[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3003-H3011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3564, MIDDLE CLASS BORROWER
PROTECTION ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3799,
CUSTOM HEALTH OPTION AND INDIVIDUAL CARE EXPENSE ARRANGEMENT ACT; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 461, CONDEMNING THE USE OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL FACILITIES TO PROVIDE SHELTER FOR
ALIENS WHO ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 524 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 524
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 bill (H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency to the up-front loan level
pricing adjustments charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for
guarantee of single-family mortgages, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments
specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or
their respective designees. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
118-8, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report 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 further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. 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 bill (H.R.
3799) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for health reimbursement arrangements integrated with
individual health insurance coverage. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section
and shall not exceed 80 minutes equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce or their respective
designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-9, modified by the
amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in part D of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
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 further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 461) condemning the use
of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide
shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States.
The amendments to the resolution and the preamble recommended
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed
in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without
intervening motion except one hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their
respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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.
{time} 1215
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 524, providing for consideration of
three measures: H. Res. 461, H.R. 3799, and H.R. 3564.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564 under a structured
rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or
their designee.
The rule makes in order four amendments and provides one motion to
recommit. The rule additionally provides for consideration of H.R. 3799
under a structured rule with 80 minutes of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committees on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees
and Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule makes in
order three amendments and provides one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 461 under a
closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled and by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce or their respective designees.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of
the underlying bills.
Today, the Republican majority continues its long process of
reversing and repairing the damages inflicted on the American people by
the Biden administration and the previous Democrat majority.
Mr. Speaker, included in the rule is H.R. 3799, the Custom Health
Option and Individual Care Expense Arrangement Act, or the CHOICE
Arrangement Act, introduced by my friend from Oklahoma, Kevin Hern.
This legislation includes commonsense changes to help lower health
insurance costs, increase competition in the healthcare market, and
ensure access to high-quality, low-cost plans for Americans and small
business owners and their employees.
In 2021, almost 55 percent of Americans were covered by employer-
based health coverage. Employer-based health coverage is easily the
most popular option for Americans to receive health insurance coverage.
According to the National Federation of Independent Business, of small
employers
[[Page H3004]]
that did not offer health insurance coverage to their employees, two-
thirds reported that the reason they do not offer the health insurance
is because it is simply too expensive.
In 2019, President Trump and his administration published regulations
allowing employers to provide their employees with a fixed amount of
money each year in tax-preferred individual health coverage
reimbursement accounts that an employee could use to buy coverage in
the individual market.
Current regulations allow employers to establish individual coverage
health reimbursement accounts which employees can use to purchase
individual market coverage and pay for their out-of-pocket medical
expenses.
The CHOICE Arrangement Act seeks to codify these regulations to
provide tax-advantaged funds for employees to buy portable health
insurance plans and requires notification to employers of the
availability of these tax-advantaged health insurance benefits.
The CHOICE Arrangement Act also includes provisions codifying the
right of small businesses to band together and form association health
plans to offer pooled health insurance coverage to their employees.
This legislation will give employers maximum flexibility in how they
provide coverage options for their employees by providing CHOICE
arrangements while also providing expected benefits like dental plans,
vision plans, accident, disability benefits, and more.
This legislation will also ensure that stop-loss coverage is not
subject to Federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income and
Security Act. These commonsense changes will stop the Biden
administration from administratively making healthcare more expensive
by regulating stop-loss coverage and ensuring that small businesses
can, in fact, remain competitive.
Mr. Speaker, also included in this rule is H. Res. 461. This condemns
the practice of retrofitting our children's schools to house illegal
immigrants. President Biden and the Democrats' failures at the southern
border are so comprehensive, so overwhelming that municipalities are
now co-opting the schools where we educate our children because
President Biden refuses to secure the southern border.
Because President Biden cannot or will not secure our southern
border, Mr. Speaker, our local communities and municipalities are now
casualties of President Biden's border crisis.
The American people rightfully demand that President Biden and
Democrats in Congress acknowledge this crisis. They demand that they
not only acknowledge the crisis, Mr. Speaker, they demand that their
Federal Government solve this self-inflicted crisis that is pushing our
communities well past the breaking point.
New York City and its mayor, Eric Adams, are the first to cry uncle.
Mr. Speaker, 2 months is how long Mayor Adams and New York City lasted,
suffering under conditions of a size and scale not even comparable to
the conditions that Texans have been enduring these past 2\1/2\ years
under an administration that has only now started to pay attention to
this humanitarian crisis when it started to affect their constituents.
Over and over again, we have pleaded with the Biden administration to
take this crisis seriously, only to be rebuffed time and again. This
humanitarian catastrophe can be laid squarely at the feet of the
Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Mayorkas, and,
of course, President Biden who have chosen to do nothing rather than be
labeled xenophobes by their progressive colleagues for actually
enforcing existing immigration law and securing our southern border.
Mr. Speaker, the temptation for the Biden administration has been to
bury their heads in the sand and hope that these waves of illegal
immigrants coming across our border will, in fact, magically disappear.
They will not, Mr. Speaker, not until President Biden finally gets
serious about the border crisis by demanding that the Secretary of
Homeland Security do his job and secure our southern border, or maybe
find someone else who can do that job.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R.
3564, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023. This bill would
repeal the Federal Housing Finance Agency's recalibrated single-family
pricing framework to guarantee mortgages which would charge borrowers
with higher credit scores larger fees to subsidize borrowers with lower
credit scores.
If not for our Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, one out of every two
borrowers with higher credit scores would be assessed higher mortgage
fees in President Biden's radical equity agenda.
