[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 873-886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. CON. RES. 3, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 
   84, PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF 
   PERSONS AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF RELIEF FROM 
                              ACTIVE DUTY

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 48

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 3) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026. The first reading 
     of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed two 
     hours, with 90 minutes of general debate confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and 30 minutes of general debate on the subject of 
     economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn 
     Maloney of New York or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be 
     in order except the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Such 
     amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable 
     for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points of 
     order against such amendment are waived. After the conclusion 
     of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, 
     the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution 
     to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and on any amendment thereto to 
     adoption without intervening motion. The concurrent 
     resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question of its adoption.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 84) to provide 
     for an exception to a limitation against appointment of 
     persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief 
     from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the 
     Armed Forces. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) 
     one motion to commit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 48 provides for 
consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the FY17 budget resolution, as well as 
consideration of a bill to move forward on the process of confirming 
our civilian Secretary of Defense, former General Mattis.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule today to move 
expeditiously on both of these measures, and in the time we have gotten 
to spend together, Mr. Speaker, you know I am a fan of the festival of 
democracy that can be the Committee on Rules process, particularly the 
appropriations process. But there are times where moving expeditiously 
is required, and today is one of those days.
  You are not going to see a rule like this come very often because we 
are considering the FY17 budget resolution today. Historically, as you 
know, in this Chamber, when we get ready to consider budget 
resolutions, Mr. Speaker, we are considering every single one that any 
Member of Congress would have an opportunity to write. That process 
takes place every spring to meet the statutory deadline of passing 
budgets by April. This is not that budget today, Mr. Speaker.
  This is a budget, as you know, to move us forward on a reconciliation 
process to finish up the FY17 budget process, and rather than 
considering all the amendments that one might have to offer, we have 
made in order just one. It is the Democratic substitute. It is offered 
by my good friend, the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, 
Mr. Yarmuth, and it is absolutely worthy of the Membership's 
consideration. But it is not going to be a vote-a-rama on every budget 
known to mankind. It will be the underlying budget from the House 
Committee on the Budget as well as one substitute from the ranking 
member.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to consideration of the measure to waive a 
statutory prohibition on naming a civilian Secretary of Defense who has 
been out of the military for less than 7 years, we are also offering 
that under a closed rule today. No amendments are going to be made in 
order. You may not know, Mr. Speaker, but that is the only statutory 
change that has passed the United States Senate in 2017.
  When we talk about having to move expeditiously, when we talk about 
whether or not we are going to have an open process or a closed 
process, understand that while this body has passed dozens of statutory 
changes in just these first 9 days of legislative activity, the Senate 
has passed but one. This is in anticipation of an inauguration of a 
President on January 20. This is in anticipation of trying to fill out 
a Cabinet. This is in anticipation of trying to make sure that civilian 
leadership is in place on day one to lead and to serve the men and 
women of the United States military.
  This is not the time to have that vote-a-rama. This is the time to 
move expeditiously, again, with a bill that has passed in a bipartisan 
way in the other Chamber. I look forward to getting back into the 
business of leading the Senate, not following the Senate. I look 
forward to getting back in the business of voting on absolutely every 
idea that Members bring to this floor.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that 
we can move expeditiously on two of our priorities: passing that FY17 
budget resolution and ensuring the speedy confirmation of the civilian 
leader of the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 874]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
restrictive rule, and I rise in strong opposition to the underlying 
legislation.
  Because of Republican in-fighting, Congress was unable to do one of 
its most basic jobs last year, passing a full budget for FY17. So now 
House Republicans have brought this budget bill to the floor, but we 
all know that this is just a vehicle for them to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act and take away health care from millions and millions of 
Americans.
  For nearly 7 years, my Republican friends have railed against the 
Affordable Care Act. Their well-funded allies have spent billions of 
dollars distorting the ACA and lying to the American people about what 
it actually does. And for nearly 7 years there has not been a single 
comprehensive healthcare bill brought to the floor by Republicans as a 
replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Not one.
  We have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA on the House floor. I 
will be the first to admit that ACA is not perfect, but rather than 
work together to tweak it or to make it better, all we get from them 
are repeal bills, repeal bills, repeal bills. Let me again point out 
that not once, not once, was there a replacement bill offered.
  Not only do Republicans not have a plan to replace the Affordable 
Care Act and protect access to health care for more than 20 million 
Americans who gained coverage, they can't even agree on a timeline for 
when they will pass their replacement. President-elect Trump says 
repeal and replace will be done on the same day, and he wants it to 
happen now. Representative Steve Scalise said Republicans will replace 
the ACA over the course of the next few months. Senator John Thune said 
it could take 2 or 3 years for the replacement to be implemented. 
Representative Chris Collins said Republicans have 6 months to work out 
the replacement plan, and Senator Mitch McConnell refused to even give 
a timeline, just saying that it would happen.
  Well, while the Republicans fight with each other over timelines, I 
think it is appropriate to ask: If they did have a replacement, what 
would that replacement be?
  Well, President-elect Trump has the answer. When asked what we should 
replace ObamaCare with, he said: ``Something terrific.'' When pressed 
for further details, and more specificity, he said: ``Something that 
people will really, really, really like.''
  Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. It would be laughable if 
it weren't so tragic. It is tragic because what Republicans are trying 
to do is take healthcare protections away from millions and millions of 
families.
  Now, no one in this Congress has to worry about health care if the 
Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the Donald Trumps of the world 
certainly don't have to worry about health care if the Affordable Care 
Act is repealed. If someone in their family gets really sick, they will 
just sell some stocks or close down another American factory or not pay 
their workers, as our President-elect has been known to do on many, 
many occasions.
  But for millions of Americans, it will be a different story. 
Repealing the ACA would mean over 30 million Americans would lose 
coverage, including nearly 4 million children. More than 52 million 
individuals with preexisting conditions could have coverage rescinded 
or see their premiums dramatically increased. Millions of young adults 
would be unable to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26. Over 
14 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion would 
lose coverage, and nearly 140 million individuals with private 
insurance would lose access to preventive services without copays and 
deductibles. And millions of seniors would see their prescription drug 
prices increase because it would reopen the so-called doughnut hole 
that the ACA has begun to close.
  Republicans want to slash Medicaid, a healthcare program that does a 
lot of good stuff and enables mothers to work their way out of poverty 
by providing affordable coverage for their children. As someone who 
represents Massachusetts, this is especially personal because Medicaid 
is one of the best tools we have in the fight against opioid addiction, 
providing real care for the addiction and underlying conditions that 
drive the opioid epidemic in our communities. Repealing Medicaid 
expansion under the ACA would rip coverage away from an estimated 1.6 
million newly insured individuals with substance use disorders.
  That is what is at stake, and that is what my Republican colleagues 
are so happy, giddy, and excited to do. It is sad. It is pathetic, but 
they are moving forward anyway with no replacement in sight. I suppose 
they can roll out their oldies but goodies, like health savings 
accounts or their other healthcare prescription, take two tax breaks 
and call me in the morning. But that doesn't do it.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a complicated healthcare system, no doubt. I 
wish it were simpler. That is why I have always favored a single-payer 
system and that is why I favored a public option. But the problem with 
our system before ObamaCare was that it left all the decisions up to 
the insurance companies.
  Do you remember the days when insurance companies could charge women 
more for health insurance because they said being a woman was a 
preexisting condition?
  They can't do that anymore. Why? Not because of my Republican 
friends. They can't do it anymore because we passed the ACA.
  This budget bill would also give Republicans a green light to defund 
Planned Parenthood. To my colleagues who are so anxious to defund 
Planned Parenthood just to satisfy their rightwing base, let me ask: 
Have you ever visited a Planned Parenthood clinic? Because if you had, 
you would understand why what you are doing is so wrong.

                              {time}  0930

  The fact is that Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in 
protecting and providing access to critical health services for both 
women and men. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood 
health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 
2.7 million patients each year. One of the most important statistics 
that my Republican friends like to ignore is that more than 90 percent 
of what Planned Parenthood does nationally is preventive care, 
including cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, and 
family planning, not abortion services.
  Add to this fact that Planned Parenthood clinics are often one of the 
few affordable healthcare options available for many women. Nearly 80 
percent of women using Planned Parenthood clinics have incomes at or 
below 150 percent of poverty. It is easy to see why a majority of 
Americans don't think Federal funding should be eliminated. In one 
recent poll, 63 percent of voters, including 72 percent of 
independents, do not agree with my Republican friends that Federal 
funding for Planned Parenthood should be eliminated.
  In fact, we also heard very little about the consequences that 
defunding Planned Parenthood would have for families across the 
country. One of the biggest myths perpetrated by Republicans is the 
idea that our Nation's community health centers, which I love and adore 
and respect, could suddenly pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is 
defunded.
  For the millions of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood 
clinics, defunding them would mean the loss of affordable and 
accessible contraceptive services and counseling, as well as breast and 
cervical cancer screenings. Simply put, for the many communities served 
by Planned Parenthood clinics, recklessly cutting funding would wipe 
out access to vital health services for the people who need them the 
most.
  Let me make something very clear. Zero Federal dollars go towards the 
abortion services provided by Planned

[[Page 875]]

