Providing 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, and providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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.

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 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. 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).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

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.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. The facts with regard to the process in which the Affordable Care Act was developed, I think, are worth repeating here.

In the House of Representatives, we held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted. The bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on the floor.

In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee held more than 53 hearings. The committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation, the longest

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. 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. 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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to remind my colleague that her vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 266,000 people from her State of Tennessee losing their healthcare coverage, 57,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $34.2 billion in gross State product for the State of Tennessee over 5 years.

The so-called budget before us was drafted by Republicans for the sole purpose of repealing the Affordable Care Act and defunding Planned Parenthood by a simple majority in the Senate. It squanders the opportunity to start this new Congress working together to address the concerns and priorities of the American people in a constructive and bipartisan manner.

The Affordable Care Act is making an incredible difference across my home State of Kentucky, as in many other places. With our expansion of Medicaid and the success of our State marketplace, Kynect, more than half a million Kentuckians in a State of 4 million have gained quality, affordable coverage. In Louisville alone, the uninsured rate dropped 81 percent.

In a State with tremendous health needs, we are a national model of ACA success. Even our Republican Senator, Rand Paul, and our Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, who are vehemently opposed to the law, know we can't go back to where we were before the ACA. They now acknowledge that Republicans in Congress should not repeal the Affordable Care Act without immediately replacing it.

Much of the debate about the ACA focuses on the 20 million newly insured individuals, but the law has done much more than that. Millions of seniors on Medicare have saved on prescription drug coverage. For people on their employer's plan, out-of-pocket costs are capped, and lifetime limits are gone. If you are one of the 129 million Americans with a preexisting condition, you currently have the peace of mind of knowing that you can always get coverage if you lose your job, change your job, or start your own business.

Let me tell you about Steve Riggert, my constituent who recently wrote to me. When Steve's daughter Anna was 12, she was diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis, a rare disease for a child. This is Anna. Over the next 3 years, she was hospitalized 15 times. Despite their best efforts and prayers, transplant surgery did not achieve success. She has struggled with diabetes and complications. At age 22, she has been hospitalized 26 times for various reasons.

From the beginning, Steve knew that Anna's preexisting condition would make getting medical coverage difficult. So far, he has been able to cover her medical bills through his employer plan. When the ACA was passed, he was immensely relieved that Anna could always get coverage even though she has had a serious preexisting medical condition.

But the Republican plan to repeal the ACA has now left Steve feeling--and these are his words--helpless, petrified, and, literally, losing sleep. At age 64 and recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he fears for how much he can support her. To quote his letter: ``Repeal of all aspects of the Affordable Care Act would place everything I have worked for and those I care about in jeopardy.''

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to fight for Steve, for Anna, and for all the Americans across the country who are begging you not to take away their health care. Repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement will cause chaos. Nearly 30 million people would lose coverage, including more than 4 million kids. Any consumers left in the individual market are likely to face higher premiums and fewer choices as insurers exit the system.

It has been nearly 7 years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, and Republicans still do not have a viable plan to replace it, period. Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers said this week that the Republican replacement plan will guarantee ``no one who has coverage today because of ObamaCare will lose that coverage.''

We are waiting for that plan because none of the bills Republicans will wave from that podium today meet that standard or has the support of the majority of their Conference. Democrats offered a number of amendments to this budget to protect the ACA and make it reflect the priorities of American families. We owe the millions of people who are deeply concerned about this process nothing less. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to allow a vote on a single one.

Putting American families and our Nation's healthcare system at risk is irresponsible. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget. The American people deserve better. Anna deserves better. Her father and her family deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for the shout-out to Kentucky. He neglected to mention that our Governor, Republican Governor, who was elected in 2015 has done virtually everything he could over the last year to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, including dismantling our incredibly successful Kynect exchange, and that is one of the reasons why some of the enrollments declined, because he has made it harder for people to enroll.