President Biden is telling the American people that if you work hard,
if you are responsible with your finances, if you pay your bills on
time, you are going to get to subsidize the mortgages of those who did
not make the same sacrifices that you did in order to attain a higher
credit score. This sends a terrible message to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davidson for bringing us this final piece of
legislation that underscores that the Republican majority stands with
those middle-class families who have done the right thing and should
not be pushed by a radical administration that is obsessed with radical
wealth distribution schemes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in charge of the House of
Representatives. They control the schedule here. They control when
bills get brought up for debate. They make the Calendar. We could be
debating a bipartisan bill that actually helps get more people on to
healthcare or lowers prescription drug costs and makes coverage more
affordable, but instead Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to
chip away at the Affordable Care Act. They are siding with billionaire
corporations and insurance companies and actually spending money to
kick people off of healthcare.
We could be debating bipartisan legislation that makes it easier for
regular middle-class Americans to buy a home, but instead, Republicans
are bringing to the floor a bill that literally increases mortgage fees
charged to middle-income borrowers.
Time and time again, this majority brings to the floor bills that
benefit billionaire corporations, insurance companies, the rich and
powerful, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all at the expense of everyday people
back home who send us here to fight for them.
{time} 1230
We could be debating bipartisan legislation that actually addresses
our broken immigration system. Instead, Republicans are bringing to the
floor a nonbinding resolution that condemns a nonexistent problem so
they can go after immigrants once again.
We had a Member in the Rules Committee last night yelling and
screaming and ranting and raving about all he thinks is wrong with our
immigration system and the border. It was actually kind of scary.
Listen, I get being passionate about this problem. I am not here to
argue that our immigration system doesn't need to be fixed. We all know
that it could use a comprehensive overhaul, but we don't need to be
screaming at each other about this nonbinding press release of a bill
that does literally nothing to help deal with our border. My God.
Republicans want to talk about immigration, so let's talk about
immigration.
Let's talk about how the Republican solution to the border is
building a stupid wall that even they know won't work.
Let's talk about fentanyl. Let's talk about how most of it is
trafficked through legal ports of entry in the United States by U.S.
citizens, by the way, and let's talk about how President Joe Biden
seizes more fentanyl at the border than Donald Trump did. That is just
a fact.
Yet, we had a Member last night have a complete meltdown over this
issue. Would Republicans rather the Biden administration not seize
fentanyl? I don't get it. Make it make sense.
Let's talk about how, since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful
entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs
and Border Protection had an average of 3,700
[[Page H3005]]
encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day, a
decrease of over 70 percent.
Republicans don't want to talk about any of that. Instead, they are
going to try to get people all worked up by scapegoating vulnerable
migrants who are fleeing awful circumstances in search of safety.
I can't believe I have to say this, but migrants are not political
pawns. They come to our country seeking a better life, often fleeing
violence and oppression. They are human beings and deserve to be
treated with dignity and respect. Yet, Republican Governors have
treated migrants like they are garbage, busing them across the country
like luggage, with no advance notice or coordination, dumping them
outside after they call the press to show up and make a scene. I find
it disgusting. I find it racist. I find it disrespectful to all that
this country stands for.
This nonbinding press release that they are bringing to the floor
isn't a serious attempt to solve a problem. They are dropping migrants
off in New York City and then attacking New York City for trying to
come up with solutions to the problem. This is absurd.
Then, Republicans claim gyms can't be used to house migrants because
they want to ``protect students.'' Give me a break. Migrants have never
been housed in a facility with kids. That is just a fact. In the Rules
Committee last night, we asked the person who was bringing the bill
before the committee to give us examples. She couldn't.
If we want to talk about protecting students, let us talk about
protecting students. A thousand kids have died from gun violence this
year. Where will the next school shooting be? Parents are terrified
their kid will be next. Teachers are terrified that their class will be
next. Students are terrified they will be next. Republicans are here
regulating gyms instead of guns. What the hell is wrong with these
people?
This majority is obsessed with demonizing, demeaning, and targeting
people who are coming to the United States in desperate search of a
better life. Stop appealing to the worst instincts in people. Stop
peddling hate. Stop fueling racism.
Here is a contrast I want people to know about. President Biden and
the Democrats are working to expand the middle class, to build a strong
economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Democrats are lowering
costs for working families, helping cut inflation by more than half
since last summer.
Democrats have taken on Big Pharma to reduce prescription drug costs,
and Democrats continue to fight special interests to lower healthcare
costs while making childcare and housing more affordable for working
families.
Democrats are investing in America and have created more than 13
million jobs since President Biden took office. Democrats are bringing
supply chains back home, fixing our roads and bridges, and delivering
clean water and high-speed internet to more communities.
Democrats are making our communities safer. We are committed to
building on the gun safety legislation we passed last year by
strengthening background checks and keeping dangerous weapons of war
off our streets to protect America's kids.
Democrats know that we don't have to choose between an immigration
system that reflects our interests and our values, and we don't
demonize and attack people who want to come to this country in search
of a better life.
You are seeing on the floor today exactly what Republicans have to
offer: nothing, not a thing, no plans, no ideas. They are just
interested in helping the rich and powerful and using immigrants as
political pawns to drive a wedge between people. It is a rotten,
shameful thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and
the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to
get serious about bringing legislation to the floor that will actually
make a difference, that will actually help fix some of the challenges
that we face in this country. This is a joke.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable new member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, five counties in my district have
declared a state of emergency in response to the influx of migrants
since title 42 ended. These five counties didn't declare a state of
emergency out of hate or a lack of compassion but because they simply
do not have the resources to handle the unprecedented flood of illegal
immigration.
Our local taxpayers and tax dollars meant to support our kids in
schools across Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegheny Counties are
instead going to house illegal immigrants, thanks to a crisis that the
Biden administration created.
My colleagues across the aisle have claimed time and again that by
opposing an unprecedented influx of illegal immigration, Republicans
somehow lack compassion or humanity. Mr. Speaker, allowing fentanyl to
flood in from our southern border, killing thousands of Americans, and
offering no concrete solutions to combat this epidemic is not
compassionate. Standing back and demonizing our Border Patrol agents
while the cartels traffic countless human beings, including young
children, into this country is not compassionate. The Department of
Health and Human Services losing track of 85,000 migrant children, with
an untold number trafficked and exploited, is not compassionate,
either.
