Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from AARP which makes clear

health care will be sabotaged under this bill, and healthcare costs for older Americans will ``dramatically increase.''

[From the House Democratic Leader's Press Office, May 3, 2017]

AARP Press Release: New Changes to the AHCA Makes a Bad Bill Worse!

Dear Representative: Older Americans care deeply about

access to and affordability of health care. With the addition

of the Upton Amendment, as reported, we once again write to

share our opposition to the American Health Care Act (AHCA)

and urge you to vote NO. Changes under consideration that

would allow states to waive important consumer protections--

allowing insurance companies to once again charge Americans

with pre-existing conditions more because they've had cancer,

diabetes or heart disease--would make a bad bill even worse.

This would be devastating for the 25 million Americans 50-64

who have a deniable preexisting condition. The Upton

amendment would do little to reduce the massive premium

increases for those with pre-existing conditions.

Throughout consideration of the AHCA, we have been

expressing serious concerns about the impact that this

legislation will have on older Americans. The Congressional

Budget Office (CBO)'s last estimate further demonstrates the

harmful impact of this bill on older Americans and some of

our most vulnerable. Specifically, the American Health Care

Act will weaken the fiscal sustainability of Medicare;

dramatically increase premium and out-of-pocket costs for 50-

64 year olds purchasing coverage on the individual insurance

market; allow insurance companies to once again discriminate

against those with pre-existing conditions; substantially

increase the number of Americans without insurance; and put

at risk millions of children and adults with disabilities and

poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program to access

long-term services and supports and other benefits.

Our members and others 50 years of age and older care

deeply about health care and want to know where their elected

leaders stand. Recognizing the importance of the upcoming

vote on the American Health Care Act, AARP intends to inform

our members, and others over age 50, how their elected

officials voted. We'll communicate the results of the vote in

our widely-circulated publications, in e-mail alerts, in our

online channels, and through the media. Again, we urge all

Representatives to vote NO on the American Health Care Act in

its current form.

Medicare

The American Health Care Act repeals provisions in current

law that have strengthened Medicare's fiscal outlook,

specifically, the repeal of the additional 0.9 percent

payroll tax on higher-income workers. Repealing this

provision would remove billions from the Hospital Insurance

trust fund, hasten the insolvency of Medicare, and diminish

Medicare's ability to pay for services in the future.

Individual Private Insurance Market

Currently, about 25 million Americans age 50-64 have a pre-

existing condition, about 6.1 million purchase insurance in

the non-group market, and nearly 3.2 million are currently

eligible to receive subsidies for health insurance coverage

through either the federal health benefits exchange or a

state-based exchange (exchange). Since passage of the ACA,

the number of 50-64 year old Americans who are uninsured has

dropped by half. We are deeply concerned that the AHCA would

be a significant step backwards and result in millions of

older Americans who cannot afford their health care,

including many simply losing their health care. Based on CBO

estimates, approximately 14 million Americans will lose

coverage next year, while a total of 24 million Americans

would lose coverage over the next 10 years.

Affordability of both premiums and cost-sharing is critical

to older Americans and their ability to obtain and access

health care. A typical 50-64 year old seeking coverage

through an exchange has a median annual income of under

$25,000 and already pays significant out-of-pocket costs for

health care. We have serious concerns--reinforced by the CBO

estimate--that the bill under consideration will dramatically

increase health care costs for 50-64 year olds who purchase

health care through an exchange due both to the changes in

age rating from 3:1 (already a compromise that requires

uninsured older Americans to pay three times more than

younger individuals) to 5:1 (or more) and reductions in

current tax credits for older Americans. CBO concluded that

the bill will substantially raise premiums for older people

and force many into lower quality plans.

Age rating plus reduced tax credits equal an unaffordable

age tax. Our previous estimates on the age-rating change

showed that premiums for current coverage could increase by

up to $3,200 for a 64 year old. In addition, the bill reduced

the tax credits available for older Americans to help

purchase insurance. We estimate that the bill's changes to

current law's tax credits alone could increase premium costs

by more than $5,800 for a 64-year old earning $15,000.

Overall, both the bill's tax credit changes and 5:1 age

rating would result in skyrocketing cost increases for older

Americans. In their analysis, CBO found that a 64 year old

earning $26,500 a year would see their premiums increase by

$12,900--758 percent--from $1,700 to $14,600 a year.

Current law prohibits insurance companies from

discriminating against individuals due to a pre-existing

condition. The bill would repeal pre-existing condition

protections and would once again allow insurance companies to

charge Americans more--we estimate up to $25,000 more--due to

a pre-existing condition. As a result, the 4o percent of 50-

to 64-year-olds (about 25 million people) who have a deniable

preexisting condition risk losing access to affordable

coverage. The Upton Amendment, which would add funds to

address the impact of premium increases for those with pre-

existing conditions, would do little to mitigate the massive

premium increase for some of the most vulnerable Americans.

