  If you have got fooled the first time, don't get fooled again. If 
someone tells you something that you know is not true or that you 
thought was true and you find out it is not true, don't fall for it 
again, Members. It is time for change in America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article from today's New 
York Times titled, ``Late GOP Proposal Could Mean Plans That Cover 
Aromatherapy But Not Chemotherapy.''

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 23, 2017]

 Late G.O.P. Proposal Could Mean Plans That Cover Aromatherapy But Not 
                              Chemotherapy

                        (By Margot Sanger-Katz)

       Most Republicans in Congress prefer the type of health 
     insurance market in which everyone could ``choose the plan 
     that's right for them.''
       Why should a 60-year-old man have to buy a plan that 
     includes maternity benefits he'll never use? (This is an 
     example that comes up a lot.) In contrast, the Affordable 
     Care Act includes a list of benefits that have to be in every 
     plan, a reality that makes insurance comprehensive, but often 
     costly.
       Now, a group of conservative House members is trying to cut 
     a deal to get those benefit requirements eliminated as part 
     of the bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act 
     moving through Congress. (The vote in the House is expected 
     later today.)
       At first glance, this may sound like a wonderful policy. 
     Why should that 60-year-old man have to pay for maternity 
     benefits he will never use? If 60-year-old men don't need to 
     pay for benefits they won't use, the price of insurance will 
     come down, and more people will be able to afford that 
     coverage, the thinking goes. And people who want fancy 
     coverage with extra benefits can just pay a little more for 
     the plan that's right for them.
       But there are two main problems with stripping away minimum 
     benefit rules. One is that the meaning of ``health 
     insurance'' can start to become a little murky. The second is 
     that, in a world in which no one has to offer maternity 
     coverage, no insurance company wants to be the only one that 
     offers it.
       Here is the list of Essential Health Benefits that are 
     required under the Affordable Care Act:
       Ambulatory patient services (doctor's visits)
       Emergency services
       Hospitalization
       Maternity and newborn care
       Mental health and substance abuse disorder services, 
     including behavioral health treatment
       Prescription drugs
       Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
       Laboratory services
       Preventive and wellness services, and chronic disease 
     management
       Pediatric services, including oral and vision care
       The list reflects some lobbying of the members of Congress 
     who wrote it. You may notice that dental services are 
     required for children, but not adults, for example. But over 
     all, the list was developed to make insurance for people who 
     buy their own coverage look, roughly, like the kind of 
     coverage people get through their employer. A plan without 
     prescription drug coverage would probably be cheaper than one 
     that covers it, but most people wouldn't think of that plan 
     as very good insurance for people who have health care needs.
       Under the Republican plan, the government would give people 
     who buy their own insurance money to help them pay for it. A 
     20-year-old who doesn't get coverage from work or the 
     government, for example, would get $2,000. If the essential 
     health benefits go away, insurance companies would be allowed 
     to sell health plans that don't cover, say, hospital care. 
     Federal money would help buy these plans.
       But history illustrates a potential problem.
       In the 1990s, Congress created a tax credit that helped 
     low-income people buy insurance for their children. Quickly, 
     it became clear that unscrupulous entrepreneurs were creating 
     cheap products that weren't very useful, and marketing them 
     to people eligible for the credit. Congress quickly repealed 
     the provision after investigations from the Government 
     Accountability Office and the Ways and Means Committee 
     uncovered fraud.
       Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at the 
     Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who tends 
     to favor market solutions in health care, said that while the 
     Obamacare rules are ``paternalistic,'' it would be 
     problematic to offer subsidies without standards. ``If 
     they're going to offer a tax credit for people who are buying 
     insurance, well, what is insurance?'' he said, noting that 
     you might end up with the government paying for plans that 
     covered aromatherapy but not hospital care. ``You have to 
     specify what's included.''
       A proliferation of $1,995 plans that covered mostly 
     aromatherapy could end up costing the federal government a 
     lot more money than the current G.O.P. plan, since far more 
     people would take advantage of tax credits to buy cheap 
     products, even if they weren't very valuable.
       There's another reason, besides avoiding fraud, that health 
     economists say benefit rules are important. Obamacare 
     requires insurers to offer health insurance to people who 
     have preexisting illnesses at the same price as they sell 
     them to healthy people, and the Republican bill would keep 
     this rule. But if an insurance company designs a plan that 
     attracts a lot of sick people, it will be very expensive to 
     cover them, and the insurance company will either lose money 
     or end up charging extremely high prices that would drive 
     away any healthy customers.
       Sherry Glied, the dean of the Robert F. Wagner Graduate 
     School of Public Service at New York University, who helped 
     work on the essential health benefits in the Obama 
     administration, raised the example of mental health benefits. 
     Parents of adolescents with schizophrenia will be sure to buy 
     insurance that covers only mental health services. Other 
     parents won't care about that benefit.
       The result: Any company offering such benefits will end up 
     with a lot of customers requiring expensive hospitalizations, 
     while its competitors that drop them will get healthier 
     customers who are cheaper to insure. If mental health 
     services are optional, no insurance company will want to 
     offer them, lest all the families with sick children buy 
     their product and put them out of business.
       And then healthy people who develop mental illness, or drug 
     addiction, will also learn that their illness isn't covered. 
     The result could be a sort of market failure: ``If you don't 
     require that these benefits are required, they often just get 
     knocked out of the market altogether,'' she said.
       Before Obamacare passed, there were few federal standards 
     for health insurance bought by individuals, and it was not 
     uncommon to find plans that didn't include prescription drug 
     coverage, mental health services or maternity care. But plans 
     tended to cover most of the other benefits. That was in a 
     world where health insurers could discriminate against sick 
     people. In that era, insurers in most states could simply 
     tell the mother of a mentally ill child that she couldn't buy 
     insurance. That made it less risky for insurers to offer 
     mental health benefits to everyone else.
       David Cutler, a professor at Harvard who helped advise the 
     Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act, said he 
     thinks the kind of insurance products that would be offered 
     under the proposed mix of policies could become much more 
     bare-bones than plans before Obamacare. He envisioned an 
     environment in which a typical plan might cover only 
     emergency care and basic preventive services, with everything 
     else as an add-on product, costing almost exactly as much as 
     it would cost to pay for a service out-of-pocket.
       ``Think of this as the if-you-have-rheumatoid-arthritis-
     you-should-pay-$30,000 provision,'' he said. Such a system 
     would mean that Americans with costly problems--cancer, 
     opioid addiction, H.I.V.--would end up paying a substantially 
     higher share of their medical bills, while healthy people 
     would pay lower prices for insurance that wouldn't cover as 
     many treatments.
       There is most likely a middle way. Republican lawmakers 
     might be comfortable with a system that shifts more of the 
     costs of care onto people who are sick, if it makes the 
     average insurance plan less costly for the healthy. But 
     making those choices would mean engaging in very real trade-
     offs, less simple than their talking point.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if we had actual text 
to look at right now, but, instead,

