Floor Statements

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, May 2, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding to me and for hosting this very important Special Order where we recognize women and, in particular, Jeannette Rankin.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to honor Jeannette Rankin and to celebrate 100 years of women in Congress.

Jeannette inspired millions of Americans when she became the first woman in the Nation's history to serve in the House of Representatives.

A Republican and a former schoolteacher from Montana, Jeannette declared ``I may be the first woman Member of Congress, but I won't be the last,'' as is seen on the poster that the gentlewoman from Indiana has right there in front of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, while we may not agree on all the issues, Jeannette and I share a vision to preserve and protect the American Dream for future generations.

We do so with the hope that young girls, like my two granddaughters, would be able to live a life they choose for themselves, not that someone else chooses for them.

For me, this topic is deeply personal. I spent the first years of my life in public housing, the daughter of parents with no more than a ninth-grade education.

I came from a background where people didn't always know how to dream, and, as a result, I was prepared to settle for a life of unfulfilled potential. I had started to believe that, as a young woman growing up in the fifties and the sixties, who literally lived on the other side of the tracks, maybe the American Dream wasn't for me.

But in time, doors of opportunity were opened that helped me to realize a plan for my life that was greater than I could ever imagine.

I became the first person in my family to earn a college degree. I fulfilled my desire of becoming a nurse, and I became privileged to serve in the Tennessee General Assembly, and now in Congress.

I have traveled far corners of the world, and I have seen the struggle that women endure for access to education, a paycheck, and for real independence. I am keenly aware that only here in this country is my story even possible.

Only here could someone like me go from living in the halls of public housing to serving in the halls of the United States Capitol--that is why we call this the American Dream.

Jeannette Rankin reminds us that the people's House represents Americans from all walks of life. Today in Congress, we have 104 women serving, and I am honored to be the first female chairman of the Budget Committee.

As we celebrate 100 years of women in Congress, we must resolve to ensure that stories like ours are not unique. The work we have done here in Congress must reach today's young women with the truth that they have God-given talents waiting to be used, and that the American Dream is theirs to share as well.

I again thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel) for bringing us together to celebrate this monumental anniversary.

It is really just such a wonder when we look at this country and, having traveled, as I know that you have, throughout the world, see the struggles of women in many, many other countries. I know we are not quite where we want to be, and I know we have still a ways to go, but I am so proud of what we do here in the United States to lift up our women and to recognize that they have talents that we need in every sector of our society.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 228, I call up the bill (H.R. 1628) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 7 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017.

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

I rise today to speak in favor of the American Health Care Act, a bill that repeals many of the worst aspects of ObamaCare, and begins to repair the damage caused by the law by bringing choice, competition, and patient-centered solutions back into our healthcare system.

Standing here today in the House debating this bill is a proud moment for me. I was working as a nurse in Nashville in the 1990s when, fresh off of the failure of HillaryCare, the Clinton administration pushed out a single-payer pilot program in Tennessee called TennCare.

As the story goes, Vice President Gore and the Democratic Governor sketched out a program on a napkin while sitting in a local bar. I saw firsthand the negative impact of government-run health care on patient care. I saw the costs rise, and the quality of care fall. I saw the burdens being placed on doctors, patients, hospitals, and care providers. I saw patients faced with fewer choices and more regulation. And I saw the devastating impact that TennCare was having on our State's budget, gobbling up so much State spending that other priorities like education and infrastructure were getting squeezed.

I couldn't sit idly by while this was happening in my State, so I decided to get involved in public service, and it is what inspired me to run for office at the very beginning. And when, in 2009 and 2010, I saw the same principles being debated and eventually implemented on the national level, I thought my experience in Tennessee would be valuable to the national debate. I told the people in my district that, if elected to Congress, I would fight to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

In 2011, I sponsored the first piece of legislation that repealed a part of ObamaCare. And today, we take the largest step yet in rescuing the American people from the damage that has been done by ObamaCare.

We are united in our goal to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with patient-centered health care. Right now, ObamaCare is imploding. We were promised premiums that would decrease by $2,500; instead, average family premiums in the employer market have soared by $4,300.

We were promised healthcare costs would go down; instead, deductibles have skyrocketed.

We were promised we could keep our doctor, and keep our health insurance plans; instead, millions of Americans have lost their insurance and the doctors that they liked.