AARP strongly opposes any weakening of the law's pre-existing

condition protections which benefit millions of Americans.

Medicaid and Long-Term Services and Supports

AARP opposes the provisions of the American Health Care Act

that create a per capita cap financing structure in the

Medicaid program. We are concerned that these provisions

could endanger the health, safety, and care of millions of

individuals who depend on the essential services provided

through Medicaid. CBO found that the bill would cut Medicaid

funding by $880 billion over 2017-2026, about 25 percent less

than what it projects under current law. Medicaid is a vital

safety net and intergenerational lifeline for millions of

individuals, including over 17.4 million low-income seniors

and children and adults with disabilities who rely on the

program for critical health care and long-term services and

supports (LTSS, i.e., assistance with daily activities such

as eating, bathing, dressing, managing medications, and

transportation). Older adults and people with disabilities

now account for over sixty percent of Medicaid spending, and

cuts of this magnitude will result in loss of benefits and

services for this vulnerable population.

Of these 17.4 million individuals: 6.9 million are ages 65

and older (which equals more than 1 in every 7 elderly

Medicare beneficiaries); 10.5 million are children and adults

living with disabilities; and about 10.8 million are so poor

or have a disability that they qualify for both Medicare and

Medicaid (dual eligibles). Dual eligibles account for almost

33 percent of Medicaid spending. While they comprise a

relatively small percentage of enrollees, they account for a

disproportionate share of total Medicare and Medicaid

spending.

Individuals with disabilities of all ages and older adults

rely on critical Medicaid services, including home and

community-based services (HCBS) for assistance with daily

activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, and home

modifications; nursing home care; and other benefits such as

hearing aids and eyeglasses.

In providing a fixed amount of federal funding per person,

this approach to financing would likely result in

overwhelming cost shifts to states, state taxpayers, and

families unable to shoulder the costs of care without

sufficient federal support. This would result in cuts to

program eligibility, services, or both--ultimately harming

some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I know in these polarized times we often forget our actual connections to each other, but we are all connected. A sick, uninsured employee affects the bottom line of a small business. Uncompensated care in the emergency room, we all pay the bill. When a child from an uninsured family goes to school with an undiagnosed virus, not only does it impact his or her ability to learn, it impacts other kids and puts them at risk. We are all connected.

As Martin Luther King so powerfully said: ``We may have come over on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now.''

Mr. Speaker, it is time we start rowing together. Unfortunately, this bill fails to recognize this. It still fails that we are connected, and, instead of bringing us together, this simply divides us by providing less coverage, imposing an age tax, forcing people to pay more, and stripping key protections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1628.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I am new to the House, but I was elected by my constituents to reach across the aisle and get things done.

Sadly, instead of reaching across the aisle to work on commonsense fixes to the Affordable Care Act, some of my Republican colleagues have decided to push through a healthcare bill that, instead of increasing health coverage, actually takes it away from more than 24 million people and imposes an age tax.

In my State alone, this bill will cut Medicaid coverage for 60,000 individuals and result in a $170 million loss of Federal funds at a time when my State is facing a major budget shortfall. Additionally, almost 22,000 individuals in my State will lose access to employer- sponsored insurance, and more than 6,000 individuals who are currently receiving coverage through our healthcare exchange will lose coverage as a result of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, given its impact on our Nation's working families and our most vulnerable citizens, I believe passage of this bill would be an act of medical malpractice--pun intended. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1628.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of New York (Ms. Meng), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 382, the 100 Years of Women in Congress Act.

This bipartisan legislation will recognize the work that Jeannette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress in 1916, accomplished fighting for women's rights. It will rename the USDA's Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program to the Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Grant Program. In our time, it is critical that we encourage more women to enter STEM fields across this country. In receiving a bachelor's degree in biology before women even had the right to vote, she set an example for those who followed her to follow their passions for science and to achieve impactful leadership roles.

As I travel through Delaware, one of the consistent messages that I hear from businesses and universities is the need for more engineers. We have a wealth of knowledge in our young girls who are demanding rigorous programs that put them in place for rewarding careers. These types of programs match the boundless enthusiasm with concrete steps towards achieving meaningful career goals that benefit our entire country.

My sister, Thea, demonstrates the impact of successful STEM education from organizations like the Forum to Advance Minority Engineers--FAME-- for schoolchildren in Delaware, to her attending an HBCU as an engineering major, and in her career spent serving our country as an engineer with the Army.

My late husband Charles received undergraduate and graduate degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering. Those degrees gave him the opportunity to travel the world as an engineer and give back to the energy sector.

