Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the question every Member of Congress should be asking themselves today is: Who in the world is better off because of today's bill?

It is not the 24 million people the CBO says will lose their health coverage if this bill becomes law.

It is not the seniors who will be priced out of the market by an age tax or the millions of families who will see their health care gutted by the more than $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid.

It is not the 881,000 non-elderly adults in Kentucky with preexisting conditions who would, once again, face

staggering health costs with reduced care.

So who is better off? Well, certainly corporations and millionaires who will see nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts from this bill.

And at least, in their minds, a few Republican Members are so desperate for some type of political victory they are willing to risk the health and well-being of their constituents to ram through a bill without hearings, analysis, or, most alarmingly, any sense of morality. That is the cruel tradeoff my Republican colleagues have decided to make.

Our families deserve far better. I urge my colleagues to exercise better judgment and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the city of Louisville will lay to rest Officer Nick Rodman, a loving husband, father, son, and friend, who died in the line of duty last week.

The special commitment that the men and women of law enforcement make to protect and serve their fellow citizens is one that the Rodman family holds dear, and Nick felt that call to service deeply, growing up as the son and brother of fellow officers.

He is survived by the loves of his life: his wife, Ashley; his young son, Mason; and his newborn daughter, Ellie Jean.

I ask my colleagues and our Nation to join me, the Louisville Metro Police Department, and our entire city in honoring this public servant as he is laid to rest.

To Nick's wife, Ashley: I hope the memories you have with your husband will be a source of comfort as you face this heartbreaking tragedy. The city of Louisville joins you in grief, and we will ensure that Nick will always be remembered.

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

Mr. Speaker, after 7 years of campaigning against the Affordable Care Act, congressional Republicans have finally produced what they cynically describe as a replacement plan.

Sadly, however, this bill will unravel all of the progress we made under the ACA, including expanding access to health insurance to 22 million Americans and improving the quality of coverage and care for tens of millions more.

It nearly doubles the amount of uninsured people in this country, guts Medicaid by almost $900 billion, and weakens the Medicare trust fund.

That was bad enough. But the last-minute changes to this bill are astonishing and appalling. This legislation now allows insurers to end coverage for prescription drugs, mental health, maternity and newborn care, preventive care, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, outpatient care, rehab visits, lab services, and pediatric care. That is not progress. That is not a fix. That is a potential health crisis for every American.

My Republican colleagues are well aware of this. Why else would they have drafted this bill and these last-minute changes in secret? Why else would complicated legislation affecting the lives of millions be sent to the floor just 2 weeks after it was introduced with no congressional hearings, not a single one, on a bill that impacts the health care of nearly every American family? Why else would they rush the bill to the floor without an updated Congressional Budget Office estimate of how much coverage and care will be lost by their backroom deal that ends consumer protections?

I get it. I wouldn't want to, nor would I know how to justify giving nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy paid for by threatening the health and well-being of millions of American families.

Who is getting these huge windfalls?

Companies like Amgen, with annual profits of more than $3 million; Medtronic, with annual profits of more than $6 billion; and Gilead Sciences, with $13 billion in profits in 2016 alone.

When the CBO released its report last week showing that 24 million hardworking Americans will be left without healthcare coverage by 2026 if we pass this bill, that premiums will rise 15 to 20 percent next year, that people will pay thousands of dollars more in deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, and that older Americans will be priced out of the market by an age tax, I thought for sure it was dead on arrival, that there was no way my Republican colleagues would walk this plank. But here they are, and they are trying to take millions of American families with them.

Fourteen million Americans will lose health coverage next year if this bill is approved. Twenty-one million Americans will lose coverage in the next 3 years alone, wiping out all of the coverage gains from the ACA in just 3 years. For pretty much everyone else in the individual market, deductibles and other costs will be higher. And for lower-income individuals, out-of-pocket costs will be much higher.

Insurance companies will again be able to sell plans that offer much less financial protection, and we will return to the days when millions of people in this country will live in fear that they are always one serious illness or accident away from bankruptcy.

This bill will result in the largest transfer of wealth from struggling families to the well-off in our Nation's history, giving $1 trillion in tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. It is Robin Hood in reverse, but this is far worse because access to lifesaving care is being stolen.

I don't say that casually. I have met people, constituents of mine, whose lives have been saved because of the Affordable Care Act.

This is from one of my constituents:

``My name is Kevin Schweitzer. I am 62 years old and I'm a lifelong resident of Louisville, Kentucky.

``I worked hard, took risks and built a successful small business that I sold at age 59. My wife and I were excited about our prospects as we headed into early retirement. As a retiree too young for Medicare, I purchased health insurance on the open market. Less than a year later, I was diagnosed with lymphoma. I have undergone multiple scans and 2 cycles of chemo. I am winning the battle so far, but since this disease is in my blood I will be fighting it for the rest of my life.

``A cancer diagnosis is a life-changing event that not only attacks the body, but the mental stress is just as tough to deal with. Thanks to ObamaCare, I've been able to rest easier knowing that my illness wouldn't bankrupt my family and that I'll be able to provide for my wife even after I'm gone.''

I also heard from a young woman named Sarah Adkins. She suffers from chronic kidney disease. Sarah was able to get health insurance because of the ACA. On January 9, 2011, it saved her life. One of her kidneys shut down and almost went septic. If she didn't have coverage, she would have waited or not gone to the hospital at all. The doctor told her that if she had arrived at the ER an hour later, she would have died.

Mr. Speaker, the health of my constituents Kevin Schweitzer and Sarah Adkins is at stake in this debate. They, and the hundreds of other constituents I have heard from who have serious and chronic health conditions, will need high-quality, affordable health coverage for the rest of their lives. Under this bill, they will get less coverage, it will cost more, and eventually they will be priced out of the market, leaving them nowhere to turn for the care they need.

And that is not all. Because of the last-minute changes to this bill, insurers will be able to sell stripped-down coverage to weed out people with preexisting conditions. They will be able to refuse, for example, to offer coverage for chemotherapy drugs and cancer treatments, insulin pumps, hospital stays, and prescription drugs that treat chronic conditions across the board. Basically, if you have a serious health problem, the care you need may not be available to you at all.

When the American people were promised by President Trump and Republican congressional leadership that their existing coverage would be preserved and that everybody would have insurance and it would be less expensive and much better, they, understandably, believed they would be treated much better than this. None of those promises are in this bill. In fact, the opposite of every one of those promises is what is in this bill. Those were promises made to every family in our congressional districts, and this bill fails them at every turn.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 38,200 people from his congressional district in California losing health care and coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 40,500 people from his congressional district in Ohio losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 50,200 people from his congressional district in Minnesota losing health coverage and care.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 60,400 people from his congressional district in Texas losing health coverage and care.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 65,800 people from his congressional district in New York losing health coverage and care.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 56,000 people from his congressional district in Florida losing health coverage and care.