I would remind my friend, also, that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 339,000 people from his State of Indiana losing their healthcare coverage, 55,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $30.4 billion in gross State product over 5 years in Indiana.

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 664,000 people from his State of Ohio losing their healthcare coverage; 126,000 workers losing their jobs; and an economic loss of $69.5 billion in gross State product for the State of Ohio. Ohio's Republican Governor is begging us not to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a distinguished member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 250,000 people from his State of Minnesota losing their healthcare coverage; 53,000 workers losing their jobs; and an economic loss of $32.9 billion in gross State product over 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, it now gives me great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 269,000 people from his State of Louisiana losing their healthcare coverage; 37,000 workers losing their jobs; and an economic loss of $21.5 billion in gross State product over 5 years for the State of Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind the gentlewoman that her vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 552,000 people from her State of North Carolina losing their healthcare coverage, 76,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $39.4 billion in gross State product, over 5 years, for North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a distinguished member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind the gentleman that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 211,000 people from his State of Wisconsin losing their healthcare coverage, 46,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $25.7 billion in gross State product, over 5 years, for the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind the gentleman that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 581,000 people from his State of Georgia losing their healthcare coverage, 71,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $39.4 billion in gross State product, over 5 years, for the State of Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result 234,000 people from his State of Arkansas losing their healthcare coverage, 28,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $15.8 billion in gross State product over 5 years for the State of Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 1.8 million people from his State of Texas losing their healthcare coverage, 175,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $107 billion in gross State product over 5 years for the State of Texas.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result 479,000 people from his State of Pennsylvania losing their healthcare coverage, 173,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $76.5 billion over 5 years in gross State product for the State of Pennsylvania.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 1.6 million people from his State of Florida losing their healthcare coverage, 181,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $90.4 billion in gross State product over 5 years in Florida.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic Whip.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my good friend that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 1.8 million people from his State of Texas losing their healthcare coverage, 175,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $107 billion in gross State product, over 5 years, in Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 137,000 people from his State of Kansas losing their healthcare coverage, 19,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $10.5 billion in gross State product, over 5 years, for Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 618,000 people from his State of Michigan losing their healthcare coverage, 101,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $54 billion in gross State product, over 5 years, for Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is a distinguished member and former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 327,000 people from his State of Virginia losing their healthcare coverage, 52,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $31 billion over 5 years in gross State product for Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 850,000 people from his State of Illinois losing their healthcare coverage, 114,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $66 billion in gross State product over 5 years for Illinois.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind the Speaker that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 211,000 people from his State of Wisconsin losing their healthcare coverage, 46,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $25.7 billion in gross State product over 5 years in Wisconsin.

It gives me great pleasure now to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader and architect of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 939,000 people from his State of New York losing their healthcare coverage, 131,000 workers losing their jobs, and an economic loss of $89.7 billion in gross State product over 5 years in New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, everybody in this room wants the same thing. We want the best quality of care available to the most people at the lowest price. That is what every American wants. That is what Republicans and Democrats alike want.

We have put our plan to do that on the table. We recognize that there are ways it could be improved. But the idea that there is a plan competing on the other side is just hilarious.

Last night, I testified at the Rules Committee before Chairman Sessions. Chairman Sessions introduced a bill last year. He had one cosponsor. That gentleman is no longer in the House, so he has no cosponsors as of now. His plan is called the World's Greatest Healthcare Act. I like the name, but I don't know how that relates to any of those other plans. I know that probably some of the elements are similar.

This is the problem with the exercise we are going through. We are heading down a road with no final determination or destination. We are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, eliminating all the protections that we have provided for 300 million Americans--expanded coverage, expanded guarantees, benefits, and quality--and we don't know what the alternative is.

Waiving around a bunch of papers does not mean there is a plan. It does not mean that the Republicans can say to the American public: ``Here is what your health care is going to look like when we get finished with our repeal and replace.'' They just can't do that.

That is why only 18 percent of the American people, according to a Kaiser survey, want this course of action, want a repeal without a replacement.