Foisting this inhumane crisis onto the backs of small-town America
after the richest, most liberal enclaves in our country, like Martha's
Vineyard, clutch their pearls at even the sight of one group of illegal
immigrants is not compassionate.
I am proud to cosponsor H. Res. 461 to be considered under this rule,
and I look forward to this and many more steps Republicans in the House
are taking to secure our border and to force this administration to
uphold our immigration laws.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's tirade just now, but the bottom line is
that nothing in this bill that his party is championing as somehow this
important piece of legislation does anything to provide any assistance
to any of these communities. Not one penny goes to offset any of the
costs that might be incurred--nothing, not a thing.
I just don't get it. People come onto this floor and speak in sound
bites and do press releases and then bring legislation to the floor
that is nonbinding, that means nothing, that does nothing. This is
ridiculous.
We need to fix our immigration system. We tried to do that when we
were in charge. We had challenges in the Senate trying to overcome the
filibuster, but we were trying to fix the system. That is a contrast to
what we are doing here now, which is a nonbinding resolution.
By the way, a nonbinding resolution, to anybody who is watching,
means it is just somebody's opinion. It doesn't do anything--no money,
no assistance, no help to anybody. It is just like: ``I want to tell
you what my opinion is.'' Big deal.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question,
and if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide
for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's
duty to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future
generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.
We know, because we have heard from my friends, that they have their
eyes on these programs. We need to get people on record to make sure
that they will not vote for any cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yakym). 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 gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Sorensen) to discuss that proposal.
Mr. SORENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of Social
Security and the invaluable role that it plays in the lives of more
than 2.2 million people in Illinois and over 150,000
[[Page H3006]]
of our neighbors and family members in the 17th Congressional District
of Illinois.
Social Security benefits make up one-third of the income of our
Nation's seniors, and benefits are the primary source of income for
most seniors.
Social Security is not a handout. This is a program that working
Americans have paid into for years with the promise that the Federal
Government would stand by them and respect their hard work and their
labor.
Too often over the past few months, we have heard threats from my
colleagues across the aisle about cutting off these hard-earned
benefits--first during the debt ceiling negotiations, and most
recently, my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee recently put
forth a budget that renews Republican attacks on Social Security
benefits.
Their unserious proposal shows my colleagues care more about scoring
political points and playing games with your future than governing
responsibly and with your interests in mind. That we are having this
conversation and considering these budgets shows how out of touch my
colleagues across the aisle are with the struggles that real Americans
face every single day.
Under their proposal, 9.7 million Illinoisans would see their
retirement age increased, cutting their Social Security benefits and
forcing them to work even longer for less.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Social Security is a sacred promise to
our Nation's seniors. It is not a political football. I will oppose any
proposal that cuts the earned benefits that provide essential financial
stability to millions of Americans.
Our communities have worked for decades to earn these benefits, and
it is unconscionable to turn around and take that away from people,
especially as prices still remain high for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
we can bring up legislation that protects, not undermines, Social
Security.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the only entity cutting Social Security or Medicare
right now is the White House, the Biden administration. Over the last
2\1/2\ years, cuts to Medicare have totaled probably $40 billion in the
part B drugs administered in physician's offices and $300 billion in
Medicare Advantage, all done through the Inflation Reduction Act last
year. The only people talking about cutting Medicare right now is the
administration, and that is really what ought to be stopped.
Right now, that is not the business at hand. What we are discussing
today are three important bills that are going to be considered on the
floor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor
of the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
Record a Washington Post article titled: ``House GOP eyes Social
Security, Medicare amid spending battle.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 24, 2023]
House GOP Eyes Social Security, Medicare Amid Spending Battle
(By Tony Romm)
House Republicans have started to weigh a series of
legislative proposals targeting Social Security, Medicare and
other entitlement programs, part of a broader campaign to
slash federal spending that could force the new majority to
grapple with some of the most difficult and delicate issues
in American politics.
Only weeks after taking control of the chamber, GOP
lawmakers under new Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) have
rallied around firm pledges for austerity, insisting their
efforts can improve the nation's fiscal health. They have
signaled they are willing to leverage the fight over the debt
ceiling--and the threat of a fiscal doomsday--to seek major
policy concessions from the Biden administration.
So far, the party has focused its attention on slimming
down federal health care, education, science and labor
programs, perhaps by billions of dollars. But some
Republicans also have pitched a deeper examination of
entitlements, which account for much of the government's
annual spending--and reflect some of the greatest looming
fiscal challenges facing the United States.
In recent days, a group of GOP lawmakers has called for the
creation of special panels that might recommend changes to
Social Security and Medicare, which face genuine solvency
issues that could result in benefit cuts within the next
decade. Others in the party have resurfaced more detailed
plans to cut costs, including by raising the Social Security
retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have
yet to obtain federal benefits.
``We have no choice but to make hard decisions,'' said Rep.
Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), the leader of the Republican Study
Committee, a bloc of more than 160 conservative lawmakers
that endorsed raising the retirement age and other changes
last year. ``Everybody has to look at everything.''
Any plan to rethink entitlements is likely to face steep
opposition in the Democratic-led Senate and may never gain
meaningful traction even among other Republicans in the
House. Adding to the political challenge, former president
Donald Trump waded into the debate Friday, warning his party
publicly against cutting ``a single penny from Medicare or
Social Security.''
Democrats, meanwhile, have been unsparing in their
criticisms, saying millions of Americans could see their
benefits cut at the hands of the new House GOP majority.
President Biden has stressed he will not negotiate such a
deal with Republicans, as he prepares to discuss a raft of
fiscal issues with McCarthy in the coming days.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, White House press secretary
Karine Jean-Pierre said she had no update on the timing of a
meeting with McCarthy. But she repeated Biden's belief that
the debt ceiling should be addressed ``without conditions.''
The president himself later blasted the GOP for being
``genuinely serious about cutting Social Security, cutting
Medicare,'' adding: ``Look, I have no intention of letting
the Republicans wreck our economy.''
