Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I join our colleague in saluting the committee for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor--so many issues that the committee has to deal with. I know that full well as a previous ranking member.

I know that we all agree that every chance we get we want to salute the patriotic men and women of the intelligence community for their ceaseless heroism and unblinking vigilance to keep the American people safe. I thank them for all they do for force protection and conflict prevention. The quiet professionals of the U.S. intelligence community work every day, again, to keep this country safe and our leaders informed. Respect for their work is essential.

I thank Ranking Member Schiff and members of the committee--Mr. Schiff, for his leadership, and commend all the members of the committee for their dedication to those same goals.

I am sorry that this bill is coming up under a closed rule so that Members cannot offer amendments. One such amendment might be about an independent commission. It is the judgment of the intelligence community, as expressed in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a multifaceted active-measures campaign to sow discord in our political process and help one Presidential candidate and hurt the other.

For this reason, we continue to ask for an outside, independent commission to look forward on how to prevent Russia and others from meddling in our election system again. The Swalwell-Cummings legislation to establish that commission has 200 bipartisan cosponsors.

I also want to salute our Homeland Security Committee ranking member, Bennie Thompson, for his leadership to strengthen the preparedness of the election infrastructure of the United States to identify and withstand a foreign attack.

Our election systems are part of the critical infrastructure of our country, some of the most critical infrastructure of our democracy itself. We must protect it.

The United States must reject foreign interference in our elections, no matter which party it helps or which party it hurts. Our oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Working with the intelligence community to better ensure the integrity of our elections is vital to that goal.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan legislation and salute the members of the committee. I especially want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of our ranking member, Mr. Schiff from California.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and more importantly, for her great leadership to advance the values of our country in allocation of resources. And I always admire the work of Mr. Frelinghuysen, our distinguished chairman, as well. We may have a matter of disagreement here today, though.

Mr. Chair, all of us, Members of Congress, all elected officials, people who serve in any office, take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that is an oath to protect the American people.

Democrats, indeed all Americans, believe in a strong national defense. We believe in strong investments in our defense and in our brave men and women in uniform, in particular.

But far from strengthening our security, the falsely inflated numbers in this spending bill will create uncertainty for our military and hollow out America's communities at home.

We face serious threats in the world. We know that. Those threats demand serious consideration in Congress. We should be making serious decisions about our national security mission. What is our mission? What are the resources that we need?

We don't want to spend more than we need, but we don't want to spend less, and we should not be posturing in the Defense bill with false numbers and no real answers about the mission that these dollars would fund.

We do not give certainty to our defense or confidence to our troops when we legislate with phony numbers when we refuse to make honest choices about our Defense budget.

Instead of giving certainty to our heroes in uniform, this bill would breach the sequester spending limit by more than $70 billion, forcing a mandatory 13 percent cut to all Defense accounts.

These phony numbers in this bill not only do violence to our Defense budget, they starve the strength of America by ransacking our domestic investments.

In order to be the strongest possible America, we must measure our strength not only in our military might, but in the health, education, and well-being of the American people.

And that is what the problem is, that we are stealing from the domestic budget with phony numbers for the Defense budget, which will be because of the sequester cut to the Defense accounts by 13 percent as we starve our domestic investments.

Besides the direct danger this bill poses to our military, it is laden with poison pills. It would squander billions of taxpayer dollars on President Trump's immoral, ineffective, and expensive border wall.

The President said, during the campaign, he said: ``I promise a wall.'' No. He promised a wall that Mexico would pay for. He said it would cost $4 billion to $6 billion. The fact is it could cost as much as $30 billion, $40 billion, and he wants a down payment for that wall in this bill--one poison pill.

It also eliminates ARPA-E, the advanced energy research vital to our energy independence and to our national security to keep America the innovation superpower of the 21st century.

Democrats will continue to demand real leadership to strengthen our national defense.

Mr. Chair, on this day, July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed the executive order desegregating the U.S. military. How great that was for America. How great it is for our country to benefit from the service of so many people who had been serving all along but now with dignity and respect, which was justified.

So how sad it is on this same day that the President of the United States, 69 years ago, recognized the value of respecting our men and women in uniform, that the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, fired 15,000 courageous men and women in uniform in a vile, hateful tweet. His actions regarding transgenders in the military were unworthy of their bravery and unworthy of the American people.

Let us be thankful for the blessings of all of our men and women in uniform, our veterans who have served us, and our military families to whom we owe so much. Their courage, their service and leadership, and their sacrifice are what truly makes us the land of the free and the home of the brave, and it insists that we be serious and real and evidence-based as we make decisions about how we invest in the security of our country.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee for her brilliant leadership, for her bipartisanship, and for always trying to find a way to help America's consumers and protect America's taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad today because of what is happening on both sides of the Capitol. The cruelty, carelessness, and contempt Republicans are showing for working families boggles the mind. Now, Senate Republicans are careening toward shattering the healthcare of millions of Americans, with no regard or appreciation for the consequence.

Every chance they get, they stack the deck against America's working families. Here, on this side of the Capitol, Republicans are stacking the deck even further against America's working families by seeking to deny those families their fundamental right to obtain justice in court.

Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a financial meltdown that devastated families across the country. Democrats proudly took bold action and passed Dodd-Frank, the strongest set of consumer financial protections in history. But today, House Republicans are once again trying to destroy those protections for America's consumers.

Last month, Republicans passed what we called the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, the Dodd-Frank repeal, which was a giveaway to the financial industry at the expense of hardworking families.

Republicans are waging a war on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million wronged Americans, many of them seniors, veterans, and members of the Armed Forces.

Forcing consumers into arbitration--indeed, forced arbitration--gives financial services providers a free pass to get away with abuse. It denies, again, veterans, servicemembers, and seniors justice against the predatory financial marketplace practices. Sadly, it reflects a Republican Party that works relentlessly to empower Wall Street and to rig the system against consumers. It denies them consumer class action.

More than 800 years ago, the Magna Carta first laid out a basic right to justice as the foundation of a fair society. Even under a king, the Magna Carta declared, this much was owed the people: ``. . . to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.''

Every day, Americans take a similar solemn pledge: ``liberty and justice for all.'' Republicans' attack on consumers insult those pledges and deny Americans their justice.

All the American people deserve a better deal than what they are getting from the Republicans in Congress. Democrats are going to fight back. We will fight to protect hardworking American consumers. We will fight to put leverage back into the hands of the American people.

Who has the leverage? If I am a financial institution and I know that you have no leverage, that you cannot act in a class action way, you can just imagine what I have in store for you. But if I think you have leverage and you can act in a different way and not be forced into arbitration, I might have more respect for our financial relationship with each other.

We will put the leverage back in the hands of the American people. We will fight this resolution. I call upon my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in voting ``no'' because this bill is an unfair and unjust bill.

Who is it unfair to? America's working families, America's consumers, and America's taxpayers.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership as our ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. I thank him for his leadership in trying to help define what our security mission is so that we have the resources that are necessary to honor our oath of office to protect and defend.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Thornberry as well for his leadership in the defense of our country. The bipartisanship in defending our country is something that we value, and any interference with that is unfortunate.

It takes a special kind of person, my colleagues, who steps forward to serve in the U.S. military. They are men and women of courage, of strength, and of patriotism, who shoulder the burden of defending our liberties so that the rest of us can live in security and freedom.

We owe these heroes an immense debt, a solemn responsibility to do everything we can to defend those who are risking and giving their lives for the United States of America.

The Defense bill before us today should be about honoring that responsibility, protecting those who protect our national security; instead, here we are considering a Republican amendment purpose-built to attack the health and dignity of thousands of men and women serving with honor and courage today.

Make no mistake, the effect and the intent of this unjust and mean- spirited amendment is to ban patriotic Americans from serving our country. It is designed to drum transgender servicemembers out of the military.

Instead of protecting the men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedoms, they are fighting to rip away the healthcare of thousands of brave servicemembers.

The integration of openly transgender servicemembers into our Armed Forces is the unfinished work of the bipartisan--and I commend our colleagues--efforts to repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

I call upon my Republican colleagues that you immediately withdraw this cruel, discriminatory, and appalling amendment.