I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend from Indiana that his vote for this bill will result in 37,900 people from his congressional district losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that the gentleman's vote for this bill will result in 50,100 people from his congressional district in Louisiana losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), who is the distinguished vice ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 38,200 people from his congressional district in California losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I mention to my colleague that his vote against this bill will result in 56,600 people from his congressional district in South Carolina losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 44,600 people from his congressional district in Wisconsin losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 50,000 people from his congressional district in Kansas losing health coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding the presentation from the Budget Committee, I just have to say that the bill we are considering today is a mess. It is not a healthcare bill at all.

This bill is driven by a desire to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and many wealthy corporations by nearly $1 trillion in all. It is paid for by making health care unaffordable for millions of people.

This is irresponsible. It is not what the American people want, it is not what they deserve, and it is certainly not what they can afford.

We are not the only ones opposing this legislation. It is opposed by an amazing array of American organizations and individuals, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the National Rural Health Association, AARP, the National Disability Rights Network, the American Diabetes Association, American Cancer Society, and Easterseals, virtually every healthcare and consumer advocacy group, Governors from both sides of the aisle, and a growing list of our Republican colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Budget Committee staff for the incredible job they have done throughout this process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

The one question I think many Americans who follow this debate would be asking now is: What is the rush? What is the rush?

For 7 years now, our Republican colleagues have consistently said we are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. More than 60 votes have been taken in this body to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We kept asking: If you are going to repeal it, what are you going to replace it with? You can't just say, do away with it, and leave millions and millions of Americans in the lurch.

So finally, 2 weeks ago yesterday, we have gotten their answer. TrumpCare, RyanCare, the American Health Care Act, call it what you will, we finally got an answer.

What has happened since those 2 weeks? We had no hearings on this bill. We had quick markups. They lasted a long time, but we had--the bill was introduced Monday night--markups in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. And this was on just a steamroller to try to get this accomplished before anybody knew what was in it.

Now, the CBO report from last week came out indicating things that I think most Americans would be frightened by. 24 million Americans lose their coverage over 10 years; but, more significantly than that, 21 million lose their coverage within 3 years; 14 million next year.

Consider that. All of the gains in coverage made under the Affordable Care Act done away with in 3 years. Premiums going up for Americans.

I can't believe Speaker Ryan tried to put lipstick on a pig. He said he thought the CBO report was really encouraging because, 10 years from now, premiums would be 10 percent lower. The only way they are 10 percent lower is because, under the TrumpCare, older Americans, 50 and older, in the individual market get priced out of the market with huge premium increases.

So they are gone. Only younger and healthier people are in there. Yes, premiums would be lower for them. Other people are out of business.

So that report comes out, causing a great deal of consternation on the part of the sponsors and supporters. They bring it, schedule it to come to the floor on Thursday, March 23, because they think that is cute because that is the seventh anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. But, again, no hearings, no real analysis; and what is more important, no CBO revised report on the changes that were introduced late last night.

This is outrageous. And I love to hear my Republican colleagues try to portray the process under which the Affordable Care Act was drafted and considered with some kind of nighttime secretive deal. They weren't here, most of them. I was.

I was on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the drafting committees. Fourteen months we worked on that legislation--14 months. Seventy-nine hearings in the Congress on that legislation. Hours and hours and hours of markups on that legislation. Cost estimates throughout the process. I can't imagine a more exhaustive and public process than we went through for the Affordable Care Act.

And here, 2 weeks from introduction to proposed passage, we have no real public discussion of a piece of legislation that directly affects the lives and probably, unfortunately, the deaths of many, many Americans.

So, Mr. Speaker, we don't need to rush to judgment. I don't think the American people are waiting around saying: I don't need to know any more; ObamaCare is so bad, and my life is so bad that I can't wait another 2 weeks to find out what this really would do to me and my family. No, we need to give more time.

We don't need to do this this Thursday without a full rendering of the cost of the new manager's amendment to TrumpCare. We suspect, although we don't know, that it is going to look even bleaker; that more people will lose their coverage; that costs and rates will be higher. But shouldn't we understand exactly what those statistics are, what those projections are before we vote on something that is so significant for tens of millions of Americans?

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely appropriate that we require that a new CBO report be done on the manager's amendment before we vote on something that, again, means life and death to American families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous effort to block the stream protection rule, a commonsense proposal that has the potential to save lives and will improve the health, outcomes, and well-being of families over time throughout coal country.

This bottle of--I guess you could call it a liquid--wasn't taken from an industrial waste site or from the runoff of a landfill. This came from the drinking well of the Urias family's home in Pike County, Kentucky.

Despite what it looks like, there is water in there along with chemicals, toxic minerals, and known carcinogens, all present in this family's drinking water because of mountaintop removal.

The mountaintop removal process begins with beautiful mountains that look just like this. These are Appalachian Mountains near the West Virginia-Kentucky border.

First, they raze an entire side of the mountain, tearing trees from the ground and burning down any plant growth. From there, they use explosives to blast the tops off the mountains and push rock and dirt out, ultimately filling the surrounding streams and waterways with debris, blast materials, and other dangerous elements and minerals that end up in the drinking water of the Urias family and countless others throughout coal country.

This is what is left.

As we have noted during our fight for funding to help the families of Flint, Michigan, dealing with water contamination, this should not happen here in America in the 21st century; yet families in coal country have been dealing with this for 40 years. So you can imagine how many people's health has been jeopardized by this practice.

The stream protection rule that the House is about to block would serve as one of the only safety measures that would protect these families from poisonous drinking water, higher rates of cancer, lung disease, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, and the countless negative health effects that plague this region.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to block the safeguards of the stream protection rule, they should at least consider supporting my legislation, the Appalachian Communities Health Emergency Act, or ACHE Act. I introduced this bill earlier today with Representative Slaughter to suspend new mountaintop removal permits until the Department of Health and Human Services can conduct a comprehensive Federal study of the health effects of this reckless mining method used in my State of Kentucky and throughout coal country.

I believe mountaintop removal should be banned, but at a minimum, we should halt all new permits until the safety of the residents in the surrounding communities is assured. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose today's effort to block this potentially lifesaving rule and support the ACHE Act.

We have failed to protect the families in these communities, and passage of this bill will inflict another blow to their health and well-being. They deserve far better.

I will make a final offer to my colleagues on the other side. If anybody wants to come and take a drink out of this, I will withdraw the ACHE Act and vote for their legislation.

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.

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

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.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of a two-state solution, as a Jewish Member of Congress and as someone who has been to Israel and has seen the settlements firsthand, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.

Settlements are an impediment to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This resolution only provides ammunition to those who oppose a two-state solution--the approach that is our only hope for lasting peace. We all agree that the incitement of violence and terrorism must end, which U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 discusses. But as Secretary Kerry so eloquently stated in his speech on December 28:

Some seem to believe that the U.S.' friendship means the

U.S. must accept any policy regardless of our own interests,

our own positions, our own words, our own principles--even

after urging again and again that the policy must change.

Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and

friendships require mutual respect.

Well, my friends, Israel must end settlement expansion, close their outposts, and get to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has not treated the Obama administration with respect, and this resolution does not offer the American people the honest, true debate we should be having about this critically important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Obama administration, especially Secretary of State Kerry, for their dedication in trying to find a path forward for a two-state solution. It is my hope that the principles laid out in Secretary Kerry's December 28, 2016 speech will help guide serious negotiations in the days ahead. To ensure that his remarks are a part of this debate, I will now read his entire statement.

Secretary Kerry said: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. (Coughs.) Excuse me. Thank you for your patience, all of you. For those of you who celebrated Christmas, I hope you had a wonderful Christmas. Happy Chanukah. And to everybody here, I know it's the middle of a holiday week. I understand. (Laughter.) But I wish you all a very, very productive and Happy New Year.

Today, I want to share candid thoughts about an issue which for decades has animated the foreign policy dialogue here and around the world--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region.

Now, I'd like to explain why that future is now in jeopardy, and provide some context for why we could not, in good conscience, stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace.

I'm also here to share my conviction that there is still a way forward if the responsible parties are willing to act. And I want to share practical suggestions for how to preserve and advance the prospects for the just and lasting peace that both sides deserve.

So it is vital that we have an honest, clear-eyed conversation about the uncomfortable truths and difficult choices, because the alternative that is fast becoming the reality on the ground is in nobody's interest--not the Israelis, not the Palestinians, not the region--and not the United States.

Now, I want to stress that there is an important point here: My job, above all, is to defend the United States of America--to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world. And if we were to stand idly by and know that in doing so we are allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interests, we would be derelict in our own responsibilities.

Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles--even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.

Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week, quote, ``It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share,'' and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond today that the

United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before us.

They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States of America, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, cannot be true to our own values--or even the stated democratic values of Israel--and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes.

And that's the bottom line: the vote in the United Nations was about preserving the two-state solution. That's what we were standing up for: Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. That's what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs.

In fact, this Administration has been Israel's greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing Israel's security and protecting its legitimacy.

On this point, I want to be very clear: No American administration has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's. The Israeli prime minister himself has noted our, quote, ``unprecedented'' military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel's right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy.

Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel's back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system. In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than one-half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic $38 billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the United States has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting-edge missile defense and sustain Israel's qualitative military edge for years to come. That's the measure of our support.

This commitment to Israel's security is actually very personal for me. On my first trip to Israel as a young senator in 1986, I was captivated by a special country, one that I immediately admired and soon grew to love. Over the years, like so many others who are drawn to this extraordinary place, I have climbed Masada, swum in the Dead Sea, driven from one Biblical city to another. I've also seen the dark side of Hizballah's rocket storage facilities just across the border in Lebanon, walked through exhibits of the hell of the Holocaust at Yad Vashem, stood on the Golan Heights, and piloted an Israeli jet over the tiny airspace of Israel, which would make anyone understand the importance of security to Israelis. Out of those experiences came a steadfast commitment to Israel's security that has never wavered for a single minute in my 28 years in the Senate or my four years as Secretary.

I have also often visited West Bank communities, where I met Palestinians struggling for basic freedom and dignity amidst the occupation, passed by military checkpoints that can make even the most routine daily trips to work or school an ordeal, and heard from business leaders who could not get the permits that they needed to get their products to the market and families who have struggled to secure permission just to travel for needed medical care.

And I have witnessed firsthand the ravages of a conflict that has gone on for far too long. I've seen Israeli children in Sderot whose playgrounds had been hit by Katyusha rockets. I've visited shelters next to schools in Kiryat Shmona that kids had 15 seconds to get to after a warning siren went off. I've also seen the devastation of war in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian girls in Izbet Abed Rabo played in the rubble of a bombed-out building.

No children--Israeli or Palestinian--should have to live like that.

So, despite the obvious difficulties that I understood when I became Secretary of State, I knew that I had to do everything in my power to help end this conflict. And I was grateful to be working for President Obama, who was prepared to take risks for peace and was deeply committed to that effort.

Like previous U.S. administrations, we have committed our influence and our resources to trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict because, yes, it would serve American interests to stabilize a volatile region and fulfill America's commitment to the survival, security and well-being of an Israel at peace with its Arab neighbors.

Despite our best efforts over the years, the two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy.

The truth is that trends on the ground--violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation-- they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want.

Today, there are a number--there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic-- it cannot be both--and it won't ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.

Now, most on both sides understand this basic choice, and that is why it is important that polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that there is still strong support for the two-state solution--in theory. They just don't believe that it can happen.

After decades of conflict, many no longer see the other side as people, only as threats and enemies. Both sides continue to push a narrative that plays to people's fears and reinforces the worst stereotypes rather than working to change perceptions and build up belief in the possibility of peace.

And the truth is the extraordinary polarization in this conflict extends beyond Israelis and Palestinians. Allies of both sides are content to reinforce this with an us or--``you're with us or against us'' mentality where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with Israel policy is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.

That's one of the most striking realties about the current situation: This critical decision about the future--one state or two states--is effectively being made on the ground every single day, despite the expressed opinion of the majority of the people.

The status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation, but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it. And with this passive resignation, the problem only gets worse, the risks get greater and the choices are narrowed.

This sense of hopelessness among Israelis is exacerbated by the continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians and incitement, which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace.

Let me say it again: There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, and there never will be.

And the most recent wave of Palestinian violence has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year, including stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks and bombings, many by individuals who have been radicalized by social media. Yet the murderers of innocents are still glorified on Fatah websites, including showing attackers next to Palestinian leaders following attacks. And despite statements by President Abbas and his party's leaders making clear their opposition to violence, too often they send a different message by failing to condemn specific terrorist attacks and naming public squares, streets and schools after terrorists.

President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned violence and terrorism, and even condemned the Palestinian leadership for not condemning it.

Far too often, the Palestinians have pursued efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora. We have strongly opposed these initiatives, including the recent wholly unbalanced and inflammatory UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem. And we have made clear our strong opposition to Palestinian efforts against Israel at the ICC, which only sets back the prospects for peace.

And we all understand that the Palestinian Authority has a lot more to do to strengthen its institutions and improve governance.

Most troubling of all, Hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda: they refuse to accept Israel's very right to exist. They have a one- state vision of their own: all of the land is Palestine. Hamas and other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit forms of incitement to violence, and many of the images that they use are truly appalling. And they are willing to kill innocents in Israel and put the people of Gaza at risk in order to advance that agenda.

Compounding this, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, exacerbated by the closings of the crossings, is dire. Gaza is home to one of the world's densest concentrations of people enduring extreme hardships with few opportunities. 1.3 million people out of Gaza's population of 1.8 million are in need of daily assistance--food and shelter. Most have electricity less than half the time and only 5 percent of the water is safe to drink. And yet despite the urgency of these needs, Hamas and other militant groups continue to re-arm and divert reconstruction materials to build tunnels, threatening more attacks on Israeli civilians that no government can tolerate.