Parenthood--zero. The vast majority of funding that Planned Parenthood 
receives comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for preventive 
care that they provide.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel thing to do, to take away people's health 
care. I will say to my Republican colleagues that they need to know 
that we are going to fight you every step of the way on this. There are 
some battles on behalf of the American people that are worth having and 
worth fighting, and this is one of them--making sure that their health 
care protections remain intact. I came to Congress to help people, not 
make their lives more miserable.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment briefly on the other piece of 
legislation in this rule, S. 84. General James Mattis has been praised 
by both Democrats and Republicans, but there is very real concern about 
civilian control over the military, the language of the underlying 
legislation, and the duties and responsibilities of the House of 
Representatives.
  General Mattis has a distinguished career, but we are talking about 
changing the law here. Approving a waiver for him to serve in the 
Cabinet so soon after his military service is a serious decision. It is 
so serious that such a waiver has happened only once before in the 
entire history of the United States. Now, we should debate this. 
Instead, the Trump transition team canceled General Mattis' testimony 
before the House Armed Services Committee and now expects us to vote 
for him willy-nilly without us being able to ask him any questions.
  Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive branch, but if 
the House is denied the opportunity to meet with and question the 
military officer who is nominated as our next Defense Secretary, how 
can we fulfill our duty and blindly just vote for him?
  I would also say to my Republican friends, this is an early warning 
sign of the disregard that this new administration has for the House of 
Representatives. General Mattis was willing to testify, but the Trump 
team said no. They said no to the House of Representatives. Caving in 
on this issue will only mean continued disregard for the people's House 
in the future, and I think that that is regrettable.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who probably knows more 
about the Health and Human Services Appropriations bill than anyone 
else in this Congress, the cardinal from that committee in the 114th 
Congress.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation. As has been made clear, we are actually talking about two 
different pieces of legislation here today.
  The waiver for Secretary-designee James Mattis is, quite frankly, a 
no-brainer. The Senate voted 81-17 in favor of that waiver. I would 
suspect there will be similar bipartisan support here.
  My friend is correct, of course; this is a serious matter whenever we 
grant exceptions to the law. But General Mattis is just uniformly and 
universally respected across the lines for his distinguished work in 
defense of this country, so I hope we move ahead on that.
  The budget resolution that comes before us is another matter, and 
there will be a great deal of contention. Frankly, the resolution 
itself is not, as my good friend from California pointed out, and 
should not be seen as, a traditional budgetary item. It is, frankly, a 
projection of what will happen if we do absolutely nothing over the 
next decade and leave the current set of policies in place.
  It is a sobering document to read in that regard because it shows 
rising deficits every single year for a decade, beginning at over $580 
billion and then moving well north of $1 trillion. Frankly, in my view, 
it is something that we ought to look at and come to the realization 
that we are going to need to do entitlement reform in the next decade, 
something that people on both sides of the aisle seem to want to 
ignore. Absent that, we will, indeed, have extraordinary budget 
deficits, and they will be large enough to undercut and undermine our 
economy.
  The budget resolution is also a vehicle, a tool, to begin to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act. This is necessary for, really, one simple 
reason. The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare as it is popularly known, 
is a failing system. It is unpopular. It has never been popular, never 
hit 50 percent of popularity. Frankly, in my view, it has cost our 
friends their majority in the House, then cost them their majority in 
the Senate, and may well have cost them the Presidency of the United 
States. The American people have spoken pretty emphatically: We don't 
like this product. And it is collapsing financially right now. This is 
not a system that is an operation that is really doing well.
  Let me just talk about my own State. We have about 197,000 people 
that have gotten insurance under ObamaCare. This year, they will have 
exactly one choice as to what company they want to choose to provide 
them, and their rates will go up by 69 percent. Now, nationally, I 
think the average is over 25 percent.
  Clearly, this is not a system that is working very well. Politically, 
the easy thing to do would be what our friends want us to do--let's 
just leave it alone. It will fall under its own weight, and it will be 
very clear who is responsible for that collapse: the current 
administration and my friends on the other side. But that also would be 
the irresponsible thing to do, and that would be, in itself, an 
abdication of leadership and, ultimately, unfair to the American 
people.
  Instead, we are going to repeal the system and begin to replace it 
with something that will work better. Now, my friend's point is a fair 
one. There is not a single plan out there, but there are plenty of 
plans. I know I cosponsor a couple myself. I think we will be able to 
work through this relatively easily.
  There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of diagnosis about what 
the failures of ObamaCare are, but there has been very little in the 
way of actual legislative remedy. We have a unique opportunity to do 
that. Frankly, I am proud of our Speaker, and I am proud of our 
conference that they are going to seize that and begin this process 
because I don't think there is anything more important facing us.
  So I would urge the passage of the rule and then the passage, 
obviously, of the underlying legislation, particularly the budget 
resolution that allows us to begin the necessary work in repealing and 
replacing ObamaCare, and, obviously, the waiver that would allow us to 
have a distinguished Secretary of Defense, General Mattis.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things.
  First of all, according to the Brookings Institution, without the 
ACA, insurance premiums would be 44 percent higher.
  And the other fact I point out for my colleagues is that healthcare 
costs are growing at the slowest rate in the last 50 years. Families 
are spending over $3,500 a year less than they would have because of 
the ACA. I would say to my colleagues, yeah, we want to do better, but 
let's work to address some of the shortcomings of the ACA rather than 
repeal it and put in danger all these healthcare protections that 
people have.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are in week 2 of this 115th 
Congress, and, as promised, my colleagues and I are here to stand up 
for this good Nation. Unfortunately, House Republicans cannot say the 
same.
  Last night, they decided that nursing home coverage for millions of 
seniors, comprehensive health care for young children, and the benefits 
earned after a lifetime of hard work are not worth fighting for. That 
is exactly why the gentleman from Wisconsin offered an amendment to 
ensure that the budget resolution being considered today could not be 
used to cut benefits from three critically important programs:

[[Page 876]]

Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
  In fact, the President-elect promised many times that he would 
neither cut Social Security benefits for seniors nor would he support 
cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. But the rule under consideration this 
morning fails to allow a debate or vote on this amendment, which places 
the earned benefits and the financial future of American people at 
risk.
  Who are my Republican colleagues looking out for? Certainly not their 
constituents.
  It is clear that we are faced with a Republican-controlled Congress 
that is ensuring the divided and self-serving rhetoric that echoed 
throughout this campaign season rings true. This is not democracy. This 
is not outlined in our Constitution. This is not the democracy we are 
sworn to protect.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank my 
colleague for her admonition to reject divisive and self-serving 
rhetoric because I think that is absolutely something we should take to 
heart.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a new member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for 
yielding me this time to speak on these important issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak on this important rule that 
provides consideration for the fiscal year 2017 budget resolution and 
S. 84, which provides a legal exception for General Mattis to serve as 
Secretary of Defense, certainly are important issues. As a member of 
the House Rules Committee, I am very proud to support this rule as well 
as both of the underlying measures.
  S. 84 provides a one-time exemption on behalf of an individual who is 
uniquely qualified to serve during a very challenging period in our 
Nation's history and a time when U.S. national security and military 
readiness is of paramount importance for both Americans and our allies 
around the world.
  This legislation does not permanently change the law nor does it 
diminish the founding principle of civilian control of our military. In 
fact, this rule allows for consideration of legislation providing for a 
one-time exemption that does exactly the opposite. It reinforces the 
doctrine of civilian control of our military. By setting into motion 
this unique procedure, the people's elected representatives are taking 
the seriousness of this circumstance to heart, to debate and carefully 
weigh granting a historic exception, only provided on one other 
occasion in our history.
  The man at the center of this matter demonstrates the extraordinary 
nature of the situation we currently face. General James N. Mattis has 
served our Nation with unparalleled distinction over the past 40-plus 
years. Born in Pullman, Washington, General Mattis grew up in my 
congressional district, the Fourth District of the State of Washington. 
He attended what was then Columbia High School, now Richland High, and 
graduated from Central Washington University.
  It was growing up along the banks of the Columbia River in Richland 
where General Mattis' parents instilled in him a deep passion for 
reading, which then developed into a renowned lifelong devotion to 
intellectualism, military and world history, and the study of war.
  General Mattis has been in command at increasing levels throughout 
his career within the United States Marine Corps, where he began as a 
student enrolled in ROTC, rose to the rank of general, and served as 
commander of the United States Central Command responsible for American 
military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central 
Asia. Few individuals command the respect and admiration General Mattis 
has earned amongst the troops, national security experts, and military 
and civic leaders.
  This rule allows for the consideration of legislation to provide the 
United States Senate its proper role of advice and consent regarding 
the nomination of General Mattis to serve as our next Secretary of 
Defense.