The early wrangling underscores the stakes as Republicans
look for aggressive ways to limit federal spending. In a time
of immense, growing debt, the party's looming decisions could
carry vast consequences: Every cut in Washington, large or
small, threatens to spell dramatic changes for millions of
Americans' finances--not to mention the GOP's own political
fortunes.
``We need to be taking this very, very seriously, and the
tragic thing is, everybody knows it,'' said Rep. Vern
Buchanan (R-Fla.), a top lawmaker on the tax-focused House
Ways and Means Committee, lamenting the state of Social
Security and Medicare.
But, Buchanan said, the early political sniping around the
issue threatens to make any meaningful overhaul impossible.
He stressed the two parties have to work together, or else
Republicans could face a political drubbing if they forge
ahead on their own. ``It's a good way to get fired quickly,''
he said.
For the moment, Republicans are only beginning to plot a
new fiscal road map. To maximize their leverage, they have
pursued spending cuts in exchange for their support to raise
the debt ceiling, the legal cap that allows the U.S. to
borrow money to pay its existing bills.
Unless Congress enacts a new limit or suspends the current
one, the government is set to breach the threshold sometime
this summer, which would trigger a historic, calamitous
default that could thrust the economy into a recession. Last
week, the Treasury Department began taking what it calls
``extraordinary measures'' to avoid hitting the cap, which
could sustain the government until at least early June.
Hoping to engage top Democrats and the White House, GOP
leaders have offered early hints of the deep cuts they seek:
Some Republicans have suggested they want to pare back
spending to levels approved in the 2022 fiscal year, meaning
cuts across government could exceed $130 billion. Others have
eyed new caps on key federal agencies and programs, hoping to
keep domestic spending depressed for the next decade in ways
Democrats have described as devastating.
Yet GOP leaders have not said exactly what they'd cut, or
whether some areas might be off-limits, including money for
the military and its veterans. Instead, they have promised to
produce a blueprint in the coming weeks that balances the
budget over the next 10 years. But balancing the federal till
is no small feat--previous Republican majorities that passed
measures to eliminate the deficit used gimmicks and other
fiscal wizardry, and they only achieved a balanced budget on
paper. This time, the task is especially immense, potentially
requiring the GOP to identify more than $14 trillion in cuts
through 2032, according to the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget. which advocates for reducing the deficit.
So far, the cuts that Republicans have considered represent
only a fraction of the government's overall ledger, which
also includes mandatory spending--the category that
encompasses Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps
and a wide array of other federal payments that totaled more
than $4.8 trillion in outlays over the 2021 fiscal year,
according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Social Security and Medicare are funded through payroll
taxes collected from employers and employees. The programs
are popular, and for many Americans, they are a financial
lifeline: In 2022, an average of 66 million seniors received
a Social Security check each month, according to the federal
government; more than 59 million people are enrolled in a
Medicare plan, recent private estimates show.
[[Page H3007]]
But these entitlements face annual shortfalls, especially
as the number of retired Americans grows faster than the two
programs' dedicated tax revenue. The complicated fiscal
picture has led CBO to conclude that Social Security could
exhaust its trust fund by 2033, at which point it would
become insolvent, potentially resulting in a 23 percent cut
to seniors' monthly checks unless Congress intervenes. For
Medicare, meanwhile, its key hospital-focused trust fund
faces a similar problem in 2028, risking payments toward
Americans' health care, according to its trustees.
``That would represent a substantial reduction in payments
to Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom have very
modest income and would face real hardship if their benefits
had to be cut back sharply at one fell swoop,'' said Paul Van
de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.
The looming deadlines have emboldened some Republicans in
Washington to take a look at the two programs, which are
considered to be the third rail of American politics. GOP
lawmakers have been counseled by a wide array of right-
leaning groups, including the Heritage Foundation, that the
new majority should consider significant changes to
entitlements as part of their commitment to cutting spending
and balancing the budget. But historically, the organization
has argued against tax increases--and in a new statement on
Tuesday, it did not endorse cuts to mandatory spending in the
context of the debt limit.
``You don't get out of our current situation without
tackling entitlement programs,'' said Rachel Greszler, a
senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noting the
country is getting ``closer and closer to the date of
insolvency.''
In an early sign of their interest, House GOP leaders
initially included ``mandatory spending'' as a legislative
priority during a meeting with rank-and-file lawmakers
earlier this month. But Republicans did not mention
explicitly what they hoped to address with Social Security
and Medicare. An aide to Rep. Jason T. Smith (R-Mo.), the new
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, only said this week
that ``tying those programs to the debt ceiling has not been
a part of any conversation'' he has had.
Other GOP leaders have ruled out direct cuts for seniors
currently collecting benefits, leaving the door open for
discussions about other legislative proposals.
``You've got to protect Medicare and Social Security. And
the path the Democrats are going, they are going to go
bankrupt,'' McCarthy told reporters last week. ``Let's sit
down and find a place that we can protect Medicare and Social
Security for the future generations, let's put our house in
order on how we're going to spend, and let's make the
investments we need to make America stronger.''
In a sweeping road map unveiled last year, the Republican
Study Committee--the largest GOP group in the House--called
for significant revisions to Social Security and Medicare.
Their plan would raise Medicare eligibility to age 67, while
allowing for more private-sector plans, while lifting Social
Security to age 70 for younger workers and changing the way
benefits are calculated. That proposal also raised the
possibility that lawmakers could rethink payroll taxes,
allowing the money to fund private-sector retirement options.
Republicans proposed privatizing key elements of the Social
Security system under President George W. Bush after the 2004
election, only to encounter an onslaught of opposition that
scuttled the White House campaign. Eighteen years later,
Biden and his top aides lambasted GOP lawmakers in the 2022
race for trying to ``deny seniors' benefits they have already
paid into.'' The president saved some of his most forceful
comments for proposals put forward by Sen. Rick Scott (R-
Fla.), who sought to require Congress to reauthorize Social
Security and Medicare every five years.