Now, at the same time, we have to be clear about what is happening in the West Bank. The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself just described as ``more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history,'' are leading in the opposite direction. They're leading towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes, effectively reversing the transitions to greater Palestinian civil authority that were called for by the Oslo Accords.

I don't think most people in Israel, and certainly in the world, have any idea how broad and systematic the process has become. But the facts speak for themselves. The number of settlers in the roughly 130 Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown. The settler population in the West Bank alone, not including East Jerusalem, has increased by nearly 270,000 since Oslo, including 100,000 just since 2009, when President Obama's term began.

There's no point in pretending that these are just in large settlement blocks. Nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by Israel itself in the middle of what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future Palestinian state. And the population of these distant settlements has grown by 20,000 just since 2009. In fact, just recently the government approved a significant new settlement well east of the barrier, closer to Jordan than to Israel. What does that say to Palestinians in particular--but also to the United States and the world--about Israel's intentions?

Let me emphasize, this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict. Of course they are not. Nor can you say that if the settlements were suddenly removed, you'd have peace. Without a broader agreement, you would not. And we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of Israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years--we understand that--including the new democratic demographic realities that exist on the ground. They would have to be factored in. But if more and more settlers are moving into the middle of Palestinian areas, it's going to be just that much harder to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty, and that is exactly the outcome that some are purposefully accelerating.

Let's be clear: Settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel's security. Many settlements actually increase the security burden on the Israeli Defense Forces. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations.

Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel's own laws. They're often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible. There are over 100 of these outposts. And since 2011, nearly one-third of them have been or are being legalized, despite pledges by past Israeli governments to dismantle many of them.

Now leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new legislation that would legalize most of those outposts. For the first time, it would apply Israeli domestic law to the West Bank rather than military law, which is a major step towards the process of annexation. When the law passed the first reading in the Israeli parliament, in the Knesset, one of the chief proponents said proudly--and I quote-- ``Today, the Israeli Knesset moved from heading towards establishing a Palestinian state towards Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.'' Even the Israeli attorney general has said that the draft law is unconstitutional and a violation of international law.

Now, you may hear from advocates that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace because the settlers who don't want to leave can just stay in Palestine, like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel. But that misses a critical point, my friends. The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel's law. Does anyone here really believe that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?

Likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers could just stay in their settlements and remain as Israeli citizens in their separate enclaves in the middle of Palestine, protected by the IDF. Well, there are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a continuous--a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Does anyone seriously think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable Palestinian state?

Now, some have asked, ``Why can't we build in the blocs which everyone knows will eventually be part of Israel?'' Well, the reason building there or anywhere else in the West Bank now results in such pushback is that the decision of what constitutes a bloc is being made unilaterally by the Israeli Government, without consultation, without the consent of the Palestinians, and without granting the Palestinians a reciprocal right to build in what will be, by most accounts, part of Palestine. Bottom line--without agreement or mutuality, the unilateral choices become a major point of contention, and that is part of why we are here where we are.

You may hear that these remote settlements aren't a problem because they only take up a very small percentage of the land. Well, again and again we have made it clear, it's not just a question of the overall amount of land available in the West Bank. It's whether the land can be connected or it's broken up into small parcels, like a Swiss cheese, that could never constitute a real state. The more outposts that are built, the more the settlements expand, the less possible it is to create a contiguous state. So in the end, a settlement is not just the land that it's on, it's also what the location does to the movement of people, what it does to the ability of a road to connect people, one community to another, what it does to the sense of statehood that is chipped away with each new construction. No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace.

But the problem, obviously, goes well beyond settlements. Trends indicate a comprehensive effort to take the West Bank land for Israel and prevent any Palestinian development there. Today, the 60 percent of the West Bank known as Area C--much of which was supposed to be transferred to Palestinian control long ago under the Oslo Accords-- much of it is effectively off limits to Palestinian development. Most today has essentially been taken for exclusive use by Israel simply by unilaterally designating it as ``state land'' or including it within the jurisdiction of regional settlement councils. Israeli farms flourish in the Jordan River Valley, and Israeli resorts line the shores of the Dead Sea--a lot of people don't realize this--they line the shore of the Dead Sea, where Palestinian development is not allowed. In fact, almost no private Palestinian building is approved in Area C at all. Only one permit was issued by Israel in all of 2014 and 2015, while approvals for hundreds of settlement units were advanced during that same period.

Moreover, Palestinian structures in Area C that do not have a permit from the Israeli military are potentially subject to demolition. And they are currently being demolished at an historically high rate. Over 1,300 Palestinians, including over 600 children, have been displaced by demolitions in 2016 alone--more than any previous year.

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election--and I quote--``the era of the two-state solution is over,'' end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?

There are currently about 2.75 million Palestinians living under military occupation in the West Bank, most of them in Areas A and B--40 percent of the West Bank--where they have limited autonomy. They are restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints and unable to travel into or out of the West Bank without a permit from the Israelis.

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

If the occupation becomes permanent, over the time the Palestinian Authority could simply dissolve, turn over all the administrative and security responsibilities to the Israelis. What would happen then? Who would administer the schools and hospitals and on what basis? Does Israel want to pay for the billions of dollars of lost international assistance that the Palestinian Authority now receives? Would the Israel Defense Force police the streets of every single Palestinian city and town?

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with

its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions because there aren't any. And there would be an increasing risk of more intense violence between Palestinians and settlers, and complete despair among Palestinians that would create very fertile ground for extremists.

With all the external threats that Israel faces today, which we are very cognizant of and working with them to deal with, does it really want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank? How does that help Israel's security? How does that help the region?

The answer is it doesn't, which is precisely why so many senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders, past and present, believe the two-state solution is the only real answer for Israel's long term security.

Now, one thing we do know: if Israel goes down the one state path, it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world, and I can say that with certainty. The Arab countries have made clear that they will not make peace with Israel without resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. That's not where their loyalties lie. That's not where their politics are.

But there is something new here. Common interests in countering Iran's destabilizing activities, and fighting extremists, as well as diversifying their economies have created real possibilities for something different if Israel takes advantage of the opportunities for peace. I have spent a great deal of time with key Arab leaders exploring this, and there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a fundamentally different relationship with Israel. That was stated in the Arab Peace Initiative, years ago. And in all my recent conversations, Arab leaders have confirmed their readiness, in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, not just to normalize relations but to work openly on securing that peace with significant regional security cooperation. It's waiting. It's right there.

Many have shown a willingness to support serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to take steps on the path to normalization to relations, including public meetings, providing there is a meaningful progress towards a two-state solution. My friends, that is a real opportunity that we should not allow to be missed.