In short, the Affordable Care Act was neither affordable, nor did it provide the quality of care that the American people deserve.

The American Health Care Act is a first step in our efforts to deliver patient-centered healthcare reform. This bill returns to the American people freedom and choice in their healthcare decisions. It gets government out of the relationship between patients and their doctors--where it has never belonged--and puts people back in charge of their own health care. It brings the free market principle of competition to an industry that has long been dominated by government intervention.

Today we are faced with a stark choice: Do we vote to continue the damage ObamaCare is doing to our country and our constituents, or do we vote to go down another path, a better way of doing health care in this country?

While no legislation is perfect, this bill does accomplish some important reforms. It zeros out the mandates. It repeals taxes. It repeals the subsidies. It allows people to choose health insurance plans that are unique to their families, instead of purchasing a one- size-fits-all plan that is mandated by some Washington bureaucrat, and it modernizes Medicaid, a once-in-a-lifetime entitlement reform.

Ending Medicaid's open-ended funding structure will play an important role in addressing the future budget deficits and our growing national debt. I applaud my colleagues who have stayed in this fight and continue to make this bill better.

The members of the Budget Committee, which I chair, outlined four principles they believed would improve the bill. Those principles led to significant changes to allow more State flexibility in Medicaid and ensure that tax credits truly served the people they are meant to serve.

Others fought to eliminate Federal ObamaCare regulations that drive up the cost of health care for all Americans and give those powers back to the States. At the same time, we also ensure that States have the resources to provide maternity and newborn care and treatment for mental health and substance abuse.

I agree with these changes, and I applaud my colleagues for the work to make sure that we truly reverse the damage ObamaCare is doing to our healthcare system and our economy.

ObamaCare's legacy is clear: more government, less choice, and higher costs. Our vision for health care in America is the opposite: more freedom, more choice, and lower costs. Put simply, the American Health Care Act is a good first step, but it is only a first step.

My good friend and our former colleague, Dr. Tom Price, will use his position as Secretary of Health and Human Services to address some of the regulatory burden of ObamaCare through administrative action. We have voted already and will continue to vote on individual pieces of legislation to implement even more patient-centered, free market reforms that we cannot address through reconciliation.

In fact, we just passed two bills already this week. One would allow small businesses to join together to purchase insurance, and the other would increase competition by tearing down antitrust regulations. That bill received 416 votes. This shows that these bills are commonsense measures that include bipartisan support.

The day is finally here where we have an opportunity to fulfill that promise that we have made to the American people. I, for one, cannot sit idly by and let this opportunity go to waste. Campaigning is easy compared to governing, but our constituents did not elect us to do what is easy. They elected us to do what is right.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the American Health Care Act, to rescue the American people from ObamaCare.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) who is a member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) who is a distinguished member of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), who is the vice chair of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that our Members on the other side of the aisle are sharing some data on the coverage of per congressional district based on a study that was conducted by the Center for American Progress, which is a left-leaning organization to begin with. The Center for American Progress employs a flawed methodology for estimating this coverage. In

fact, their foundational numbers are actually based on CBO's coverage estimates, estimates that the CBO itself has established are not infallible.

These coverage numbers only take into account plans that they consider comprehensive major medical policies. This is a term that is used in the very law that we are trying to dismantle today. These coverage estimates do not account for things that we have in our bill, such as HSA plans that allow purchase with tax credits, and many medical plans.

So the AHCA increases freedom for Americans to purchase the kind of coverage that works for them, not the narrowly defined coverage that we see that the Federal Government likes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who is also a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), who is a physician.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my fellow colleagues that, currently, when we look at the access to care for people, one-third of our counties only have one provider; two-thirds of our counties only have two providers. In my State of Tennessee, there are 14 counties where they will have no insurance provider on the marketplace. So when we talk about people losing their insurance, they are losing their insurance by not having access to even purchase the insurance.

One of my former colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota, asked: What are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to preserve?

I want to point to this chart here to ask that question, because these are the broken promises of ObamaCare.

Why are you trying to preserve something where they say premiums will decrease by $2,500, and we see the average family premiums have soared by $4,300, making insurance unaffordable for many families?

Another broken promise: the cost of health care will go down.