All I have to say is, if we go down this path, we won't have repeal and replace. What we will have is repeal and repent because we are going to owe a huge apology to the American people for the damage that we have caused.

I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican rush to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, to take health insurance from 30 million Americans, introduce chaos into the health insurance market, and give millionaires and billionaires a giant tax cut is misguided and does not reflect the values of the American people. On top of that, it can significantly damage our economy.

Repeal will upend our Nation's healthcare system. Hospitals will see a spike in uncompensated care, leading to reduced services, job cuts, or higher prices for every one. It will cost the Nation 2.6 million jobs in 2019 alone, including 44,000 jobs in Kentucky. The hit to the economy will be in the trillions of dollars, and it will give corporations and the wealthy hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts.

Repeal isn't about what is best for the American people. It is solely about politics and what is in the financial interest of the well-off and the well-connected. There is absolutely no logic to this.

That said, if Republicans are determined to rush something through Congress right now using the budget process, we would suggest a totally different approach. Let's look at areas where this Congress and this incoming administration can work together to address a pressing challenge facing the country.

Members of both parties and the President-elect have expressed support for repairing our Nation's failing infrastructure, investing in our roads, bridges, ports, and other transportation needs to create jobs and build a stronger economic future. The substitute I have offered today provides the budget procedures needed for such a bill to be considered.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this alternative budget so we can move our Nation forward together.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in my closing to the debate on the resolution itself, it would be wonderful if the Republicans had a plan that they could describe to the American people so that American families would know what would be in their healthcare future. It would also be nice if they would wait to repeal the Affordable Care Act until they could do that. I think the American people expect it. The poll I mentioned from Kaiser, 82 percent of the people preferred to go in that direction. Let's find out if there is a better way.

I have said many times in public the reason there has been no Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act is because there really are only two alternatives: one is to go back to the era in which insurance companies decided who lived and died, and the other one is to go to single payer, something like Medicare for everyone. I would love to discuss that option. I think it would be immensely popular in this country. But, instead, Republicans come up with ideas that are drifting in the other direction, again, back to not patient-centered care but back to insurance company-centered care.

The important thing today is that we have an alternative here through which we can actually do something constructive for the American people, something that will help the economy, something that will make vital investments in our Nation and the future economy instead of putting the country's healthcare system at risk. That is what this amendment does. That is why I introduced it, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am fond of telling folks back home, Mr. Speaker, when they tell me they know exactly what is going to happen over the next 2 years, that I don't think they are telling me the truth. Because I confess to you, I have absolutely no idea what is coming over these next 2 years. I think these next 2 years are going to be unlike any we have seen in the history of self-governance in this land; and, candidly, I am excited about that because the status quo isn't working for the 700,000 people that I represent.

I don't know what's going to happen over these next 2 years, but I believe that, for the first time, we are going to grapple with some really, really, really hard problems that folks on both sides of the aisle have been ignoring for too long.

Mr. Speaker, I don't question the commitment of my friends on the other side of the aisle to the American people. I question the legislation that they use to deliver it. You heard my friend from Oklahoma talk about premiums going up 67 percent for his constituents. That is indefensible. It is not okay. We can do better, and, with the passage of this budget resolution, we will have the tools to do that. I say again, the law will be the same tomorrow as it is today, but we will have the tools to grapple with these problems.

Eight million Americans were so failed by the Affordable Care Act that they paid a tax penalty instead of accessing care. That is not okay. I don't believe a single Member on the other side of the aisle decided they just wanted to tax young people instead of provide young people with quality care. This budget will give us the opportunity to have the tools to fix that problem.

Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, have gone into State-based co-ops that have failed, gone bankrupt, and terminated all of their plans which not only ripped health care out from under the American people, Mr. Speaker, but threw billions of dollars away in administrative costs at the same time. That is not okay. That is indefensible. We can do better. Passing this budget resolution will give us those tools.

Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment in the Rules Committee last night to do everything I could to stop poisoning the well of public discourse. Then I re-

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. Con. Res. 3.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform my colleagues that I intend to reserve 5 minutes of debate time to use after the Joint Economic Committee debate has concluded.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of Americans everywhere who are hurting because of ObamaCare. They are calling out for relief from this disastrous law, and Republicans are here today to begin delivering on our promise to provide relief.

We hear plenty of claims from the other side of the aisle during this debate, but let's be clear: ObamaCare has failed and it is only going to get worse.

Patients have seen skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, lost access to the doctors they preferred, had fewer coverage options, while others have had their plans canceled outright. It is no wonder so many people have rejected this law.

In 2015, roughly 8 million Americans paid the ObamaCare penalty, and more than 12 million Americans claimed an exemption from the penalty. That is 20 million Americans. What does that say about this law that 20 million Americans want nothing to do with it, many preferring to pay a penalty rather than to be subjected to its higher costs and fewer choices? If you ask me, it is strong evidence that the American people are tired of paying more and getting less.

Of course, the destruction that ObamaCare has caused extends beyond discouraging individuals to purchase coverage. It has been a direct attack on those who had insurance already.

In my home State of Tennessee, 28,000 people lost coverage on a single day when the CoverTN program lapsed after the Obama administration decreed that it ran afoul of the Federal Government's top-down requirements. Now premiums in our State are rising by an average of 63 percent, and three-quarters of our counties only have one coverage option to choose from on the ObamaCare exchange.

In five other States around the country--Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming--patients only have one insurer in the marketplace to choose from. That makes it pretty difficult for someone to find a plan that meets their unique needs or that of their family.

President Obama promised that this law would lower premiums by $2,500 per year for the average family. The exact opposite has happened. Average family premiums have gone up by $4,300, and deductibles have gone up by 60 percent. This is hitting hardworking Americans, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet.

Folks in Tennessee and all across the country are spending more and more money on their health insurance because of ObamaCare, when they would rather be saving for a new house or for their children's college. The last thing working men and women need right now is the Federal Government making their life harder with more expensive health insurance by continuing to support this failed law.

That is why we are here today. The Senate successfully passed this resolution yesterday, and now it is time for the House to deliver on our promise, by kick-starting the reconciliation process so that we can repeal ObamaCare and provide relief for the folks who are hurting because of this law.

While our friends on the other side of the aisle always claim that Republicans have no ideas or no plans to replace ObamaCare, that simply isn't

true, and they know it. I have with me here today a few examples, including A Better Way, the 37-page proposal that will provide access to care for all Americans and increase choice and competition.

I would like to also reference that Pete Sessions has a healthcare bill that he has filed. The RSC, with Phil Roe, has a replacement bill that has been filed. Paul Ryan filed a bill right after the passage of ObamaCare. We also have Tom Price's replacement bill that is here. All of these documents are here and available for people to look at and to also find online, as well as A Better Way that we have put out from our Conference.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution to begin the process of repealing ObamaCare and paving the way for patient-centered reforms.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), one of my classmates and also the vice chair of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), one of my classmates from the 2010 class, and a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to make reference to Ranking Member Yarmuth's information on the Commonwealth fund. I want to note that that report that was reported out does not take into account that Republicans do have a plan. It also does not take into account that the repeal of the taxes would put money back into the economy and boost the economy.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis), a freshman and one of the newest members of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our House whip.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who is also a member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson), a new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from New York, when he says we do not have a plan, I reference him to all of the plans that are here on the desk. He says we don't have a plan, but then he references all of the things that will happen under the Republican plan. He can't have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), who is a member of both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note that it is ObamaCare that has, sadly, hurt these rural hospitals, healthcare providers, and people living in those rural areas. As a matter of fact, since January of 2010, there have been at least 80 rural hospitals that have had to close. The damage has already been done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), a freshmen on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), who is a new member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), who is a freshman on our Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to note, once again, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they say we have no plans, I want to reference them several plans that have been filed, and I will leave those here on the desk so they can pick those up at their convenience.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), who is one of our freshman Members.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett), who is one of our freshman Members.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), one of the leaders of our conference.