And that raises one final question: Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at stake.

Now, that is what informed our vote at the Security Council last week--the need to preserve the two-state solution--and both sides in this conflict must take responsibility to do that. We have repeatedly and emphatically stressed to the Palestinians that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism, and we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora.

We've made countless public and private exhortations to the Israelis to stop the march of settlements. In literally hundreds of conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for an international response. We have all known for some time that the Palestinians were intent on moving forward in the UN with a settlements resolution, and I advised the prime minister repeatedly that further settlement activity only invited UN action.

Yet the settlement activity just increased, including advancing the unprecedented legislation to legalize settler outposts that the prime minister himself reportedly warned could expose Israel to action at the Security Council and even international prosecution before deciding to support it.

In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two-state solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in U.S. interest to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. And we may not be able to stop them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. And it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies.

That is why we decided not to block the UN resolution that makes clear both sides have to take steps to save the two-state solution while there is still time. And we did not take this decision lightly. The Obama Administration has always defended Israel against any effort at the UN and any international fora or biased and one-sided resolutions that seek to undermine its legitimacy or security, and that has not changed. It didn't change with this vote.

But remember it's important to note that every United States administration, Republican and Democratic, has opposed settlements as contrary to the prospects for peace, and action at the UN Security Council is far from unprecedented. In fact, previous administrations of both political parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of Israel to pass, including on settlements. On dozens of occasions under George W. Bush alone, the council passed six resolutions that Israel opposed, including one that endorsed a plan calling for a complete freeze on settlements, including natural growth.

Let me read you the lead paragraph from a New York Times story dated December 23rd. I quote: ``With the United States abstaining, the Security Council adopted a resolution today strongly deploring Israel's handling of the disturbances in the occupied territories, which the resolution defined as, including Jerusalem. All of the 14 other Security Council members voted in favor.'' My friends, that story was not written last week. It was written December 23rd, 1987, 26 years to the day that we voted last week, when Ronald Reagan was president.

Yet despite growing pressure, the Obama Administration held a strong line against UN action, any UN action, we were the only administration since 1967 that had not allowed any resolution to pass that Israel opposed. In fact, the only time in eight years the Obama Administration exercised its veto at the United Nations was against a one-sided settlements resolution in 2011. And that resolution did not mention incitement or violence.

Now let's look at what's happened since then. Since then, there have been over 30,000 settlement units advanced through some stage of the planning process. That's right--over 30,000 settlement units advanced notwithstanding the positions of the United States and other countries. And if we had vetoed this resolution just the other day, the United States would have been giving license to further unfettered settlement construction that we fundamentally oppose.

So we reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel. On the contrary, it is not this resolution that is isolating Israel; it is the permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace impossible. And virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements. That includes many of the friends of Israel, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia--all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed, and again this year along with every other member of the council.

In fact, this resolution simply reaffirms statements made by the Security Council on the legality of settlements over several decades. It does not break new ground. In 1978, the State Department Legal Adviser advised the Congress on his conclusion that Israel's government, the Israeli Government's program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law, and we see no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion.

Now, you may have heard that some criticized this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue. It was one of a long line of Security Council resolutions that included East Jerusalem as part of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and that includes resolutions passed by the Security Council under President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. And remember that every U.S. administration since 1967, along with the entire international community, has recognized East Jerusalem as among the territories that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War.

Now, I want to stress this point: We fully respect Israel's profound historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites. We've never questioned that. This resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on East Jerusalem, which must, of course, reflect those historic ties and the realities on the ground. That's our position. We still support it.

We also strongly reject the notion that somehow the United States was the driving force behind this resolution. The Egyptians and Palestinians had long made clear to all of us--to all of the international community--their intention to bring a resolution to a vote before the end of the year, and we communicated that to the Israelis and they knew it anyway. The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. It was drafted by Egypt--it was drafted and I think introduced by Egypt, which is one of Israel's closest friends in the region, in coordination with the Palestinians and others.

And during the time of the process as it went out, we made clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that it was possible that if the resolution were to be balanced and it were to include references to incitement and to terrorism, that it was possible the United States would then not block it, that--if it was balanced and fair. That's a standard practice with resolutions at the Security Council. The Egyptians and the Palestinians and many others understood that if the text were more balanced, it was possible we wouldn't block it. But we also made crystal clear that the President of the United States would not make a final decision about our own position until we saw the final text.

In the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution. There are important

issues that are not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all. But we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that condemns violence and incitement and reiterates what has been for a long time the overwhelming consensus and international view on settlements and calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Israeli people to decide whether the unusually heated attacks that Israeli officials have directed towards this Administration best serve Israel's national interests and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support, as I described. Those attacks, alongside allegations of U.S.-led conspiracy and other manufactured claims, distract attention from what the substance of this vote was really all about.

And we all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, often referencing what's happened with Gaza, and we understand that and we believe there are ways to meet those needs of security. And Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to legitimize their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist. But this vote was not about that. It was about actions that Israelis and Palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now--it was about making sure that peace with the Palestinians will be possible in the future.

Now, we all understand that Israel faces extraordinary, serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. And Israelis are very correct in making sure that there's not a terrorist haven right on their border.

But this vote--I can't emphasize enough--is not about the possibility of arriving at an agreement that's going to resolve that overnight or in one year or two years. This is about a longer process. This is about how we make peace with the Palestinians in the future but preserve the capacity to do so.

So how do we get there? How do we get there, to that peace?

Since the parties have not yet been able to resume talks, the U.S. and the Middle East Quartet have repeatedly called on both sides to independently demonstrate a genuine commitment to the two-state solution--not just with words, but with real actions and policies--to create the conditions for meaningful negotiations.

We've called for both sides to take significant steps on the ground to reverse current trends and send a different message--a clear message--that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation without waiting for the other side to act.

We have pushed them to comply with their basic commitments under their own prior agreements in order to advance a two-state reality on the ground.

We have called for the Palestinians to do everything in their power to stop violence and incitement, including publicly and consistently condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the glorification of violence.

And we have called on them to continue efforts to strengthen their own institutions and to improve governance, transparency, and accountability.

And we have stressed that the Hamas arms buildup and militant activities in Gaza must stop.

Along with our Quartet partners, we have called on Israel to end the policy of settlement construction and expansion, of taking land for exclusive Israeli use and denying Palestinian development.

To reverse the current process, the U.S. and our partners have encouraged Israel to resume the transfer of greater civil authority to the Palestinians in Area C, consistent with the transition that was called for by Oslo. And we have made clear that significant progress across a range of sectors, including housing, agriculture, and natural resources, can be made without negatively impacting Israel's legitimate security needs. And we've called for significantly easing the movement and access restrictions to and from Gaza, with due consideration for Israel's need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

So let me stress here again: None of the steps that I just talked about would negatively impact Israel's security.