We see some deductibles that have gone up as much as 60 percent. In my own State, they have gone up by 63 percent, making coverage unaffordable.

You can keep your doctor--70 percent of the plans consist of narrow networks, which means they cannot keep their doctor. I cannot tell you the number of people who have called me because their doctor was not on their inept plan.

Finally, ``middle class Americans won't see a tax increase.'' This was a promise by former President Obama. ObamaCare penalties were put in place, so people are receiving a tax penalty.

These are the broken promises that the other side of the aisle wants to continue to protect. As opposed to that, we

want a system that is going to be open with patient care and give affordability so people can get the services that they want with a cost that they can afford.

I also thank the Budget Committee for the work that they have done, and all the staff that have worked endless hours to make it possible for this to be here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

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

I include in the Record a letter dated March 7, 2017, from Dr. Thomas Price, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who sent a letter of support for the American Health Care Act to Chairmen Walden and Brady.

The Secretary of

Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden and Chairman Brady: On behalf of the

Trump Administration, I am writing in support of the

reconciliation recommendations recently released for

consideration by your Committees. Together, they align with

the President's goal of rescuing Americans from the failures

of the Affordable Care Act. These proposals offer patient-

centered solutions that will provide all Americans with

access to affordable, quality healthcare, promote innovation,

and offer peace of mind for those with pre-existing

conditions.

Your legislative proposals are consistent with the

President's commitment to repeal the Affordable Care Act;

provide advanceable, refundable tax credits for Americans who

do not already receive such tax benefits through health

insurance offered by their employers; put Medicaid on a

sustainable path and remove burdensome requirements in the

program to better target

resources to those most in need; empower patients and put

healthcare dollars and decisions back into their hands by

expanding the use of health savings accounts; ensure a stable

transition away from the Affordable Care Act; and protect

people with pre-existing conditions.

Achieving all of the President's goals to reform healthcare

will require more than what is possible in a budget

reconciliation bill, as procedural rules on this type of

legislation prevent inclusion of key policies such as selling

insurance across state lines, lowering drug costs for

patients, providing additional flexibility in Medicaid for

states to manage their programs in a way that best serves

their most vulnerable citizens, or medical legal reforms.

Your proposals represent a necessary and important first step

toward fulfilling our promises to the American people. We

look forward to working with you throughout the legislative

process, making necessary technical and appropriate changes,

and ensuring eventual arrival of this important bill on the

President's desk.

Yours truly,

Thomas E. Price, M.D.,

Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that comes from 24 of our Governors in support of the repeal of ObamaCare, and I would like to read just two quick paragraphs out of the letter:

``We support efforts to Reform the system.

``To provide access to affordable and quality health care, we must reform the system. We support a plan that gives state governments maximum flexibility to reform Medicaid and the system surrounding it. The states are more effective, more efficient and more accountable to the people. What works in one state may not work in another location, and true reform will allow states to recognize and meet the unique needs of the people all across America.

``We recognize that a vote in the House of Representatives is the first step in the Repeal, Replace and Reform process. The members of the United States Senate will undoubtedly make additional improvements before final approval by the President. We also recognize that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is committed to working with state leaders to provide maximum flexibility for true reform.''

March 24, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: Thank you for your

service to our country. Please allow us to offer our thoughts

about the pending vote on the American Health Care Act.

Americans want personalized, patient-centered healthcare that

treats them as individuals not a statistic, and that demands

we repeal Obamacare, replace it, and reform the system.

We support the Repeal of Obamacare

Obamacare is collapsing. If we do nothing, people will lose

access to health care coverage. As it stands now, one-third

of the counties nationwide have only a single insurance

carrier. Americans in these areas have essentially no

choices, while they watch their premiums rise dramatically.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 28 million

Americans will lose coverage over the next decade if changes

are not made to the Affordable Care Act.

As the Affordable Care Act continues to deteriorate, and as

insurance premiums skyrocket across the nation, opposition to

this failed policy grows. Governor Mark Dayton (D-MN) said,

``the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable.''

Similarly, Bill Clinton called ObamaCare, ``. . . the

craziest thing in the world.'', adding that people ``wind up

with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.''

The President and Congress must act now to repeal the

Affordable Care Act to protect the citizens we serve in the

states.