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who was the chair of our Budget Committee, our Ways and Means Committee, and now he is the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso), one of our newest Members.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read the names of some of the groups that have written to us in support of S. Con. Res. 3. There are more than 35 names on here, but I am going to read off some that we would recognize very quickly:

The American Center for Law and Justice, Association of Mature American Citizens, Citizens Against Government Waste, Concerned Women for America, Health Benefits Group, Independent Women's Voice, Medical Device Manufacturers Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National Taxpayers Union, Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I just want to extract one paragraph out of the U.S. Chamber's letter that they have written:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports S. Con. Res. 3, the

concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget

for 2016, an initial step toward making critical improvements

to the American healthcare system.''

I think that you can see that not only do our constituents support a change, but also these companies around the country.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do now is to read some of the broken promises that have occurred through the Affordable Care Act.

Here is one that I think we will all recognize: ``That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.'' Those are remarks by the President at the annual conference of the American Medical Association back on June 15, 2009.

Here is another one: ``I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.'' This was in a speech on June 23, 2007.

Here is another: ``You should know that once we have fully implemented, you're going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you're an employee at a big company you can get right now--which means your premiums will go down.'' Which we know has absolutely not happened. These were remarks that were made by the President at a campaign event on July 16, 2012.

Here is another one, remarks made by the President after a meeting with the Senate Democrats on December 15, 2009: ``Whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.'' As we know today, those elements have not come to fruition.

Another: ``So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.'' These were remarks by the President on the Affordable Care Act and the government shutdown on October 1, 2013.

Another: ``In my mind the Affordable Care Act has been a huge success, but it's got real problems.'' This came from Jonathan Chait, ``Five Days That Shaped a Presidency,'' on October 2, 2016.

The last one that I will read to you: ``I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs. . . .'' These were remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011.

In 2013, PolitiFact rated this the number one lie of the year. At publication, PolitiFact found that there were at least 37 instances when President Obama made this vow to the American people. I can say that, as we look at these statements that were made, these are not statements that have come true.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to conclude the debate of the budget resolution after the Joint Economic Committee has finished its debate.

Mr. Chairman, after all the debate that we have had today, these facts remain: ObamaCare is failing; health coverage is becoming less affordable; health care is becoming less accessible; and the American people want and deserve something better than this broken status quo.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing their best to defend this law and make excuses for the harm it is causing, Republicans promised the American people we will not ignore those in our country who are suffering under the current healthcare system.

Today, we have an opportunity to begin to bring relief to the American people. Today's vote will kick-start the reconciliation process through which we can and must repeal ObamaCare and pave the way to a patient-centered healthcare system, and I include in the Record letters supporting passage of S. Con. Res. 3.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2017.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports S. Con. Res. 3, the

concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget

for fiscal year 2017, as an initial step toward making

critical improvements to the American health care system.

Congress must repeal the ``Cadillac'' tax, the health

insurance tax, the medical device tax, the employer

responsibility penalties, and other harmful taxes of the

Affordable Care Act that have increased health care costs for

millions of Americans. As committees begin consideration of

reconciliation legislation, the Chamber will continue to

advocate strongly for those and other issues.

Furthermore, this proposal provides for modifications to

enacted FY 2017 discretionary spending levels to bring them

into alignment with the Appropriations Committee's existing

allocation as part of the deeming resolution required by the

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. These levels are consistent

with the statutory limits established by the Budget Control

Act and amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act. This

legislation would also make changes to mandatory spending to

reflect $2 billion in mandatory savings--the same amount

established in the reconciliation instructions.

The FY 2017 Appropriations bills include many Chamber

policy priorities. The Chamber strongly supports completing

work on those bills and hopes that passage of this budget

resolution will provide the framework for their quick

consideration, including beginning the important work on

fiscal year 2018 bills.