Let me also emphasize this is not about offering limited economic measures that perpetuate the status quo. We're talking about significant steps that would signal real progress towards creating two states.

That's the bottom line: If we're serious about the two-state solution, it's time to start implementing it now. Advancing the process of separation now, in a serious way, could make a significant difference in saving the two-state solution and in building confidence in the citizens of both sides that peace is, indeed, possible. And much progress can be made in advance of negotiations that can lay the foundation for negotiations, as contemplated by the Oslo process. In fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks.

Now, in the end, we all understand that a final status agreement can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. We've said that again and again. We cannot impose the peace.

There are other countries in the UN who believe it is our job to dictate the terms of a solution in the Security Council. Others want us to simply recognize a Palestinian state, absent an agreement. But I want to make clear today, these are not the choices that we will make.

We choose instead to draw on the experiences of the last eight years, to provide a way forward when the parties are ready for serious negotiations. In a place where the narratives from the past powerfully inform and mold the present, it's important to understand the history. We mark this year and next a series of milestones that I believe both illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its resolution. It's worth touching on them briefly.

A hundred and twenty years ago, the First Zionist Congress was convened in Basel by a group of Jewish visionaries, who decided that the only effective response to the waves of anti-Semitic horrors sweeping across Europe was to create a state in the historic home of the Jewish people, where their ties to the land went back centuries--a state that could defend its borders, protect its people, and live in peace with its neighbors. That was the vision. That was the modern beginning, and it remains the dream of Israel today.

Nearly 70 years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality. The concept was simple: to create two states for two peoples--one Jewish, one Arab--to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. And both Israel and the PLO referenced Resolution 181 in their respective declarations of independence.

The United States recognized Israel seven minutes after its creation. But the Palestinians and the Arab world did not, and from its birth, Israel had to fight for its life. Palestinians also suffered terribly in the 1948 war, including many who had lived for generations in a land that had long been their home too. And when Israel celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018, the Palestinians will mark a very different anniversary: 70 years since what they call the Nakba, or catastrophe.

Next year will also mark 50 years since the end of the Six-Day War, when Israel again fought for its survival. And Palestinians will again mark just the opposite: 50 years of military occupation. Both sides have accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from territory that it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and secure borders, as the basis for ending the conflict.

It has been more than 20 years since Israel and the PLO signed their first agreement--the Oslo Accords--and the PLO formally recognized Israel. Both sides committed to a plan to transition much of the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control during permanent status negotiations that would put an end to their conflict. Unfortunately, neither the transition nor the final agreement came about, and both sides bear responsibility for that.

Finally, some 15 years ago, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia came out with the historic Arab Peace Initiative, which offered fully normalized relations with Israel when it made peace--an enormous opportunity then and now, which has never been fully been embraced.

That history was critical to our approach to trying to find a way to resolve the conflict. And based on my experience with both sides over the last four years, including the nine months of formal negotiations, the core issues can be resolved if there is leadership on both sides committed to finding a solution.

In the end, I believe the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low. Both sides were concerned that any concessions would not be reciprocated and would come at too great a political cost. And the deep public skepticism only made it more difficult for them to be able to take risks.

In the countless hours that we spent working on a detailed framework, we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging proposals, and we came away with a clear understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides. In the past two and a half years, I have tested ideas with regional and international stakeholders, including our Quartet partners. And I believe what has emerged from all of that is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the core needs of both sides.

President Clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status negotiations 16 years ago. Today, with mistrust too high to even start talks, we're at the opposite end of the spectrum. Neither side is willing to even risk acknowledging the other's bottom

line, and more negotiations that do not produce progress will only reinforce the worst fears.

Now, everyone understands that negotiations would be complex and difficult, and nobody can be expected to agree on the final result in advance. But if the parties could at least demonstrate that they understand the other side's most basic needs--and are potentially willing to meet them if theirs are also met at the end of comprehensive negotiations--perhaps then enough trust could be established to enable a meaningful process to begin.

It is in that spirit that we offer the following principles--not to prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready. Now, individual countries may have more detailed policies on these issues--as we do, by the way--but I believe there is a broad consensus that a final status agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would do the following.

Principle number one: Provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps.

Resolution 242, which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years, provides for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders. It has long been accepted by both sides, and it remains the basis for an agreement today.

As Secretary, one of the first issues that I worked out with the Arab League was their agreement that the reference in the Arab Peace Initiative to the 1967 lines would from now on include the concept of land swaps, which the Palestinians have acknowledged. And this is necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground, and mutually agreed equivalent swaps that will ensure that the agreement is fair to both sides.

There is also broad recognition of Israel's need to ensure that the borders are secure and defensible, and that the territory of Palestine is viable and contiguous. Virtually everyone that I have spoken to has been clear on this principle as well: No changes by Israel to the 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides.

Principle two: Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.

This has been the fundamental--the foundational principle of the two- state solution from the beginning: creating a state for the Jewish people and a state for the Palestinian people, where each can achieve their national aspirations. And Resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents of both the Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for years, and based on my conversations in these last months, I am absolutely convinced that many others are now prepared to accept it as well--provided the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.

We also know that there are some 1.7 million Arab citizens who call Israel their home and must now and always be able to live as equal citizens, which makes this a difficult issue for Palestinians and others in the Arab world. That's why it is so important that in recognizing each other's homeland--Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people--both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens.

Principle number three: Provide for a just, agreed, fair, and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering, and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples.

The plight of many Palestinian refugees is heartbreaking, and all agree that their needs have to be addressed. As part of a comprehensive resolution, they must be provided with compensation, their suffering must be acknowledged, and there will be a need to have options and assistance in finding permanent homes. The international community can provide significant support and assistance. I know we are prepared to do that, including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of the refugees are met, and many have expressed a willingness to contribute to that effort, particularly if it brings peace. But there is a general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples, and cannot affect the fundamental character of Israel.

Principle four: Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.

Now, Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. That is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible and the established status quo maintained. Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 1967, and we believe that. At the same time, there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.

Principle five: Satisfy Israel's security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state.

Security is the fundamental issue for Israel together with a couple of others I've mentioned, but security is critical. Everyone understands that no Israeli Government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs or that risk creating an enduring security threat like Gaza transferred to the West Bank. And Israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against terrorism and other regional threats. In fact, there is a real willingness by Egypt, Jordan, and others to work together with Israel on meeting key security challenges. And I believe that those collective efforts, including close coordination on border security, intelligence- sharing, joint cooperations--joint operation, can all play a critical role in securing the peace.

At the same time, fully ending the occupation is the fundamental issue for the Palestinians. They need to know that the military occupation itself will really end after an agreed transitional process. They need to know they can live in freedom and dignity in a sovereign state while providing security for their population even without a military of their own. This is widely accepted as well. And it is important to understand there are many different ways without occupation for Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Egypt and the United States and others to cooperate in providing that security.