We support efforts to Replace Obamacare

Most Americans receive their health insurance coverage

through their employer or through Medicare. These individuals

will not see a direct change from the repeal of Obamacare.

For those Americans who do not receive coverage through their

employer, Medicare or Medicaid, we support a refundable tax

credit they can use to obtain affordable health care coverage

within the marketplace.

We support efforts to Reform the system

To provide access to affordable and quality health care, we

must reform the system. We support a plan that gives state

governments maximum flexibility to reform Medicaid and the

system surrounding it. The states are more effective, more

efficient and more accountable to the people. What works in

one state may not work in another location, and true reform

will allow states to recognize and meet the unique needs of

people all across America.

We recognize that a vote in the House of Representatives is

the first step in the Repeal, Replace and Reform process. The

members of the United States Senate will undoubtedly make

additional improvements before final approval by the

President. We also recognize that the Secretary of Health and

Human Services is committed to working with state leaders to

provide maximum flexibility for true reform.

Governors are pleased to have an administration and a

Congress willing to collaborate with the states to address

the legitimate needs of our people. We have compassion for

those concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the

changes. This is why it is imperative that the Congress act

quickly on Repeal, Replace and Reform.

This is a multi-stage process. There is much more work to

be done, and process can only begin with a vote in the House

of Representatives. With this in mind, we humbly request that

you vote to repeal and replace Obamacare and to reform the

system going forward. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin; Governor Robert Bentley,

Alabama; Governor Rick Scott, Florida; Governor C.L.

``Butch'' Otter, Idaho; Governor Eric Holcomb, Indiana;

Governor Terry E. Branstad, Iowa; Governor Sam Brownback,

Kansas; Governor Matt Bevin, Kentucky; Governor Paul R.

LePage, Maine; Governor Phil Bryant, Mississippi; Governor

Eric R. Greitens, Missouri; Governor Pete Ricketts, Nebraska;

Governor Christopher T. Sununu, New Hampshire; Governor Doug

Burgum, North Dakota; Governor Ralph Torres, Northern Mariana

Islands; Governor Mary Fallin, Oklahoma; Governor Henry

McMaster, South Carolina; Governor Dennis Daugaard, South

Dakota; Governor Bill Haslam, Tennessee; Governor Gary R.

Herbert, Utah; Governor Matthew H. Mead, Wyoming.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of groups supportive of the American Health Care Act. We have many groups, from conservative groups to pro-life groups, to industry groups; and among those would be several insurance providers, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Anthem, and others.

Groups Supportive of the American Health Care Act

conservatives

American Legislative Exchange Council

Americans for Tax Reform

Association of Mature American Citizens

Center of the American Experiment

Citizens Against Government Waste

Independent Women's Voice

Institute for Liberty

Log Cabin Republicans

Market Institute

National Taxpayers Union--Key Vote

Obamacare Repeal Coalition

Six Degrees Project

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Pro-life groups

American Center for Law and Justice

Catholic Medical Association

Concerned Women for America

Faith & Freedom Coalition--Key Vote

National Right to Life--Key Vote

Susan B. Anthony List

Industry

Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed)

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)

American Benefits Council

American Builders and Contractors

American College of Cardiology

American Supply Association

Anthem Insurance

Associated General Contractors of America--Key Vote

Blue Cross Blue Shield

Consumer Healthcare Products Association

Corporate Health Care Coalition

Employers Council on Flexible Compensation

ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC)

Food Marketing Institute

Health Leadership Council

HSA Council

International Franchise Association (IFA)

Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA)

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)

National Association of Wholesale Distributers (NAW)--Key

Vote

National Business Group on Health

National Club Association

National Council of Chain Restaurants

National Federation of Independent Businesses--Key Vote

National Grocers Association

National Restaurants Association

National Retail Federation--Key Vote

National Roofing Contractors Association

One Nation Health

Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.

The Association of Chief Human Resource Officers (HR

Policy)

US Chamber of Commerce--Key Vote

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham), who is a family practitioner and knows a little about medicine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 179.

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 166 on Agreeing to the Takano Amendment for H.R. 1259, which took place Thursday, March 16, 2017, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained.

Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 166 on Agreeing to the Takano Amendment for H.R. 1259.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record 3 letters, one from myself and Senator Joni Ernst, a letter from the Family Research Council, and one from 25 outside organizations, which support H.J. Res. 43.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2016.

Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Burwell: We write to express our strong

opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled

``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients

in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Although we appreciate the

Department's intent to follow proper regulatory procedure

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, HHS's purpose

for engaging in the rulemaking appears on its face to be an

attempt to subvert the will of elected representatives.

Moreover, apart from the Department's impetus for the

notice of proposed rulemaking, we also question whether the

Department's stated rationale adequately supports its

conclusion that providers with a reproductive health focus

are more ``effective'' than other health providers that offer

comprehensive care for women and men. Nowhere in the proposed

notice of rulemaking does HHS clearly define what it means to

provide Title X services in an ``effective'' manner. It does

appear to assert that a number of factors--such as the range

of contraceptive methods on-site, the number of clients in

need of publicly funded family planning services served, and

the availability of preconception care--distinguish providers

with a reproductive health focus as more ``effective'' and

``high quality'' than other types of providers. However, that

list of factors falls far short of all of the attributes and

recommendations included in the Centers for Disease Control

and Office of Population Affairs report entitled ``Providing

Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and

the U.S. Office of Population Affairs.''

To further complicate the argument about quality and

effectiveness, the data cited in the notice of proposed

rulemaking is not adequate for determining patient outcomes.

The Department relies heavily on utilization and demographic

statistics, but appears to lack hard data regarding actual

patient outcomes and need, as the Department does not require

grantees to track patients or verify their income. As you

know, the issue of inadequate data has previously been raised

by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), after the HHS Office of

Family Planning in 2007 asked IOM to provide a critical

review of the Title X Family Planning Program. In addition to

finding ``no clear, evidence-based process for establishing

or revising program priorities and guidelines,'' IOM stated

the following in its May 2009 Report Brief:

``The committee concludes that the program does not collect

all the data needed to monitor and evaluate its impact.

Therefore, the committee proposes a comprehensive framework

to evaluate the program and assess how well clinics meet the

family planning needs of the program's clients. The committee

concludes that additional data will be needed in the areas of

client needs, structure, process, and outcomes in order to

assess the program's overall progress.''

We welcome evidence that this recommendation has been fully

adopted, but are unaware of any clear evidence confirming

that to be the case. If HHS cannot clearly define an

``effective'' or ``high quality'' provider, it is unclear to

us how state and local project grantees are supposed to do so

in order to comply with this proposed rule. It is also

therefore unclear how HHS will be able to accurately

determine in every case whether state or local project

recipients--who are generally closer to and more familiar

with subrecipients and the patient base in their geographical

region--have considered inappropriate criteria in evaluating

subrecipients. Rarely do the American people benefit when the

federal government attempts to substitute its judgment for

that of state or local governments--particularly when the

criteria used to inform that judgment are unclear, and that

judgment is not supported by coherent and impartial facts.

Finally, if HHS is going to assert the authority to adapt

its rules in order to address changing circumstances, we

implore HHS to consider the recent general shift in health

care policy toward comprehensive care. As HHS states on its

website, in addition to assisting individuals and couples in

planning and spacing births, part of the mission of Title X

is to contribute to ``improved health for women and

infants.'' HHS's suggestion that subrecipients like federally

qualified health centers--which provide greater preventive

and primary health care services than providers with a

reproductive health focus--are per se less ``effective'' than

providers with a reproductive health focus does not comport

with that stated mission.

We urge HHS to reconsider this overreaching and ill-

supported rule. We will continue to closely monitor this

proposed rulemaking, and intend to submit this letter as a

formal comment. We look forward to a detailed response from

your Department.

Sincerely,

Joni K. Ernst,

United States Senator.

Diane Black,

United States Congressman.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 123, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 43, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 43, which uses the authority of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Obama administration's 11th- hour rule forcing States like Tennessee to fund abortion providers.

I want to begin today by stipulating very clearly what this resolution is about because, while I am unapologetically pro-life, you don't have to be in order to support this resolution. You just have to believe in the Tenth Amendment.

Despite the histrionics you may hear on the other side of the aisle today, with today's resolution, we are not, we are not, one, voting to defund Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form; we are not voting to cut title X funding; and we are not voting to restrict abortion rights.