Sincerely,

Jack Howard.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution so that we can pursue those solutions that will expand access to care, increase the quality and affordability of that care, and give the American people, not Washington, the power to choose what best fits their individual needs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute would guarantee that the American people continue to be harmed by ObamaCare. It would ensure that insurance markets continue to collapse and that premiums and deductibles continue to rise and that patients have less access to healthcare choices.

At a time when we are trying to provide relief to the American people and protect them from a failed and broken status quo, this amendment ignores those who are suffering under the law. It ignores the 20 million Americans who have either paid the ObamaCare penalty or sought an exemption from it because the cost of complying with the law is either too costly or not worth their trouble.

This amendment tells those families who have seen their premiums go up dramatically--many, who are paying more and getting less--that there is no relief in sight for you. What is more, the substitute does not include any reconciliation instructions, and it lacks the savings we achieve through our instructions.

The bottom line is this: ObamaCare is collapsing. It is failing. The American people need relief. And in order to get them that relief, we need to reject this amendment and get to work on patient-centered solutions for our Nation's healthcare challenges.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this reckless, irresponsible, heartless, and bare bones Republican budget resolution because it does nothing to provide jobs for the American workers; it does nothing to invest in the roads, bridges, ports, cyber networks, and other infrastructure that is needed to sustain economic growth; it explodes the deficit and enriches those who are already wealthy at the expense of middle and working class families.

In particular, this foolish rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act makes plain for all to see that congressional Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points with their rightwing base than they are in protecting the health and economic security of American families.

Thirty million people will lose their insurance; the insurance market will be in shambles; and families left behind will have higher premiums. We will close rural hospitals; and hospitals will lose billions of dollars and might reduce services and cut jobs. The economy will lose 2.6 million jobs.

Repeal and replace is just a straw man. It is about real lives, like Pamela Gross', who suffers from chronic lupus and a number of other autoimmune disorders that have required her to spend upwards of $5,000.

I thank the gentleman.

She writes: ``I asked my doctor recently, `With all that's going on, would I make it without treatment?' The doctor's answer: `No.'''

In her instance, if the Affordable Care Act goes--if is it repealed-- she could completely lose her eligibility for expanded Medicaid and simply die. A young man in my district would die as well.

This is a bad bill. Vote against it. Save America's good health.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to S. Con. Res. 3, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2017, which more appropriately should be known as the ``Make America Sick Again'' Budget.

I stand in opposition to this reckless, irresponsible, heartless, and bare-bones Republican budget resolution because it does nothing to provide jobs for American workers; does nothing to invest in the roads, bridges, ports, cybernetworks, and other infrastructure needed to sustain economic growth; and explodes the deficit and enriches those who are already wealthy at the expense of middle and working-class families.

Let us be very clear about the real objective of our Republican colleagues: their sole purpose in bringing this resolution to the floor is to pave the way for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the defunding of Planned Parenthood by a simple majority vote in the Senate.

This foolish rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act makes plain for all to see that congressional Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points with their right-wing base than they are in protecting the health and economic security of American families.

Mr. Chair, the Affordable Care Act has been an undisputed success, making access to quality affordable healthcare available to more than 20 million Americans who previously lived with the dreaded fear that an unexpected injury or illness to them or a family member would go untreated or could bankrupt their families.

While House Republicans may pine for a return to those bad old days, the large majority of Americans do not because they understand that repeal of the Affordable Care Act will have devastating consequences for working families, women, and the economy.

Mr. Chair, health care experts, governors, and hospitals warn that repealing the ACA without a comprehensive plan in its place will cause chaos and catastrophe, including:

1. Nearly 30 million people would lose health care coverage, including more than 4 million kids;

2. With the individual insurance market in shambles, families remaining in what's left of it could face higher premiums and fewer choices as insurers exit;

3. Hospitals would lose billions of dollars and might reduce services or cut jobs; and rural hospitals would close.

4. The economy would lose 2.6 million jobs in 2019, with the majority in non-health sectors.

Additionally, eliminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would severely restrict women's access to comprehensive care such as contraception, cancer screenings, and STI tests and treatments.