[[Page H2360]]

we are forced to rely on news reports, and what I am reading in the 
news is not good.
  The article that I just included in the Record also quotes a Harvard 
professor who says: ``Think of this as the if-you-have-rheumatoid-
arthritis-you-should-pay-$30,000 provision.''
  The article says that we could go back to a world where insurers 
could simply tell the mother of a mentally ill child that she couldn't 
buy insurance. It is ironic that the Republicans want to take away a 
woman's choice about a pregnancy, and then it looks like they are going 
to take away any insurance she needs for prenatal care or maternity 
care.
  What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? What will we be asked to vote on 
later today? If these sorts of dangerous ideas are being considered, 
we, the American people, deserve to know. Twenty-four million people 
are going to lose their insurance under the proposal the Republicans 
are considering. People will pay more and get less. There will be huge 
tax cuts for the rich. Again, we don't even have the final text. This 
is awful. This is unacceptable.
  I will remind my colleagues that this is about the American people. 
Put the people of this country ahead of your party, ahead of your 
ideology, and ahead of this President who just discovered that health 
care is complicated.
  This is a life-or-death issue for many in this country. Health care 
is very personal. Don't take it away from people. Let's work in a 
bipartisan way to make the improvements in the Affordable Care Act that 
we all know need to be made, but don't just tear apart a healthcare 
system that is providing an additional 20 million Americans health 
insurance.
  Please don't do this. Slow down. Provide us the text of the bill. 
Let's have hearings. Let's bring the American people into the Congress 
and listen to what they have to say. Listen to what your own 
constituents have been saying to you in townhalls. They don't want what 
you are selling here today. They don't want your rescue plan. They want 
health care for themselves and their families, and that is what they 
deserve.
  So, please, vote down this martial law rule and go back to the 
drawing board.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Seven years ago, Mr. Speaker, this town was abuzz with this new 
healthcare plan, the Affordable Care Act, that was signed by the 
President of the United States. We were promised an enormous 
opportunity to make health care better.
  Mr. Speaker, fortunately, the American people had a chance to make a 
decision, and the American people--after watching and seeing not only 
people incapable of putting databases together, incapable of 
understanding marketplaces, and incapable of understanding the limits 
of the American people's real need to understand and to have a better 
healthcare system--gave up on ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. They 
gave up on it because, after 7 long years, they understood it simply 
didn't equal what they were sold.
  The Republican Party is selling what we believe in, and this is the 
beginning of that sell. It is a beginning of an understanding for most 
Members of this body and the American people to understand you can keep 
your own doctor and you can keep your own healthcare plan, but you, 
too, can make your own decisions. You can become a consumer.
  Oh, my gosh, somebody from Washington isn't going to tell us exactly 
what to do? Let's scare everybody; let's make them think that the 
American people can't make their own decisions without the IRS or 
Washington telling them what to do.
  I understand there are some frustrations. I get that. I can be 
frustrated; I am not. It is true last week I held a townhall meeting in 
Dallas, Texas. It is true a bunch of people yelled and screamed at me. 
They simply wanted to know: Yes or no, yes or no.
  Mr. Speaker, policy is not like that in our country. The Republican 
Party does owe people thoughts, ideas, and plans. We will have the 
bill, and when we do it, we will own it, and we will be proud of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________