                              {time}  0945

  I urge my colleagues to support this rule so the Senate can 
rightfully provide its constitutional guidance, which I am confident 
will overwhelmingly support this distinguished leader and public 
servant from the great State of Washington.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
allow for the consideration of Representative Pocan's amendment, of 
which I am a proud cosponsor, to create a point of order against any 
legislation that would cut benefits under Social Security, Medicare, or 
Medicaid or that would attempt to privatize Social Security. All are 
things that my Republican friends have advocated for in previous 
budgets.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question so that we can bring up my amendment, which would 
block the House GOP majority from cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security.
  President-elect Donald Trump has promised many times throughout his 
campaign that he would not cut Social Security benefits for seniors nor 
would he support cuts to Medicare or Medicaid benefits. In fact, at 
least 15 times he said he would not make cuts to Medicare or Social 
Security. He even tweeted it; so we know he really, really meant it.
  If it is important to the Democrats and if it is important to the 
President-elect and if it is important to the American people, let's 
make sure it is absolutely certain that no one has to worry about a cut 
in one's Social Security and Medicare benefits--not a single cut to 
anyone. If we could do that, that would be the single biggest success 
of the 115th Congress.
  If you support the idea that you will not cut Social Security and 
Medicare and that you will protect the promise to our constituents, 
then support this amendment. But if you are not sure yet or if you 
might be willing to cut Social Security and Medicare or if you are 
actually considering cutting these programs, then you should oppose 
this amendment.
  Again, our amendment would block any legislation before the House or 
Senate which cuts guaranteed, earned benefits under Social Security, 
Medicare, or Medicaid programs; which increases the retirement age for 
these benefits or which privatizes Social Security. Nationally, over 64 
million people receive benefits from Social Security.
  I want to read a couple of comments from constituents from the State 
of Wisconsin, the home State of Speaker Paul Ryan and mine.
  Robyn from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, said: ``Please do everything in 
your power to oppose Speaker Ryan's legislation to privatize Social 
Security and Medicare. These are our earned benefits for a lifetime of 
working as dairy farmers.''
  Carol from Madison said: ``I am a retired Navy veteran and a cancer 
survivor. My grandfather, a World War II and Korean war vet, is living 
in a home on Medicaid and Medicare. What is going to happen to him if . 
. . Republicans are successful in drastically altering these 
programs?''
  Democrats believe we need to protect our senior citizens and the most 
vulnerable in our society. Democrats believe we need to strengthen the 
middle

[[Page 877]]

class through the preservation of Social Security and Medicare, and so 
do the American people.
  Do Republicans share our belief? Let's make it crystal clear. Do you 
want to protect Social Security and Medicare, or do you want to cut 
these earned benefits? You can decide that with this vote.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question 
so we can bring up the CPC--the Pocan-Ellison-Grijalva-Lee-Schakowsky 
amendment--and find out who truly supports Medicare and Social Security 
in this House.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Reluctantly I recognize that we are, apparently, not going to have an 
end to divisive, self-serving rhetoric. I am still optimistic, as it is 
a long year ahead of us.
  What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is suggesting, Mr. 
Speaker, is that we ensure the failure of Social Security going 
forward. The only guaranteed benefit in Social Security is that it is 
guaranteed to fail. Those are not my words. These are the words of the 
actuaries who are in charge of protecting Social Security. The 
nonpartisan actuaries who govern Social Security say that there is not 
enough money today to pay the benefits that folks are expecting. The 
law of the land, as it exists today, requires that, when that day 
comes, benefits will get cut dramatically. Only a 75 percent 
realization of benefits is what the law requires that befalls our 
senior citizens. If we pass the amendment that is suggested by my 
friend, we would be prohibited from considering any solutions to that 
problem. Means testing, which my colleagues have advocated for years, 
is off the table under that scenario.
  Mr. Speaker, to suggest that anyone on this side of the aisle wants 
to undermine the commitment that this country has made to our seniors 
is ludicrous; but to suggest that I go to a 22-year-old, whose polling 
today suggests he or she believes they are more likely to see a UFO in 
their lifetime than a Social Security check in their lifetime--to 
suggest that going to that 22-year-old and my thinking that maybe his 
retirement age would be a year or two higher than his great-
grandparents' since he is now living decades longer--I will remind my 
colleagues we came together in a bipartisan way to raise the retirement 
age from 65 to 67 in 1983, not because one of us hated seniors and one 
of us loved seniors, but because we all believed in our commitment to 
seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, don't let the Record reflect anything other than that 
this budget resolution provides the framework to begin this discussion, 
to begin the discussion of what comes next. There is not a single line 
of authorizing language in this budget resolution. Any suggestion that 
the law will change tomorrow because of this budget resolution is 
false. The law will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. The 
difference is we have begun a path--we will have created a framework; 
we will have provided the tools--to have a discussion about how to 
solve very real problems in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, by saying 
that I don't know what he is talking about. The Pocan amendment is 
pretty clear. It says that there will be a point of order against any 
legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, 
Medicare, or Medicaid or would attempt to privatize Social Security.
  Now, I know my Republican friends want to privatize Social Security, 
because they tried that in the past; and I know they want to privatize 
Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, because that is what their 
budgets continually do. I mean, that is what we are trying to prevent.
  If you want to privatize Social Security, if you want to privatize 
Medicare and turn it into a voucher system, then stand with them. But 
if you want to protect these programs--and the vast majority of 
Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want to protect the 
integrity of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--then oppose this 
budget.
  By the way, this budget, basically, is the green light to go ahead 
and destroy the protections that people value in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable to me that the majority is 
prioritizing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act as its top priority 
for the 115th Congress as the Nation's infrastructure crumbles and as 
the cost of education continues to skyrocket. It is particularly 
outrageous that this budget puts the wheels in motion, as my colleague 
has said, for a repeal of the healthcare law without there being 
anything to take its place.
  This budget would also increase our Nation's debt by $9.5 trillion 
over the next 10 years. Apparently the party that has tried to claim 
the mantle of balanced budgets for years doesn't really care about 
fiscal responsibility.
  It is the first step toward defunding Planned Parenthood, which 
serves 2.5 million patients--men and women--across the country every 
year and provides preventative care, like birth control and cancer 
screenings. It seems to me, for the majority of my adult life, I have 
been trying to defend Planned Parenthood. The excuse given that the 
community health centers can pick up the slack is so enormously wrong 
that the community health centers are scared to death that they are 
going to be asked to try to pick up that slack of 2.5 million patients. 
That is absolutely a cover for something that doesn't make any sense at 
all.
  I was shocked to read a study over the summer that found that the 
rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the State of Texas, since they did 
away with Planned Parenthood, seems to have doubled since 2010, making 
Texas one of the most dangerous places in the world to have a baby.
  What was happening in Texas during this time?
  The State legislature was not only making cuts to family planning 
clinics where many low-income women received the only medical care they 
got, but the State was absolutely refusing to expand its Medicaid 
program, which would have given lower income women desperately needed 
access to prenatal services.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The point being--and one of the things we talked about 
last night at Rules--is that, of the many States in which the premiums, 
they thought, had gone reasonably high, these were also the States that 
did not expand Medicaid or set up the exchanges, which were intended to 
cut the costs. While the causes of maternal deaths are complex, 
certainly leaving women without access to medical care will not do 
anything to decrease that mortality rate.
  Today my Republican friends want to inflict the same harm on pregnant 
women all over the country by taking away the Medicaid expansion and by 
taking away money for clinics like Planned Parenthood. I cannot believe 
that in this day and age and in this century it is even contemplated. I 
know the American people are paying attention because every day in my 
office we get between 20 and 30 calls--and have for the last 2 or 3 
weeks--begging us not to repeal the ACA.
  This agenda has the potential to devastate millions of people from 
coast to coast. Instead of solving problems, the majority is on the 
verge of creating new ones for families all across the country.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts said in his opening statement that 
he didn't come to Congress to hurt people; that he came to help people. 
I want to stipulate that that is 100 percent true. There is no one in 
this Chamber who I believe has a bigger heart for men and

[[Page 878]]

women than the gentleman from Massachusetts, which is why I know that 
he does not support what I see happening to my constituency.
  He says people are paying less for their health care today. I dispute 
those numbers writ large, but I know it is true in my district because 
the free healthcare clinic has doubled since the passage of ObamaCare. 
Folks once had access to small plans that they chose for their 
families. Those plans were outlawed. Now they have high deductible 
plans that are worthless to them, so they seek care at the free 
clinics. I know that ripping the plans out from under those men and 
women in my district was not the gentleman's intention when he passed 
the Affordable Care Act, but it is absolutely the result.
  I know that when the gentleman set up those exchanges, which all 
Americans were supposed to be able to go to to buy their healthcare 
plans, he did not intend for those plans to get canceled year after 
year after year after year, because they were unsustainable. We all 
know, of the constituents in our districts who did what the government 
told them to do, they lost the plans their employers used to provide; 
they went to the exchanges to buy a plan; and, 1 year later, those 
plans were canceled. They went through the process again: they picked 
out other plans; they went through the exchanges and paid their money; 
and, 1 year later, those plans were canceled again and again.
  We all know those constituents; so to suggest that the only reason 
someone would come to the floor today would be to solve a nonexistent 
problem is ridiculous. We all know that there are problems. What is 
ridiculous are the folks who would come and defend the status quo. The 
status quo is indefensible, Mr. Speaker.
  When we get together, we can do amazing things. There are vast 
experiences of the Members in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and our 
bringing those to the table leads to better solutions. We have spent 6 
years being stuck in the status quo, and this bill represents an 
opportunity to turn the page on that status quo, and I know every 
single Member has constituents in his district who will welcome it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to help the gentleman understand the benefits of the ACA 
in his home State of Georgia:
  There are 468,000 individuals in the State who have gained coverage 
since the ACA was implemented, and now they could lose it if he gets 
his way.
  478,000 individuals in the State who were able to purchase high-
quality marketplace coverage now stand to lose that coverage if the 
gentleman gets his way.
  In 2016, 427,000 individuals in the State have received financial 
assistance to purchase marketplace coverage; they are at risk of losing 
that.
  65,000 kids have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented in the 
State of Georgia.
  74,000 young adults are able to stay on their parents' health 
insurance until they are 26 because of the ACA.
  That is all in Georgia. So I would hope the gentleman would 
understand what is happening in his own State before he votes to repeal 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last night Speaker Ryan told a national 
audience on CNN ObamaCare is crumbling. Donald Trump has said over and 
over again ObamaCare is a disaster. I would like to share just a tiny 
fraction of the emails my office has received in the last few days to 
demonstrate that the opposite is true:
  Peter, a 63-year-old farmer from Ellington, Connecticut:

       ACA has allowed me and my wife access to quality health 
     care. If this law is repealed, either I sell off my land and 
     livestock or go without insurance.