If not, I call upon all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment, prevent this assault on transgender servicemembers, and get us back to the subject at hand, which is the defense of our country, which the distinguished chairman, Mr. Thornberry, and ranking member have served this Congress and our country so well in doing.

Mr. Speaker, in 1984, before the United Kingdom handed Hong Kong over to China, the Chinese Government promised ``a high degree of autonomy'' for the territory in the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong: providing for an independent executive, legislature, and judiciary; ensuring the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion; prohibiting the central government from interfering into the affairs that Hong Kong administers on its own according to the Basic Law; and pledging a path to universal suffrage.

In 1997, when the handover occurred, America was hopeful that the people of Hong Kong would achieve the free, democratic future they deserved. But 2 decades later, we see China's promise of ``one country, two systems'' is not being met. The Chinese have not honored that promise, and the British Government has ignored it.

Since 2014's ``Umbrella Revolution,'' the people of Hong Kong have faced a barrage of unjust and harsh restrictions on their freedoms. Hong Kong's pro-Beijing government is slapping democratically elected opposition lawmakers with expensive lawsuits in a backhanded attempt to disqualify them from their seats.

Peaceful activists are being rounded up and detained by the hundreds for exercising their right to protest the new government.

Five booksellers were abducted, smuggled across the border to China and forced to confess--so-called confess--their so-called crimes on national television, simply because their employer sold books critical of Beijing.

And, just this week, the democracy activists and heroes of the ``Umbrella Movement,'' Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, were arrested while peacefully protesting the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping, where they unfurled a banner in support of Liu Xiaobo.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend this body, especially our colleague, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, for the resolution that he put forth earlier, a resolution that recognized Liu Xiaobo's contribution to democratic freedoms as a global hero, and urging the Chinese Government to allow him to seek medical care wherever, including in the United States.

In mainland China, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese Government continues to jail journalists, human rights lawyers, those fighting to practice their own religion, and democracy activists at an alarming rate. And the Chinese Government is brutally trying to erase the religion, culture, and language of the Tibetan people.

America has a moral duty to speak out in defense of the legitimate political aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. If we do not speak out for human rights in China because of economic concerns, then we lose all moral authority to talk about human rights in any other place in the world.

As we mark this solemn 20th anniversary, we must stand up for all who are demanding the promises of ``one country, two systems'' be honored.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on the committee, as well as the bipartisan nature of this legislation that Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel are bringing to the floor. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan resolution reassures our friends, it rebuffs our foes, and it reminds the world that America's commitment to NATO's common defense pledge is ironclad.

When President Truman signed the NATO Treaty nearly 70 years ago, he called the alliance, ``a long step toward permanent peace in the whole world.''

NATO has guaranteed the security of the American people and our allies for decades. Now some people don't remember what those decades were like, fighting the threat of communism. Article 5, the collective defense provision, is the core of that security guarantee.

Article 5, as the gentlewoman just mentioned, was invoked only once: when America's allies joined in the fight against al-Qaida after the September 11 terrorist attacks on our country.

I, like many of my colleagues, have traveled to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places and seen that our NATO partners have shed blood in the name of article 5 in our common fight against terrorism.

Our commitment to article 5 is a commitment to brave men and women across the world who risk and give their lives for the NATO alliance. Previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have strongly and unambiguously stood by NATO and article 5.

I was very sad, I will be very honest with you, my colleagues, when meeting with NATO leaders at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels, a building dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, President Trump refused to clearly and unequivocally reassure our NATO partners that he would honor article 5.

We in this Congress of the United States, acting in a bipartisan way, want to remove all doubt that the U.S. commitment to the principles of a mutual defense embodied by NATO are ironclad. I keep using that word. Every day, Putin searches for cracks in our NATO alliance. We must convey to him that this alliance is ironclad.

And now, just on another related subject, it is about our national security. While we are glad to be passing this resolution affirming America's commitment to article 5, the bipartisan bill sanctioning Russia languishes in the House. While the White House caters to Putin, Congress must hold Russia accountable for its actions by passing the Iran-Russia sanctions bill. It passed the Senate 98-2--98-2--strong bipartisan support for a bill that contained the Iran and Russia sanctions.

We can't go home for the Fourth of July without passing that legislation. It is my understanding it was just a blue slip problem that could be easily resolved. That is how it was characterized when the President of Ukraine said to us that they really need the Russian sanctions enforced and strengthened.

Let us have the courage to stand up to those who menace the free world and stand by our partners in support of a peaceful, democratic, and free future for all.

What we are doing today is very important. It is not just about a bill. It is not just about an agreement. It is about values. It is about security as a value, something we take an oath to protect and defend. This NATO agreement helps us do that, but we must also do what flows from it and say to the Russians, who are the point of NATO, you are going to have sanctions because of your aggression in Eastern Europe, and at the same time send that message to the Iranians.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a very strong unanimous vote for this. This is something so bipartisan, so wonderful. It is a good day. It is a good bill. It gives us all hope.

I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye'' and call upon the Speaker to bring the other bill to the floor. I hope our distinguished chair and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee will be able to be part of bringing it to the floor very soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the bold and visionary leadership of Marcia D. Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, co- founders and co-presidents of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC). Exceptional lawyers, shrewd strategists, and formidable coalition- builders, they retire after five decades on the frontlines of virtually every major advance for women and girls in this nation.

One of Marcia and Duffy's greatest legacies is the persistent leadership of the National Women's Law Center, the legal advocacy organization they co-founded and co-directed--pioneering progress for women and girls at a moment of landmark new legal and legislative victories for women's rights.

Under Marcia and Duffy's leadership, the NWLC grew into one of America's most formidable and effective organizations for advancing women's rights and opportunities.

Guided by their leadership, the NWLC will continue to honor their founders through strategic, effective and groundbreaking advocacy for a new generation of women and girls. Beyond the Center, the many female, and male, advocates who have been mentored and supported by Marcia and Duffy over the years continue to carry forward their vision.

Marcia's induction to the national Women's Hall of Fame at Seneca Falls, NY in 2015 was a fitting honor for an extraordinary person who has earned a place in the pantheon of champions for America's women. Duffy has been rightly honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for her ``efforts on behalf of America's children.'' These awards are just two of the many recognitions they have received for their leadership.

It has been my honor to work with Marcia and Duffy for three decades and witness first hand their dedication and commitment. On behalf of their many friends in Congress, I commend Marcia D. Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell for lifetimes of transformational service for the women of this country and wish them well in all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the distinguished Speaker in paying tribute to the brave men and women of the Capitol Police force, and also, in sadness, for the assault that was made on our colleagues and members of the staff.

To my colleagues, you will hear me say something you have never heard me say before: I identify myself with the remarks of the Speaker. They were beautiful remarks, Mr. Speaker. Thank you so much for the sentiments that they represent. Thank you so much.

Again, we are not one caucus or the other in this House today, but I can speak for each other in saying that we send our thoughts and prayers to our colleague, Steve Scalise.

Personally, we have our Italian-American connection, so as soon as I heard his name, I was filled with concern, as I would be for anyone here, but we have that special connection. So our hopes and prayers-- and I said to the Speaker: ``I will be asking you every 5 minutes, `How is Steve coming along?' '' And also, for Zach Barth in Congressman Roger Williams' office; Matt Mika, who was a former staffer, and, of course, as the Speaker acknowledged, Crystal Griner and David Bailey.

In acknowledging their sacrifice and how fortunate we all were that they were on the scene, because other lives would have probably been lost, I want us to remember that every single day the Capitol Police protect all of us, take risks for us. And while a day like this is a time where we can focus on it so sadly, it doesn't mean that other days aren't as challenging.

I especially want to call attention to Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut, who, almost 19 years ago, July 24, 1998, lost their lives protecting the Congress, the Capitol, but not just the Members of Congress, the staff, the press, and our visitors, people who come to see this Capitol, this great edifice to democracy known throughout the world. So they are protecting a great deal, and it is an attraction, and that makes it all the more risky.

You may not know this, my colleagues, but every time I pray, which is very frequently, and certainly every Sunday, I pray for all of you, all of you together. In the earlier years, I used to pray for your happiness, for the fact that we would, working together, heed the words of President Kennedy in the closing of his inaugural address when he said: ``. . . God's work must truly be our own.''