Now, balancing those requirements was among the most important challenges that we faced in the negotiations, but it was one where the United States has the ability to provide the most assistance. And that is why a team that was led by General John Allen, who is here, for whom I am very grateful for his many hours of effort, along with--he is one of our foremost military minds, and dozens of experts from the Department of Defense and other agencies, all of them engaged extensively with the Israeli Defense Force on trying to find solutions that could help Israel address its legitimate security needs.

They developed innovative approaches to creating unprecedented, multi-layered border security; enhancing Palestinian capacity; enabling Israel to retain the ability to address threats by itself even when the occupation had ended. General Allen and his team were not suggesting one particular outcome or one particular timeline, nor were they suggesting that technology alone would resolve these problems. They were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed to. And they did some very impressive work that gives me total confidence that Israel's security requirements can be met.

Principle six: End the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative. It is essential for both sides that the final status agreement resolves all the outstanding issues and finally brings closure to this conflict, so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. For Israel, this must also bring broader peace with all of its Arab neighbors. That is the fundamental promise of the Arab Peace Initiative, which key Arab leaders have affirmed in these most recent days.

The Arab Peace Initiative also envisions enhanced security for all of the region. It envisages Israel being a partner in those efforts when peace is made. This is the area where Israel and the Arab world are looking at perhaps the greatest moment of potential transformation in the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948. The Arab world faces its own set of security challenges. With Israeli-Palestinian peace, Israel, the United States, Jordan, Egypt--together with the GCC countries--would be ready and willing to define a new security partnership for the region that would be absolutely groundbreaking.

So ladies and gentlemen, that's why it is vital that we all work to keep open the possibility of peace, that we not lose hope in the two- state solution, no matter how difficult it may seem--because there really is no viable alternative.

Now, we all know that a speech alone won't produce peace. But based on over 30 years of experience and the lessons from the past 4 years, I have suggested, I believe, and President Obama has signed on to and believes in

a path that the parties could take: realistic steps on the ground now, consistent with the parties' own prior commitments, that will begin the process of separating into two states; a political horizon to work towards to create the conditions for a successful final status talk; and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace.

We can only encourage them to take this path; we cannot walk down it for them. But if they take these steps, peace would bring extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security and the stability and the prosperity of Israelis, Palestinians, all of the nations of the region. The Palestinian economy has amazing potential in the context of independence, with major private sector investment possibilities and a talented, hungry, eager-to-work young workforce. Israel's economy could enjoy unprecedented growth as it becomes a regional economic powerhouse, taking advantage of the unparalleled culture of innovation and trading opportunities with new Arab partners. Meanwhile, security challenges could be addressed by an entirely new security arrangement, in which Israel cooperates openly with key Arab states. That is the future that everybody should be working for.

President Obama and I know that the incoming administration has signaled that they may take a different path, and even suggested breaking from the longstanding U.S. policies on settlements, Jerusalem, and the possibility of a two-state solution. That is for them to decide. That's how we work. But we cannot--in good conscience--do nothing, and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away.

This is a time to stand up for what is right. We have long known what two states living side by side in peace and security looks like. We should not be afraid to say so.

Now, I really began to reflect on what we have learned--and the way ahead--when I recently joined President Obama in Jerusalem for the state funeral for Shimon Peres. Shimon was one of the founding fathers of Israel who became one of the world's great elder statesmen--a beautiful man. I was proud to call him my friend, and I know that President Obama was as well.

And I remembered the first time that I saw Shimon in person--standing on the White House lawn for the signing the historic Oslo Accords. And I thought about the last time, at an intimate one-on-one Shabbat dinner just a few months before he died, when we toasted together to the future of Israel and to the peace that he still so passionately believed in for his people.

He summed it up simply and eloquently, as only Shimon could, quote, ``The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48 percent, now it's down to 22 percent. I think 78 percent is enough for us.''

As we laid Shimon to rest that day, many of us couldn't help but wonder if peace between Israelis and Palestinians might also be buried along with one of its most eloquent champions. We cannot let that happen. There is simply too much at stake--for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians--to give in to pessimism, especially when peace is, in fact, still possible.

We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. We must not give in to those who say what is now must always be, that there is no chance for a better future. It is up to Israelis and Palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace, but we can all help. And for the sake of future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, for all the people of the region, for the United States, for all those around the world who have prayed for and worked for peace for generations, let's hope that we are all prepared--and particularly Israelis and Palestinians--to make those choices now.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my Republican colleagues to not let their immigration reform politics weaken border security, paralyze our ports, and shut down the Department of Homeland Security created in the wake of 9/11.

If we do not pass a clean funding bill, more than 20 percent of FEMA personnel will be furloughed, crippling our ability to respond to disasters; management and support of our entire homeland security infrastructure would shut down; and essential personnel would be forced to work without pay.

That is 40,000 Border Patrol agents and Customs officers risking their lives for free because of a political stunt. That is 50,000 TSA screeners who guard our nationwide travel, keeping the USA safe, yet going without pay because the Republican leadership is putting politics ahead of security. And it is more than 40,000 Active Duty Coast Guard officers standing guard on our shores, proudly serving a country whose political leaders don't seem to care if they get paid for their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, the stakes are too high. The risk is too real. Republicans need to stop their anti-immigrant tantrum and end this dangerous game. Pass a clean DHS funding bill today to protect our great Nation.

I thank my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, today, we will take our 56th vote to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act.

In my home State of Kentucky--a nationwide success story of this law--521,000 Kentuckians enrolled in health coverage last year. That is more than a half a million people in a State with a population of just over 4 million. Seventy-five percent of those who signed up were previously uninsured.

These are maps of before and after uninsured rates in our 120 counties. The orange and red represent uninsured rates of 14 percent to more than 20 percent. The dark blue is less than 5 percent.

Today, after the Affordable Care Act, every single county has had a reduction in their uninsured rates. In some areas, uninsured rates have plummeted by more than 65 percent.

As we watch these uninsured rates drop, as the counties on this map go from red to green or blue, that is another person getting the care or treatment they need, a family's future transformed, lives saved.

This law is a success. The Affordable Care Act is working, and you need to look no further than the Commonwealth of Kentucky to see the proof.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act at this stage would be an absolute death sentence to thousands of people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and throughout the country. We cannot let this happen.

I urge a vote against the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this week, as we consider measures aimed at combating human trafficking, I remind my colleagues of the estimated 1.6 million runaway or homeless youths under the age of 18 in the United States.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was enacted in 1974 to help combat these growing numbers, and it is the sole Federal law targeting unaccompanied youths. Through this law, we are able to fund important local programs to serve our homeless youths. They provide shelter, counseling, family reunification, and aftercare, and they reduce the chance that young people will become victims of human trafficking.

I am proud to have introduced and to have helped pass the reauthorization of this important funding in 2008, but that 5-year authorization expired in 2014, and now action must be taken. Congress has a responsibility to help ensure that homeless young people in America have a place to seek shelter and to find safety while laying a foundation for new opportunities.