  Becky, a 41-year-old small-business owner and single mom from 
Enfield, before ACA hadn't seen a doctor in 4 years. Now, she and her 
kids have a plan for $315 a month.
  George, a 53-year-old freelance designer from Niantic: the past 2 
years, he and his wife with preexisting conditions have been covered by 
an affordable plan.
  Michelle, a registered nurse with health issues from Killingworth, 
has the same message.
  Sue from Vernon, her husband has cancer.
  Barbara from North Stonington, a 59-year-old registered nurse, has a 
chronic condition.
  All are watching this destructive process with outrage. For these 
people, the only thing that is crumbling is their confidence in 
Congress to do the right thing and stop this rush to repeal.
  As George from Niantic said:

       I have never been so worried for my country.

  Vote ``no'' on repeal. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was not in Congress at the time the Affordable Care Act passed, but 
I remember it, watching from home. We talk about this as if it was some 
sort of thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation that folks are so 
tremendously proud of. I happen to have the numbers here, Mr. Speaker.
  It was H.R. 4872 that moved through the House, that was the 
authorizing part. We had three votes in the U.S. House of 
Representatives on that bill. We had a motion to recommit, as it was 
not actually a healthcare bill to begin with, and a vote on final 
passage.
  Then it went over to the U.S. Senate where they worked their will on 
it. They had 43 votes on it, amendments offered, ideas, and changes.
  Then it came back to the House where we changed it not at all. There 
was one straight partisan vote on the Affordable Care Act. Not one idea 
from the U.S. House of Representatives added, not one change from the 
U.S. House of Representatives, not one alteration of any kind.
  As you recall, Mr. Speaker, they had a filibuster-proof majority in 
the United States Senate, so Democrats could work their will any way 
they wanted. When they lost that filibuster-proof majority--they only 
had 59 votes out of 100 instead of 60--they ended debate, they ended 
discussion, they ended collaboration and jammed what they had passed at 
midnight on Christmas Eve right on through the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I can't imagine who defends that as the proper outcome 
of the legislative process. We have a chance to change that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I am glad that my friend from Connecticut has some constituents that 
have benefited. I have some constituents that have benefited. But I 
have constituents who are being failed, and I know my friend from 
Connecticut does, too.
  I am glad that my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking 
about all of their success stories, but I want my friends to join me 
and grapple with all of the failures.
  I will not deny the way the conversation about health care has 
changed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act--folks talking 
about preexisting conditions, folks talking about lifetime caps, folks 
talking about keeping young kids on their policies until they are 26.
  I just don't understand why my colleagues would deny that folks who 
used to have care, now don't. Folks who used to have affordable plans, 
now don't. Folks who used to be able to take care of their employees 
through their small business plans, now can't. This is undisputed, and 
we have an opportunity to do better. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in doing that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is entitled to his own 
opinions but not his own facts. The facts with regard to the process in 
which the Affordable Care Act was developed, I think, are worth 
repeating here.
  In the House of Representatives, we held nearly 100 hours of hearings 
and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, 
both

[[Page 879]]

Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three 
committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted. The bill was 
available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on the floor.
  In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee held more than 53 
hearings. The committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation, 
the longest markup in the 22 years of the committee. The Senate Health 
Committee held 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs on 
the healthcare reform bill.
  So to say that this was not a thoughtful process is just wrong.
  Compare that to the way this budget bill is being brought to the 
floor. There is no committee consideration, no deliberation. It is just 
given to us. In fact, most of the committees aren't even organized yet 
in the House of Representatives.
  So there is a contrast there, and I stand with the way we approached 
the Affordable Care Act as opposed to the way the Republicans have 
approached this budget deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Soto).
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, here is my 1-minute breakdown on why I oppose 
repealing ObamaCare without replacement:
  First, this law protects all Americans with preexisting conditions; 
second, it keeps all young adults on their parents' insurance until age 
26; third, it protects all Americans from bankruptcy if they get sick 
by removing lifetime caps.
  Before the act, millions of Americans were simply kicked off their 
insurance when these problems arose. We Democrats support keeping these 
protections for all Americans, and the Republicans want to repeal them. 
We support improving the act, and the Republicans want to eliminate it.
  While many have stoked fear and spread false information for 
political gain, it is clear that repeal without replacement equals 
disaster. It will eliminate these protections for all Americans, create 
chaos for working families, and send our country into another 
recession.
  It is clear we need to improve the act rather than repeal it. It is 
time to do the right thing for all Floridians and for all Americans.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to share with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that one is 
not entitled to their own facts, but one is also not entitled to share 
just half the story and leave it as if it is the entire story.
  Everything the gentleman from Massachusetts said was true, until the 
U.S. House abdicated any responsibility whatsoever and passed exactly 
what the Senate did with no amendment whatsoever. All of the work 
product the gentleman talked about, all of the work that the gentleman 
talked about went for naught in this U.S. House of Representatives.
  To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted to have crafted 
is to deny reality. To deny that this is not the bill that folks wanted 
to have crafted is to deny the nine different times the Republican 
House and Senate sent to the President repeals of ObamaCare, things 
that were so broken even the President couldn't live with it and he 
signed those repeals into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to denigrate any of the motives of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. I just can't understand, for 
the life of me, why they don't want to try to do better.
  That pride of authorship, that arrogance, it has a real impact on the 
men and women that I serve, and I am asking my friends to partner with 
me to help me fix it. But if they won't partner with me, I am going to 
move forward and fix it anyway.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have been willing to work with our Republican friends to try to 
improve the Affordable Care Act for nearly 7 years. They have been 
unwilling to work with us in a bipartisan way. Instead, they just want 
to repeal, repeal, repeal.
  Now, I don't know what their motivation is. Maybe it is because they 
don't like President Obama. Judging from some of the rhetoric that we 
have heard on this House floor over these years, I think some of the 
Members over there actually hate the President of the United States, 
and this is all driven by this personal animosity.
  Let me just say to the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act may 
have started out with a different bill number, but the facts remain 
that there were hundreds of hours of hearings on the Affordable Care 
Act, 181 witnesses testified; hundreds of amendments were considered in 
committee.
  The process of using a different bill number is very common in both 
Chambers. In fact, the House Republicans have done it several times in 
the past 3 years. Regardless of the bill number, the work that went 
into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes in the 
history of the Congress, and it has resulted in providing protections 
and health care for millions and millions of people in this country. 
All of that is at risk with this budget resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I was in the middle of hundreds of hours 
of discussion and debate in committee, on the floor. It is amazing to 
think of all the time and energy that went into it.
  Was it a perfect bill? Absolutely not. It would have been much better 
if the legislative process hadn't collapsed in the Senate and forced 
reconciliation as the vehicle.
  The offer to somehow become bipartisan and work together to solve the 
problems ring hollow. I have been on the Ways and Means Committee for 
the last 6 years when Republicans were in charge with constant efforts 
to repeal ObamaCare, but they refused to work with us to fine-tune the 
legislation when we could move forward and build on this foundation and 
not be in a situation where we are going to unsettle healthcare 
markets, leave people doubting about where they are, and having no clue 
about what comes forward.
  There is a reason, after 6 years, the Republicans do not have an 
alternative to offer now. It is because their wildly contradictory 
promises cannot be met.
  I urge rejection of the rule and rejection of this effort to gut the 
most important healthcare reform in the last 50 years.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee 
the healthcare bill came through. We can debate how many hearings, how 
many questions, and all of that. The public has rendered judgment on 
this healthcare law.
  In 2010, Republicans took back control of the House over two issues: 
ObamaCare and cap-and-trade. And then our base was saying to repeal 
ObamaCare, all the way back to 2010.
  In 2014, the Republicans took over the Senate. Our base is saying: 
You have got the House. You have got the Senate. Repeal ObamaCare. It 
is harmful. It is destructive--and I will tell you why in a minute.
  So why should anybody not expect us, in 2016, when the public has 
rendered judgment again in a national election that we have to repeal 
ObamaCare?
  So when I talk to my constituents and people talk to me, this is 
going to happen, and we know there is going to be a replacement.
  There are two different ideologies of how to provide care. We believe 
in markets; you believe in centralized control. We believe in people 
choosing the best plan for them in the private markets; and those who 
need help and assistance to get in those markets, we are going to help 
them get in those markets. But to have our Federal Government say that 
you only have one of four choices--my constituents pay for health care 
that they can't use because they can't pay the deductibles, so they are 
forced to buy something that they can't use.