How do we view what God's will is for us? How do we come together to give confidence to the American people? As our Founders intended, we would have our disagreements and we would debate them, and we would have confidence in our beliefs and humility to listen to others.

But in more recent years, I have been praying not only for that, but for our safety because I, above anyone in here, and I can say that quite clearly, have been probably the target of more--a political target and, therefore, the target of more threats than anyone, perhaps other than the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And so I prayed for Barack Obama, and now I continue to pray for him. And I pray for Donald Trump, that his Presidency will be successful and that his family will be safe, because it is about family.

We are called for a purpose to this body. It is a great thing, and we know what it means to each of us to serve, and we recognize that in others. And we also recognize that you have your constituents. We have ours, and we respect you and your constituents who sent you here, all worthy of respect.

But we do have our differences, and so I pray. My prayer is that we can resolve our differences in a way that furthers the preamble to the Constitution, takes us closer to ``e pluribus unum.'' And today, again, it is in the family. It is an injury in the family for the staff and for our colleague and for his leadership.

As I mentioned just a minute ago in a meeting, sports are a wonderful thing in our country. They are probably one of the most unifying things. I think the arts, we like to say music, or plays, or whatever, but sports really bring us together in our cities. You see, people have the biggest differences of opinion on politics, and yet when their team is on the field, people come together. People come together.

So when this team was on the field practicing with such camaraderie and such brotherhood--I don't know if you have any sisters on your team. We have two on our team--for this person to take this action was so cowardly, so cowardly.

We will learn more about motivation and the rest of that, but it seems particularly sad--although any violent death, of course, is sad, but particularly sad at a time when people want us to come together, and we are prepared to come together tomorrow night--that this assault would be made.

But we cannot let that be a victory for the assailant, or anyone who would think that way. So tomorrow, we will go out on the field. We will root for our team. We want everyone to do his or her very best, and we will use this occasion as one that brings us together and not separates us further.

Again, I want to thank the Speaker for bringing us together, and, again, with endless gratitude to our Capitol Police, and, in particular today, of course, Crystal Griner, David Bailey; but never out of our prayers, Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you on this sad day. Steve, Zach, and Matt, you are deeply in our prayers. We count the minutes until Steve returns.

Please convey that to him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Ellison and our ranking member, Congresswoman Waters, for their great leadership on behalf of American consumers, American investors, and American taxpayers.

I rise in opposition to the amendment and to the bill.

Mr. Chair, today House Republicans are pushing a dangerous Wall Street first bill that would drag us right back to the days of the Great Recession. Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a financial meltdown that devastated families in every State in the Union: hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs every month, and the unemployment rate soared to 10 percent; more than 11 million Americans lost their homes through foreclosure; $13 trillion in wealth, including families' hard-earned retirement savings and college savings, was destroyed.

On the night of Thursday, September 18, 2008, the Treasury Secretary came to the Capitol for an emergency meeting with congressional leaders, Democrats and Republicans from the House and the Senate, to inform us of the financial meltdown. Secretary Paulson described the financial meltdown, which was horrific. When I asked the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, what he thought of what he was telling us, Chairman Bernanke told us that, if we did not act immediately, we would not have an economy by Monday.

We would not have an economy by Monday.

Tens of millions of middle class families across America still bear the scars. You saw on the right the rise of the Tea Party, on the left, Occupy Wall Street.

The Democratic Congress vowed that Main Street taxpayers must never again pay the price for the recklessness of some on Wall Street. I don't paint everybody there with the same brush, but many on Wall Street, the predatory lenders and profiteers, had abused American families for far too long.

With Dodd-Frank, Democrats enacted the strongest Wall Street consumer financial protections in history, critical reforms to protect hardworking Americans and to insist on accountability from Wall Street.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the law created has returned nearly $12 billion worth of compensation to 29 million wronged Americans--many of them seniors, many of them servicemembers.

But with this bill, the Republicans will undo these safeguards, eviscerate the Consumer Bureau, and take our country back to the days of massive taxpayer bailouts. We cannot let that happen.

Our Republican colleagues have named this dreadful and dangerous legislation, this Wall Street-first legislation, the Financial CHOICE Act. The Financial CHOICE Act to prey on investors, to prey on consumers, to prey on taxpayers. That is the choice they want to give the financial institutions.

But let's look at the appalling choices it represents. Instead of protecting consumers, Republicans choose to help those who try to cheat consumers. Instead of protecting seniors, Republicans choose to help those who prey on retirement savings. Instead of protecting men and women in uniform, Republicans choose to help those who take advantage of our servicemembers' families while our heroes are defending our freedom on the battlefield. Instead of advancing an economy that works for everyone, Republicans choose to help the special interests get richer and to stick working people with a bill for a bailout when it goes wrong.

They have always been handmaidens of the special interests. We know that. But even for them, when we think we have seen it all, this really takes them to a new low.

So they call it the Financial CHOICE Act, but these are not the choices that the American people want. They are choices of the Republican Party that puts Wall Street first, that are handmaidens of special interests.

So while Director Comey testified in the Senate earlier today, on this side of the Capitol, House Republicans are feeding working families to the wolves on Wall Street.

As I said, I don't paint all on Wall Street with the same brush. The pervasive incentives baked into the Republican bill will enable the predatory to punish the honest.

Now, here we go. Think of it. We have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 29 million Americans benefitting from $12 billion in compensation. Oh, they don't like that. They want to do away with that.

The Volcker Rule, which would prevent the financial institutions from taking risk at taxpayers' expense, the classic Republican: privatize the gain, nationalize the risk. If we win, the private sector and these banks benefit. If we lose, the taxpayer pays the tab.

Something that had nothing to do with the Dodd-Frank bill, the fiduciary rule, which only simply said that financial advisers should have the interest of the investor they are advising at heart. This bill says no. We are doing away with the very compromised, I might say, fiduciary rule to protect investors.

So as I say, I don't paint all of Wall Street with the same brush. The American people want to know who stands with them. I know you want me not to talk about this because it is the truth about what you are doing to the American people, but as the minority leader, I have the right to speak on the floor. You had plenty of time to spread your malicious legislation to hurt the American people. I am using my time to speak the truth to them about what this bill does to their financial stability.

The American people want to know who stands with them and who stands with the special interests. My Republican colleagues, in the name of hardworking American families, I use my time on behalf of America's hardworking families, not on behalf of special interests.

I urge my colleagues to make the choice to reject this dastardly Wall Street-first bill and to vote in support of our men and women in uniform, our seniors who have built our country, in support of those hardworking Americans who are saving for their children's education, hoping to achieve the American Dream of homeownership, and do not want to be preyed upon by Republicans in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a dear friend and beloved pillar of the San Francisco community, Father John Ring, who served for 25 years as Pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church.

Born and raised in San Francisco, Father Ring's leadership and compassion were invaluable to our parish and our community, in times of joy and sorrow alike. In the suffering of the Loma Prieta earthquake, Father Ring bound up the wounds of our community, consoling and encouraging us, tending his flock.

During his entire Pastorate, we saw the creation of a mass for young adults, a group of Home Visitors to care for the sick and homebound in the parish and beyond, and for the first time girls were allowed to be altar servers. He also poured himself into the service of the parish's children, and the strength of the St. Vincent de Paul school will be an enduring part of Father Ring's rich legacy.

My husband Paul, my family and I were deeply saddened to hear of Father Ring's passing. Our family has been parishioners at St. Vincent de Paul for generations, since Paul's parents John and Corinne Pelosi became parishioners in the 1930s. We count ourselves deeply blessed to have known Father Ring, and it was a special privilege to join in celebrating the Golden Jubilee of his priestly service in 2011. He will remain an inspiration to our family.

Father Ring once said that Christ's farewell to his disciples was one of his favorite parts of Scripture. In the Gospel according to John, Jesus says, ``Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.'' Truly, Father Ring was an instrument of God's peace.

The families of Father Ring's parish were blessed with a Pastor who strengthened their church and school, built community, and inspired their love for service and their love for God. May it bring comfort to all those who loved and admired Father Ring that so many join in remembering this extraordinary man and the blessing he was to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him, Congressman Scott, I thank Frank Pallone, John Yarmuth, Ritchie Neal, our ranking members, who have done such excellent work on this debate on the values of our country.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague, Mr. Clyburn, began his remarks quoting Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, and I want to join him. I think those words bear repeating. Over 50 years ago, Dr. King said: ``Of all of the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and the most inhumane because it often results in physical death.''