Madam Speaker, we are simply voting today to affirm the rights of States to fund the healthcare providers that best suit their needs, without fear of reprisal from their own Federal Government.

I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. It shouldn't be, because that is how the title X grant program functioned for more than 45 years, until the Obama administration decided to leave this parting gift to abortion industry on its way out the door.

For me, this is a personal issue. As a registered nurse, I know that vulnerable women seeking true comprehensive care deserve better than abortion-centric facilities like Planned Parenthood. So, as a State legislator, I worked within my authority to make sure that Tennessee honored the will of

our pro-life populace and steered our State's share of title X dollars away from healthcare providers that performed abortion.

As a result, our share of title X grants have been sent exclusively to the Tennessee Department of Health, which then allocates them to the county health departments and other qualified providers that protect the lives of the most vulnerable. That was Tennessee's right, and it has been able to exercise that right while protecting access to comprehensive care for those who are most in need.

As a matter of fact, according to HHS' own 2015 title X Family Planning Annual Report, our State provided care under title X to more than 75,000 Tennesseeans. That means that we served even more citizens than the more populated States like Michigan and Virginia.

But in December of last year, the Obama administration decided to intervene, setting unprecedented new parameters on how States must select title X grantees that were specifically designed to prop up its political allies in the abortion industry.

With my resolution, I am proposing that we go back just a few short weeks prior to December 15, 2016, the day before the Obama administration decided to reconfigure this 45-year-old program with its ill-conceived order. That is all my resolution does is to take us back 45 years to the way the program has operated.

I urge my colleagues to give States the freedom and the flexibility to take care of their citizens the best way that they know how by voting ``yes'' on this H.J. Res. 43.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been a champion for life and been fighting for life for a long time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), a freshman and a physician.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), who is the chairman of our Republican Study Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), who is my classmate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is my fellow Ways and Means Committee member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), who is a fellow Ways and Means Committee member and advocate for children.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), chair of our Values Action Team.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Thomas J. Rooney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), one of our freshman Members.

Madam Speaker, I must, once again, talk about what this resolution really does. This resolution empowers States. It empowers States that are able to choose to invest in women's health care over abortion by sending those title X dollars to clinics that do not destroy innocent life. My colleagues on the other side talked about how this is destructive to women's health. I want to just mention that the true destruction to women's health is abortion. That is the little girl who is aborted that will never know about being a woman.

This bill does nothing to prohibit States from deciding where to best use their dollars, but in States such as mine in Tennessee for the last 6 years, who have made that decision to send their dollars to facilities that they believe give the best women's health care, comprehensive health care, to over 75,000 women in our State, more than many States that surround us that have larger populations.

If this were prohibiting women from getting services, we wouldn't be so successful with providing services to more than 75,000 women in our State. We haven't seen a decrease in services. We have seen an increase in services. If you were to ask these women what they thought about services that they are getting in these other facilities such as Department of Health and federally qualified health centers, you would see they are very satisfied because they get comprehensive services that go beyond what places like Planned Parenthood can even provide for them. They do mammograms, they do procedures if there are cancer cells found in a woman's cervix.

So this whole ruse that this is a war on women and that we are taking away women's right to healthcare services is a ruse. All this does is to say, if a State like Tennessee decides this is the best place to give the best quality of care for a woman, and hopefully their babies and their children--which, if you go to these clinics, you will see them all running around, they have life--it just gives them the choice to do that.

Don't take away that choice from my State. Don't punish my State because we do what we believe is the best thing for women's health.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

That is correct.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I include in the Record letters from March for Life Action, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

March for Life Action,

Washington, DC, February 15, 2017.

Representative,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of March for Life Action and

the hundreds of thousands of our supporters and fellow

marchers, I urge you to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 43.,

sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN). When H.J. Res. 43 comes

to the House floor for a vote we will be scoring the vote in

our annual scorecard for the First Session of the 115th

Congress.

In the waning days of his Administration President Barack

Obama, using his power at Health and Human Services, issued a

rule that locked down federal grants for abortion-giant

Planned Parenthood but also usurped state's rights by

blocking states seeking to defund the abortion industry and

redirect funds to county health departments, community health

centers and other clinics that put women's health above an

abortion agenda.