[[Page 880]]

  So this is timely. I am glad we are moving expeditiously, and we look 
forward to the year ahead.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we believe healthcare protections ought to 
be enshrined in the law and not left up to insurance companies.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. It 
sets into motion the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  This repeal-only bill takes money intended to fund health care for 
middle class families and it hands it to the wealthy families and to 
big health corporations in the form of tax cuts. The public does not 
know this.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this bill 
would give the 400 highest income families in the United States an 
average tax cut of $7 million a year. It would rob millions of families 
of the money they need for their insurance. It hands it over to the 
wealthy, including nearly $250 billion over 10 years in tax cuts for 
health insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

                              {time}  1015

  Where are the majority's values? We should be providing more 
Americans with health insurance, not fewer; and we should be creating 
jobs, not eliminating them. This bill is a disgrace. It is a betrayal 
of the working families of this Nation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say 
absolutely none of that is true. Absolutely not one word of that is 
true. This bill does not one of those things. This bill does, in fact, 
nothing to change the law at all in any way, shape, or form. It is not 
true. This bill provides a process for debating the law, and I 
certainly hope we will pass it so we can have that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna).
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill 
which will set forth the repeal of ObamaCare. But I also am concerned 
that the bill doesn't have a basic amendment which would allow for the 
importation of drugs from Canada.
  Senator Sanders courageously, on Wednesday night, went on the floor 
and introduced an amendment to allow for the importation of drugs from 
Canada that the overwhelming number of Republicans and Democrats 
support. It was appalling that 13 Senate Democrats voted against the 
Sanders amendment, and they did so because the pharmaceutical industry 
is a cancer on this body; the pharmaceutical companies' contributions 
are a cancer.
  We need to allow for the importation of drugs, we need that to be an 
amendment to this bill, and we need to take it up as a body.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts I do 
not have any further speakers and would be happy to close when he is 
prepared.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. A report by Families U.S.A. said that repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act equals a huge tax cut for the wealthy.
  What people don't know, and the public doesn't know at the moment, is 
that this will hand over to wealthy and major corporations new tax 
breaks worth nearly $600 million--more than a half-trillion dollars 
over 10 years, $345.8 billion over 10 years in tax cuts for people 
whose incomes are over a specified threshold; $200,000 for single 
individuals; and $250,000 for families. There are $274.4 billion over 
10 years going to health insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and 
other large healthcare corporations.
  That is what repeal of the Affordable Care Act does. My colleagues 
need to face up to that, and the public needs to know it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American 
Medical Association, a letter from 120 interfaith groups, a letter from 
the Consumers Union, a letter from the Massachusetts Health & Hospital 
Association, a letter from a number of labor organizations in my home 
State of Massachusetts, and a letter from UMassMemorial Community 
Healthlink, which is a provider of comprehensive health care in my 
district. They are all opposed to undoing the Affordable Care Act.

                                 American Medical Association,

                                     Chicago, IL, January 3, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker 
     Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the physician and 
     medical student members of the American Medical Association 
     (AMA), I am writing regarding our ongoing commitment to 
     reform of the health care system and potential legislative 
     actions during the first months of the 115th Congress.
       The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage 
     for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice, 
     freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. These 
     policy positions are guided by the actions of the AMA House 
     of Delegates, composed of representatives of more than 190 
     state and national specialty medical associations, and they 
     form the basis for AMA consideration of reforms to our health 
     care system. (A summary of key AMA objectives for health 
     system reform is attached.)
       Health system reform is an ongoing quest for improvement. 
     The AMA supported passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) 
     because it was a significant improvement on the status quo at 
     that time. We continue to embrace the primary goal of that 
     law--to make high quality, affordable health care coverage 
     accessible to all Americans. We also recognize that the ACA 
     is imperfect and there a number of issues that need to be 
     addressed. As such, we welcome proposals, consistent with the 
     policies of our House of Delegates, to make coverage more 
     affordable, provide greater choice, and increase the number 
     of those insured.
       In considering opportunities to make coverage more 
     affordable and accessible to all Americans, it is essential 
     that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance 
     coverage be maintained.
       Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before 
     any action is taken through reconciliation or other means 
     that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should 
     lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what 
     will replace current policies. Patients and other 
     stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy 
     to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about 
     whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process 
     of health reform.
       We stand ready to work with you to continue the process of 
     improving our health care system and ensuring that all 
     Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care 
     coverage.
           Sincerely,
                                              James L. Madara, MD,
     Executive Vice President, CEO.
                                  ____

                                                 January 12, 2017.
       Dear President-elect Trump and Members of the U.S. 
     Congress: We the undersigned members of the investment and 
     public health communities want to re-affirm our deep 
     commitment to a more accessible and affordable health care 
     system by voicing our support for the continued expansion of 
     coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
       In order for our economy to thrive and Americans to 
     prosper, our health care system must be both equitable and 
     efficient. As a result of ACA's implementation, quality and 
     affordable health insurance has been guaranteed to more than 
     20 million previously uninsured Americans. While the ACA has 
     dramatically expanded coverage, we support reforms within the 
     framework of the Act to further contain rising health care 
     costs.
       We agree that thoughtful improvements to the ACA are 
     needed, but we are deeply concerned by threats to repeal and/
     or replace the ACA before these improvements are implemented. 
     Repeal of the ACA would destroy the tremendous strides we 
     have made as a nation in expanding coverage, would have a 
     destabilizing effect on jobs, businesses and our economy, and 
     would further jeopardize the health and financial security of 
     millions of Americans.
       We call on you, our elected leaders to:
       1) Preserve the Affordable Care Act.
       2) Work collaboratively with all key stakeholders to 
     improve the ACA and better rein in health care costs.
       3) Make the fiscal and political commitment necessary to 
     expand quality health care coverage to all Americans.
       We pledge to do our part to support the ACA and expanded 
     health care coverage

[[Page 881]]

     through our own operations and beyond, and request that as 
     legislators and leaders of our nation entrusted with the 
     health of all Americans, you will do the same.
           Sincerely,
       Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility; Adrian 
     Dominican Sisters; Amalgamated Bank; American Baptist Home 
     Mission Society; Arc Advisers, LLC; Augustinian Province of 
     St. Thomas of Villanova; Benedictine Sisters; Benedictine 
     Sisters of Baltimore; Benedictine Sisters of Florida; 
     Benedictine Sisters of Holy Name; Benedictine Sisters of 
     Mount St. Scholastica; Benedictine Sisters of the Sacred 
     Heart; Benedictine Women of Madison, Inc.; Benet Hill 
     Monastery; Bon Secours Health System, Inc.; Boston Common 
     Asset Management; BVM Shareholder Education & Advocacy Group; 
     CHRISTUS Healthcare; Clean Yield Asset Management.
       Congregation of Divine Providence Inc.; Congregation of 
     Holy Cross, Moreau Province; Congregation of Sisters of St. 
     Agnes; Congregation of St. Basil; Congregation of the Sisters 
     of Charity of the Incarnate Word; Congregation of the Sisters 
     of Divine Providence; Corporate Responsibility Office of the 
     Sisters of Charity of Nazareth; Daughters of Wisdom; Dignity 
     Health; Diocese of Springfield, IL; Dominican Sisters, 
     Sparkill; Dominican Sisters, Grand Rapids; Dominican Sisters 
     of Hope; Dominican Sisters of Houston; Dominican Sisters of 
     Peace; Dominican Sisters of San Rafael; Dominican Sisters of 
     Springfield, IL; Dooley Center; Earth Equity Advisors.
       Everence and the Praxis Mutual Funds; Felician Franciscan 
     Sisters; Felician Sisters--Buffalo Region; Franciscan Action 
     Network; Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration; FundX 
     Investment Group; Glenmary Home Missioners; Green America; 
     Health Care Without Harm; Holy Name Monastery; Horizons 
     Sustainable Financial Services, Inc.; Incarnate Word 
     Associates; Incarnate Word Convent; Incarnate Word Sisters; 
     IWBS Associate; Jantz Management LLC; Leadership Council of 
     the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary--
     Monroe, MI; Marist Fathers.
       Maryknoll Sisters; Mennonite Education Agency; Midwest 
     Coalition for Responsible Investment; Miller/Howard 
     Investments, Inc.; Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate; 
     Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, JPIC Office; 
     MomsRising; Mount St. Scholastica Monastery; Newground Social 
     Investment; NorthStar Asset Management, Inc.; Northwest 
     Coalition for Responsible Investment; Peace/Justice 
     Committee, Benedictine Sisters of FL; Progressive Asset 
     Management; Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment; 
     Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary WAP; S&C North America; 
     SC Ministry Foundation; School Sisters of Notre Dame 
     Cooperative Investment Fund; School Sisters of St. Francis.
       Sinsinawa Dominican Peace and Justice Office; Sinsinawa 
     Dominican Shareholder Action Committee; Sisters of Bon 
     Secours USA; Sisters of Charity BVM; Sisters of Charity 
     Cincinnati; Sisters of Charity of New York; Sisters of 
     Charity of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of Charity, Halifax; 
     Sisters of Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament; Sisters of 
     O.L. of Christian Doctrine; Sisters of St. Dominic of 
     Blauvelt, NY; Sisters of St. Dominic of Caldwell, NJ; Sisters 
     of St. Dominic, Racine, WI; Sisters of St. Francis of 
     Philadelphia; Sisters of St. Joseph; Sisters of St. Joseph of 
     Boston; Sisters of St. Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, 
     PA; Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange; Sisters of St. Joseph of 
     Springfield; Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
       Sisters of the Holy Cross; Sisters of the Humility of Mary; 
     Sisters of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of the Incarnate Word 
     & Blessed Sacrament; Sisters of the Presentation; Sisters of 
     the Presentation of the BVM; Socially Responsible Investment 
     Coalition; Society of Mary (Marianists); SRI Investing LLC; 
     St. Jude League; Stardust; The Pension Boards--United Church 
     of Christ, Inc.; Trillium Asset Management; Trinity Health; 
     Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment; Unitarian 
     Universalist Association; United Church Funds; United 
     Methodist Women; University Presbyterian Church; Ursuline 
     Sisters of Tildonk, U.S. Province; Ursulines of the Roman 
     Union--Eastern Province; Veris Wealth Partners; Walden Asset 
     Management; Zevin Asset Management, LLC.
                                  ____