We come to the floor with the moral force of Dr. Martin Luther King's words in our hearts: Affordable health care is a civil right, a fundamental right for every person in our country, not just the privileged few.

And so, in the spirit of Mr. Clyburn and Dr. King, let us be prayerful about how we go forward on this very personal issue about the well-being of every person in our country.

Speaker Ryan once called this bill an act of mercy. There is no mercy here. Indeed, inequality and inhumanity is exactly what TrumpCare has in store for the American people. But when he said it is an act of mercy, here is what others said.

From the beginning, TrumpCare was a moral monstrosity that will devastate seniors, children, and hardworking Americans. That was from me. But don't take it from me.

Sister Simone Campbell said: This is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.

The Catholic Health Association wrote: We strongly encourage the full House to reject this replacement bill.

And the United Methodist Church, opposing TrumpCare, this is what they said: People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran Services in America said: TrumpCare will jeopardize the health care and long-term services and supports of millions of Americans.

The Episcopal Church said: TrumpCare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great Nation was founded.

And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with preexisting conditions.

I grant our Republican friends their position. I respect them and their constituents who sent them here. But I reject the wrong priorities in TrumpCare--tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the health insurance for tens of millions of working families across America.

TrumpCare very clearly spotlights the differences in priorities between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It has stepped forward in the longstanding Republican belief that Medicare should wither on the vine, that Medicaid should be shrunken, and that Social Security should be privatized.

If you believe in the health and well-being of the American people, you must reject this bill before us now. It is what TrumpCare--here is what it means to the American people. You know, much has been said about policy here today and over time. Much has been said about politics, what are the politics of this.

What is really important is what this means to the American people. And they know they are listening. They know what it means to them.

It means, TrumpCare does, it forces families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, increasing out-of-pocket costs. Higher costs.

Less coverage. TrumpCare will take away health care from more than 24 million hardworking Americans.

A crushing age tax. TrumpCare forces Americans aged 50 to 64 to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are.

It steals from Medicare. TrumpCare shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund and ransacks funds that seniors depend on to get long-term care they need. That is why it is consistent with their wither on the vine for Medicare philosophy.

And then, if that were not bad enough, and they couldn't pass their bill because it was that bad, they moved further away from the American people by gutting key protections. TrumpCare eviscerates essential health benefits such as maternity care, prescription drugs, emergency coverage, prenatal care, and guts protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions.

As bad as TrumpCare was the first time around, you know, it was dead. It died. It died right here on the floor. Now it has come back to life like a zombie, even more scary than before, and it is even worse.

If Republicans had their way, Americans with preexisting conditions will be pushed off their insurance and segregated into high-risk pools, where they will face soaring costs, worse coverage, and restricted care.

TrumpCare means huge premium increases. It is a frightening future for families who need affordable, dependable care the most.

Now, on the floor, the Republicans have recklessly, and some would say fraudulently, claimed that TrumpCare covers Americans with preexisting conditions. It does not.

As Robert Graboyes at the conservative Mercatus Center said about the Upton amendment: ``. . . the $8 billion amount is a pittance. Spread over 5 years, it is a fifth of a pittance.''

As Karen Pollitz from the Kaiser Family Foundation said, the Upton

amendment will cover the costs for only 1 percent of the individual market. Others have given it up to 5 percent; 1 to 5 percent. Does that mean covering? No.

Forcing a vote without a CBO score shows that the Republicans are afraid of the facts. They are afraid of learning the full consequences of their plan to push Americans with preexisting conditions into the cold or, as my colleague from New York said, off the sidewalk.

If Republicans thought they were really protecting people, they wouldn't be afraid of the facts. But they are also afraid of the truth, and the truth that would come forth if we knew the facts. And they are afraid that the American people would find out that this is not a healthcare bill, this is a tax bill disguised as a health bill.

This is a bill that is one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the middle class to the richest people and corporations in America. This is a tax bill not a healthcare bill. That is why they have to do it now so they can get on with their tax bill.

But the suffering TrumpCare will inflict on the sick is all too clear. That is why this disastrous bill has been condemned by the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, AIDS United, the Children's Hospital Association, AARP, the March of Dimes. The list goes on and on--the American Cancer Society.

Instead of reading all of these pages, I include them for the Record.

Trumpcare--pulled from the House Floor by Speaker Paul Ryan

on March 24--already meant higher health costs, more than 24

million Americans losing their health coverage, gutting key

protections, a crushing Age Tax, and stealing from Medicare.

Amazingly, Republicans have managed to make Trumpcare even

worse. The MacArthur Amendment would completely gut the

protections for people with pre-existing conditions by

allowing states to waive essential health benefits and

community rating rules, which prevent insurers from charging

people with pre-existing conditions more. This will make it

all but impossible for millions of Americans fighting illness

to afford the coverage they desperately need.

As seen below, over the last few days, the number of health

care, consumer, seniors, children, disability and other

groups that are speaking out against Trumpcare continues to

grow.

A Coalition of Patient Advocacy Groups, Including American

Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung

Association, American Diabetes Association, and March of

Dimes: ``In March, our patient advocacy organizations

collectively urged Congress to ensure that any changes made

to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)

provide affordable, accessible and adequate coverage and do

not result in a loss of coverage for any Americans. The AHCA

would do the opposite, causing at least 24 million Americans

to lose health insurance, according to the non-partisan

Congressional Budget Office. . . . We are alarmed by recent

harmful changes to AHCA . . . These changes include allowing

states to waive the requirement for essential health benefits

. . . Another change allows states to waive protections

against health status rating. Weakening these rules would

enable insurers to charge higher prices to people with pre-

existing conditions, possibly making insurance unaffordable

for those who need it most. . . . The individuals and

families we represent cannot go back to a time when people

with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or

forced to choose between purchasing basic necessities and

affording their health care coverage. Given these factors, we

oppose the latest draft of the AHCA. We urge Members of

Congress to reject this legislation.'' [5/1/17]

American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of

Physicians, American Congress of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in

Women's Health, National Partnership for Women & Families:

``Rather than support recent gains in women's access to

healthcare and coverage, the MacArthur Amendment and AHCA

turn back the clock and reverse hard-won progress. . . . The

MacArthur Amendment would enable states to waive EHBs

including those for maternity and newborn care, preventive

services, and services for mental health and substance use

disorders; [and] to waive community rating rules. . . .

Supporters of the bill claim this bill maintains protections

for those with preexisting conditions, but allowing states to

waive coverage of EHB and charge people more based on their

health status renders the promise of coverage for preexisting

conditions to be meaningless. . . . Women and families must

not be made to suffer, lose access to care and coverage, and

pay higher healthcare costs. . . . The AHCA and the MacArthur

Amendment turn the clock back on women's health and should

not move forward.'' [5/1/17]

Association of American Medical Colleges: ``This week, the

House could vote on a new version of the American Health Care

Act that includes the MacArthur amendment. . . . The

[MacArthur] amendment's treatment of essential health

benefits and health status underwriting dilutes protections

for many Americans and would leave individuals with

preexisting conditions facing higher premiums and reduced

access to care. The shortcomings in the underlying bill

remain the same. The original analysis from the Congressional

Budget Office indicated that 14 million Americans would lose

their health insurance coverage as early as next year, and as

many as 24 million by 2024. Nothing in the bill has changed

that alters the fact that this legislation would lead to

fewer Americans with quality insurance, less affordable

coverage for those who have it, and the destabilization of

the current Medicaid program.'' [5/2/17]

Children's Hospital Association: ``On behalf of our

nation's children's hospitals and the patients and families

they serve, Children's Hospital Association (CHA) continues

to oppose the newly modified American Health Care Act (AHCA)

and strongly urges the House of Representatives to reject the

bill. Recently adopted changes only worsen the AHCA by

putting children with preexisting conditions at increased

risk of losing health care coverage and failing to correct

the Medicaid cuts that would impact over 30 million kids. . .