Still, some Republican lawmakers have signaled renewed
interest in those plans. Earlier this month, Scott promised
to seek entitlement reforms in the context of the debt limit,
promising at the time that a ``day of reckoning is coming.''
Hern, the leader of the RSC, said in a separate interview
that lawmakers should at least be able to discuss bipartisan
legislation to change the retirement age for a ``child who
has not paid a single dollar in payroll taxes.''
``No one needing Social Security right now, or expecting to
get it in the near future, should be impacted,'' added Rep.
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter (R-Ga.), another member of the
Republican Study Committee, who described the debt ceiling as
a means of political ``leverage.''
``We have a responsibility as guardians of the taxpayers'
money to make sure we stabilize Social Security and
Medicare,'' he said.
Other lawmakers have raised the prospect they could set up
a special panel to explore entitlement spending on behalf of
Democrats and Republicans who are wary of such a fight. Even
a member of the president's own party, Sen. Joe Manchin III
(D-W.Va.), has reaffirmed his recent interest in the idea:
This weekend, he touted bipartisan legislation chiefly
drafted by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would analyze
entitlements and ease the process by which legislation
involving those programs could come to the floor.
The idea could gain some traction in the House, where
Buchanan pointed to the bill as he stressed the need to
``work together and not make this so political.'' Another top
Republican, Rep. Jodey Arrington (Tex.), led a group of
Democratic and GOP lawmakers two years ago in calling for
``special, bipartisan, bicameral rescue committees'' to study
Social Security, Medicare and other federal trust funds, he
wrote at the time.
``We're within the budget window of both the Medicare trust
fund and the Social Security trust fund going insolvent. If
we don't do something in that respect, then that's going to
cause a benefit cut automatically, and nobody wants that,''
Arrington said in an interview.
As the new chairman of the House Budget Committee,
Arrington is set to oversee Republicans' efforts to craft a
blueprint that could eliminate the deficit over the next
decade. He has previously endorsed changes to other federal
benefit programs, including food stamps, seeking to impose
new work requirements on poorer Americans.
But some lawmakers have expressed deep reservations about
the creation of a new fiscal commission, fearing that would
open the door for cuts--targeting seniors as well as those
who are not yet eligible for Medicare and Social Security.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday on Twitter that
such a panel is the ``last thing we need,'' pointing to the
fact a prior attempt to impanel experts on entitlements
recommended cuts to the program. ``We must instead expand
Social Security,'' Sanders said.
Appearing on CNN's ``State of the Union'' a day later,
Manchin rejected his liberal colleague's claims. ``No cuts.
No cuts to anybody that's receiving their benefits, no
adjustments to that. They earned it,'' he said.
But Manchin appeared not to rule out other changes, as he
broke with his own party in calling on Biden to negotiate
with Republicans over the debt ceiling. ``Could we put
basically something on the floor that we will get to vote on
it? Let the people decide and see if we're willing to
basically get our house in order,'' the senator said.
At the White House, Biden and his top aides broadly have
held firm in their position that Republicans should not
politicize a key fiscal deadline. But spokeswoman Jean-Pierre
did not respond last week when she was asked if the White
House had its own plan for preventing Social Security and
Medicare from becoming insolvent, as she blasted the GOP for
``political gamesmanship.''
``We should not put on the chopping blocks the very
programs that matter to the American people,'' she said.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is simple. To lower the national deficit, House
Republicans plan to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. This
includes potentially ``raising the Social Security retirement age to
70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain Federal
benefits.''
We have a number of Members on the Republican side who talk about
privatization all the time. That is their favorite word when it comes
to Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure the American
people understand who is on their side and who is trying to undercut
things that are very meaningful to them.
Mr. Speaker, I also point out that my Republican colleagues have been
in disarray since they took the majority, and they have failed to pass
meaningful legislation into law on behalf of the American people. As I
said, they control this Chamber, the schedule, the committees, and what
they bring to the floor.
{time} 1245
At this point in the 117th Congress, that is the previous Congress,
Democrats had passed 17 bills into law. At this point in the 116th
Congress, under divided government, we passed 21 bills into law.
You want to know how much this majority has passed into law?
Six.
They are failing the American people. They are incapable of bringing
legislation to the floor that can garner bipartisan support that has
any chance in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a
comparison of the number of bills passed into law by May 31, which
demonstrates how utterly unproductive this Congress has been.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Comparison of the Number of Bills Passed By Congress By 6/21
118th congress
President: Democrat
Senate: Democratic Majority
House: Republican Majority
1. H.J. Res. 26--Disapproving the action of the District of
Columbia Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act
of 2022.
[[Page H3008]]
2. H.J. Res. 7--Relating to a national emergency declared
by the President on March 13, 2020.
3. S. 619--COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023
4. H.R. 346--NOTAM Improvement Act of 2023
5. S. 777--Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
6. H.R. 3746--Veterans' COLA Act of 2023
117th congress
President: Republican
Senate: Republican Majority
House: Democratic Majority
1. H.R. 335--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.
2. H.R. 1319--American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
3. S. 579--A bill to make a technical correction to the ALS
Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019.
4. H.R. 1276--Strengthening and Amplifying Vaccination
Efforts to Locally Immunize All Veterans and Every Spouse Act
5. H.R. 1651--COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of
2021
6. H.R. 1799--PPP Extension Act of 2021
7. H.R. 1868--To prevent across-the-board direct spending
cuts, and for other purposes.
8. S. 164--Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021
9. S. 415--A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act with respect to the scope of new chemical
exclusivity.