However, my family and I know that the answer doesn't simply end with STEM. It is also about incorporating the arts into one's education in the form of STEAM, where we can see the balance that a quality education provides.

In my experiences, as the first woman elected to Congress from Delaware, I understand the challenges that come with trying to break through barriers. That is why this legislation and the impact of getting more young women to pursue STEM and STEAM careers is so deeply personal to me.

As Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin said before taking her oath of office in 1917--nearly 4 years before women had even gained the right to vote through the 19th Amendment--as you heard before, she said: ``I may be the first woman to be a Member of Congress, but I won't be the last.''

I am honored to serve as one of the more than 300 women to follow her lead. When we look to history to guide us in challenging moments, we will look to people like Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, and I am confident she would be honored to have her name associated with this legislation and its aims.

I thank the sponsors, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for this bipartisan work.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members as well to support passage of H.R. 382, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of new Members of the 115th Congress.

It is fitting that we make this commitment on Valentine's Day. It is a holiday to show appreciation and also love, and I think that is what this is really about. It is about our love for our country and our love for our friends and families and neighbors.

It is also about civility, and to me, civility is not about the what. We can all disagree on the what. Civility is about the how. It is about our tone. It is about our tenor. It is about the words that we choose to use, and it is about respect.

As freshmen, our class is special. I feel we are special. Just like Claudia said, we are actually awesome. And it was really telling that, at one of our retreats, orientations, we came together and we asked if we could just be alone, no staff, no one else in the room--just us. We actually said: Let's try to find common ground. Who here has a port? Who here has served in public life? Again, our goal wasn't to find ways to divide, but to find ways to come together.

If we expect civility from others, including our children, then we need to model it. Our signatures on this document show our commitment to civility, to caring, and, most of all, to getting things done. That is what America wants, and that is what America deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57 today for two reasons. I believe that the majority's repeated use of the Congressional Review Act this week

and last week is unnecessary, constraining, and, in this case, adds cost. The Congressional Review Act has only been used successfully in 2000 one time, and already this month the House is considering its eighth joint resolution of disapproval.

I believe in our role of oversight of the executive branch, but using the blunt tool of the CRA to block regulatory action in an effort to support and improve public education is an abuse of the CRA. The newly confirmed Secretary of Education can already amend targeted rules like the one this resolution is addressing without fully repealing the guidance and preventing similar rules in the future.

The Every Student Succeeds Act was a major bipartisan accomplishment, and I am particularly concerned about the uncertainty for the States and local stakeholders caused by repealing these accountability standards in the underlying rule.

In Delaware, just as in States across the country, local stakeholder groups and State departments of education have been working together to provide thorough feedback and guidance on these accountability rules that the majority wants to repeal.

I have heard from my State board of education that repealing these regulations would cause States to delay the development of their plans, potentially costing them both time and money to gather feedback on a significantly different set of guidelines for the plan, and, most importantly, further delaying the implementation of changes to the education system that our students need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleagues would be: Why get rid of the whole rule when it comes from a bill that ultimately happened in such a bipartisan way? Why prevent accountability and guidance for States?

I will oppose H.J. Res. 57, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Judith H. Hoopes, of Greenville, Delaware, a lifelong Delawarean and an invaluable member of our community.

A 1960 graduate of Duke University, her college major in history led to her long-time involvement with the Delaware Historical Society. She was involved in many state arts organizations, including her appointment as Chair of the Delaware State Arts Council by then- Governor Pete duPont. Dedicated to her community, Judy was a valuable asset to the numerous non-profits in Delaware she lent her support. She was a founding board member and past Chair of the Delaware Community Foundation, was the first woman to Chair the YMCA board, a founder of the Fund for Women, and a longtime Woodlawn Trustee. For these and many other contributions Judy received the Lifetime Achievement in Philanthropy Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Judy and her late husband Robert were married for 53 years. Their family was the focus of their lives, and their wonderful children and grandchildren are a testament to their good work. I am honored to call their daughter, Stephanie, and son, Robert Jr., friends. Their commitment to community and love of Delaware will surely carry on their mother's spirit. My sympathy goes out to Stephanie, Robert and his wife Hilary, Judy's five grandchildren James, Elizabeth, Penelope, Riter, and Charlotte, as well as their extended family and Judy's many friends.

We are deeply saddened by the loss of Judy, and I want to express my deep gratitude for her dedication and service to her community, and the state of Delaware.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position for the record on roll call votes cast on January 9, 2017 and January 3, 2017

On Roll Call Vote Number 25, on consideration of H.R. 304 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.''

On Roll Call Vote Number 24, on consideration of H.R. 315 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.''

On Roll Call Vote Number 3, on consideration of H. Res. 5 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``No.''

``The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; . . .''