H.J. Res. 43 does not reduce funds for family planning, but

allows states to assure that taxpayer funds do not support or

underwrite abortion providers when so many Americans have

ethical reservations about this procedure. The time has come

for a clean break between government support of family

planning activities and abortion.

Again, on behalf of March for Life Action, I strongly

encourage your vote for H.J. Res. 43. March for Life Action

will score this vote in our annual scorecard.

Sincerely,

Thomas McClusky,

Vice President of Government Affairs.

Madam Speaker, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution reads pretty clearly to me: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

I understand that there is a diversity of views represented in this Chamber on matters of health care and human life. I am not asking my colleagues to set those views aside with this vote. I am simply asking them not to substitute their judgment for the will of the States.

With this resolution, we are letting States care for their citizens the best way they know, just as they have had that ability for the past 45 years, and we are maintaining access to care for women and families.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to provide consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. This bill is, quite literally, the least we can do for American taxpayers and our voiceless unborn.

Frankly, the fact that we are even here discussing this, and that there is opposition to this bill at all, really does break my heart, and it speaks to the depths of the entanglement with the big abortion industry that exist in some corners of this Chamber. Because, at the end of the day, you know what this bill really is about? The right to choose.

We hear our friends across the aisle use the phrase a lot. But what about the other right to choose, the right of the taxpayer to choose not to pay for the practice that violates everything that they believe? That is what we are here to protect.

The American people support this policy, with 6 in 10 surveyed saying that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. And these are both pro-life and pro-choice.

So today, Madam Speaker, I am asking my colleagues across the aisle to honor the will of their constituents. I am asking them to remember the good old Democratic rallying cry of safe, legal, and rare abortion. Obviously, abortion is not rare today when over 330,000 abortions are performed in 1 year.

If my colleagues still believe these words, they will join us in supporting this modest solution to keep unsuspecting taxpayers off of the hook for this practice. And if they can't vote for this bill then there is truly not a single limit on abortion that they will accept, and that is a sad commentary on the state of politics.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 55, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on H.R. 7, currently under consideration.

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

I rise today in strong support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his unflinching leadership on this issue.

It was just a week ago that groups of women marched in the streets of D.C. and other cities across the country apparently ready to write off this Presidency as it just began.

There were millions of pro-life women who were explicitly told that they were unwelcome at this event. So today, the people's House is giving them and the more than 60 percent of Americans from all political persuasions who oppose taxpayer funding of abortions a voice.

The legislation before us will protect Americans' conscience rights by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are not used to fund the destruction of innocent life. That is a principle that Members of both parties have supported in this Chamber before.

Every year, Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to support funding bills that maintain the law called the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the direct Federal funding of abortion, with limited exceptions. This 40-year-old law has saved an estimated 2 million lives, but it is not permanent, meaning that this time-honored protection could be taken away on a whim. What is more, the law, in its current form, has clear loopholes.

A 2014 GAO study found that taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies could be used to pay for abortions on over 1,000 ObamaCare plans nationwide. That is why today we have the opportunity to make this life-affirming law permanent and governmentwide.

As a mother, a grandmother, and a nurse for more than 40 years, this measure is especially meaningful to me. During my years in the healthcare industry, I saw the joy in young parents' eyes when they met their newborn for the very first time. I held the hands of grieving spouses and children as they said good-bye to their loved ones. And, sadly, I witnessed a young woman lose her life due to the effects of a botched abortion.

These experiences informed my view that all life is a precious gift from God. I pray that in time this truth will be reflected in our Nation's laws. Until then, can't we at least do this much.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee and a longstanding supporter of pro-life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I referenced in my opening remarks that there has been bipartisan support for this measure, the Hyde amendment, on a yearly basis. I just want to make mention that the former gentlewoman from California who just spoke did vote for this measure in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the sponsor of the bill and is a champion for the unborn. It is really an honor for me to have served with him on this particular issue.

Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), one of my Ways and Means colleagues and a long-time supporter of pro-life.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who has been a longstanding supporter of life.

Madam Speaker, I want to once again mention that there has been longstanding bipartisan support for the support of the Hyde amendment.

As a matter of fact, the gentlewoman from California who just spoke voted for this on three different occasions;

most recently in the MACRA that was passed in 2015; the omnibus, which was passed in December of 2015 and also in December of 2016; and in the fiscal year 2017 CR.