. The block grant option in particular would be devastating

to children as it eliminates Medicaid's EPSDT (Early and

Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment) benefit which

ensures children receive immunizations, mental health

assessments and vision, eye and hearing exams as well as

other medical services they might need. CHA urgently asks

members of Congress to vote against the AHCA.'' [4/27/17]

Children's Leadership Council: ``The Children's Leadership

Council opposes the American Health Care Act (AHCA) because

it would jeopardize health care for millions of babies,

children, youth and families. We urge you to vote NO on this

legislation. . . . The ACHA's changes to Medicaid would

radically restructure a program that has worked for more than

50 years to support children's health. The Medicaid cap would

shift $839 billion to states, forcing them to cut

eligibility, benefits, or provider rates that could have

disastrous health consequences. There is no question that the

massive cuts to Medicaid, increased premiums likely for

millions of families, and eliminating the Essential Health

Benefits requirements under current law will seriously harm

children and families. . . . This legislation is a dangerous

step backward.'' [5/1/17]

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: ``The Consortium

for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is strongly opposed to

the amended American Health Care Act. The amended American

Health Care Act retains the original bill's proposals to

dramatically cut Medicaid services that are vital to people

with disabilities and seniors through per capita caps, which

CCD has opposed. . . . The newest amendments to the American

Health Care Act make the bill even more harmful to people

with disabilities. The new amendments would allow states to

easily obtain waivers that would allow them to charge higher

premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, including

people with disabilities. They would also allow states to

seek waivers from the Affordable Care Act's requirement to

provide essential health benefits, including services for

people with disabilities . . . We urge you to oppose the bill

should it come to a vote.'' [4/28/17]

National Education Association: ``Apparently, snatching

health care coverage from children and families was not

enough for House Republican leaders and the Trump

administration. To make a terrible bill even worse, a new

amendment to the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would allow

states to jettison existing essential health benefit

requirements and permit insurance companies to charge people

with pre-existing conditions more than they charge healthy

people. . . . If the AHCA and new amendment are enacted,

millions of kids and families would effectively lose the

health care coverage they need. The new amendment also

threatens to make insurance for people with pre-existing

conditions prohibitively expensive.'' [4/27/17]

American Society of Clinical Oncology: ``On behalf of the

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), I write to

express our strong opposition to the American Health Care Act

(AHCA), as currently amended. . . . Studies show that when

cancer patients do not have adequate insurance they receive

less care, receive it later, and have worse outcomes than

those with better insurance coverage. . . . The AHCA as

currently constructed will create or worsen barriers to care.

It will add costs to the system, decrease access to

appropriate treatment and increase existing disparities of

care. We are especially concerned with provisions allowing

state waivers that could erode important protections for

people with cancer, including pre-existing condition

safeguards, coverage of essential services, and access to

affordable health insurance. . . . ASCO strongly opposes

passage of the AHCA in its current form.'' [4/27/17]

American Thoracic Society: ``On behalf of the 16,000

members of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), I want to

voice my grave concerns with the latest legislative proposal

developed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act

(ACA). . . . The ATS opposes any

legislation that does not ensure affordable health insurance

coverage for Americans currently insured under the ACA. We

are concerned that allowing states to waive important

insurance reforms in the Affordable Care Act will lead to

reduced coverage for many Americans and significant price

increases for patients with preexisting conditions. Further,

we are concerned that reliance on ``high risk pools'' will

not adequately meet the health insurance needs of many

Americans with pre-existing conditions. We note that previous

attempts at implementing state-based high risk pools have

been largely unsuccessful. Members of the ATS serve a large

and diverse patient population, including patients with

respiratory diseases, critical illnesses and sleep disorders

such as asthma, COPD, pneumonia, sepsis and obstructive sleep

apnea. Our patients cannot afford to lose affordable health

insurance coverage for any period of time.'' [4/27/17]

Lutheran Services in America: ``Lutheran Services in

America continues to oppose the drastic and unnecessary

restructure of the Medicaid guarantee to a per capita cap

system as proposed in the American Health Care Act (AHCA).

Furthermore, we oppose the bill's new provisions that

eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions

as these provisions would be devastating to people with

chronic diseases and disabilities. . . . In addition, the

modified bill maintains the AHCA's drastic cuts and

fundamental restructuring of the Medicaid program, shifting

significant risks and costs to states, and to the people who

need and provide Medicaid services. . . . Lutheran Services

in America respectfully urges members of Congress to reject

this or any legislation that would erode Medicaid, increase

the number of uninsured and/or decrease protections for

preexisting conditions.'' [4/28/17]

Planned Parenthood Federation of America: ``The latest

Republican proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act is the

worst legislation for women's health in a lifetime. It

eliminates the community rating provision, allowing insurers

to charge people with pre-existing conditions an exorbitant

amount for coverage. Despite the fact that the proposal

claims to maintain the current prohibition on gender rating,

it still allows insurers to once again discriminate against

women and charge more for being a woman. Eliminating the

community rating provision disproportionately affects women,

since insurers can claim having given birth, having had a C-

section, or having been a survivor of domestic violence is a

so-called pre-existing condition. For example, a woman who

had breast cancer could be charged more than $28,000 per year

for coverage and a woman who was previously pregnant could be

charged more than $17,000 per year for . . . They took a bad

bill that would result in 24 million people losing their

insurance and higher premiums and actually made it worse. [4/

27/17]

Federal AIDS Policy Partnership: ``The undersigned 77

organizations are writing to strongly urge you to oppose the

amended American Health Care Act (AHCA) on behalf of the 24

million or more Americans estimated to lose coverage,

including tens of thousands of people with HIV. . . .

Healthcare coverage can be a life or death issue for people

living with HIV, and in the three years that the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage has been

available it has made a critical difference. . . . We cannot

afford to go back to the pre-ACA sick care system that

focused on treating disability and disease rather than

preventing it. Please support access to healthcare coverage

for the more than 52 million Americans living with pre-

existing conditions, including 1.1 million living with HIV.

We hope we can count on you to oppose the amended American

Health Care Act.'' [5/1/17]

AIDS United: ``AIDS United seeks a health care system that

will eventually enable the end of HIV in the United States.

AHCA makes major changes to the U.S. health care system that

would, if passed, worsen the provision of HIV prevention

services for people at risk for HIV and the treatment and

care for people living with HIV. . . . AIDS United is

especially concerned that the [MacArthur] amendment, far from

improving the situation, will make it easier for insurance

companies to raise rates on people living with HIV, people

with other chronic conditions and the elderly. . . . AIDS

United notes that thanks to Congress's strong response over

many years, the U.S. has made substantial progress in

responding to the HIV epidemic. However, doing so requires a

strong health care system that can ensure that people living

with HIV are able to access care and treatment . . . H.R.

1628 will reverse some of the gains that we have made in

ensuring coverage for both prevention and treatment. AIDS

United urges you to decide to vote no and publicly state

your position prior to any vote.'' [4/28/17]

American College of Nurse-Midwives: ``On behalf of the

American College of Nurse-Midwives, . . . we strongly urge

the House of Representatives to vote NO on the revised

American Health Care Act (ACHA). The legislation, in its

current form, would further impeded access to healthcare and

coverage for millions of women and newborns. Midwives stand

for improving access to quality care and coverage for women

and newborns . . . including, but not limited to, coverage

and access to a full range of preventative, reproductive and

sexual health services under state Medicaid programs and

coverage and access to essential health benefits (EHBs),

including maternity and newborn care. The newly-revised AHCA

language will end this guarantee and radically turn back the

clock on the progress made in women's health. Specifically,

the ``MacArthur Amendment'' would enable states to apply for

the ability to waive EHBs, including those for maternity and

newborn care, to waive community rating rules, and to shift

patient with preexisting conditions or illnesses into high-

risk pools. These provisions, if adopted, could have dire

consequences for women's health and health coverage.'' [4/27/

17]

AARP: ``This harmful legislation still puts an Age Tax on

older Americans and puts vulnerable populations at risk

through a series of backdoor deals that attempt to shift

responsibility to states. Older Americans need affordable

health care services and prescriptions. This legislation

still goes in the opposite direction, increasing insurance

premiums for older Americans and not doing anything to lower

drug costs. AARP continues to oppose legislation that would

impose an Age Tax, eliminate protections for pre-existing

conditions, weaken Medicare, erode seniors' ability to live

independently because of billions of dollars in Medicaid

cuts, and give sweetheart deals to drug and insurance

companies while doing nothing to lower the cost of health

care or prescription drugs. We intend to let all 38 million

of our members know exactly how their Representative votes on

this bill in newsletters, in our publications, on social

media and in other formats.'' [4/26/17]

