[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.

                          ____________________