I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting a reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and help the hundreds of thousands of children who sleep on our streets every night.

Mr. Speaker, last night President Obama addressed the Nation and reminded us of the crossroads at which we stand: Do we continue on the path we are on where only a select few prosper while so many families struggle? Or will we instead work to rebuild our middle class, grow our economy, and create new opportunities for success?

But here today, Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is clear that the priorities of this body's majority are not in line with the majority of Americans.

The American people don't want more of the same. They want better access to education, better infrastructure, and an honest chance at the American Dream. They want a fair college loan system, and they want the relief of knowing that their retirement and their parents' retirement is safe and sound, not left to the whims of Wall Street. As President Obama made clear, they want a tax system that rewards work, not wealth.

I am proud to support many of the priorities laid out in last night's speech because they put practicality above partisan politics. Let's hope for the sake of the American people that this Congress does the same.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of games being played at this time of year. Tonight, we are going to have a national championship game for the NCAA national football championship, playoff games for the NFL championship. We have basketball games being played and hockey games. The American people don't need games being played in the House of Representatives, but that is exactly what we are seeing this week.

The Republican majority is holding hostage the security of this Nation--holding the Department of Homeland Security's budget hostage-- so they can advance some ideological provisions on immigration reform.

This is nothing but a big pout on the part of the Republican majority because they are upset with the President's executive action. If they want to undo what the President has done and proceed toward a sane immigration policy, we have an entire body of Democrats and Republicans who is waiting to do that. I was part of the bipartisan group last year that worked for the entire Congress in trying to get that done. I know it is possible.

No more games, Mr. Speaker. We need action--we need sane action--and not holding our national security hostage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Michael B. McCall, the Founding President of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). Since 1998, Dr. McCall has served as system President. His exemplary service has greatly benefited community colleges throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Jefferson Community and Technical College, which is in my Congressional district.

Under Dr. McCall's leadership, KCTCS has become the largest provider of post-secondary education in Kentucky. This year, KCTCS enrolled more than 92,000 students and remains the largest provider of workforce training in the Commonwealth, serving more than 5,300 businesses and training more than 52,000 employees every year.

Recently, a study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems reviewed many of the accomplishments achieved under Dr. McCall stewardship and found that ``Relative to most other public community and technical college systems in the U.S., KCTCS has improved dramatically on the key measures of student participation and completion. Enrollment in the system has nearly doubled since 2001 and its production of college credentials has increased by more than 400 percent.''

Dr. McCall has spent the last fifteen years dedicated to improving Kentucky's workforce and economy by leading the transformation of KCTCS. I would like to thank Dr. McCall for his commitment to improving the lives of Kentucky families and for his service to the Commonwealth. I wish you the best in your retirement.

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

This has been a fascinating week in terms of the environment. We started it with the President orchestrating one of the truly groundbreaking breakthroughs in carbon emissions and getting the Chinese, for the first time, to agree to limit their carbon emissions, setting new standards for the United States.

Then this week, in the Congress, we basically have three bills that are the equivalent of saying, through statute, to polluters, ``Smoke 'em if you got 'em.'' I mean, three bills that represent one of the worst trifectas I have ever seen, and I come from horse racing country.

Yesterday we voted on a bill that, in the title, suggests that we are somehow improving the science behind the environment, and basically what it did was limit the ability of EPA to have scientists as part of the decisionmaking process. Today we are discussing the so-called Promoting New Manufacturing Act, and, as we heard from my good friend from Kentucky, the goal of the legislation is to facilitate a manufacturing renaissance in the United States by expediting air permits for new facilities.

But the premise of the bill is very flawed: new manufacturing facilities aren't being held back by clean air requirements; weakening the Clean Air Act won't create jobs; and the specific provisions of this bill will slow down permitting, not speed it up. In truth, this bill is yet another Republican attempt to weaken the Clean Air Act protections and attack EPA's authority to reduce harmful air pollution.

The Clean Air Act requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facilities start construction. It is a lot easier and less costly to minimize air pollution when you are designing and building a facility compared to cleaning up existing facilities.

These pre-construction permits are based on a simple principle: a new facility should not increase local air pollution above levels that are safe to breathe. The bill before us violates this principle by creating a permitting loophole, allowing new facilities to obtain permits under old, less protective air quality standards unless EPA promulgates new regulations or guidelines.

This provision is bad for existing manufacturing in the United States. The permitting loophole would actually impose new costs on the manufacturing sector rather than help it. The bill allows new facilities to pollute more than their fair share, leaving the existing manufacturers to make up the difference.

In areas struggling to clean up their air, like in my district in Louisville, Kentucky, this effectively shifts the responsibility and cost of pollution control to existing manufacturing facilities. This provision does not make economic sense. Furthermore, in all of the limited testimony pursuant to considering this bill, there was not one company identified that actually said they would build a manufacturing facility if they could do it under older guidelines.

I am kind of amused that the Republicans now want the EPA to issue nationwide guidelines, when their ideology says States are better prepared to deal with issues at their own level; and, in fact, States, under the existing law, have done a very, very good job of creating guidelines and strategies for meeting problems with pollution in their jurisdiction.

So, for a wide variety of reasons, this bill doesn't accomplish what its title suggests, and we urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my great honor to yield such time

as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), one of the truly great champions of the environment who has ever served in this body.

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

Before I close my side of the argument, I would like to take this opportunity, once again, to thank my colleague Mr. Waxman for his incredible service to this body and to the country over the last several decades.

One of the first things I did when I was elected to Congress in 2006 was to call Mr. Waxman to ask if I could serve under his leadership on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee because I respected him so much. He has been a phenomenal mentor to me, as he has been to hundreds of other Members of Congress over the years, and I think the country owes him a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, in the spirit of his championing of the environment, what we have seen again this week, not just with this bill but with the two other bills in the last 2 days, is kind of a ``wolf in sheep's clothing'' approach to the environment--dressing legislation up with very, very nice-sounding titles that essentially do exactly the opposite of what they are intending to do.

This bill, far from promoting manufacturing, will make it much more difficult for the EPA to set rules, and in the process, it will not accomplish anything in encouraging manufacturing. I don't know of one businessperson who would say, ``I am going to build a plant that I, otherwise, would not build because I get to build it under old pollution rules.'' Most businesspeople are very forward looking. They look for opportunities not to exploit the environment. They look for opportunities to

make money because they have a vision. Virtually every good businessperson I know these days understands that building facilities that have the latest technologies and the cleanest technologies is the way to make money and to make sound business decisions.

For all of those reasons, as Mr. Waxman laid out in very clear terms, this bill does not promote manufacturing. It will do, actually, the opposite, so we urge the defeat of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded vote for rollcall 497. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' for this measure. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes.

Bill: H.R. 5108--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended; Rollcall No. 497; Vote: ``yes.''