American Medical Association: ``After reviewing the

MacArthur Amendment to H.R. 1628, the American Health Care

Act (AHCA), the American Medical Association (AMA) remains

opposed to passage of this legislation. As we have previously

stated, we are deeply concerned that the AHCA would result in

millions of Americans losing their current health insurance

coverage. Nothing in the MacArthur amendment remedies the

shortcomings of the underlying bill. The MacArthur Amendment

would allow states to apply for waivers for critical consumer

protections provided in the Affordable Care Act (ACA),

including . . . . the requirements that health insurers must

cover certain essential health benefits, and the ban on

health status underwriting. The current ban on health status

underwriting protects individuals from being discriminated

against by virtue of their medical conditions. Prior to the

passage of the ACA, such individuals were routinely denied

coverage and/or priced out of affordable coverage. We are

particularly concerned about allowing states to waive this

requirement because it will likely lead to patients losing

their coverage.'' [4/27/17]

American College of Physicians: ``The College strongly

believes in the first, do no harm principle. Therefore, we

continue to urge that Congress move away from the

fundamentally flawed and harmful policies that would result

from the American Health Care Act and from the changes under

consideration--including the proposed ``Limited Waiver''

amendment--that would make the bill even worse for

patients.'' [4/24/17]

American Hospital Association: ``The latest version of the

AHCA continues to put health coverage in jeopardy for many

Americans. Our top concern is what this change could mean for

older and sicker patients, including those with pre-existing

conditions, such as cancer patients and those with chronic

conditions. For these reasons, along with our previously

stated concerns about the AHCA, we cannot support the bill. .

. . The amendment proposed this week would dramatically

worsen the bill. The changes included put consumer

protections at greater risk by allowing states to waive the

essential health benefit standards, which could leave

patients without access to critical health services and

increase out-of-pocket spending. This could allow plans to

set premium prices based on individual risk for some

consumers, which could significantly raise costs for those

with pre-existing conditions.'' [4/27/17]

America's Essential Hospitals: ``This latest version of the

AHCA is not an improvement. It's simply bad policy that will

cut a lifeline of health care for millions of Americans. The

legislation also would leave unchanged more than $800 billion

in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, breaking the nation's

safety net and saddling state, local governments, and

taxpayers with new costs for indigent care. The nation has

spoken on the AHCA: only 17 percent of the public support it

and their elected representatives have rejected it once

already.'' [4/26/17]

Catholic Health Association: ``It is critically important

to look at this bill for what it is. It is not in any way a

health care bill. Rather, it is legislation whose aim is to

take significant funding allocated by Congress for health

care for very low income people and use that money for tax

cuts for some of our wealthiest citizens. This is contrary to

the spirit of who we are as a nation, a giant step backward

that should be resisted.'' [4/27/17]

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: ``It is deeply

disappointing to many Americans that, in modifying the

American Health Care Act to again attempt a vote, proponents

of the bill left in place its serious flaws, including

unacceptable modifications to Medicaid that will endanger

coverage and affordability for millions of people, according

to reports,'' said Bishop Dewane. ``Sadly, some of the

recently proposed amendments--especially those designed to

give states flexibility--lack apparent safeguards to ensure

quality of care. These additions could severely impact many

people with pre-existing

conditions while risking for others the loss of access to

various essential coverages.'' [4/27/17]

American Nurses Association: ``The new bill is an even

further departure from our principles; endangers consumer

protections put into place by the ACA. [4/26/17]

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: ``The

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is

deeply concerned about a proposed amendment to the American

Health Care Act (AHCA) that would create an option for states

to obtain waivers from the Essential Health Benefits (EHB)

and the community rating rule. These two rules work together

to guarantee access to comprehensive and affordable insurance

that covers cancer prevention and treatment for patients and

survivors with pre-existing conditions. . . . In short, the

proposal could lead to bare bones coverage plans that push

significant costs onto patients who access care.'' [4/20/17]

American Lung Association: ``The American Lung Association

requests that Representatives oppose the American Health Care

Act (AHCA) with the new amendment by Rep. MacArthur. The

American Lung Association opposes the MacArthur amendment

because would allow states to opt-out of the Essential Health

Benefits (EHB)--resulting in millions of Americans having

inadequate care. . . . All Americans--regardless of the state

in which they live--need adequate coverage for the range of

essential health services and treatments including life-

saving cancer screening.'' [4/26/17]

March of Dimes: ``Women and children need quality,

affordable insurance coverage to be born healthy and lead

healthy, productive lives. Unfortunately, in its current

form, the MacArthur amendment to American Health Care Act

will deny millions of pregnant women, babies, and their

families the affordable coverage and quality services they

need. . . . The MacArthur amendment will offer states and

health plans numerous opportunities to charge people with

pre-existing conditions higher rates, design plans that

explicitly exclude the services they are most likely to need,

and erect barriers to care.'' [4/26/17]

Families USA: ``America's families must be heard. By now,

it should be clear to House Republicans and the Trump

Administration from all the town halls, letters, phone calls

and tweets that this is not what people want. They do not

want to return to the dark days when insurers were free to

charge the sick and old more for coverage and offered

policies that covered very little, often leaving people to

cope with staggering medical bills. It's time for President

Trump and the GOP to drop this harmful effort to undermine

the nation's health care system. It's time to move on.'' [4/

26/17]

American Psychological Association: ``We are writing on

behalf of the American Psychological Association and the

American Psychological Association Practice Organization to

express our opposition to the American Health Care Act, as

recently revised and proposed for floor consideration. Our

organizations comprise nearly 115,700 members and affiliates,

who are clinicians, researchers, educators, consultants, and

students.'' [4/26/17]

Arc of the United States: ``The Arc of the United States is

strongly opposed to the amended American Health Care Act. The

amended American Health Care Act retains the original bill's

proposals to dramatically cut Medicaid services that are

vital to people with disabilities and seniors through per

capita caps. The new amendments make the AHCA even more

harmful to people with disabilities.'' [4/26/17]

Chronic Illness and Disability Partnership: ``On behalf of

the Chronic Illness and Disability Partnership as well as

allied organizations, we are writing to strongly urge you to

oppose the American Health Care Act (AHCA), with or without

the amendment to allow states to waive community rating and

Essential Health Benefits protections (the MacArthur

Amendment). If enacted, the amended bill will only increase

the 24 million Americans estimated to lose coverage under the

AHCA, including millions of individuals living with chronic

conditions and disabilities. The MacArthur Amendment seeks to

deliver cheaper insurance to healthy Americans by

undercutting crucial Essential Health Benefits requirements

and excluding the most vulnerable Americans from the private

insurance market by allowing states to remove crucial

consumer protections.'' [4/27/17]

Democratic Governors Association: ``This new proposal is

nothing more than the reheated leftovers of the failed

Trumpcare bill. Just like last month's bill, this one would

slash Medicaid funding, throw millions out of health coverage

and leave states holding the bag. The only fresh idea in this

proposal is a new way to raise insurance rates on sick

people. States are happy to work with the federal government

on strengthening health care, but we never asked for the

flexibility to jack up premiums on people with pre-existing

conditions. Congress should again reject this disastrous

proposal that would wreck state budgets and cut millions off

of health coverage.'' [4/27/17]

National Nurse United: ``The original version of the

American Health Care Act posed a mortal threat to the health

and well-being of our patients, and to the health security of

our country. The new version, which incorporates changes

negotiated between the House Freedom Caucus and Congressman

Tom MacArthur, will be even worse for our patients. This new

version has not yet received a score from the Congressional

Budget Office, and it should not be considered by the House

until a CBO score has been made public.'' [4/26/17]

Leadership Council of Aging Organizations: ``While LCAO is

made up of organizations that often have different

perspectives on public policies, as a coalition LCAO strongly

opposes the American Health Care Act (AHCA) of 2017, which

would cause at least 24 million Americans to lose their

health care insurance. We strongly oppose the Medicaid cuts

and caps that remain the core of the American Health Care

Act. Over six million older adults rely on Medicaid. Among

the non-Medicare population, Americans aged 50-64 are the

most likely to face health challenges and have pre-existing

conditions. The AHCA will expose these older Americans to

significantly higher premiums and health care costs, if they

can afford to purchase coverage at all. We are also deeply

disappointed that there is a push to vote on the bill without

a revised estimate from the Congressional Budget Office on

how it will impact Americans. We fear and expect that the

proposed changes will increase the number of uninsured beyond

the current estimate of 24 million. For these reasons, as

well as other harms that would result for older Americans and

their families, LCAO opposes AHCA and urges members to vote

against it.''