                                              Consumers Union,

                                                 January 11, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative McGovern: On behalf of Consumers Union, 
     the public policy and mobilization arm of nonprofit Consumer 
     Reports, I write to express our deep concern that the budget 
     resolution for fiscal year 2017 will begin a process that 
     could lead to the repeal of several key parts of the 
     Affordable Care Act (ACA), and could result in tens of 
     millions of Americans losing vital health coverage and the 
     destabilization of insurance markets. As an organization 
     whose founding principles include ensuring access to quality, 
     affordable health coverage and care for all, Consumers Union 
     is concerned that this would jeopardize both the health and 
     financial stability of American families.
       Consumers Union has a long history of working for a fairer 
     and more just marketplace for consumers. We believe all 
     Americans deserve care and coverage that is accessible, 
     affordable, understandable, fairly priced, and meets high, 
     uniform standards for quality and safety. The Affordable Care 
     Act was an important step towards this goal, allowing more 
     than 20 million consumers to purchase private insurance 
     through exchanges or benefit from the Medicaid expansion, 
     thus lowering the uninsurance rate in our nation to its 
     lowest point ever.
       The ACA also includes a number of critical consumer 
     protections that benefit all consumers, regardless of the 
     source of their coverage. The law prevents insurers from 
     discriminating against consumers with pre-existing conditions 
     or charging them more for coverage, prohibits insurers from 
     imposing annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and ensures 
     coverage of a comprehensive package of essential health care 
     services. It also takes steps to measure and improve the 
     safety and quality of care received by all. Consumers Union 
     opposes legislative changes that would eliminate or weaken 
     these critical consumer protections.
       A move to repeal the ACA without a simultaneous replacement 
     that, at minimum, maintains coverage for the number of people 
     currently covered and provides comparable consumer 
     protections would be irresponsible and affect every American 
     family. It could destabilize the individual market for those 
     who buy insurance for themselves, resulting in fewer choices 
     for consumers and sending premiums skyrocketing while 
     benefits shrink. Consumers do not want to go back to a time 
     in which health insurers ran unchecked and insurance coverage 
     was out-of-reach and unreliable for so many Americans.
       Consumers Union strongly urges you to oppose the repealing 
     of the Affordable Care Act.
           Sincerely,

                                              Laura MacCleery,

       Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization, Consumer 
     Reports.
                                  ____

                      Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association,
                                                 January 12, 2017.
     Hon. Elizabeth Warren,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. E. Richard Neal,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Niki Tsongas,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Katherine M. Clark,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael E. Capuano,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. William Keating,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Edward J. Markey,
     Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim McGovern,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joseph P. Kennedy, III,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Seth W. Moulton,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Stephen F. Lynch,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation: 
     On behalf of our member hospitals and health systems, the 
     Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association (MHA) opposes 
     the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). MHA is a 
     founding member of the new Massachusetts Coalition for 
     Coverage and Care that was formed to preserve and improve 
     access to health insurance coverage in Massachusetts and to 
     protect the gains in access to care, health, and health 
     equity that have resulted from near universal coverage. We 
     stand ready both as an individual organization and as a 
     coalition member to provide you the information and resources 
     you will need to oppose efforts to repeal the ACA.
       As you know, Massachusetts has been a pioneer in expanding 
     health coverage over the years, including our state's 
     historic 2006 health reform law that served as a model for 
     the ACA. We believe our state serves as an example of how the 
     ACA's approach to expanding access to affordable health 
     coverage can be successful nationally if given the time and 
     support it deserves. With 10 years now passed since then-
     Governor Mitt Romney signed our initial health reform 
     initiative into law, we can proudly say that the commonwealth 
     is better off than where we stood in 2005. We know we share 
     this sentiment with other Massachusetts healthcare providers, 
     insurers, the employer community, government leaders, and, 
     most importantly, Massachusetts consumers and families. With 
     time, support, and improvements to the ACA, we know the 
     country will value and appreciate the full benefits of 
     ensuring access to affordable health coverage to all citizens 
     as well as creating an environment for our health system to 
     better manage its resources and deliver high-quality care.
       While we were successful in achieving expanded coverage 
     prior to the ACA, it took time and the collective effort of 
     all stakeholders to achieve the reductions in uninsured. 
     Expanding Medicaid was essential to providing coverage to the 
     poorest individuals in our society. First through waivers and 
     then through the ACA, the federal government has played an 
     instrumental role in supporting coverage to economically 
     challenged

[[Page 882]]