10. S. 422--Senate Shared Employee Act
11. S. 578--FASTER Act of 2021
12. H.R. 2630--Extending Temporary Emergency Scheduling of
Fentanyl Analogues Act
13. S. 937--COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act
14. H.R. 1318--Alaska Tourism Restoration Act
15. H.R. 941--TRANSPLANT Act of 2021
16. H.R. 2523--THRIVE Act
17. S. 475--Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
116th congress
President: Republican
Senate: Republican Majority
House: Democratic Majority
1. S. 24--Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019
2. H.R. 251--Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
Program Extension Act
3. H.R. 259--Medicaid Extenders Act of 2019
4. H.R. 430--TANF Extension Act of 2019
5. H.J. Res. 28--Further Additional Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2019
6. H.J. Res. 31--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019
7. H.R. 439--National FFA Organization's Federal Charter
Amendments Act
8. S. 483--Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act
of 2018
9. S. 47--John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management,
and Recreation Act
10. S. 49--A bill to designate the outstation of the
Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the
Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.
11. S. 252--A bill to authorize the honorary appointment of
Robert J. Dole to the grade of colonel in the regular Army.
12. S. 863--A bill to amend title 38, United States Code,
to clarify the grade and pay of podiatrists of the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
13. H.R. 276--Recognizing Achievement in Classified School
Employees Act
14. H.R. 2030--Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan
Authorization Act
15. S. 725--A bill to change the address of the postal
facility designated in honor of Captain Humayun Khan.
16. H.R. 1839--Medicaid Services Investment and
Accountability Act of 2019
17. H.R. 1222--Target Practice and Marksmanship Training
Support Act
18. H.R. 2379--To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Program.
19. S. 1693--National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act
of 2019
20. H.R. 2157--Additional Supplemental Appropriations for
Disaster Relief Act, 2019
21. S. 1436--A bill to make technical corrections to the
computation of average pay under Public Law 110-279.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the unproductiveness of my Republican
friends and how they are squandering all opportunities to help the
American people since they have been in control but let me just talk to
you about some of the stuff that we did when we were in charge of this
place.
Let me remind people that because of the Affordable Care Act, which I
think almost everybody over there voted ``no'' on, 40 million Americans
have health coverage under the ACA. Women have access to preventive
health services like breast and cervical cancer screening at no cost to
them. Prescription drugs are more affordable for older adults.
Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the
basis of medical history or preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on
essential health benefits are gone. They are gone.
Since 2010 when the bill became law, Republicans have been obsessed
with tearing it apart. Under Republican majorities, we have voted
nearly 70 times to repeal and undermine the law. Nearly 70 times
Republicans have tried to dismantle a law that provides healthcare
coverage to 20 million people and covers preventive health services.
Today, Republicans are continuing this effort to undermine the ACA.
It is maddening where their priorities are. It is maddening. Here is
the deal. They know that they can't just repeal it outright because
everybody doesn't want them to do that. What they are doing is they are
going after it bit by bit by bit, trying to chip away at the edges and
trying to kill it through a thousand cuts so that maybe people won't
notice, that people won't notice when essential benefits are no longer
guaranteed.
Healthcare ought to be a right in this country, and we ought to be
building on the ACA, not tearing it apart, not tearing it down, not
trying to make it more difficult for people to get the essential
services they need, not to try to give people plans that don't provide
the coverage for whatever may occur to them and their families.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand--again, the good
news here is that all the bills they are bringing to the floor today
have no chance in hell of going anywhere in the Senate because they are
just over the top and extreme.
Make no mistake about what is happening here. They have a target on
healthcare. They have a target on Social Security. They have a target
on Medicare. Rather than trying to fix our immigration laws, what are
they doing?
They are trying to tear this country apart. They are trying to
demonize immigrants. They have no solutions, just a nonbinding
resolution that does nothing. It basically addresses a fake problem
that was totally ginned up by FOX News. That is where their priorities
are. Certainly, we can spend our time doing more productive things.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there are hearings going on right now in the Energy and
Commerce Committee for the reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act.
The SUPPORT Act passed in 2017-2018 in that Congress. It was a
broadly bipartisan bill. It was geared toward dealing with the problems
that were occurring in this country because of an opiate crisis.
Largely, the source of these opiates were prescription drugs that
were diverted to other uses, and the consequence was people taking a
good overdose and in fact dying from prescription drugs that were
actually diverted from their intended use.
Five years later, we are in the process of reauthorizing the SUPPORT
Act. The SUPPORT Act actually functioned as intended, it did reduce
some of those overdose deaths downward until we were hit with the
pandemic, and obviously that changed a lot of things.
In that 5-year interval, this disease has changed. It is no longer
prescription opiates that are diverted, it is fentanyl. It is fentanyl
that is poisoning our young people. It is fentanyl that is pouring in
from the southern border.
Look, I get it. You want to say it is only coming in at the ports of
entry--that is what you catch. Our Customs and Border Protection are so
overwhelmed with the numbers of people who are coming in at the
invitation of the President and the Vice President, people are pouring
across our border.
Customs and Border Protection cannot do their normal job. They are
doing housekeeping chores, taking care of people who are ill, children
who are arriving at their doorstep, and they have no choice but to take
care of them.
In the meantime, all other areas of the surveillance are non vis
because Customs and Border Protection are tied up with this vast
increase of humanity that is coming in. The bottom line is as we
reauthorize the SUPPORT Act now, we are actually dealing with a
different disease because fentanyl poisoning has replaced opiate
overdose.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that fentanyl is
coming across the southern border because U.S. citizens are bringing it
[[Page H3009]]
across through ports of entry. Don't trust me on this. You can look to
the conservative think tank CATO that will reinforce what I just said.
By the way, this bill that you are bringing here does nothing to
solve the problem. It is a waste of time. There are no more resources;
nothing to combat it. It is just a press release. What a joke that we
are here debating something like this when we could be debating
something that might make a real difference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the
rule and the underlying bills. As our ranking member pointed out, these
bills do nothing to solve the problems that Americans are asking us to
face.
For example, these bills will hurt the middle class. Let's take
healthcare. Americans want quality healthcare that doesn't discriminate
against people with pre-existing conditions and that does not
discriminate against women. That is why we passed the Affordable Care
Act. Today, we can proudly say that only 8 percent of Americans are
uninsured. The lowest level in history.
Republicans keep trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In fact,
H.R. 3799 is yet another strike at that good bill. This bill that they
are proposing, Republicans would expand association health plans that
are not required to cover maternity or prenatal care.