Common Sense Kids Action: ``On behalf of the millions of

American kids and families who rely on comprehensive,

dependable health insurance to stay healthy and to get

medical treatment when they need it, we are writing to

respectfully express our strong opposition to your bill, H.R.

1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Thanks to current

law, including the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and the

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 95% of young

children in the U.S. today have health insurance. That's a

remarkable achievement. However, the AHCA will result in 24

million fewer Americans having coverage, including millions

of children. Even with changes recently suggested to your

bill, America's kids will be best served by strengthening the

Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid and CHIP, not by

repealing the Affordable Care Act and block granting or

establishing a per capita cap on Medicaid. We urge you to

keep our children's future foremost in your thinking,

withdraw your bill, and work on a bipartisan basis to support

measures that protect and strengthen children's health

care.''

American Hospital Association: ``The latest version of the

AHCA continues to put health coverage in jeopardy for many

Americans. Our top concern is what this change could mean for

older and sicker patients, including those with pre-existing

conditions, such as cancer patients and those with chronic

conditions. For these reasons, along with our previously

stated concerns about the AHCA, we cannot support the bill.

The amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen

the bill. The changes included put consumer protections at

greater risk by allowing states to waive the essential health

benefit standards, which could leave patients without access

to critical health services and increase out-of-pocket

spending. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has

not yet scored the amendment. However, CBO previously

projected that the AHCA would result in 24 million fewer

people covered in 2026. As the backbone of America's health

safety-net, hospitals and health systems must protect access

to care for those who need it and ensure that the most

vulnerable patients are not left behind. The AHCA continues

to fall far short of that goal.''

Mr. Speaker, under TrumpCare, families, seniors, vulnerable children, Americans with disabilities, people struggling to overcome addiction, and the sick will lose their health care. Rural hospitals will be closed. Nearly 2 million jobs will be destroyed across America. Seven million veterans will lose access to tax credits for health care.

And all of this, to give a massive tax cut to the richest in America. TrumpCare is a billionaire's tax cut, again, disguised as a healthcare bill. It is Robin Hood in reverse, one of the largest, again, transfers of wealth from working families to the rich in our country.

Today, we honor the visions of our Founders, we can, who risked everything. They risked everything, their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor, to advance the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the life, a healthier life, the freedom to pursue your happiness, the freedom from being job-locked or policy-locked because of what the Republicans want to do today.

Today, we fight to preserve affordable health care as the right of every American, again, not the privileged few.

Today, we fight for children like Zoe Madison Lihn. Zoe was born with a congenital heart defect in May of 2010. She faced her first of three heart surgeries at 15 hours old. By 6 months old, Zoe was halfway to her lifetime limit her insurer had placed on her. She

faced a grim future, not only using up her lifetime limit by preschool but by carrying a preexisting condition that will require attention and care for the rest of her life.

Under the Affordable Care Act, Zoe is protected, but TrumpCare puts her future in danger.

I wish that our Members who vote for this bill, I hope you make time to sit down with the parents of a newborn with a heart condition, or a young woman who just learned she had breast cancer, the family of loved ones struggling with a disease or a chronic condition, any of the tens of millions of Americans who are rightfully terrified of what TrumpCare will mean in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, we have, with this bill, a right, a wonderful opportunity. This is one of the best civics lessons we can engage in. Because of what happened following the election, the American people are engaged. They are paying attention. I am not saying in a political way, I am saying in a personal way.

A former Speaker said: All politics is local. In the case of health care, all politics is personal when it comes to health care. And so, this civics lesson will teach the American people a number of things.

As special as we think we are when we come to the floor here, most Americans don't know who their Member of Congress is. But they will now, when they find out that you voted to take away their health care. They will know when you put an age tax on them, or undermine Medicare and Medicaid and the rest.

Oh, yeah, they are paying attention because it is really personal with them and their families. So I think we have to get ready for that.

I have Members, I have colleagues who have the mantle of being a moderate. You vote for this bill, you have walked the plank from moderate to radical. And you are walking the plank for what? A bill that will not be accepted by the United States Senate. Why are you doing this?

Do you believe in what is in this bill?

Some of you have said: Well, they will fix it in the Senate. But you have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark on this one. You will glow in the dark. So don't walk the plank, especially unnecessarily.

Our responsibility to the sick and the hurt is Biblical. It is fundamental to who we are.

As Pope Francis said: ``Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege.''

Today, let us declare, once again, that affordable health care must be the right of every American, not the privileged few.

So I ask you, my colleagues, does TrumpCare lower health costs?

Does TrumpCare provide better health care?

Does TrumpCare protect seniors and families?

Is TrumpCare good for our veterans?

Is there any caring in TrumpCare at all?

For the sake of our values, to honor our responsibilities to our Founders, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to our veterans who protect us, and to our children whose aspirations are our guide, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disastrous TrumpCare bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for her recognition and her leadership on this legislation that we have the opportunity to vote on. So I thank Ranking Member Nita Lowey.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, for his leadership as well. And I commend his staff, Nancy Fox, and others for their hard work on this; and to Ranking Member Lowey, Shalanda Young, Chris Bigelow, my own staff Richard Meltzer, and House and Senate staff members for getting us to this very important place.

The omnibus reflects significant progress defeating some dangerous riders, which I think are dangerous, and securing key victories.

Here is the thing: I spent many years in the Appropriations Committee. And I know, left to your own devices, the Appropriations Committee can find your common ground. You appreciate each other, you grant each other your positions on issues, and you understand the art of negotiating in a successful way.

There were some items that were suggested other than from the committee. From the White House, for example, a border wall, deportation force, things like that, 160 poison pills, which were ranging from undermining a woman's right to choose to dismantling Dodd- Frank, et cetera. But you all worked together to balance the equities and come up with a bill that will have, I believe, broad support in the Congress, certainly bipartisan support in the Congress.

But just not to speak about what we didn't like about the bill, there are some very positive aspects of it that I want to recognize--some nondefense increases in spending, which will save lives and create jobs.

Coal miners' health. We were so proud to secure more than $1 billion to deliver permanent health benefits to thousands of coal miners and their families who stood to lose their health benefits this month. God bless them for their advocacy. It was so important to our discussion.

Opioid epidemic. An additional $600 million for fighting the opioid epidemic.

Protecting EPA. There was going to be a huge cut, and now just a 1 percent cut in the EPA. We see that as a success.

Year-round Pell grants. So important.

Science funding. The omnibus increases funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and ARPA-E, all initiatives that some wanted to cut but were happy had survived that interest in cutting.

Our colleague, Congresswoman Velazquez, has led us on the Puerto Rico issue. The omnibus includes vital funds to stabilize Puerto Rico's underfunded Medicaid program, which threatened so many of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico.

Democrats are very happy and give credit to, in a bipartisan way, led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, securing nearly $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to alleviate famine resulting from more drought and displacement in Africa and the Middle East, saving countless lives around the world. Left without assistance, maybe 1.5 million children would die of malnutrition in the next 6 months in Africa.

And then it takes us to biomedical research. I served with Mrs. Lowey and others on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee for many years. And the National Institutes of Health is this place that has the Biblical power to cure. It has scientific opportunity. And where there is scientific opportunity, we want to place additional resources. Lives depend on it.

So in stark contrast to the skinny budget that came out earlier, this legislation increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. And I want to say on that, as we relish that $2 billion and what it could mean to the good health of the American people, we have to protect our investments.

As we invest in new treatments and cures, we must also ensure that all Americans have access to them. That is why it is curious to me that on the same day that we vote on this omnibus bill and increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, increase funding for our veterans, and all the rest of that, Republicans are working furiously to advance TrumpCare's devastating impact on America's health care. No matter what anybody says to you about activities they are having today to tweak one piece of the bill, it will still be a bill that has higher costs, forcing families to pay higher premiums and deductibles and out- of-pocket costs. This will block some people from access to the lifesaving cures that we are investing in the National Institutes of Health to create.