     Massachusetts residents. Approximately 300,000 individuals 
     now are covered due to the ACA's Medicaid expansion, many of 
     whom would otherwise be unable to afford health insurance in 
     the commercial market even with government subsidies.
       Since 2006, our state's health insurance exchange has 
     consistently served as a dynamic marketplace for those 
     purchasing insurance in the small group and non-group market. 
     In Massachusetts, we have modified our exchange to conform to 
     the ACA and it remains as robust as it did 10 years ago. The 
     state's Health Connector has experienced broad participation 
     from many health insurers, with 10 insurers currently 
     offering 62 insurance products. Lower and middle income 
     individuals have relied on the exchange for the past decade 
     to shop for affordable health coverage, benefitting from 
     subsidy support, which now comes in the form of federal tax 
     credits and co-payment subsidies. More than 234,000 
     individuals purchased their insurance coverage through the 
     state's exchange in December, including more than 190,000 
     with the support of federal advanced premium tax credits. 
     Another 1,300 small groups covering more than 6,000 lives 
     also purchased insurance in the exchange.
       The effect of these expansions in reducing the number of 
     uninsured has been well documented. According to the United 
     States Census Bureau, Massachusetts had 97.2% of its 
     population covered with health insurance in 2015 compared to 
     89.3% for the three-year average between 2002 and 2005. This 
     coverage expansion had its greatest effect on people with 
     great healthcare needs, working adults with disabilities, 
     younger adults, people with low incomes, and women--all who 
     gained coverage at a faster rate than the general population. 
     And while there are many statistics that highlight the 
     achievements made in expanding coverage, there has been a 
     tremendous positive effect on individual lives as result of 
     better access to care. Researchers have found improvements in 
     physical health, mental health, functional limitations, joint 
     disorders, and body mass index for those in Massachusetts, 
     especially for those with low incomes, minorities, near-
     elderly adults, and women. Individuals here and around the 
     country also no longer fear not being able to access health 
     coverage due to pre-existing conditions or having inadequate 
     health coverage during their times of medical need.
       The cost of providing care to the uninsured also has been 
     significantly reduced due to reform. In Massachusetts, our 
     state's Uncompensated Care Pool covered hospital care for 
     low-income uninsured and underinsured residents for decades. 
     In FY2005 hospital uncompensated care costs totaled $702 
     million, or $992 million adjusting for inflation. This 
     financial burden to hospitals, insurers, and government was 
     yet another reason to address affordable coverage for low-
     income residents so care could be better managed with 
     insurance coverage, including Medicaid. Hospital costs in the 
     program's successor, now called the Health Safety Net, was 
     $407 million in FY2016--or 59% percent less than prior to our 
     2006 reform adjusting for inflation. While there have been 
     some changes to the program over the years, undoubtedly the 
     most significant contributor to this reduction has been the 
     expansion of coverage. Also, it is impossible to calculate 
     the unknown potential for increased numbers of uninsured if 
     affordable health insurance had not been introduced in 2006 
     and maintained for the past 10 years.
       A repeal of the ACA would turn back the clock here in 
     Massachusetts. Attempting to revert back to our Massachusetts 
     coverage programs that existed before the ACA would not be 
     accomplished easily and would involve significant challenges 
     related to the federal support needed for the current level 
     of coverage as well as hospital uncompensated care for 
     uninsured residents. The current subsidized insurance 
     offerings in the state's Connector exchange are now built off 
     of the ACA federal tax credit approach, and the financing of 
     that coverage is heavily dependent on federal funding. On the 
     Medicaid side, the ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility even in 
     states like Massachusetts that had higher levels of Medicaid 
     coverage through waivers. Massachusetts would likely need to 
     seek a waiver to maintain that coverage through Medicaid if 
     the ACA expansions were repealed. Of great concern, losing 
     the ACA's enhanced federal Medicaid funding for these 
     expansions would be a significant issue as the MassHealth 
     program is already facing financial challenges with growing 
     enrollment and reimbursement cuts to hospitals and other 
     providers.
       The ACA also ushered in profound innovations that have 
     improved how healthcare is paid for and delivered. These 
     enhancements improved quality of care, improved value, 
     enhanced integration and collaborations in delivering care, 
     and expanded preventive health screening. And other federal 
     statutes, like meaningful use electronic medical record 
     changes and the new Medicare physician payment law (MACRA), 
     are designed to integrate with the ACA for success. The ACA 
     included many less well known provisions that have improved 
     the integrity of our healthcare system, such as the 
     ``sunshine'' act provisions which greatly improved 
     transparency in the financial relationships between 
     clinicians and manufacturers. These are only a handful of the 
     examples of how significantly the ACA has changed the way we 
     deliver healthcare and, either directly or indirectly, has 
     led to improvements in access and quality for everyone.
       As you know, our hospitals are also in the midst of 
     responding to an opioid use crisis, increased prescription 
     drug prices, a behavioral health system in drastic need of 
     repair, and an aging patient population--all with limited 
     financial resources. The Massachusetts healthcare system is 
     also focused on improving the delivery of care and achieving 
     cost savings through increased care coordination. The ACA 
     aligns financial incentives and alternative payments as 
     levers for improving healthcare quality while driving down 
     costs. Without comprehensive health coverage, progress on all 
     of these efforts will be seriously challenged.
       In dollar terms the picture is very clear if the ACA were 
     to be repealed--especially since a large part of the funding 
     for the ACA came from payment cuts to hospitals, and since 
     those cuts may continue despite repeal of essential ACA 
     components. A recent study commissioned by the American 
     Hospital Association (AHA) and Federation of American 
     Hospitals (FAH) found that hospitals stand to lose $289.5 
     billion in Medicare inflation updates alone from 2018 to 2026 
     if the payment cuts in the ACA are continued, and estimated 
     further hospital losses of $102.9 billion if Medicare and 
     Medicaid disproportionate share hospital reductions are 
     retained. The effect of these losses in Massachusetts would 
     be $12.3 billion over this time period, according to the 
     study. The report also estimates that nationwide insurance 
     coverage losses without a replacement would have an 
     additional $165.8 billion financial impact on hospitals in 
     this same time period. The AHA/FAH analysis also estimates 
     the cumulative federal payment reductions to hospital 
     services that have been imposed through other actions 
     subsequent to, and independent of, the ACA; these cuts total 
     another $148 billion nationally from 2010 to 2026, and come 
     on top of the ACA cuts.
       The ACA, like Medicare in 1965, has had its growing pains, 
     but the benefits of the ACA far exceed any ongoing problems. 
     As with any comprehensive law it has been a work in progress. 
     We are still trying to review all the potential aspects of 
     what repeal might mean, but simply getting beyond the key 
     threats of repeal is difficult; the effect on coverage and on 
     the Medicaid waiver programs, the end of quality initiatives, 
     and the great hospital financial hit of not reversing the 
     cuts in place to pay for expansion are all extraordinarily 
     troubling. To our knowledge, no proposal has been floated 
     that would actually maintain insurance coverage that now 
     currently exists as a result of the ACA, or that would 
     continue the quality and delivery system improvements now 
     underway.
       Our hospitals, and the thousands of healthcare employees in 
     the commonwealth, are on the frontline of providing some of 
     the best healthcare in the world. Every day Americans see the 
     importance of access to high-quality, cost-effective 
     healthcare, and millions more are insured because of the ACA. 
     We will work with you to ensure that affordable health 
     coverage is sustained so that our efforts can continue to 
     focus on the payment and delivery reforms which remain 
     underway.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lynn Nicholas,
     MHA President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                 January 12, 2017.
     Congressman Jim McGovern,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McGovern: We write today on behalf of 
     adults and children, persons with lived experience, family 
     members, providers, and organized labor that make up the 
     mental health and addiction disorders advocacy community to 
     urge you to strongly oppose any major restructuring of the 
     Medicaid program.
       A study done by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration (SAMHSA) concluded that one in five 
     Americans experience a mental illness or addiction in any 
     given year. The number of adults and children in the 
     Commonwealth who need behavioral health care services is 
     staggering. In 2015 in Massachusetts, about 4.2% of all 
     adults aged 18 or older had a serious mental illness within 
     the year prior to being surveyed; 46.2% of these individual 
     did not receive any mental health treatment/counseling during 
     that time period.
       Massachusetts and the United States as a whole are in the 
     midst of an unprecedented opioid epidemic. In Massachusetts, 
     an estimated 1475 individuals died from January 2016 to 
     September 2016. The first 9 months of 2016 saw a higher 
     opioid overdose rate than the first 9 months of 2015. 
     Nationwide, more people died from drug overdoses in 2014 than 
     in any year on record, and the majority of drug overdose 
     deaths (more than six out of ten) involved an opioid.
       We know that recovery is possible for these individuals 
     with effective treatment and supports, which is why 
     preserving Medicaid funding for vital treatment services is 
     so important.
       In 2014, spending by Medicaid accounted for 25% of all 
     mental health spending in the U.S. and 21% of all substance 
     use disorder expenditures in the nation. People with 
     behavioral

[[Page 883]]

     health conditions are nearly one-third of the ACA expansion 
     population.
       Republican proposals to drastically restructure Medicaid 
     will shift costs onto states and enrollees, restrict access 
     to care, and increase the number of uninsured and 
     underinsured. The ultimate goal of re-financing Medicaid into 
     block grants/per capita caps is to massively cut the amount 
     of federal spending for Medicaid. According to House Speaker 
     Paul Ryan's proposed Medicaid plan, these proposed changes 
     would result in a total of $1 trillion in cuts to federal 
     Medicaid spending over the next ten years. Massachusetts 
     would then be forced to increase state spending on the 
     Commonwealth's Medicaid program, and/or reduce eligibility, 
     payments to providers, or benefits.
       Proponents of the block grant/per capita cap approach have 
     argued that states would gain greater flexibility in 
     designing and managing their Medicaid programs. However, 
     block grants/per capita caps will not provide any greater 
     programmatic flexibility to states than they have under 
     current law. States currently work with CMS through the 
     section 1115 waiver process to tailor their Medicaid program 
     to fit the needs of their specific state.
       We are especially concerned about how many of the proposals 
     being offered by the President-Elect and Republican members 
     of Congress will impact access to vital behavioral health 
     services. The pressure on state Medicaid programs and the 
     corresponding efforts to reduce funding and eligibility will 
     put mental health and substance use disorder services at 
     significant risk. The risk to behavioral health services is 
     so high because Massachusetts, like the rest of the nation, 
     is not required to cover mental health and addiction 
     treatment services as part of our state Medicaid program.
       Over the past decade, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has 
     implemented many reforms to improve health care delivery in 
     the Massachusetts. Despite these efforts, access to a robust 
     continuum of behavioral health services continues to be a 
     challenge for individuals living with a mental health and/or 
     addiction disorder. Any changes that result in reduced 
     funding for Massachusetts' Medicaid program will only 
     exacerbate this problem as Medicaid continues to be the 
     largest payer of these services across the Commonwealth.
       It is imperative that adults, children and families be able 
     to access the services they need, when they need them, where 
     they need them. These services should be person-centered, 
     outcome-oriented and clinically and cost effective. Massive 
     cuts to Medicaid funding will make the provisions of such 
     services almost impossible.
       Thank you very much for your attention to this important 
     matter. Our organizations are available at your convenience 
     to answer any questions you or your staff may have in 
     relation to our letter.
           Sincerely,
       Vicker DiGravio III, President/CEO, Association for 
     Behavioral Healthcare; Monica Valdes Lupi, JD, MPH, Executive 
     Director, Boston Public Health Commission; Emily Stewart, 
     Executive Director, Casa Esperanza; Nancy Allen Scannell, 
     Children's Mental Health Campaign; Erin Bradley, Executive 
     Director, Children's League; Melody Hugo, Director, 
     Clinicians United; John McGahan, President/CEO, Gavin 
     Foundation & Recovery Homes Collaborative; Stephen Rosenfeld, 
     Interim Executive Director, Health Care For All; Matt Selig, 
     Executive Director, Health Law Advocates; David Matteodo, 
     Executive Director, Massachusetts Association of Behavioral 
     Health Systems; Danna Mauch, Ph.D., President/CEO, 
     Massachusetts Association for Mental Health; Steve Walsh, 
     President & CEO, Massachusetts Council of Community 
     Hospitals.
       Georgia Katsoulomitis, Executive Director, Massachusetts 
     Law Reform Institute; Joseph Weeks, LMHC, President & Midge 
     Williams, LMHC Executive Director, Massachusetts Mental 
     Health Counselors Association; Maryanne Frangules, Executive 
     Director, Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery; 
     Mark J. Hauser, M.D., President, Massachusetts Psychiatric 
     Society; Mary McGeown, Executive Director, Massachusetts 
     Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Laurie 
     Martinelli, LICSW, NAMI Massachusetts; Carol J. Trust, LICSW, 
     Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers--
     MA Chapter; Lisa Lambert, Executive Director PPAL; Michael 
     Weekes, President & CEO, Providers Council; Peter MacKinnon, 
     President, SEIU 509; Siva Sundaram, Student Coalition on 
     Addiction.
                                  ____