Republicans rejected an amendment to require this essential care for
women and their babies in all health insurance plans. How can you go
back to our districts and look women in the eye and say, we have passed
legislation that would not cover you when you are pregnant, waiting to
give birth to the children of the future.
Republicans would also pass H.R. 3564, which would increase mortgage
fees for middle-income borrowers and decrease fees for the wealthy.
Americans want to buy a home of their own so that they can start saving
and build their own wealth. They want to be part of that middle class,
and homeownership is a key part of that.
You know what? They called this bill the exact opposite of what it
is. It does not protect middle-income workers. It increases fees for
the middle class.
Lastly, H.R. 461. It is an opinion that contradicts Americans' basic
sense of decency and humanity. Undocumented immigrants toil in the hot
sun to pick the food we place on our table. They take the most
dangerous jobs in our slaughterhouses and on our construction sites.
Extreme Republicans will take their labor, but they would refuse
education or shelter to immigrants and their children. Is this how we
honor National Immigrant Heritage Month in this Chamber?
Scripture steers us in a more noble direction. In Matthew 25:35-40,
it says: ``I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you
gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.''
We should be more welcoming to those asylum seekers and refugees that
are bringing so much pain, but also contributions to the American
landscape.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, what I am a little surprised about today
is that nobody has raised the deficit or the debt because the
Republicans were obsessed with that when they basically threatened to
ruin this economy by not allowing us to move forward to increase the
debt ceiling.
We had to have all these cuts from programs that help poor people.
Throwing people off of programs like SNAP, the food benefit, that is
what they did. I now understand why we are not talking about the
deficit or debt today because of the bills that they are bringing to
the floor.
One of the bills that we are talking about right now, the CHOICE
Arrangement Act, cuts more than $348 million. That is what the CBO
says.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the CBO
score.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUE EFFECTS OF RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 118-9 (H.R. 3799, CHOICE ARRANGEMENT ACT), AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT 8 (SMITH), AS
POSTED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES ON JUNE 13, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2023-2028 2023-2033
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases or Decreases (-) in Direct Spending
Title I. Association Health Plans Act:
Estimated Budget Authority........... 0 0 -2 9 20 28 32 33 34 37 40 55 231
Estimated Outlays.................... 0 0 -2 9 20 28 32 33 34 37 40 55 231
Title III. Self-Insurance Protection Act:
Estimated Budget Authority........... 0 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Estimated Outlays.................... 0 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Title V. Recissions:
Estimated Budget Authority........... 0 -245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -245 -245
Estimated Outlays.................... 0 -50 -70 -82 -29 0 0 0 0 0 0 -231 -231
Total Changes in Direct Spending:
Estimated Budget Authority........... 0 -245 -2 9 20 28 32 33 34 37 40 -190 -14
Estimated Outlays.................... 0 -50 -72 -73 -9 28 32 33 34 37 40 -176 0
Decreases in Revenues
Title I. Association Health Plans Act:
Estimated Revenues................... 0 0 -6 -10 -25 -43 -48 -51 -54 -55 -56 -84 -348
Title III. Self-Insurance Protection Act:
Estimated Revenues................... 0 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total Changes in Revenues:
On-Budget............................ 0 * -5 -8 -22 -39 -44 -47 -49 -50 -51 -74 -315
Off-Budget........................... 0 * -1 -2 -3 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -10 -33
Total Revenues................... 0 * -6 -10 -25 -43 -48 -51 -54 -55 -56 -84 -348
Net Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues
Total Effect on the Deficit:
On-Budget............................ 0 -50 -67 -65 13 67 76 80 83 87 91 -102 315
Off-Budget........................... 0 * 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 10 33
Total Deficit.................... 0 -50 -66 -63 16 71 80 84 88 92 96 -92 348
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
* = between -$500,000 and $500,000.
[[Page H3010]]
Title I. Association Health Plans Act: CBO and the staff of
the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that title I
would increase federal deficits by $579 million over the
2023-2033 period, primarily because more self-employed people
would take up health insurance coverage through association
health plans. That increase would be slightly offset by
effects stemming from lower premiums by the movement of
people who currently have insurance from the fully regulated
nongroup and small-group market into association health
plans.
CBO and JCT estimate that after 2028, when the policy would
be fully in effect, title I would increase the number of
people with health insurance purchased through association
plans by about 200,000 per year, on average. The agencies
estimate that under current law, about 40,000 (or 20 percent)
of that group have no insurance, and the rest have insurance
purchased in the fully regulated nongroup or small-group
markets.
Title III. Self-Insurance Protection Act: Title III would
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) to exclude stop-loss policies from that act's
definition of health insurance coverage. Stop-loss policies
insure against excess or unexpected losses and are obtained
by self-insured group health plans or plan sponsors of a
group health plan that self-insures. Excluding stop-loss
policies from the definition of health insurance coverage
would exempt those policies from regulation under ERISA. The
bill also would preempt state laws that prohibit group health
plans from obtaining stop-loss policies.
CBO and JCT estimate that title III would have
insignificant effects on direct spending, revenues, and the
deficit over the 2023-2033 period. The agencies' analysis of
state laws indicates that few states prohibit the sale of
stop-loss coverage; thus, the bill's preemption of state laws
would affect only a small number of people.
Title V. Rescissions: In 2024, title V would reduce by $245
million the funding available to the Prevention and Public
Health Fund. As a result, CBO estimates, direct spending
would decline by $231 million over the 2023-2033 period. CBO
expects that the outlay savings would be less than the
reduction in funding because under current law some of that
funding would not be spent.
Other Provisions: CBO and JCT estimate that title II, the
CHOICE Arrangement Act, and title IV, the Small Business
Flexibility Act, would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
Spending Subject to Appropriation: CBO has not completed an
analysis of any effects on spending subject to appropriation.