It is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a strong supporter of pro-life.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to talk about the longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman from Florida has supported this measure in the omnibus bill and also the CR of 2017.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee. She and her family have been fighting for pro-life issues for many, many, many years.

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to say that there has been longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment, and the gentlewoman from Florida supported this measure back in 2015 on the H.R. 2 MACRA bill and the 2015 omnibus bill, H.R. 2029.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone of the longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman from New York voted for this measure in the omnibus bill, H.R. 2029, in 2015, and then on the MACRA bill, also in 2015.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) one of our newest Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a gentleman who has been a champion of life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, today I am simply asking my colleagues across the aisle not to flip-flop on this issue. This legislation isn't just the right thing to do; it also has broad support.

Polling shows that 6 in 10 Americans agree that taxpayer dollars should not fund abortions. Despite this fact, a nonpartisan government study found that abortions could be funded with taxpayer dollars through ObamaCare, and this demands a response.

Today we have an opportunity to invest in women's health over abortion by passing H.R. 7 and making the Hyde amendment permanent and governmentwide.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, in the President's State of the Union Address he declared the need for ``21st century infrastructure.'' With today's legislation to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, we are offering him an infrastructure bill that would create jobs and promote energy security.

This study from the President's own State Department says Keystone will create about 42,000 jobs and generate about $2 billion in earnings, all while imposing a negligible environmental impact.

This project has been waiting for approval for more than 2,300 days. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck down the challenge against it. Fifty- eight percent of Americans said they support it, and a bipartisan majority in both Chambers of Congress approved it.

I urge the President to listen to the will of his constituents and, if nothing else, maybe read the reports from his own administration. The excuses have run out. It is time to build.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as a nurse for over 40 years, I saw how decisions in Washington affected the real people. I witnessed the effects of Congress' action on my patients' faces and in their billing statements.

I understand better than most the need for health care reform, but ObamaCare was never the way to do it. Just ask the 16,000 Tennesseeans who lost their health insurance through Cover Tennessee, despite the President's promise ``if you like what you have, you can keep it,'' or the 11 million small business employees who CMS says will see their premiums spike because of the law.

The results are in. ObamaCare was a mistake that hurts the very people it pretends to help. And that is why, today, I will vote to repeal this law once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, more than a year after its launch, healthcare.gov remains just as flawed as the underlying ObamaCare law itself.

Most recently, we learned that the Obama administration was sharing users' personal data with numerous third party vendors. When the administration was caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they quickly scaled back, but many unanswered questions remain.

That is why I have led a letter with Congressman Pat Meehan demanding answers regarding healthcare.gov data security and privacy policies. While we wait for their reply, we have also reintroduced the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act, legislation simply requiring that the government notify consumers if their personal information is breached on the health care exchanges.

It defies all logic that this basic requirement isn't already law. It is time that we change that.

I thank the gentlelady and my good friend from Missouri for yielding to me, and I also thank her for all her tireless hours of work in not only bringing up this issue so that we will be more aware, but also in finding solutions so that we can help those that are victims.

I am honored to wear the bracelet that is made by the survivors, and I thank her for her endless and tireless work on behalf of these young women--young women and men--who have become victims.

Mr. Speaker, for many Americans, the issue of human trafficking is far removed from their daily lives, something that is relegated to foreign countries and maybe history books, but the truth is human sex trafficking is the third largest criminal enterprise in the world, with an estimated 300,000 young Americans at risk of becoming victims.

According to the Department of Justice, those most likely to fall prey to this heartbreaking crime are 12-to 14-year-old girls. These young women are someone's daughters, and we cannot turn a blind eye to their plight.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit End Slavery Tennessee, a nonprofit that works tirelessly to confront trafficking in my State. Their mission is taken from the Book of Isaiah, ``to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives, and release from darkness for the prisoners.''

This week, the House will take meaningful steps to fulfill this vision by taking up a series of bipartisan bills addressing the impact of trafficking. This includes the SAVE Act, sponsored by my good friend from Missouri, legislation that I cosponsored to go after the online advertisers who profit off of the sale of these innocent victims.

Mr. Speaker, no single act of Congress will stop all acts of trafficking, or even bring justice for every victim whose innocence has been stolen by this evil activity, but we cannot let our inability to do everything stop us from doing something.