                                                    UMass Memorial


                                         Community Healthlink,

                                                 January 10, 2017.
     Attn: Jennifer Chandler, Chief of Staff,
     Hon. Representative Jim McGovern,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative McGovern: On behalf of Community 
     Healthlink located in Worcester, Leominster and Fitchburg 
     Massachusetts, I am writing today to urge and request your 
     support in protecting the Affordable Care Act and preserving 
     Medicaid expansion in the 115th Congress.
       We provide care to approximately 20,000 of the 
     Commonwealth's most vulnerable individuals. We deliver 
     outpatient mental health and substance abuse services, 
     residential programs for those with mental illness and 
     addiction, detoxification and stabilization services, 
     emergency services for Worcester and North Central 
     Massachusetts, for youth and adults. We also provide primary 
     care for a significant number of adults in addition to 
     services for the homeless in Worcester. The vast majority of 
     our patients are Medicaid eligible and many of the adults are 
     disabled due to mental illness. Though Massachusetts lead the 
     way with covering all of its citizens, at this point the ACA 
     provides a good deal of the funding that we need to continue 
     to provide this near universal coverage.
       Recent health insurance data show that Americans with 
     mental health and substance use disorders are the single 
     largest beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid 
     expansion. Approximately one in three people who receive 
     health insurance coverage through the Medicaid expansion 
     either have a mental illness, substance use disorder or both 
     simultaneously. By repealing the Medicaid expansion, this 
     population of vulnerable American would be left without 
     access to lifesaving treatment, driving up costs in emergency 
     room visits and hospital stays.
       Moreover, I am writing to urge your support for the 
     protection of the Medicaid program from proposals to 
     restructure Medicaid as a block grant or capped program. 
     These proposals would reduce federal investment in Medicaid 
     and leave millions of Americans without access to needed 
     mental health and addictions treatment in our state and 
     communities. Please work with your colleagues to protect our 
     nation's most vulnerable patient population and preserve 
     their access to treatment.
       Thank you for your continued support. I would be honored to 
     help you in any way possible.
           Sincerely,
     Marie Hobart, MD,
       Chief Medical Officer, Community Healthlink Clinical 
     Associate Professor of Psychiatry University of Massachusetts 
     Medical School.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question, and that would allow us to vote on an amendment 
by Mr. Pocan which would create a point of order against any 
legislation that would cut the benefits under Social Security, Medicare 
or Medicaid, or attempts to privatize Social Security.
  So if you want to protect those programs, and if you are against 
privatizing Social Security, then vote against the previous question so 
we can bring this up.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a sad day because 
what we are doing here by voting for this budget is setting in motion a 
process to deny millions of people healthcare protections. I can't 
imagine why anybody would want to do that.
  Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No, and we are the first to admit 
it. We want to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen it, to make it 
better, and to make it less onerous on certain businesses. But my 
colleagues don't want to do that. They are determined just to vote for 
an outright repeal, and that is going to hurt countless people in this 
country, people who have now benefited from no preexisting conditions, 
people who have benefited from allowing their kids to stay on their 
insurance until they are 26, and senior citizens who have benefited 
from closing the doughnut hole. I could go on and on and on. All of 
that is about to be eliminated.
  We are told that there will be replacement someday, somehow. For 6 
years--over 6 years--you have been talking about repealing the 
Affordable Care Act and a replacement, and you haven't brought one bill 
to the floor--not one.
  Now, we believe that health care ought to be a right; I know you 
don't. We believe that healthcare protections ought to be in law; you 
believe they ought to be up to the insurance company. But this is a 
lousy thing to do. As I said in my opening statement, we are going to 
fight you on this. This is a fight worth having. Protecting people's 
health care is something that we all should be dedicated to, and we're 
going to fight you on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 884]]

  I am fond of telling folks back home, Mr. Speaker, when they tell me 
they know exactly what is going to happen over the next 2 years, that I 
don't think they are telling me the truth. Because I confess to you, I 
have absolutely no idea what is coming over these next 2 years. I think 
these next 2 years are going to be unlike any we have seen in the 
history of self-governance in this land; and, candidly, I am excited 
about that because the status quo isn't working for the 700,000 people 
that I represent.
  I don't know what's going to happen over these next 2 years, but I 
believe that, for the first time, we are going to grapple with some 
really, really, really hard problems that folks on both sides of the 
aisle have been ignoring for too long.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't question the commitment of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle to the American people. I question the 
legislation that they use to deliver it. You heard my friend from 
Oklahoma talk about premiums going up 67 percent for his constituents. 
That is indefensible. It is not okay. We can do better, and, with the 
passage of this budget resolution, we will have the tools to do that. I 
say again, the law will be the same tomorrow as it is today, but we 
will have the tools to grapple with these problems.
  Eight million Americans were so failed by the Affordable Care Act 
that they paid a tax penalty instead of accessing care. That is not 
okay. I don't believe a single Member on the other side of the aisle 
decided they just wanted to tax young people instead of provide young 
people with quality care. This budget will give us the opportunity to 
have the tools to fix that problem.
  Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, have gone into State-based co-ops 
that have failed, gone bankrupt, and terminated all of their plans 
which not only ripped health care out from under the American people, 
Mr. Speaker, but threw billions of dollars away in administrative costs 
at the same time. That is not okay. That is indefensible. We can do 
better. Passing this budget resolution will give us those tools.
  Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment in the Rules Committee last night to 
do everything I could to stop poisoning the well of public discourse. 
Then I re-upped for the Rules Committee, and I realized that is going 
to be a tough promise to fulfill. We have difficult work to do, and we 
are passionate about the quality of that work.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we all know the status quo has failed. We all know 
that we have the opportunity to deliver, and we all know that a vote of 
``yes'' on this budget resolution will give us more tools to deliver 
that success than we have today. We need to do this. We need to 
celebrate doing this.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and support the 
two underlying measures that it will bring to the floor.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a Budget Resolution later 
today that makes it possible to take away health coverage from tens of 
millions of people.
  But the Democrats know that this is just the beginning.
  Congressional Republicans have started their plans to not just repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, but to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social 
Security.
  Republican proposals would threaten nursing home coverage for 
millions of seniors, undermine comprehensive health care for children 
by cutting Medicaid, and slash benefits earned after years of hard 
work.
  The CPC and Congressional Democrats will not stand for this. That is 
why we introduced an amendment that would ensure the Budget Resolution 
we are voting on today or any future bill can't be used to cut benefits 
from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, increase the retirement age 
for these benefits, or privatize Social Security.
  But, the majority is not allowing debate or a vote on our amendment.
  This sends a clear message: Congressional Republicans are willing to 
put the lives and futures of millions of children, seniors and working 
families at risk.
  It also puts them on the wrong side of history. Cutting Medicare, 
Medicaid and Social Security is not what the American people want.
  President-elect Trump has promised several times that he will not 
support cuts to these important programs that help millions of 
Americans make ends meet.
  This leaves Congressional Republicans in a tough spot. Whose side are 
they on?
  Will they commit to protecting hard-working Americans? Will they 
protect America's children? Seniors? What about people with 
disabilities?
  Or, will they yet again cut the benefits of working people so they 
can give tax breaks to big corporations?
  The Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Democrats will not 
back down. We will oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so 
we can bring up the CPC amendment to block the House GOP from cutting 
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
  Will House Republicans stand with us?
  Today, 55 million older people and people with disabilities have 
health care because of Medicare.
  82 percent of Americans--including 74 percent of Republicans, 88 
percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents--agree it is 
critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it 
means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.
  In 2015, 11 million Americans became newly eligible for Medicaid 
thanks to Medicaid expansion.
  If Republicans repeal the ACA, at least 11 million people's Medicaid 
coverage will be at risk.
  The House Republican budget plan far fiscal year 2017 would have cut 
federal Medicaid funding by $1 trillion--or nearly 25 percent--over ten 
years. That is in addition to ending Medicaid expansion.
  The Urban Institute estimated that the 2012 Ryan proposal would lead 
states to drop between 14.3 million and 20.5 million people from 
Medicaid by the tenth year, in addition to the effects of repealing 
health reform's Medicaid expansion.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 48 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, following general debate on Senate Concurrent 
     Resolution 3 and prior to consideration of the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, the amendment specified in section 4 shall 
     be in order if offered by Representative Pocan of Wisconsin 
     or a designee. Such amendment shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendment are 
     waived.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the concurrent resolution, add the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BREAK 
                   DONALD TRUMP'S PROMISE NOT TO CUT SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY, MEDICARE, OR MEDICAID.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, 
     or conference report that would--
       (1) result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits scheduled 
     under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.);
       (2) increase either the early or full retirement age for 
     the benefits described in paragraph (1);
       (3) privatize Social Security;
       (4) result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for 
     individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under the 
     Medicare program under title XVIII of 18 such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395 et seq.); or
       (5) result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for 
     individuals enrolled in, or eligible to receive medical 
     assistance through, a State Medicaid plan or waiver under 
     title XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 5 et seq.).
       (b) Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--Subsection (a) may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the 
     Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under subsection (a).
       (c) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a 
     point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the 
     question of consideration with respect to the rule or order, 
     as applicable. The question of consideration shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point 
     of order and for 10 minutes

[[Page 885]]

     by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without 
     intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution .  .  . [and] has 
     no substantive legislative or policy implications 
     whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. 
     Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 
     Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th 
     edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the 
     previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is 
     generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority 
     Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule.  .  .  . When 
     the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of 
     the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to 
     ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then 
     controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or 
     yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 179, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Costa
     Crist
     Crowley
     Evans
     Frankel (FL)
     Huffman
     Johnson (GA)
     Keating
     Meeks
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Suozzi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Young (AK)
     Zinke

                              {time}  1047

  Messrs. DOGGETT and CLYBURN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''

[[Page 886]]


  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, SMITH of New Jersey, and JORDAN changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Crowley
     Frankel (FL)
     Huffman
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Suozzi
     Zinke

                              {time}  1053

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to vote during the following 
rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following 
manner. On vote roll No. 55, I would have voted ``nay.'' On vote roll 
No. 56, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________