Mandates: Title III would impose an intergovernmental
mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
by preempting any state laws that prevent certain group
health plans from using stop-loss policies to insure against
excess or unexpected claims losses. CBO estimates that the
cost of the mandate would not exceed the intergovernmental
threshold established by UMRA ($99 million in 2023, adjusted
annually for inflation). The bill would not impose any
private-sector mandates.
Previous CBO Estimate: On June 15, 2023, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for H.R. 2813, the Self-Insurance Protection
Act, as ordered reported by the Committee on Education and
the Workforce on June 6, 2023. The language in that bill is
the same as title III and the estimated budgetary effects for
the provisions are the same.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning. House
Republicans spent half a billion dollars on their H.R. 1 bill that
would gut environmental protections and take tax credits away from
people who want to upgrade their homes. Half a billion dollars was
added to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, $6 billion was added to the deficit on their deeply
flawed H.R. 2, a bill attacking immigrants and essentially ending
asylum as we know it.
Get this, $114 billion--billion with a b--was added through their
H.R. 23 to protect the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes.
That was their very first bill on the House floor in this Congress,
their top priority adding $114 billion to the deficit.
Over $505 million was added through the Republicans' bill last week
to enhance access to firearm stabilizing braces.
Republicans are on a spending spree, all on the backs of real
people--not the rich, not billionaire corporations, not by reallocating
funding from the bloated Pentagon budget. Maybe some of you saw the
``60 Minutes'' piece a few weeks ago about the cost overruns, where
former Pentagon officials said that they are spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars on a switch that costs a couple hundred dollars.
We can't find a penny, yet they want to increase the Pentagon budget
with no questions asked.
{time} 1300
They can't touch any of the tax cuts for any of the billionaires or
multimillionaires of big corporations. We can't do that, and we all
know why. Google where they all spend their money on political
campaigns. However, they spend all this money, and they want to balance
the budget on the backs of regular, everyday people, and, in
particular, the most vulnerable in our country.
Last night everybody was complaining about the CBO score--the CBO
score. I guess I understand why my colleagues across the aisle would
not want to support the hardworking, nonpartisan people at CBO. Maybe
it is because they keep giving them bad news. Maybe it is because they
keep saying to my friends that they are spending and spending and
spending and it is adding enormously to our deficit and our debt.
Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue because my Republican friends like to
come to the floor and talk about the deficit. Today they are not. I
think it is because we had this conversation in the Rules Committee
last night. I want people to know that they are driving up the deficit
and the debt, and then when they want to talk about fiscal
responsibility, where do they go?
They go to the middle class, and they go to the people who are poor.
That is where their priorities are. So there is a big difference here.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I am prepared to
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend has no further speakers. I
thought because these bills were so important and unbelievably
essential that there would be lots of speakers on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, we all know how valuable our time is here. We only have
13 scheduled legislative weeks until the end of the year--13 weeks that
could be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.
So how have Republicans in the House decided to use this week?
Are we working to make our communities safer or our educational
system better?
No. We are not. Republicans would rather demonize immigrants and
peddle hate than regulate guns or invest in schools.
They are in control. They can bring what they want to the floor.
Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Look at what they are bringing
to the floor.
Are we here to help regular Americans purchase their first home?
No. We are voting on a bill today that will make it easier for those
well-off to get even further ahead while making it more difficult on
middle-class home buyers.
Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up, but that is what this bill
does.
Are we passing legislation that will continue to expand people's
access to affordable healthcare?
No. Republicans want to chip away at popular policy that provides
quality coverage to millions.
There are very real issues that regular people in this country face
every day, and I wish House Republicans could wise up and address them.
This is such a colossal waste of time. One of the bills is
nonbinding, but the other bills aren't going anywhere. This is a waste
of time. Rather than working across the aisle trying to find common
ground, they continue to bring these messaging bills. These are bills
that demonize immigrants and that continue to chip away at the
Affordable Care Act. These are bills that continue to screw people in
the middle class, and they continue to bring these bills to the floor.
I don't know who their base is, but apparently it is popular amongst
their base.
This is not about legislating. It is not about making law, and it is
not about improving the lives of anybody in this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the underlying
legislation and a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that thanks to House Republicans
and their investigative efforts there was a settlement yesterday where
a member of the President's family has agreed to pay his taxes that he
hasn't been paying.
[[Page H3011]]
So that is a good thing that delivers money to the Treasury.
Oh, yes, about those background checks, it turns out a member of the
President's family wasn't adhering to the background checks and the
proper handling of a firearm.
So maybe we all learned something in that exchange over the last 24
hours.
I also want to correct a few things on the underlying bills.
Association health plans, like all large employer plans, are required
to cover preventative healthcare. This requirement includes covering
women's preventative health services without cost sharing. In addition,
all AHPs are required to cover pregnancy-related conditions and
coverage of a minimal hospital stay after childbirth as mandated by the
Affordable Care Act.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the plans to cover
pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions in the same manner as
they cover other medical conditions under the association health plan.
The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996--that was
about 10 years before the ACA--the Health Protection Act of 1996
requires large group association health plans to cover a hospital stay
of at least 48 hours for a childbirth and at least 96 hours for a birth
by caesarean delivery.
These are all requirements placed on large group employer-sponsored
health plans. Expanding AHPs does not change these requirements. What
it changes is making that valuable insurance available to more
employees.
The CBO score that the gentleman referenced also had within it the
notation that 200,000 people would be covered if this bill, the CHOICE
Act, is enacted because insurance would not be as expensive for
employers to provide and would give them more possibilities.
Here is probably the crux of that matter: 40,000 of these people have
no insurance currently. So there will be 40,000 people moved from
uninsured to insured by passing the CHOICE Act. I would say that is a
good thing, and I think people would be supportive of that.
I do want to stress that it is important to support the rule and the
underlying measures. I thank my colleagues for their diligence and hard
work in bringing these important pieces of legislation to the floor
today. The Republican majority has demonstrated, yet again, that we are
putting forward a legislative agenda that works for all Americans and
not just the well-connected few.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 524 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Mr. BURGESS. 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 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________