Less coverage will take coverage from 24 million hardworking Americans.

Higher costs.

Fewer people covered.

Veterans tax. TrumpCare will deny tax credits for health care to 7 million military veterans.

TrumpCare destroys protections for preexisting conditions. So many of the investments at the National Institutes of Health that we are talking about are to find cures and to find preventions. But when we are trying to find cures, that means that the people we are trying to cure have a preexisting medical condition. This would destroy the guarantee protection for a preexisting medical condition and gut the essential health benefits in the Affordable Care Act.

There is a crushing age tax. If you are 50 to 64, you will pay five times higher than others pay for health care.

It undermines our investments in Medicare.

So I mention this because I have always thought, when I sat on that committee year in and year out, day in and day out, hour on hour, listening to the challenges facing America's families for illnesses that they were suffering, a diagnosis that they were frightened by, that what they wanted us to do was to invest in a cure, but that meant access to that cure.

So they are trying to say: Well, we are going to help with high-risk pools, and that is going to neutralize everything I said about higher costs, lower coverage, et cetera. But the conservative Mercatus Center said: ``The amendment at hand focuses on high-risk pools, but the $8 billion amount is a pittance.''

And said: ``Spread over 5 years, it's a fifth of a pittance.''

That was Robert Graboyes, a healthcare expert at the conservative Mercatus Center.

Karen Pollitz, a healthcare expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said that the additional $8 billion would likely not be enough to make the high-risk pools workable. She said that would be enough money to cover costs for only 1 percent of the individual market.

So, again, let us protect the investment that we are making. Let us elevate it with pride and say $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health.

But what does that mean to you, the average American, if you can't have access to that in a way that is affordable?

Again, 51 years ago, Dr. King said, and I say again, because I say this all of the time: ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman because it often results in physical death.''

So, again, this appropriations bill is a way for us to help meet the needs of the American people. This Appropriations Committee did an excellent job in resolving differences and putting forth a balance of equities as we go forward.

But let us not give with one hand and take away with the other as we, in the same 24-hour period, say: Aren't we wonderful. $2 billion for medical research.

Under the Republican's healthcare plan, it will most likely benefit the privileged few at the expense of America's working families.

That is not what we are supposed to be doing here. That is what we are taking pride in. What we are taking pride in is of the great possibilities, but let's make those possibilities available.

And I say that as one who served for many years on the Appropriations Committee, one whose goal in life was to sit on the Labor-HHS Subcommittee and to increase the funding of the National Institutes of Health, but to do it for the purpose of all Americans having access.

Having said that, getting back to this omnibus bill, again, I am very proud of the work of Nita Lowey, of the ranking members of the subcommittees, and of the staff who worked so hard. I am especially proud of the work, also, of our distinguished chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I join him in recognizing the work of his subcommittee chairs on all of this. It is a product to be proud of. I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Lowey.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago, Bay Area innovation leaders John Doerr, John Chambers, and Jim Barksdale spurred a new era of American technological advancement by creating TechNet.

Today, TechNet represents the spirit of technological innovation that continues to thrive in Silicon Valley.

TechNet stands as a remarkable example of how bringing people together can inspire innovation, strengthen our economy, and create a more productive future.

TechNet's network of CEOs and senior executives have worked with leaders in Congress to drive an Innovation Agenda that creates jobs and opportunities for Americans.

As we look to the future, the iconic companies and dynamic startups that form TechNet will continue to lead our nation in the development of transformative technologies that create more opportunities for more Americans.

Congratulations on 20 years of inspired leadership and shining achievement. Best wishes on many more years of success unleashing the full potential of American innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American leader, a true pioneer, and my dear friend, Peg Yorkin, on the occasion of her 90th birthday. As a Co-Founder and Chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation, Peg has been a tremendously effective and tireless advocate for women's rights, setting an inspiring example for women across the United States and around the globe.

Peg Yorkin's visionary leadership and extraordinary generosity have made the Feminist Majority one of the most formidable partners in enacting groundbreaking legislation for women and families for over four decades.

Strengthened by Peg's bold vision, the Feminist Majority's achievements include the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which contained a provision for monetary damages to women who win sexual harassment lawsuits; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the Violence Against Women Act, and many more.

The breadth of Peg's accomplishments is truly remarkable. In addition to her work with the Feminist Majority, Peg has provided outstanding support to a variety of other praiseworthy women's causes including Voters for Choice, the Rape Foundation, and the Sojourn Center for Abused Women. Peg has helped to advance women's access to reproductive health care in America and drawn the world's attention to the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Peg's leadership has spotlighted the vast potential of the national and global empowerment of women. With each day that passes, Peg's legacy continues to impact women everywhere as the march for women's economic, social, and political progress continues.

It is my great honor to join Peg's children and grandchildren, her many friends, my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and women everywhere, in wishing Peg a happy 90th birthday--and many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Rich Rimkunas congratulations for his many long years of service to Congress. Rich Rimkunas has had a career filled with outstanding achievement at the Congressional Research Service. After nearly 37 years of service, Rich will be retiring from CRS on Friday, April 28th.

When Rich joined CRS in 1980, he was an analyst working on a broad array of social policy issues. Initially, he worked on such issues as child nutrition, poverty, social security, social services for the aged, and unemployment insurance. Rich co-created and co-authored a widely circulated CRS report on federal social welfare spending. He was also a co-author and contributor to several chapters in the House Ways and Means Committee print Children in Poverty, which provided a detailed look at the incidence and characteristics of child poverty in the United States.

Rich ultimately became heavily involved in providing research and analytical support to the Congress on many health policy issues, including analyses of aggregate national health expenditures, the Medicare hospital prospective payment system, the Medicare Advantage program, and Medicare catastrophic drug costs. Additionally, he has worked on numerous issues related to Medicaid. He both directed a team of CRS analysts as well as contributed his own analysis to the Medicaid ``Yellow Book,'' a 1988 House Ways and Means Committee print that provided a comprehensive analysis of the Medicaid program as it existed at the time. Rich also managed the 1993 update of the ``Yellow Book.''

Rich's analyses have typically involved quantitative research methodologies, modeling techniques, and the use of complex databases. Rich has excelled at developing approaches for simulating the effects of potential changes to federal benefits and grant allocation formulas.

In addition to the direct impact his research and analytical work has had on federal policies, Rich has made equally important contributions within CRS in managerial roles. During his tenure at CRS, he has served as Section Research Manager (SRM) of the Methodology Section, the Research Development Section, the Research Development and Income Support Section, and the Health Insurance and Financing Section. During his tenure as an SRM, Rich helped manage CRS work on the 1996 welfare reform law and the 2003 overhaul of Medicare in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Rich helped manage an inter-disciplinary team numbering about 3 dozen CRS analysts that provided legislative support during the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Throughout his career, Rich has served as a role model for the highest level of CRS service to Congress, upholding the Service's standards of authoritativeness, objectivity and confidentiality. He is known within CRS for his attention to detail, methodological strength, and creative approaches toward conducting analyses. His input is sought on a great many research efforts spanning virtually all of the major domestic social policy issue areas that Congress deals with.

Rich is renowned for his tremendous work ethic and energizing presence. Those who have worked closely with him appreciate his ability to keep his sense of humor even during the most stressful times.

In recent years, Rich has served as the Deputy Assistant Director of CRS's Domestic Social Policy Division. In that role he has mentored and helped develop many of the division's managers, analysts and research assistants. He has also played a central role in reviewing written work produced by the division, helping to ensure its accuracy, completeness and quality. Moreover, in his work as a division manager, Rich has served on numerous advisory panels that have recommended organizational practices and policies for CRS, many of which have been adopted.

Rich's policy expertise has been broadly recognized. He is regularly sought for his expertise at professional meetings and conferences. He was nominated to the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2002 and has served on the steering committee of the National Health Forum. He has also been recognized with numerous Library of Congress Special Achievement Awards.

Rich has devoted nearly his entire distinguished professional career to supporting the work of the Congress and to helping build and strengthen CRS and forward its mission. Congratulations to him, and I wish him many long and happy years in retirement.