Mr. Chair, Republicans claim they have a replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act but the truth is they do not have a plan now nor have they in the past nor will they in the future.

``Repeal and Replace'' is an empty slogan and is about as serious as the President-Elect's promise of ``something terrific.''

Republicans have had seven years to produce and coalesce around an alternative to the ACA, and they totally failed.

The reason for their failure is they are afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome that blinds them to the ACA's substantial and positive improvements in people's lives.

Without the ACA, insurance companies could continue to make their own rules, and deny coverage based on a person's health status or job, offer lousy benefits, and impose annual and lifetime limits.

Without the ACA, seniors would still face the Part D donut hole and have to pay more for drugs, and parents would not be able to keep their kids on their plan until age 26.

Without the ACA, 20 million people would not have gained coverage, and we would not have the lowest uninsured rate on record.

If Republicans really thought they could match this record of success, they would have unveiled and campaigned on their alternative plan in the last election or at least reveal it to the American people right now.

It is immoral to put families, the health care system, or our economy at risk by repealing the ACA, hurting the economy, ballooning the deficit, and giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.

Mr. Chair, the constituents of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I am privileged to represent, are not buying the `Repeal and Replace' bill of goods that Republicans are selling because they know the Affordable Care Act, which they lovingly call ObamaCare, has brought peace of mind and security where before there was only worry and fear.

Here are some of the ways the Affordable Care Act has made a positive difference to the residents of my congressional district:

1. Coverage for the Previously Uninsured.

Up to 193,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition.

2. Tax Credits to Make Insurance Affordable.

Under the ACA, tax credits are available to assist individuals and families purchase the private health insurance they need.

The amount of these tax credits range from $630 to $4,480 for individuals and from $3,550 to $11,430 for a family of four.

This benefits as many as 446,850 constituents in my congressional district.

3. Extra Benefits for Seniors.

More than 4,100 seniors in my district receive prescription drug discounts worth an average of $828 per person.

4. Extended Coverage for Young Adults.

11,400 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents' plan.

5. No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays.

121,000 individuals in my district--including 23,000 children and 50,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible.

6. Premium Rebates.

113,000 individuals in my district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead.

7. No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions.

In my district, up to 46,000 children with preexisting health conditions no longer can be denied coverage by health insurers.

8. No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage.

153,000 individuals in my district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and no long face annual limits on coverage.

It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values.

As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

The moral test of government is how that government treats

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who

are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are

in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

It is for this reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.

To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards.

Because the American people deserve to know exactly what ills Republicans have in store for them, I strongly oppose S. Con. Res. 3 and urge all Members to join me in voting against the reckless, cruel, and heartless measure that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families.

Pamela Gross dreads repeal of Medicaid expansion. Still, millions of people like Gross, could face immediate effects. While her disability allows her access to Medicare coverage, she also relies on Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, to help pay for costs Medicare doesn't. Gross says she was insured before Obamacare became law. But her Medi- Cal coverage, which she relies on to pay her monthly premiums and co- pays, hung in the balance each year when she received a Supplemental Security Income cost of living increase. The minor jump in pay threatened to push her out of eligibility for the program, which would leave her without the means to pay for a private insurance policy and the doctor visits and medications she says her life literally depends on.

``I asked my doctor recently, with all that's going on would I make it without treatment?'' The doctor's answer: ``No,'' Gross says.

Because Obamacare expanded eligibility for Medicaid and increased the program's income limits, Gross no longer has to be concerned each year that the cost-of-living increase she receives from her SSI income will throw her out of coverage. That would change if Medicaid expansion is eliminated as part of the law's repeal.

``If they repeal I could completely lose eligibility,'' she says. ``I would die.''